Jump to content

Talk:Gun laws in California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Indieshack (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 17 February 2023 (→Nunchuks are no longer illegal in California: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Needs discussion of Mulford Act and politics of gun laws

It is like the Mulford Act and the governor who signed and why has been stripped from history... Mulp (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. Sudopeople (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation section may be incorrect

The Transportation section includes the statement that "It should be noted that federal law requires locking containers when inside of a "gun free zone" such as near a school." If this statement relies on 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), which it seems to do, note that this law was overturned by United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1994). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.129.219 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph is super subjective

"California has very few restrictions on the purchasing, possession, use, and transporting of long guns and shotguns." - what does "very few" mean? Is this a comparison? California has a ton of laws in relation to what you can and cannot put on rifles. For instance the "Assault Weapons Ban" declares a ton of limits on possession, use, et al. of long guns. Sudopeople (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detachable/Fixed Magazine

I'd like to introduce a new section into the article discussing laws and judgements regard the definition of the terms "detachable" and "fixed" with regard to magazines in California. If anyone has anything to say, especially any references of trials, DOJ letters, etc. Please put them here for discussion. Sudopeople (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pellet guns, BB guns, Airsoft Guns

Under certain conditions, specific projectile devices other than gunpowder type guns may be considered guns in California. This article has no mention of these devices, their legal status, or what uses they can be put to legally. If this topic is not suitable for the gun article, there might at least be a link, as they are somewhat related subjects. Also, a link to hunting in general may be worthwhile, as California hunting laws can be confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed gun laws (bills) needs its own page

Per request of moderators, proposed bills have been removed from the page several times. Why is there not a page specifically for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swagman00 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any requests by moderators, but I'm one of two editors who removed the info about proposed bills. The other editor was anonymous, i.e. not signed in with a user profile. You can see this if you look at the history of the article by clicking on the View History tab. When I removed the info, I said in the edit summary that it had been discussed on the talk page, but that's not quite right -- it was discussed on the talk page of a different article, Gun laws in the United States (by state). The thinking was that a lot of gun laws are proposed in various state legislatures, but then end up not passing. So, the article(s) are better off without this information, and we should wait until the bills actually become laws. Also, per WP:FUTURE, we should not add information that seems likely to occur in the future, because the article should not try to predict in advance what's going to happen. In my opinion, it would also not be appropriate for there to be a different Wikipedia article to cover all the currently proposed gun laws of a state. With all that being said, I for one am quite open to further discussion about this. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction is incorrect; no application needed

"Residents must submit an application for the purchase of each firearm; the applications are reviewed and approved by the California Department of Justice."

This is patently incorrect. The only application filled out is the Federal Form 4473, just like every other state in the US. CA does another background check through CA DOJ, and requires a Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS), but there is no application submitted by the resident, and no review/approval from CA DOJ besides the normal background check. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Buying_and_selling_firearms_in_California#Dealer.27s_Record_of_Sale_.28DROS.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.194.23 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at a few of the references in this article, and it appears to me that you're right. So I'd say that text should stay out of the article, unless someone can provide a reference for putting it back in. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary table is confusing

Instead of yes/no, maybe we should use something like Legal/illegal or restricted/unrestricted/banned. A casual person might think Yes means legalMantion (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem confusing to me. Can you pick a row or two as an example, and explain specifically why "yes" or "no" is confusing? — Mudwater (Talk) 06:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for start of "historidcal laws" section?

Excellent article discussing some of the historical changes in gun laws in California. Itself probably a RS, but also contains sufficient detail about contemporary newspaper articles which could further be used as sources. http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/946ba76f#/946ba76f/92 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Carry section is inconsistent about unloaded rifles and shotguns?

The first paragraph of the Open Carry section says, "Carrying of an unloaded, unconcealed rifle or shotgun in plain sight is not prohibited [....]" However, the last paragraph says, "In October 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that modifies the law on openly carrying an unloaded firearm to match the restrictions for openly carrying a loaded weapon.[27] Legislation was later signed by Governor Brown to expand these restrictions to long guns and shotguns." As I read this, the first paragraph is no longer correct. DavidHull (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that information in the first paragraph of the Open Carry section was outdated, so I removed it. Open carry of unloaded firearms used to be legal. Then it was made illegal for handguns, but open carry of unloaded rifles and shotguns was still legal. Then they made that illegal too. This all explained later in the section, as you pointed out. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"good cause" overturned by 9th circuit

Probably quite a few updates in the article needed as a result of this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 9th Circuit has taken the case on en banc appeal and stayed the 3-judge panel's decision, so no change to CA or HI CCW laws yet.

Phantom in ca (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Supreme Court has refused to grant certiorari in the case, I updated the section to reflect the en banc decision (which still wasn't mentioned a year and half later!) as well as the denial of cert. There was a bunch of uncited stuff about confusion and policy changes among counties that I thought was completely unhelpful, so I axed it. If someone wants to write up specifics about which California counties do what and why, it probably belongs in its own article or section of this article -- with some cites, of course.

jdbaldwin (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of duplicated material

While working on another article today, I became aware that there is a newer article that duplicates all/part of the "Bullet button" section of this article. If of interest, please discuss at Talk:Bullet button. Lightbreather (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sp of California may be about 20x in WP sp Calfornia or Calfonia

needs to be checked; maybe someone can do a one time change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was in there once, spelled incorrectly. Sorry about your broken fingers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gun laws in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino attack

A paragraph about the firearms used in the 2015 San Bernardino attack has been added and removed several times -- here's the latest addition. So, let's talk about it. Should this material be included in the article? I'm inclined to think that it should not. The shooters modified the two rifles in ways that were illegal under California law, as explained by the cited references. It's also against federal law to convert a semi-automatic firearm to full-automatic. But, I don't think this helps the readers' understanding of California gun laws, and it seems to me that including the material can be viewed as promoting a pro gun control agenda. Furthermore, there is some confusion about the bullet button. It's unrelated to the illegal modifications. And also, it's not a "loophole" or "exemption" to the California law against detachable magazines -- it's a way to make it easier, and therefore faster, to remove the not-detachable magazine using a tool, in this case a cartridge or similarly shaped object. I would be interested in other editors' opinion on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is natural for a person interested in the SB incident to ask (as, indeed, the headlines and ledes of the cited sources and many other contemporaneous articles on these subjects reflect), "with California's ban on "assault weapons," how can these rifles possibly have been legal?" The wiki page is an obvious place to come to find out. The bullet button is part of the answer to the question. The purpose of the magazine capacity limits and of the ban on hand-detachable magazines is to restrain a user's ability to sustain fire. The bullet button is intended to counteract this legislative intent by facilitating faster detachment and replacement of magazines that are still not technically detachable by hand. Then, beyond that, the perpetrators took technically legal weapons and modified them in ways that made them actually illegal under the terms and interpretation of the law.

Mikalra (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The very first link in the summary table takes you to a 404 at the DMV website. The next few redirect to http://oag.ca.gov/firearms - the unfortunate bit being that the numbers listed are incorrect, so I can't even look it up via the numbers. The only website that was willing to list the actual code sections was wiki, and wiki appears to be wrong...and I'm in an argument with someone about whether they need to register a handgun in California. Doh!

Brianlamere (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianlamere: Thanks for pointing this out. Feel free to correct the situation, or partially correct it, if you can. Or perhaps some other kind editors can help with this. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianlamere: Check http://handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf. They're usually a pretty good source.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Table: Registration

Claiming that California does not register firearms seems disingenuous, when the source cited in the text makes the claim itself. See: http://smartgunlaws.org/retention-of-sales-background-check-records-in-california/

And specifically, Cal. Penal Code § 11106 states that the AG must maintain a registry, using the words "the registry" itself.

I've made the appropriate edits, and cited the law itself as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36F4:A2B0:4C7:5E2:1175:6372 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gun laws in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Open Carry just get legalized in California?

https://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/california-appeals-court-rules-2nd-amendment-allows-open-carry/1320415629

Is Open Carry now fully legal in California? 65.32.159.17 (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. This is in relation to a Hawaii law. But the decision is binding on California as well, so we need to wait for a decision in Nichols v. Brown 14-55873.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Roger Benitez ruled the California Magazine Capacity Ban unconstitional![1] 173.168.247.227 (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-blocks-california-s-ban-high-capacity-magazines-over-2nd-n989136

excellent news article: statewide survey of CCW issuance by county and statewide total

For whoever has the time to incorporate this information into the Wiki article.

https://www.mercedsunstar.com/site-services/newsletters/morning/article232198382.html

Phantom in ca (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nunchuks are no longer illegal in California

FYI Nunchuks are no longer classed as a proscribed, dangerous weapon in california since the repeal of PC 22010 on Jan 1 2022. Indieshack (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_laws_in_California&oldid=1139807452"