California’s Legislature Says Hunting Rifles Are Assault Weapons
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 2 months ago
California Gov. Jerry Brown will soon decide whether to sign a bill that expands his state’s “assault weapon” ban to cover any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. That’s a very broad category, the National Rifle Association notes, since “millions of semi-automatic rifles have magazines that can be removed with the push of a button,” including “classic hunting rifles like the Remington Woodsmaster, Browning BAR, and the Ruger 99/44, among many others.” The actual language of the bill, S.B. 374, refers rather confusingly to “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” The NRA argues that the bill’s definition of a fixed magazine—”an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action”—is ambiguous, since “‘disassembly of the firearm action’ is undefined and nobody (least of all the legislators who voted for it) knows what it means, or for that matter even what a firearm ‘action’ actually is.” But the intended target seems to be any rifle with a detachable magazine that fires rounds of a caliber bigger than .22 (generally the upper limit these days for cheaper, flimsier rimfire cartridges). Hence Fox News says the bill “exempts .22-caliber rim fire rifles,” although the legislation does not directly address caliber.
The author, Jacob Sullum, isn’t kidding. Read the sentence lifted directly out of the bill.
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.
They’ve put a double-negative into the sentence. What this sentence means is anyone’s guess, and yours is as good as mine. Farther into the bill, they’ve outlawed pistol grips on shotguns.
But back to the issue of hunting rifles, presumably (since the bill is a mass of confusion and no one knows for sure), bolt action rifles are “assault weapons” if they have a detachable magazine (and some do).
Hey. No one said totalitarians were smart people. They’re just control freaks.
|
|
On October 4, 2013 at 6:11 am, Roger J said:
This is the first time I’ve heard rimfire cartridges disparaged as ‘cheaper and flimsier.’ Funny, I always thought of the .22 LR as perfect for its intended purpose. As for the California bill, I wonder if that ambiguity is accidental or intended? Given that lawyers write these bills, I suspect the latter. That makes the banned category expandable at the whim of the A-G.
On October 4, 2013 at 8:12 am, Paul B said:
You got that right. Control Freaks with the self control of a 2 year old.
On October 4, 2013 at 1:45 pm, Archer said:
We hear about the commas in the Second Amendment make it hard to understand (though I don’t understand why). The placement of a comma or two in the statute would help clarify, thusly: A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine, with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.
The comma there would separate the description of the firearm (centerfire rifle without a “fixed” magazine) from the capacity (no more than 10 rounds). Easy-peasy. Alternatively, they could separate it into sub-sections:
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle –
a) that does not have a fixed magazine; AND
b) with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.
Also easy-peasy. Or it would be, if clarity were the intention. I believe – firmly – that it’s intentionally vague, so they can trap folks who read the double-negative at its literal face: that a semi-auto with a “fixed” magazine is NOT an “assault weapon” no matter the capacity, or that a semi-auto without a “fixed” magazine is NOT an “assault weapon” if it holds MORE THAN 10 rounds.
On October 4, 2013 at 2:23 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Archer, with the comma is actually the way I initially read the sentence. I imagined it being there when it wasn’t. Then I went back and re-read it and saw the mess.
I think you’re probably right about being intentionally vague.
On October 4, 2013 at 7:32 pm, Jim Harris said:
Let’s not lose track of the main point —
with or without the comma, located anywhere in the phrase, the provision is objectionable.
On October 6, 2013 at 1:53 pm, Bill Quick said:
The provision is not just objectionable, it is unconstitutional under Heller and McDonald – not to mention original intent, natural right, and just plain sanity.
I’ve lived in California for more than thirty years. The Democrats want to ban and confiscate all guns, from the tiniest handgun on up. They’ve been trying for years. They think they’re onto something here, thanks to Scalia’s Ridiculous Dicta, which they believe gives them a barn door large enough to drive all of this crap through – and more.