Earlier this week, California Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) was given the Vanguard Award for "Elected Official of the Year" for his work in social justice.
We also reported that one of the biggest efforts Yee is working on currently is a Senate bill to ban the "bullet button" in California.
That certainly got people talking.
In California, an "assault weapon" is defined as a semi-automatic rifle with both a pistol grip and a detachable magazine, among other features. A "bullet button" is designed to replace a normal magazine release button with a recessed button that can only be accessed through the use of a tool—such as the tip of a bullet.
The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) declared that semi-automatic rifles utilizing a bullet button are considered to be "fixed magazine" rifles, and therefore legal under the state's assault weapon ban. This was most recently reaffirmed in April of 2011 in the case of Haynie vs. Pleasanton, wherin the CA DOJ said that the arrest of an individual with such a rifle was without cause, as such a rifle is legal.
See the full text of 'Haynie vs. Pleasanton' in the PDF attached to this article.
Yee disagrees. Though the bullet button still slows down a person's ability to change magazines, Yee argues that it should still be banned for safety reasons, calling assault weapons and bullet buttons "public nuisances."
People all over the state - and across the country - feel passionately about the issue of bans on assault weapons and bullet buttons.
Many say such a ban is useless; that people who want to kill will find a way, and that whether or not bullet buttons and semi-automatic assault weapons are banned won't make a difference. Therefore, the ban would only punish law-abiding citizens who use guns and bullet buttons safely.
Others say, tragedies like the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting - which Yee has been using as a reason to push the bill even harder lately - are proof that more gun control is needed in this country.
Patch wants to know - what do you think?
Let's continue the conversation. Please vote in our poll below, and feel free to share your thoughts and explain your vote in the comments section below.
FBI’s Newest Gang Threat: Insane Clown Posse Fans The FBI considers the fans of shticky rap group Insane Clown Posse to represent a threat on par with the Crips, Bloods, and Aryan Brotherhood, according to its annual report on gang activity. What about their right, to just watch a god damn concert without having their lives ruined?
Your right, GOD DOES.
What is this thread a DHS psyop now? the judicial system is broken = it's the "JUST US" system, ZER0 Banksters arrested.
People are MORE outraged at the recent DHS purchase of ammo, and explosives, how come you aren't concerned about THAT?!
the subdomain fairoaks.patch.com represents fair oaks, I lived there, but I also live in Dixon, Citrus Heights, Davis, Elk Grove, Sacramento East, North, South, and West, Folsom, and god knows where else. If I am located in Reno, which subdomain should I use? I should mention, I don't CARE what your answer is here. The whole argument is moronic.
Spelling errors, Wikipedia as unacceptable links. It's a ****ing joke.
This was the mind set of those who founded this nation.
One that was based on personal freedom, and states rights. They wanted more control at the local level. Were people wrong to disobey laws in place to stop run away slaves, or your personal favorite sodomy laws.
Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. THOMAS JEFFERSON
The reason I keep this going is so others can see why things have devolved to the point they have. People like you are all to willing to give up their rights in the name of security. That is very very dangerous. Explain to me why I can't own a AK47 with a detachable clip. Other than you think I shouldn't.
Let me put it another way ... is it an individual right to ignore "unjust" laws or a collective right to ignore "unjust" laws. If individual ... who gets to decide? Oddly enough, again, I have never denied to you, or anybody else in this country, the right to arm themselves to protect themselves and their family in their own home. Why do you need an AK 47 with a detachable clip to protect yourself in your own home? But, let's go back to one of your quotes ... explain how an AK-47 is a commonly owned weapon.
Hi everyone, here's an update on this story.