Sample Ad Code

Socialize

Assembly passes bill prohibiting high-capacity gun magazines

June 30, 2016

Senate Bill 1446 by Sen. Loni Hancock now goes to Gov. Brown 

SACRAMENTO – The California Assembly today approved a bill by Sen. Loni Hancock to prohibit the possession of any ammunition-holding device for an assault-style weapon that holds more than 10 rounds.

“These so-called ‘high-capacity magazines’ are not for target shooting or hunting. Their sole purpose is to kill people in the shortest period of time,” Hancock, D-Oakland, said after the 43-29 vote on Senate Bill 1446. “In a video from the recent Orlando massacre, you can clearly hear at least 22 rounds being fired in rapid succession from inside the building. If the shooter had to stop to reload, he might have been stopped and lives would have been saved.”

Already approved by the Senate, the measure now goes straight to Gov. Brown. He has not taken a public position on SB 1446, but some of California’s largest cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland, have already acted and voted to ban high-capacity magazines. These local ordinances have for far all been upheld by the courts.

A recent PPIC survey found that 57 percent of Californians are concerned about the threat of a mass shooting in their area

“By banning these weapons statewide, we would take a step toward preventing future mass shootings and ensuring that our constituents live in safe neighborhoods,” Hancock said.

SB 1446 was one of several gun-safety measures voted on by the Assembly.

The governor has about two weeks to sign SB 1446, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

One Response to Assembly passes bill prohibiting high-capacity gun magazines

  1. Bubba Gump Reply

    June 30, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    There are numerous overlooked issues with SB1446. Just to name a few.

    Why 10 rounds? Why not 7? Why not 15? There is not research, no logic, no study to back this bill as doing anything, but confiscating legally acquired personal property.

    “honorably retired sworn peace officers to possess a large-capacity magazine.” Are exempt.

    Also, the state legislature has already exempt themselves from all gun laws. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/6/one-law-for-us-another-for-you/

    Why are these two groups above the law? Are we creating a tier-class system of citizens?

    This is noting short of confiscation of lawfully acquired personal

Have a comment?