http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...x-gun-control-bills-1467394282-htmlstory.html -bans sales of semi-auto rifles with a bullet button. -limits magazines to 10 rounds. -requires background check for ammo sales, and registry of such buyers. -limits loaning of guns to family members. what was vetoed: -requiring makers of homemade guns to get an official serial number. -allowing friends, co-workers, to recommend someone lose their gun rights. -Limited Californians to the purchase of one rifle or shotgun per month now, the ammo background check was tried in NY, but since it can't use the existing NICS system they decided it was too difficult to make a whole new system so they scrapped the idea.
This is why 2a supporters are not flexible on gun control. California has the most strict gun laws in the nation yet they pursue more legislation. They won't be satisfied until guns are banned. They are the definition of the proverbial slippery slope. We are not interested in this happening nationwide. It is typical of the left to stand in the way of serious punishment for gun crime as it may put minorities behind bars. He vetoed this: Put an initiative on the November ballot to clarify that theft of a firearm is grand theft and is punishable as a felony.
California Democrats want to force lots of gun owners out of the state so as to make their re-election in the future easier. the entire purpose of those laws is to harass legal gun owners
California has some of the most idiotic gun laws going--like the "bullet button" requirement on rifles.
Did I say permit? I mean they have some of the most strict gun laws in the nation. As a whole, Do you disagree with this statement? I wouldn't be so smug, NY will continue its jihad on legal gun owners in the future.
SCOTUS appears to be in no mood to take on AW ban laws. the ammo check thing they may hear they would uphold the 10-round limit
No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it limit what types of guns and ammo I can have and how much guns and ammo I can have. All laws banning/limiting certain types of weapon and ammo are unconstitutional.
A handgun safety permit is required, but it's not hard to get. Just another $25 to harass people into not buying a gun.
Bullet buttons will no longer be legal in CA. Magazine fed centerfire rifles will no longer be legal. AR15's and such will be grandfathered (like 30 round mags? see a theme here?) but they will no longer allow sales of them in the state.
I don't know what's happened to California. It is more like a police state where government rules the day, than a part of the United States.
Excellent! We just had that wonderful decision from our liberal justices in whole women's health v TX iirc. If a law is solely aimed at harassing a constitutional rights exercise it is unconstitutional 14th amendment.
The California Dem controlled legislature and Govenor are fully aware many of the gun control laws they pass may not pass Constitutional muster. The objective is to pass as many gun control laws as possible knowing that each may take years to wind through the courts and may or may not be taken up by SCOTUS. In the meantime they remain law as they conceive even more barrier laws to put in the pipeline. They are also aware of what laws are likely to be upheld by the the liberal 9th District, the Govenor's vetoes are strategically based on what laws may be immediately struck down by the 9th and those signed are those that the 9th will likely rule in support of regardless of whether they will pass final Constitutional tests based on the history of their rulings. SCOTUS has left a some of the questions of the 2A uninterpreted and vague, letting cases bounce around the lower courts, building case history against previous SCOTUS rulings, in a sense, letting the Constitutional 2A interpretation debate play out in the lower courts doing the interpretive reasearch for SCOTUS before they take up cases. So far, there have been no cases with standing that lay the foundation for an exhaustive look at the 2A, thus rulings will continue to be piecemeal, based on the challenges to individual laws, something of which CA, MA, NY and the other anti-gun states are fully aware, thus, passing multiple questionable laws is a tactic designed to tie up the courts while the bulk of them remain in force. From their point of view and intent it's a good strategy. However, in the larger scheme of things, these laws will be ineffective in preventing criminals, psychos and terrorists from doing what they do. San Bernandino's incident, drug related gang violence in the major cities, etc. against the backdrop of the most restrictive gun control laws in the US will continue to show how ineffective these laws are. Unfortunately, the law abiding will continue to be the unarmed victims of laws that continue to enable predation against easy targets.
I never thought of that but last night my brother told me this is the final straw and he's leaving California so you may have a point. This may be a form of ethnic cleansing
California is soon to be ruled by Infestations of Crips, bloods, Tarucos, and other Drug Dealing Gangs, much like Mexico, the gun laws only serve to Disarm the Law Abiding People, not the Criminals, another good thing is, When enough of the Tax Paying people leave California, only the dead beat leeches will remain to further bankrupt California's already teetering economy.
California sees criminals as misunderstood, and the tax paying citizens as the threat to their power. Prop 47 has caused a state wide crime wave that is only going to get worse, and now people with be forced to defend themselves from multiple aggressors with the 2 or 3 different approved handguns that they allow. There is already a de facto ban on handguns going on as well with their "approved handgun list". What I REALLY hope happens is that gun manufacturers band together and completely eliminate selling any weapon to the state that isn't allowed to be owned by the residents. F*** Commiefornia. I am so glad I got the hell out when I did.
Barrett already stopped all sales to California, I think there are other manufacturers and businesses that will not do business with California IIRC....
Not related to guns, but for decades I have provided policy and management consulting to local and state governments and years ago was offered a contract for work for LA County. After reading all of the contract add-in requirements for all their regulations and special interest group concessions which were extensive and which were prohibitively burdensome on a contractor, to the dismay of the agency that wanted my services, I declined the work. I would have had to nearly triple my rates to make a reasonable profit. Their taxpayers can't help but be massively burdened by such feel good restrictive requirements that aren't designed to keep costs reasonable. But, in CA, it seems the interests of taxpayers and citizens aren't of interest to the political elite any more than is there an interest for civilians having an ability to provide for their own self defense.
If citizens defend themselves and are able to take care of themselves, We will need less big Government and fewer Democrat Liberals. Even in Medicine and Medical modalities, you can see how FDA has a tight strangle hold on medications and new treatments, especially alternative treatments to disease.
From an outside perspective, it would appear that the states of California and New York are engaged in a tug of war with one another, with each state vying to be known for having the strictest firearm-related restrictions in the united states, with neither being willing to be relegated to second place.
Because engineers are smarter than liberal politicians, this has already been worked around. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/daniel-zimmerman/bullet-button-inventor/ Never mind the fact that you can buy a bolt-action AR w/o restriction, a semi-auto upper w/o restriction, and swap uppers in 15 seconds.
