AB273- Handgun licensing a good thing for us?

M

MountainGun44

New member
My second daughter was born on Wednesday, so I am in the mood to put a positive spin on ANYTHING. I am serious about this, however. Tell me what you think.

The out of pocket fees will range from $150-$300 for training and licensing and background checks etc. This does not include the time to drive around and jump through all of the hoops they put in front of us. It will be a real burden. It may just serve as a real wake-up call, though.

I would think that anyone who goes through all of the government certification to prove that they are safe enough to own a handgun would expect that they be entitled to a CCW at that point. This may be what we need to really get the ball rolling in California!

This will be the coldest slap in the face so far. I am hopeful.

"Casual" handgun owners- the type who have never even heard of RKBA or TFL- will ask,"Why the heck do I have to do this?" Maybe it will create a whole new pool of Pro-RKBA activists.

(Californians "enacted" this bill when they elected Gray Davis and a Democratic majority. It will pass. It is a forgone conclusion.)
 
You are wrong.

It will end "casual" handgun ownership.

How many bought their first handgun tentatively and only because it was easy to get, and only THEN learned to use it?


No, it is just to cull the number of new gunowners and is pure harassment.


Battler.
 
MG44..

I live in 'upstate' NY, Dutchess County in fact. I obtained my handgun 'permit' 20 yrs ago at the age of 22. At first I thought, "hey, no big deal." It took 4 months for my background check(local, State, FBI check, letters of reference, etc.) and paper work before receiving my permit which entitled me to one pistol purchase. All subsequent pistols require a 'supplemental' permit. Now, early on that didn't seem so bad, at least I could carry, correct? Well, you what, after 20 years I'm tired of having to go to my local sheriff's office to obtain an additional permit for each additional pistol. Have I not already been cleared of any 'trust' issues? So for each pistol, including competition, collectible and of course CC style pistols I am completely registered. Of late, when I think about going to purchase another I may be interested in, or trading I first think of the hassle of the whole procedure, the looks from the paper shuffler at the sherriff's office and the knowledge, finally, that I am completely at the whim of the sheriff's dept. as to whether I can be armed appropriately while in public.
I sometimes think, "Nah, it's not worth the effort." So while the 'priviledge' is there, the process can effectively reduce you to apathy since it's "just not worth it anymore" to go through the steps. Now I have purchased pistols after feeling this way, but I would likely have sold more of what I have or traded more were this process not in place.

So while the idea of licensing seems ok, it's merely a step. The first step to get to where we are in NY, where we are 'grateful' to be able to carry a pistol, except for NYC of course where one must be a dignitary or a noted drug dealer to be armed with impunity.
Once we have reduced a right to a priveledge, you become ever more 'grateful' to be 'allowed' to carry. A first step on a slippery slope, the last step being off the cliff to confiscation.

Regards, Chris ..

[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited July 31, 2000).]
 
MountainGun44,

I live in Sacramento (Oh, congrats on the young un !!), and I am not in favor of AB273 in the slightest.

I do not want to have to report to the gov't evertime I move. I do not want to register ALL my handguns. I have not forgotten the results of the last registration, namely confiscation. And I think it will keep those who may want to start shooting from doing so.

A better bill for NEW shooters, is they must pre-pay for trainning course when they pay for the weapon. If they don't want to take the class, their loss. They only have to do it once, don't have to register previous handguns, and don't have to inform the gov't when they move.

Also, let's not forget the cost this will be.

I already wrote Gov Davis and my Sen.

madison46
 
I disagree.

Forcing someone to take a course or pay for one is a strict FINANCIAL barrier to first-time purchase (which is what they want too).


What if I want to buy a pistol and have a trained friend train me?


Battler.
 
AB273 will never happen. Why? The courts have already ruled on the subject.

A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942).


The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]
 
JimDiver -

What you say about licensing a protected right is correct, but remember: the CA supreme court and the 9th circuit court have determined that RKBA is not a constitutionally protected right. So, until the US Supreme Court says otherwise, CA will have its way with us.

It's sad that we have to ask our government to confirm that we have the right to the means to overthrow that government.
 
Jim Diver,

First the 2nd has to be declared an individual right. CA and 9th have not done so. Even if declared such, the states don't have to obey until SC says the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th. That seems remote even with the current court.(ie Morton Grove case) Scalia is a BIG state's rights advocate.

Sad considering the Senator who introduced the 14th read off the 1st 8 Amendments as to what is protected/incorporated, but hey, why should facts get in the way.......

madison

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JimDiver:
AB273 will never happen. Why? The courts have already ruled on the subject.

A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942).


The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

[/quote]
 
Thanks for the excellent replies.

I am also in the Sacramento area.

I HAVE A DREAM

I never thought the speed limit would ever be raised after it was reduced to 55. But it finally was. Despite all of the liberal outcry it happened. I am holding out hope that Bush will be elected. The composition of the Supreme Court could then change with his appointees. The 2nd Amendment will be affirmed to describe an individual right. The unconstitutional laws in California will tumble one after the other. The liberals will scream. Crime will not increase. Violence will not increase. CCW will become accepted like driving 70 on I-5.
 
Maybe I have to take this 14th amendment discussion back a tick.

Proper government, at every level, exists to protect individual people from force. Things like shaking you down for tax money are very bad.

Striking down a state's gun control is very different to the feds taking over education. Why? The former is protecting people's freedom, the latter is shifting it away from them.

Remember that Brady just forced the states to implement the BG check for themselves - it took freedom from the states; but in the name of freedom of individuals.

The civil rights act was a mixed bag. It banned a form of "organized crime" in lower levels of government, that is, gutting laws that do stuff like force bus companies to force people of a certain race to the back of the bus. However, it then goes and denies the right of a bus company owner (yes, a right) to do that of his own accord. That is, until another bus company in competition is free to provide a better service by not insulting a portion of its customers.


Battler.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff, CA:
JimDiver -

What you say about licensing a protected right is correct, but remember: the CA supreme court and the 9th circuit court have determined that RKBA is not a constitutionally protected right. So, until the US Supreme Court says otherwise, CA will have its way with us.

It's sad that we have to ask our government to confirm that we have the right to the means to overthrow that government.[/quote]

One interesting aspect of the recent CA Supreme Court decision is that it only looked at the state constitution, not the Federal one. Why? Because the NRA was _unable_ to argue to the 2nd Amendment, because it dropped the ball on an earlier gun control lawsuit here. Ten years earlier NRA failed to appeal an earlier court ruling that the 2nd referred to a state's right to keep a militia, and so henceforth no court in California will consider 2nd Amendment arguments against gun control, with limited exceptions.

Thanks, NRA.

--The Beez
 
The People's Socialist Republik of Kalifornia Supremacist Court obviously never read this section of the State Constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
 
Doesn't say Bill or Rights. We would include it, but we have common sense. Lawyer's get a hold of the difference and the liberal judges will go along with it .....at least until their issue is being gorged.

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Imbroglio:
The People's Socialist Republik of Kalifornia Supremacist Court obviously never read this section of the State Constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.[/quote]
 
MountainGun44 - If you drive 70 on I-5 you better be in the right lane. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top