California and the Slippery Slope

R

rc

New member
It seems that politicians never learn nor are they ever satisfied. With the recent shooting rampage in California, legislators are jumping back on the ban-it-all wagon once more. Liberals are working hard to reclassify all semi auto rifles with a detachable magazine an assault weapon and put new ownership burdens on otherwise law abiding citizens with no criminal record. Why? Because they can. In addition, proposals to take gun rights from those convicted of a DUI are in circulation. The late Ted Kennedy who was one of the premier gun banners in congress had a personal 38 yet he would have taken the right to have any handgun from anybody else even after being involved in a DUI that resulted in a fatality. It seems that soon conviction of ANY crime could be used as an excuse to take away your gun rights. The first step was establishing precident by taking away gun rights for any domestic violence convictions even if they happened before the law was created. While some may argue the benefits of these laws, i would argue they are too arbitrary and have little to nothing to do with gun crime. I doubt there is a single person who has not broken a law at some point even if it was just J walking. We cannot continue on this path to the nanny state. Soon we will have to bubble wrap the kids before we put them in the car "just in case".
 
In addition, proposals to take gun rights from those convicted of a DUI are in circulation. The late Ted Kennedy who was one of the premier gun banners in congress had a personal 38 yet he would have taken the right to have any handgun from anybody else even after being involved in a DUI that resulted in a fatality.
Click to expand...
rc, are these actual legislative proposals re: DUIs, and can you give us sources for them? I'm curious about where you found this information.

In fairness to Sen. Kennedy, it's also worth remembering that he lost both of his brothers to assassinations carried out with guns. It's likely that he had considerable emotional involvement in this issue. That said, I'm not sure why you think he, or the incident you refer to, is relevant here; he was the senator for Massachusetts, and he's been dead for some time.

A bit more focus would be good here; your post is a bit broad, and apart from the DUI issue, everything you mention has been discussed at length on TFL.
 
Last edited:
In March, 2013 the author of a bill that would have outlawed the 166,000 registered "assault weapons" in CA withdrew his bill. It would have cost too much to compensate the owners of those rifles.

One of the most controversial gun-control bills introduced in California this year -- a move to seize the 166,000 registered assault weapons grandfathered in under the state's ban -- is dead, its author said Thursday.
Click to expand...

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics...bill-seize-registered-assault-weapons-is-dead
 
This post sounds like one of those (many) scare e-mails that circulate. Remember somebody "proposing" a law is a far cry from it becoming law. Whether in a city council, state legislature or U.S. Congress, the chairman or speaker must bring the bill (proposal) to the table for hearings and debate before a vote. When something gets to the hearing stage that is the time citizens should jump in and make themselves heard. I have stopped several very bad anti-gun bills in Arkansas by going to the Capitol and making my objections known. I do not live near the Capitol and traveled and stayed in hotels at my own expense to do this. As a result I am critical of people who just make posts and e-mails but do not get actively involved in the process. You will get what you deserve. Pardon the rant. Look at my handle to understand my convictions.
 
Sir, this is no internet rumor. This is fact and legislation is on the move.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...origin-and-more-to-be-heard-in-committee.aspx

See Senate Bill 755 regarding DUI expansion of prohibited persons, 374 that makes all semi autos with detachable mag an asault weapon which includes 10/22s people and 53 that forces people to buy an ammo permit every year and go through all kinds of hoops to get ammo. No more mail order ammo sales, big brother watching every time you buy bullets. Those of you not in California be greatful. I expect Moonbeam to sign anything that reaches his desk.
 
Rifleman, there is no exageration to the statement that there is a full court press against the rights of CA citizens and their 2A rights.

ASSEMBLY BILLS
(Now pending in the Senate)

AB-48 (Skinner): Bans magazine rebuild kits and requires reporting purchases of 3,000 rounds or more of ammo.
Status: Senate-In Committee Process-Public Safety
Last amended 5/24/13

AB-169 (Dickinson): Bans transfer of handguns not on the "not unsafe handgun" roster.
Status: Senate-In Committee Process-Appropriations

AB-170 (Bradford): Redefines "person" for Assault Weapons permits.
Status: Senate-In Committee Process-Appropriations

AB-180 (Bonta): Additional firearms restrictions in Oakland.
Status: Senate-In Committee Process-Public Safety

AB-231 (Ting): Criminal liability when child accesses firearm in your home.
Status: Senate-In Committee Process-Public Safety

AB-500 (Ammianno): Extends time period for background checks, secure storage requirements when living with prohibited person.
Status: Senate-In Committee Process-Public Safety
Last amended 5/24/13

AB-711 (Rendon): Lead ammo ban.
Status: Senate-In Committee Process-Appropriations
Last amended 6/12/13 - regulations to be promulgated by July 2015, fully implemented by July 2018

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE BILLS
(Now pending in the Assembly)

SB-47 (Yee): Bans Bullet Buttons.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-53 (de Leon): Requires ammo purchase "authorizations" recorded in a separate state database, requires all ammunition transactions to go through state-licensed ammunition vendors (including Internet purchases), records details of all ammunition purchases.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-108 (Yee): Mandatory locked storage of firearms when away from home.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-293 (DeSaulnier): Bans conventional handguns without owner authorization/"smart" gun technology.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-299 (DeSaulnier): Mandatory loss reporting of firearms within 48 hours.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-374 (Steinberg): Bans all semiautomatic rifles that does not have a fixed magazine, forced registration of rifles already owned.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-396 (Hancock): Ban and confiscation of magazines that are or was at one time capable of holding more than ten rounds (including 10/30 magazines).
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SSB-567 (Jackson): Expands definition of shotgun to include rifled barrels and those not designed to be fired from the shoulder.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-683 (Block): Requires firearms safety certificate for purchasing any firearm.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

SB-755 (Wolk) Expands definition of prohibited persons.
Status: Assembly-Pending Referral

[unashamedly stolen from CalGuns.net]
 
That is the reason a lot of shops are afraid to sell to CA customers, in that its hard to keep up with the changes, and the shop owners are afraid that they may ship something considered illegal there, but not in the other 49 states, and get in trouble over it.

The only way to stop this, is a big push at election time, and kick the ones doing this to the curb. Plus, getting with organizations with deep enough pockets, and who are willing to spend the money, to take each of these to court.
 
The only way to stop this, is a big push at election time, and kick the ones doing this to the curb. Plus, getting with organizations with deep enough pockets, and who are willing to spend the money, to take each of these to court.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, 'We go to elections with the voters we have.'

And those voters continue to elect politicians who believe anti-gun laws are a good issue to get them re-elected; so far, those politicians are correct.

Look, for example, at the official statement of the vote for the 2012 Election - all 80 Assembly seats were up for election. Assume - incorrectly, but close enough for discussion - that Democrats are 'anti' and Republicans are 'pro' (in truth, many 'republicans' in CA would look rather to the left in other states).

Find a 'close' race, where the R lost to the D by less than 5% (or, where the R won by 5% or less) - 36D, 40R, 44R, 60R, 65D are the ones. Note that CA redistricting has essentially made 'safe' seats for everyone; note further that 'open primary' has made it possible that the top 2 vote getters will face each other in the final, and that both may be from the same party.

Get the picture? Our voters LIKE the people they elect, and LIKE what they are doing. I can't determine if it was Morris Udall in 1976 or Dick Tuck 10 years earlier: "The people have spoken, the b*st*rds."
 
"Feeling safer yet?"

Nope, just more like I'm being punished for the actions of others. I forgot how everyone is a killer and how we shouldn't be allowed to possess whatever firearm we so desire.
 
IIRC there have been attempts to put the RKBA into California's state constitution, perhaps that needs to be considered again.
 
she3pdog:
more like I'm being punished for the actions of others.
Click to expand...

Yep, you are.

That's my favorite question to these kinds of laws b/c well, feelings are completely subjective and unmeasurable and the whole process is, imho, a downward spiral. When I was in Japan, I continually heard that this or that was "scary." Oh, those waves today were "scary." And I'm thinking "The ones inside the jetty? No, I've been in larger waves." But that's what happens when you make everything safer; your comfort zone shrinks and now almost anything looks that much more dangerous.

Hang in there.
 
That list put together by Al Norris is mind boggling. How do they come up with some of these goofy laws?
 
That list put together by Al Norris is mind boggling. How do they come up with some of these goofy laws?
Click to expand...
Just as we have advocates that dutifully recommend changes to, repeals of or the creation of new laws, so do the antis. And in California's legislature, they have a receptive if not utterly enthusiastic audience and willing proxy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top