CA Lawmakers Pass New Gun Laws (Nice: home, neighborhoods, campgrounds)

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I hate to repeat a current "mantra" but realistically, enforcing laws currently on the books in all states and federally would go a long way. Beyond that, background checks, especially at gun shows, would help. They'll never be able to close all the gates, however. That's just an unfortunate reality. There will always be the cheaters, the straw purchasers and the criminals/thieves.

I wish I had the answers. If nothing else, they would make me rich.

For purposes of full disclosure, I've been shooting since I was eight or nine, spent eight years in the military, to include some combat experience, and then became a cop for another eight years. I've always owned guns and always will. I have a permit to carry. However, I don't think I'm rabid about any of it, just responsible.

I agree your proposed remedies are appropriate. However, as soon and any wild-eyed librul like myself proposes ANTHING with regards to actually "regulating", we get the Martin Niemöller treatment.

What is the countervailing business lobby to the NRA? Invoking equivalency as a reason for the absence of a middle ground in this debate is pure BS. And y’all know it.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Who really cares? Guns are pretty irrelevant to the lives of the overwhelming majority of Californians and gun ownership is on the decline there and nationwide. 4 out of 5 Californians don't own one and it's dropping, particularly with younger people. You may as well be talking about horse control.

Gun ownership nationwide is not decreasing. Gallup reports gun ownership at the household level has risen in recent times to the highest levels since 1993.

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

Gun ownership in California may not be decreasing either. Gun sales in 2012 were twice what they were in 2007.

California gun purchases nearing record - SFGate

I think many Californians do care about the laws that might change their rights concerning guns.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Don't know what you mean by "back then" but as long as I can remember California has freely exercised its police powers to enact all kinds of restrictive gun laws. If you're referring to the second amendment, that only applies to the feds not to the states. However, there's nothing to prevent the citizens of CA from putting a gun rights amendment in the state constitution.

California's ability to regulate firearms is not unlimited. You seem to have an idea that the Amendments to the Constitution don't apply to the states individually. Do you think California can choose to ignore them?

Did you see that very recently the Supreme Court overturned Illinois' law banning concealed carry? The ruling specifically called out the 2nd Amendment and said that under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment it applied to the states.

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

California's ability to regulate firearms is not unlimited. You seem to have an idea that the Amendments to the Constitution don't apply to the states individually. Do you think California can choose to ignore them?

Not legally, but when did that ever matter to certain factions of the Legislature?

At issue for me whether it's MO law, CA law or national law is the diminuation of any Constitutional right and privilege. If they feel they can water down or ignore the 2nd Amendment, which amendment they each swore to support and defend is next on the chopping block?

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

At issue for me whether it's MO law, CA law or national law is the diminuation of any Constitutional right and privilege. If they feel they can water down or ignore the 2nd Amendment, which amendment they each swore to support and defend is next on the chopping block?

That would be the 1st.
Look at England and their ability to jail someone for using an offensive term.

[Ginsaw]

Originally Posted by Rakin

That would be the 1st.
Look at England and their ability to jail someone for using an offensive term.

Quite true. If one part of the constitution can be tossed, then it's just a hop, skip and jump to tossing out others.

And the essential math on this is, four of nine "justices" were willing to toss the 2nd Amendment, and it will be dumped as soon as one of the majority in the Heller decision is replaced by the current occupant of the WH. That's an undeniable fact.

And to add to that cheery news, one of those four who can't wait to throw out the 2nd Amendment is on record as saying she wants to dump the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution and substitute therefor what South Africa calls a constitution. Does that quaint notion suit everybody?

Anyway, the 1st Amendment has ALREADY been limited in a number of ways, including "hate crimes", which criminalizes essentially political "thought" rather than action, which traditionally has been the focus of criminal prosecution in civilized Western culture.

So now we have "thought crimes".

In any event, I'll tell you the constitutional amendment I'm personally MOST worried about getting tossed by that court.

It's the 22nd.

Losing that one equals imposition under current demographics of an "in for life" dictatorial regime. Communism in plain wording...and you've already got four on that court who it's reasonable to assume would go for it.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Not legally, but when did that ever matter to certain factions of the Legislature?

At issue for me whether it's MO law, CA law or national law is the diminuation of any Constitutional right and privilege. If they feel they can water down or ignore the 2nd Amendment, which amendment they each swore to support and defend is next on the chopping block?

Originally Posted by Ginsaw

Quite true. If one part of the constitution can be tossed, then it's just a hop, skip and jump to tossing out others.

And the essential math on this is, four of nine "justices" were willing to toss the 2nd Amendment, and it will be dumped as soon as one of the majority in the Heller decision is replaced by the current occupant of the WH. That's an undeniable fact.

And to add to that cheery news, one of those four who can't wait to throw out the 2nd Amendment is on record as saying she wants to dump the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution and substitute therefor what South Africa calls a constitution. Does that quaint notion suit everybody?

Anyway, the 1st Amendment has ALREADY been limited in a number of ways, including "hate crimes", which criminalizes essentially political "thought" rather than action, which traditionally has been the focus of criminal prosecution in civilized Western culture.

So now we have "thought crimes".

In any event, I'll tell you the constitutional amendment I'm personally MOST worried about getting tossed by that court.

It's the 22nd.

Losing that one equals imposition under current demographics of an "in for life" dictatorial regime. Communism in plain wording...and you've already got four on that court who it's reasonable to assume would go for it.

An interesting and oft cited fear / objection: altering the Constitution.
I would point out it has been done 27 times between 178-something and 1992, I believe was the last.
Why shouldn't the Constitution be a "living" document that evolves with our civilization as we learn and adjust to the changes of the world we live in -- which world is in constant change.
Swearing to uphold the Constitution soley as allegiance to a document written hundreds of years ago is not particularly bright or good service to the nation. Kinda the same mentality that "upholds" the christian bible as a guide to all living - in spite of its contradictions and discriminations and fantasies.

I am not anti-gun particularly. I am against anti-thinking. If we need better ways to preserve the quality of life as can be agreed upon, then by all means, alter the damn Constitution to make necessary change.

[Ginsaw]

OK, I'll try to explain a little of it to you, although we both know perfectly well what we're talking about. I'll even tie in to guns to the extent possible, because that's supposed to be the topic here.

So, the 22nd Amendment is this part of the country's fundamental law, known as the constitution, that says a person can only be president twice. It's called a term limit.

Now pay attention to the next part, because it concerns what you asked be explained. As of now who wins a presidential election is largely a matter of whether you have the broad demographics on your side or whether you don't. And one side does at this juncture in history and one side does not.

Ergo, get rid of the 22nd Amendment and the current occupant of the WH can stay there as long as he wants. Another identical way of saying the same thing is, "in for life".

Now we get to the good part. Communism. Again I think we know exactly what we're talking about, no?

But, we'll press on and I'll introduce you to a secret never before revealed fact hardly anyone in this country is aware of.

Many, many conscientious folks who take civil liberties seriously and over the last forty years from all sections of the country and every state have made the proactive choice to permanently leave the Democrat Party over the "Communism issue".

Finally there's this thing called "google". Research what the CPUSA's platform is like and compare to the Democrats' positions on all relevant national issues and see if you can tell any differences. Please give us a breakdown showing how many positions are the same and how many are opposing. You can do a report on it and have it ready for tomorrow.

OK, I said I'd try to keep this as on topic as possible. Also tell us what the Communist Party's position is on gun ownership and you'll have the rest of your answer.

Oh, as far as the part about what the Libdem wing of the Supreme Court is capable of doing, or wants to do given the chance, or how far they'd go to keep their guy in the WH permanently, does anyone have any doubts about that?? Really?

..btw, it's not "tea" related...ag actually.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

An interesting and oft cited fear / objection: altering the Constitution.
I would point out it has been done 27 times between 178-something and 1992, I believe was the last.
Why shouldn't the Constitution be a "living" document that evolves with our civilization as we learn and adjust to the changes of the world we live in -- which world is in constant change.
Swearing to uphold the Constitution soley as allegiance to a document written hundreds of years ago is not particularly bright or good service to the nation. Kinda the same mentality that "upholds" the christian bible as a guide to all living - in spite of its contradictions and discriminations and fantasies.

I am not anti-gun particularly. I am against anti-thinking. If we need better ways to preserve the quality of life as can be agreed upon, then by all means, alter the damn Constitution to make necessary change.

I have no problem with making changes as they must be ratified and that process reflects the will of the people. I have a huge problem with ignoring provisions which is tantamount to tossing them.

I really don't care what you and other so-called progressives think about the oath of office and efficacy thereof. What I do care about is honoring that oath for so long as you take it. Country naysayers annoy me.

[eureka1]

I AM anti-gun and look forward to living in a society in which no one feels the need to be armed.