Draconian Gun Legislation Proposed (ethics, Missouri, administration, banks)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

I read an interesting article recently, something like 90% of quotes attributed to Jefferson, were never uttered by Jefferson, so to prove the article wrong source each quote.

You keep coming back to the 2nd amendment, which I am not discussing. You keep coming back to it because you cannot argue two facts:
1. Anything an assault rifle can be used for in the civilian world can be better done by an intelligent selection of weapon. Like picking a Ducati over an Harley.
2. Assault weapons are bought by men for the same reasons they buy cigars, Harley's and big tires.

Your average Assault Rifle advocate:

I come back to second amendment because that is the only argument I need, laws actually have to not contradict the constitution and the bill or rights.

Here is what I see when I think of ar15 user, they are every day people. If you actually went to a local range you would see that. But I know that it doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.




I hope you don't own a Ruger 10/22 or a marlin model 60 as bill SB 347 introduced by Senator Steinberg proposes you register these deadly assault weapons.
Marlin model 60

Ruger 10/22

Perhaps your 112 year old hunting rifle is a Winchester 1903? Oh, that is going to have to be registered as well

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...1bc5f62fa61857

But, you are probably thinking that it is not that big of deal that you have to register these dangers assault weapons. Well, the ca legislator is also proposing that all registered asault weapons be confiscated. So in first they make you register and the next day they take them away.
AB-174
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...avClient.xhtml

[aslowdodge]

Neither of the links lead to anything we can read.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

[b]Oh No! Something else for the gun nuts to get riled up about!

Well considering it's a satire article.

[aslowdodge]

Here's a thought. A lot of hunters say go ahead, no one needs assault style weapons. They are dangerous killing machines. But when everyone is registered what if govt decides these old wood stock hunting rifles are too dangerous? You just know someone will use one as a sniping rifle to pick people off. When you are hidden, lying in wait, a bolt action with a few rounds is more than adequate to take out a few targets. The govt will say they are too accurate from a distance and can be reloaded too quickly when hidden, so hunting can be done with a handgun. So now hunters might wind up being on a list for searches and seizures. Not saying it will happen, but it's a possibility.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Neither of the links lead to anything we can read.

Try these
Ab-174
AB 174 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED
Sb-347
Bill Text -
You'll have to select the bill text icon.

[aslowdodge]

your ab 174 link works
but the sb 347 doesn't work still.
What is sb 347, I haven't heard of it?

anyways for people to read
Summary: AB 174 is currently a spot bill that would “include provisions that would end . . . exemptions” under current law whereby “certain banned weapons are permitted under various ‘grandfathering in’ clauses.”

AB 174 purports to do when fleshed out (i.e., repeal the “grandfathering in” of certain firearms), the bill will serve no purpose but to seize the lawfully owned property of law-abiding firearms owners.

[shooting4life]

I don't know why it is not working. Here is a portion of the bill text and another stab at linking
Bill Text - SB-374 Firearms: assault weapons.
SB 374, as introduced, Steinberg. Firearms: assault weapons.
Existing law regulates the sale, carrying, and control of firearms, including assault weapons, and requires assault weapons to be registered with the Department of Justice. Violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law defines a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and other specified features and a semiautomatic weapon that has a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept 10 or more rounds as an assault weapon.
This bill would, instead, classify a semiautomatic, rimfire or centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept 10 rounds or fewer as an assault weapon. The bill would require a person who, between January 1, 2001, and prior to January 1, 2014, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, to register the firearm by July 1, 2014. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2014, a Firearm Ownership Record to be submitted, as specified, to the Department of Justice for every firearm an individual owns, with prescribed exceptions, including firearms purchased from a licensed firearms dealer and documented by a Dealers’ Record of Sale transaction and assault weapons registered with the department. The bill would authorize the department to charge a fee of up to $19 per transaction for the submission of the Firearm Ownership Record.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

[aslowdodge]

Thanks- You had the numbers transposed 347 vs 374.
Already I see the money grab. They are going to slap you and you need to pay them $19 for each transaction,I know people with gun collections that are going to pay a lot.
Wouldn't be surprised if they made it an annual registration like cars.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

I don't think so. Men certainly weigh in about Roe vs Wade.

You don't need to educate anyone about the intimate details of assault rifles for someone to have an opinion on them.

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Well, ya got me there

You think this is funny? Odd sense of humor.

Seriously though, we need to understand why people want to shoot up others. That is really the key to stopping this madness.

How do you suggest we go about this, interview those who've murdered others with guns? Too bad that won't happen, as evidenced by this week's carjacking in Orange County with several murdered and in which the shooter took his own life. Can't do it with Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook, or the shooter from VA Tech, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine...

Maybe we can interview Jared Laughner of the Tucson shooting. He might have some insight.

Why are you SO threatened by background checks, registering guns, waiting periods, etc., when you know that you yourself will pass all these restrictions? Is it just an incovenience that you don't want to deal with? If even one of these killers had had to submit to a waiting period, maybe he would've had second thoughts or re-evaluated his plan....think of the lives that might have been saved.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Why are you SO threatened by background checks, registering guns, waiting periods, etc., when you know that you yourself will pass all these restrictions? Is it just an incovenience that you don't want to deal with? If even one of these killers had had to submit to a waiting period, maybe he would've had second thoughts or re-evaluated his plan....think of the lives that might have been saved.

Perhaps because of that inconvenient reality called "History." It's a pattern that has been seen before in other place, as follows, that our Constitution was supposed to protect us from:

1) First we identify, define and classify them.

2) Then we register them to determine who has them and where they are.

3) Now we outlaw and seize them.

Since the latter action would be in clear violation of Amendments 2, 4 and 5 of the Constitution and all too many people seem just fine with it I have to wonder just how many and what other rights they're willing to give up and lose until the entire document becomes invalidated and the country, as it has been known and governed for over 230 years, ceases to exist.

I'm really upset with Darrell Steinberg. I knew him personally and worked closely with him from the time he was a lowly Assemblyman right up until he gained the President Pro Tem of the Senate seat which was about when I retired. While we often disagreed, I admired both his drive and his intelligence as well as his passion for certain causes. The current Steinberg, most unfortunately seem to more and more personify the adage that while power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I no longer admire him at all.