Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
he hearing's end, the committee had voted along party lines to approve bills that would add all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines to the state's list of banned assault weapons; ban owning any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, including existing ones; ban bullet buttons that allow fast swapping of rifle magazines; require long-gun buyers to pass a written safety test; and add more crimes to the list of those that would bar someone from carrying a firearm
not all semi auto matic weapons, simply those with detachable clips and magazines. So your hunting rifle is fine. No one is talking about confiscation of guns.
Stupid gun rights sites posting bs again.
I don't agree with the law, but I don't live in California, and I'll let the supreme court decide whats constitutional
The Constitution decides what is Constitutional. You think its good the 5 lawyers can effect the whole of our nation, culture, and system of government?
Please dont start with no one is talking about confiscation of guns, they are,
I have often wondered why they want to pass these bans that are so obviously ineffective.
One effect that such a ban might have is to induce annoyed gun owners, especially younger folks, to move out of the state. These are of course people who tend to vote Republican, so that would strengthen Democrat's iron grip on the state. That's a round about explanation, but it makes more sense than the stated explanation, that they are doing this to try to reduce violence and improve safety.
The bulk of the legislators live in La La Land and reality isn't a concept they can grasp, but ineffective, feel-good laws are, or those dictated to them by the labor unions that own them. I know. I worked with them for 20 years. The one who surprises me most is Darryl Steinberg, the President Pro tem of the Senate. I knew him quite well, worked with him often and he used to have a great deal of common sense. Alas, that's over!
he Democratic Party’s longing for gun control is nothing new, and recent events have made this mostly overlooked issue throughout a very important presidential election rise to the surface. Debates have raged on and on about the link between mental illness, access to guns, and the sudden outbreak of violence with very little explanation. Classically, the Republican Party and a huge lobby from the National Rifle Association strongly oppose anything remotely resembling gun control, regardless of how reasonable it may be.
Those against President Obama’s recent gun control measures often make the argument that guns don’t kill people, people do. The idea behind the argument, of course, is that a rational person owning a gun for the protection of him or herself and family is not a danger to anyone except someone trying to do harm to them. It’s a good argument. We get it. Bad people with guns is bad. Good people with guns is, well, maybe not necessarily good, but you get the picture.
However, as Democrats continue their crusade to institute gun control on everyone, some people are starting to look at the events that are most often cited in gun control in more detail. And a few interesting facts are rising to the top. For instance:
The Fort Hood shooter was a registered Democrat.
The Columbine shooters were too young to vote, but they were raised by Democrats, as a matter of fact, what is referred to as “progressive liberals.”
The Virginia Tech shooter wrote hate mail to President George W. Bush and his staff. He was a registered Democrat.
The Batman shooter in Aurora was a registered Democrat and even worked on President Obama’s election campaign staffs in the area.
The Newtown, Connecticut shooter was a registered Democrat.
This is the real crux of things. See, when CA banned "assault rifles, using certain features as criteria, i.e. muzzle brakes, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, hi cap mags, there were an estimated 500,000 of such rifles in private hands in the state. These were supposed to be surrendered under the law. Without compensation, of course. The number actually surrendered was estimated at 1%. So, not to many folks complied. Gee, when was that? Late 80s I believe. Restrictions are worse now, with standard mags for such rifles, 20&30 rounders, now being illegal to posess, even if someone has no rifle to put them in. They are contraband.
This new push, going on now, is less about getting weapons away crom bad guys, and more about going fishing. It just gives the state authority to smash and grab. They better raise taxes again to fund more prisons. They will be able to fill them up just with formerly legal gun owners alone. Maybe thats the idea.
CA has not been known, of late, to be friendly to the second amendment. Yet, the firearms industry spends tons of money there. Some of the largest competitions in the biggest shooting sports still happen there as well. ICORE, USPSA have huge events there. Interestingly enough, standard USPSA guns have been illegal there for a long time. I don't get it.
I have good friends who I shoot with who live in CA. I do not wish the CA shooting community any ill will. But, I still, firmly, believe that national and international shooting clubs should pull tbe big events OUT of CA. Going to a shooting event there feels like crossing into an old Soviet bloc nation. If you get pulled over heading to the USPSA nationals, or even the IRCs, and you have a holster in the seat, or anything tbat says you have guns in your rig, it's likely a way will be found to confiscate them. Even ic it needz to be made up on scene. Tbis happened to a friend of mine. "Transport violation " was claimed, and he lost a $4000.00 race gun. Welcome to CA.
I haven't seen any evidence that CA bans on "assault weapons" required surrender of weapons already owned. Please post a link.
I haven't seen any evidence that CA bans on "assault weapons" required surrender of weapons already owned. Please post a link.
Correct...it was REGISTRATION. God...that was back when Patrick Purdy was the big news. But, nobody has ever gotten in a hurry to comply with the law...and there was a time limit to do so. Unregistered "assault rifles" have been contraband and subject to confiscation for quite a while now.
Thus....these new ...lets call them sweep and clear...laws will open up a nice kettle of fish for folks. There are a BUNCH of guns that pre date the Federal ban in CA, that have been the subject of much angst to the CA grabber crowd. AKs and ARs, mostly with Ruger Mini 14s getting a close placing as well. By now, lots of these may have been sold out of state or stashed somehow. Well over 20 years worth of time for folks to figure things out. I mean...wow...there were still a lot of A1 style ARs on shelves when that law went down, and the Poly Tech AKs were all the big doings. (Sigh)Dragunovs were available as "relics and curios" back then too...for like 195 bucks! I wish I had bought ten of them.
Correct...it was REGISTRATION. God...that was back when Patrick Purdy was the big news. But, nobody has ever gotten in a hurry to comply with the law...and there was a time limit to do so. Unregistered "assault rifles" have been contraband and subject to confiscation for quite a while now.
Thus....these new ...lets call them sweep and clear...laws will open up a nice kettle of fish for folks. There are a BUNCH of guns that pre date the Federal ban in CA, that have been the subject of much angst to the CA grabber crowd. AKs and ARs, mostly with Ruger Mini 14s getting a close placing as well. By now, lots of these may have been sold out of state or stashed somehow. Well over 20 years worth of time for folks to figure things out. I mean...wow...there were still a lot of A1 style ARs on shelves when that law went down, and the Poly Tech AKs were all the big doings. (Sigh)Dragunovs were available as "relics and curios" back then too...for like 195 bucks! I wish I had bought ten of them.
I cant thing of what will happen when their is another massive riot, and the store owners and people are disarmed..
The Constitution decides what is Constitutional. You think its good the 5 lawyers can effect the whole of our nation, culture, and system of government?
Please dont start with no one is talking about confiscation of guns, they are,
Then read your constitution, because the judicial branch interprets the constitution.
Been that way since washington and adams were president
Then read your constitution, because the judicial branch interprets the constitution.
Been that way since washington and adams were president
So if they found slavery to be Constitutional that would make it right?
And having a branch of government unaccountable to the people, outside of the realm of public backlash, where 5 people can limit, alter, or abolish rights, liberty, and freedom based on opinions...I mean yeah that is what the founders had in mine. Jefferson should have limited the court when he had a chance to do so..
he Democratic Party’s longing for gun control is nothing new, and recent events have made this mostly overlooked issue throughout a very important presidential election rise to the surface. Debates have raged on and on about the link between mental illness, access to guns, and the sudden outbreak of violence with very little explanation. Classically, the Republican Party and a huge lobby from the National Rifle Association strongly oppose anything remotely resembling gun control, regardless of how reasonable it may be.
Those against President Obama’s recent gun control measures often make the argument that guns don’t kill people, people do. The idea behind the argument, of course, is that a rational person owning a gun for the protection of him or herself and family is not a danger to anyone except someone trying to do harm to them. It’s a good argument. We get it. Bad people with guns is bad. Good people with guns is, well, maybe not necessarily good, but you get the picture.
However, as Democrats continue their crusade to institute gun control on everyone, some people are starting to look at the events that are most often cited in gun control in more detail. And a few interesting facts are rising to the top. For instance:
The Fort Hood shooter was a registered Democrat.
The Columbine shooters were too young to vote, but they were raised by Democrats, as a matter of fact, what is referred to as “progressive liberals.”
The Virginia Tech shooter wrote hate mail to President George W. Bush and his staff. He was a registered Democrat.
The Batman shooter in Aurora was a registered Democrat and even worked on President Obama’s election campaign staffs in the area.
The Newtown, Connecticut shooter was a registered Democrat.
Fantastic bit of very selective research, assuming you have your facts straight you are alleging only democrats are responsible for mass murders. Honestly don't you have anything better to do with your time, I think both parties have their share crazies.
By the way there are plenty of republicans that are pro gun control, like the last several republican presidents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
