Extreme CA state gun bans advance in Sacramento (legal, how much, lobby)

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Who's going to compensate the gun owners for disabling their weapons? We are talking about millions of them.

I never asked for "compensation".

I asked that my gun, and my right to keep and bear it, be left alone.

Anyone who thinks that "compensation" will make up for a Constitutional violation (like the "lady" legislator quoted in the article in the OP) is not thinking.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

I never asked for "compensation".

I asked that my gun, and my right to keep and bear it, be left alone.

Anyone who thinks that "compensation" will make up for a Constitutional violation (like the "lady" legislator quoted in the article in the OP) is not thinking.

Completely agree. I just want to know how they expect to roll out these new bans. I've seen a replacement for the bullet button already!! One step ahead.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

I just checked.

There are "excepts" in some of the amendments.

But not in the 2nd.

The friendliest USSC the gunnies are ever going to see said there is...

And in fact the NRA and others actually agree.

It is where the exception lies that is in doubt.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by italianuser

Just a question: if you dislike San Diego' strict gun laws why don't you move to New Orleans or Dallas or Saint Louis or Birmingham?
They have lenient gun laws and they are safer than San Diego... oh wait... nevermind

Fine and dandy. Just tell all the far liberal anti gun Californians to stay there and not move to our states thinking they will then promote their beliefs on us.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by lvoc

The friendliest USSC the gunnies are ever going to see said there is...

And in fact the NRA and others actually agree.

It is where the exception lies that is in doubt.

Keeping this in mind, I went and checked my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights again.

There still isn't.

Only the exceptions listed in some of the other amendments.

The point being, of course, that where the Framers wanted there to be exceptions, they wrote exceptions.

Such as in the 1st amendment ("Congress shall make no law...." and "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."). The 1st was written to restrict only the Federal govt ("Congress"), not the states. This was later changed by the 14th amendment. And govt could still restrict or ban non-peaceable assembly.

Or in the 3rd amendment ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.").

Or in the 4th ("against unreasonable searches and seizures" and "no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause").

The 5th, 7th, and 8th also have similar exceptions to the rules they command.

But in the 2nd amendment, there is a COMPLETE lack of any such exceptions.

Clearly, the Framers had no problem with exceptions. They wrote lots of them, into many of the amendments. And it's a good thing they did - those amendments are better for them.

But just as clearly, they wanted NO such exceptions (what today's gun-rights-haters call "reasonable restrictions") in the 2nd amendment.

If they had wanted the 2nd to say, "....except as provided by law", why didn't they write it that way, as they did in the 3rd amendment?

If they had wanted to say, "the right shall not be unreasonably infringed", why didn't they write it that way, as they did in the 4th?

They had reasons for keeping such phrases out of the 2nd amendment. And it wasn't because they forgot.

You can quote all the opinions, court rulings, and acts of Congress you want. And not a single one of them will put those phrases into the 2nd amendment. No matter how much you wish it did.

The 2nd amendment entertains NO "reasonable restrictions".

And only a further Constitutional amendment will change that - something the gun-rights-haters are terrified to try, because they know Congress would never pass it with the required 2/3 majorities, and 3/4 of the states would never ratify it.

Maybe it would be nice if the 2nd amendment did allow for things like, a convicted felon who has served his sentence and had his freedom restored.

But the fact remains that it does not.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by italianuser

Paranoia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, you live in ITALY. I lived for nearly four decades in California. I can say unequivocally that the ultimate goal of most of the policy makers in California is complete civilian disarmament. There is absolutely no question about that.

To California's credit, though, I read the most recent version of the semi-auto bill yesterday, and they have removed rimfire rifles from the guns that would be banned. So you won't have to give your thumbprint to keep your 10/22. I'm pretty sure that they knew that they wouldn't get the bill through as written. They pretty much HAD to exempt rimfires, if they wanted it to pass. They'll go after the .22s in a decade or two. Disarming the populace is a long and drawn out process.

I also saw that there would be requirement for the state to implement a "public facing internet application" with which one could register their "assault rifles." I was pretty surprised to see that. The FFLs won't have to bear the burden of that mess.

Compliments aside, though, it's still a completely stupid and useless bill, as are virtually all of the anti-gun bills working their way through the system in CA right now.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by swagger

To California's credit, though, I read the most recent version of the semi-auto bill yesterday, and they have removed rimfire rifles from the guns that would be banned. So you won't have to give your thumbprint to keep your 10/22.

That's mighty white of them. Sort of like saying a tiger will only use four claws to rip your face off, instead of all five on that paw.

Compliments aside, though, it's still a completely stupid and useless bill, as are virtually all of the anti-gun bills working their way through the system in CA right now.

You forgot "illegal".

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by swagger

Dude, you live in ITALY. I lived for nearly four decades in California. I can say unequivocally that the ultimate goal of most of the policy makers in California is complete civilian disarmament. There is absolutely no question about that.

To California's credit, though, I read the most recent version of the semi-auto bill yesterday, and they have removed rimfire rifles from the guns that would be banned. So you won't have to give your thumbprint to keep your 10/22. I'm pretty sure that they knew that they wouldn't get the bill through as written. They pretty much HAD to exempt rimfires, if they wanted it to pass. They'll go after the .22s in a decade or two. Disarming the populace is a long and drawn out process.

I also saw that there would be requirement for the state to implement a "public facing internet application" with which one could register their "assault rifles." I was pretty surprised to see that. The FFLs won't have to bear the burden of that mess.

Compliments aside, though, it's still a completely stupid and useless bill, as are virtually all of the anti-gun bills working their way through the system in CA right now.

It will be interesting if I have to register a 50 year old "assault rifle" that has done nothing but kill Deer in that fifty years.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Completely agree. I just want to know how they expect to roll out these new bans. I've seen a replacement for the bullet button already!! One step ahead.

There is that "bullet button" thing again. Are we actually talking about the mag release? Is this just a way to make changing mags into some sort of magic process?

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

There is that "bullet button" thing again. Are we actually talking about the mag release? Is this just a way to make changing mags into some sort of magic process?

A bullet button is a slimmed down mag release too small for a finger so you have to use a tool to release the mag.

There is no such fix for a Remington or Browning. They operate completely different than a AR style rifle. If I have to weld in the mag it becomes in essence a single shot rifle.