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.
No, I'm with rational individuals who recognize that banning rifles when rifles only cause a fraction of gun deaths is absurd. It's like saying we're going to reduce deaths from traffic accidents by increasing the fines for driving over 120mph when 90% of traffic fatalities occur at lower speeds.
If you want to reduce gun deaths, then go get the handguns away from the hoodlums in the inner cities. Don't take away the rifles from hunters. That's just plain stupid.
This will induce more California gun owners to finally move out. For those who do, WA is a good alternative. Even though we are a blue state, the last attempt to impose common nonsense gun legislation lost 71-29 when put before voters. There is no 'assault weapon' ban here. CCW takes 5 minutes of paperwork. You will be welcomed.
That's right, California legislator has passed a bill that would classify every center fire rifle with a magazine as an "assault weapon." That means regular rifles used by every day hunter and sportsmen will no longer be able to be bought and sold within the state. Senator Steinberg describes this bill as "common sense" and a good "balance." Here are some of the rifles that will become illegal to purchase after the first of the year unless governor Brown vetoes the bill.
Remington 7400
Ruger mini 14
Springfield m1a
M1 carbine
Browning BAR
These are rifles that countless every day average Californians own. If someone is not activity participating in gun law issues they would not know about this change turning them into a felon if they do not register their rifle. Plus the legislator got cute only allowed these rifles to be registered if they were purchased after 2000, that means everyone else will have to despose (i.e. turn them into the police) if they legally owned these rifles that were legally purchased decades ago.
When I and others refuse to compromise and gun control issues this is why. This bill is completely unconstitutional and draconian. If you are in California I urge you to call/write/fax the governor and ask that he veto this bill, if you do not live in California I urge you to fight gun control at every turn because in due time the democrats in your state will be wanting to pass similar legislation.
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
I disagree with the law, but it is the right of californians to pass these types of restrictions. Its not law until the senate passes it, and Jerry Brown signs it. I think the restriction on a 10 round magazine is reasonable.
I disagree with the law, but it is the right of californians to pass these types of restrictions. Its not law until the senate passes it, and Jerry Brown signs it. I think the restriction on a 10 round magazine is reasonable.
States rights activists should be happy
Seems a contradiction that someone for states rights would be happy about the denial of a right just because it was taken at the state level.
Seems a contradiction that someone for states rights would be happy about the denial of a right just because it was taken at the state level.
If the state decides it, its thats states right and power as a sovereign entity to do so.
If the federal government did that, I'd be far less accepting.
People who are for states deciding abortion and other issues suddenly don't like it when states take other things away.
I think a ban on semiautomatic weapons is stupid. I would never support it federally or in my state. I would never force californians to live by my will, as I don't live there.
Yet another pointless law that will show their voter base that their elected representatives are "doing something about the problem."
Unfortunately, rifles are not the problem. Neither are handguns. Its people who choose to commit crimes using guns as a means to an end. If the government decides to take firearms, they should have to guarantee the safety of the citizens. Since there is case law that determined the police have no duty to actually protect citizens, that is impossible.
Yet another pointless law that will show their voter base that their elected representatives are "doing something about the problem."
Unfortunately, rifles are not the problem. Neither are handguns. Its people who choose to commit crimes using guns as a means to an end. If the government decides to take firearms, they should have to guarantee the safety of the citizens. Since there is case law that determined the police have no duty to actually protect citizens, that is impossible.
If the state decides it, its thats states right and power as a sovereign entity to do so.
If the federal government did that, I'd be far less accepting.
People who are for states deciding abortion and other issues suddenly don't like it when states take other things away.
I think a ban on semiautomatic weapons is stupid. I would never support it federally or in my state. I would never force californians to live by my will, as I don't live there.
Ignoring that one valid role of federal government was to instruct states from enacting laws that conflict with the constitution.
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.
