Safety for all act proposal for CA, anyone actually read? (felons, buying)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

What is the difference between confiscating and making something illegal to own that is currently legal?

Well, it is illegal to have a car without a carburetor unless it is one of those "classic" cars with a special plate. But the CHP doesn't go door to door checking to see if your car meets emission standards and confiscating it if it does not, lol. Come on man, be reasonable. So many people on this site are stereotypical gun nuts. Do you guys listen to yourselves? lol.

As it is illegal to sell a magazine over ten rounds in California leaving the only option to turn them into the police against your will (confiscation) without compensation (constitutionally illegal).

I'm pretty sure it is legal for the government to say X is now illegal to possess without having to compensate people if they confiscate X illegal object. But I'm open to being educated on that.

A responsible gun owner can use a magazine over ten rounds in self defense. If that wasn't a good idea then police officers would carry handguns with magazines over ten rounds for protection.

Dude, come on! You don't understand why law enforcement and the military would need different weapons than a civilian??

The role of law enforcement is completely different from a civilian defending themselves. Law enforcement has to, for example, go into the base of operations for gangs and potentially kill dozens of criminals. In the military, we attack and are attacked by other military units.

As a civilian, when are you going to fire your weapon in self defense more than ten times during one incident? Please. If you do find yourself in that situation, you can simply drop the magazine and load another. In the military it is called "combat reload" (at least that's what the Navy called it when I was trained to do it in under two seconds).

Yes, I realize a mass shooter could do the same. But most mass shooters are not going to be able to do it as quickly as military member -- or veteran in my case -- and even if they only take a second or two to do it, that is a second or two of vulnerability in which the mass shooter can be attacked by the crowd.

If somebody has a semiautomatic weapon, I want it to have lower power -- so a pistol rather than a rifle -- and I want them to have to reload their magazine. If it is a rifle, I want it to have a lever action or bolt action, which produces another vulnerability of the criminal in a mass shooting.

Instead of turning millions of Californians into criminals why not just keep criminals in jail instead of letting them out early?

I agree with not letting people out early. We probably need to build more prisons. We also need to change laws so that possessing a small amount of any drug is not a felony. That kind of stuff is beyond the scope of a gun control debate, though.

[ysr_racer]

.
Well, I guess I'm a criminal now

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Well, it is illegal to have a car without a carburetor unless it is one of those "classic" cars with a special plate. But the CHP doesn't go door to door checking to see if your car meets emission standards and confiscating it if it does not, lol. Come on man, be reasonable. So many people on this site are stereotypical gun nuts. Do you guys listen to yourselves? lol.



I'm pretty sure it is legal for the government to say X is now illegal to possess without having to compensate people if they confiscate X illegal object. But I'm open to being educated on that.



Dude, come on! You don't understand why law enforcement and the military would need different weapons than a civilian??

The role of law enforcement is completely different from a civilian defending themselves. Law enforcement has to, for example, go into the base of operations for gangs and potentially kill dozens of criminals. In the military, we attack and are attacked by other military units.

As a civilian, when are you going to fire your weapon in self defense more than ten times during one incident? Please. If you do find yourself in that situation, you can simply drop the magazine and load another. In the military it is called "combat reload" (at least that's what the Navy called it when I was trained to do it in under two seconds).

Yes, I realize a mass shooter could do the same. But most mass shooters are not going to be able to do it as quickly as military member -- or veteran in my case -- and even if they only take a second or two to do it, that is a second or two of vulnerability in which the mass shooter can be attacked by the crowd.

If somebody has a semiautomatic weapon, I want it to have lower power -- so a pistol rather than a rifle -- and I want them to have to reload their magazine. If it is a rifle, I want it to have a lever action or bolt action, which produces another vulnerability of the criminal in a mass shooting.



I agree with not letting people out early. We probably need to build more prisons. We also need to change laws so that possessing a small amount of any drug is not a felony. That kind of stuff is beyond the scope of a gun control debate, though.

Rifles are used in less than 5% of gun murders. Pools kill more people every year than assault rifles. Worrying about assault rifles is like worrying about people falling from cliffs and dieing but ignoring car deaths.


Confiscating property without compensation has already made its way through the court system
‘California Raisins’ Saved from Government Confiscation: Why it Matters to Everyday Americans | NFIB

If you are worried about preventing death then you should start here instead of limiting civil rights.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

They can't buy all the parts. The receiver is still needed which contains the serial number and must be purchased through a legal means.

You can still buy the 80%

A criminal isn't going to put a serial number on it.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Rifles are used in less than 5% of gun murders.

But not 5% of all mass shootings.

Pools kill more people every year than assault rifles. Worrying about assault rifles is like worrying about people falling from cliffs and dieing but ignoring car deaths.

Well, no criminal has ever used a tactical nuclear weapon. I guess that means civilians should be able to own them.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

You can still buy the 80%

A criminal isn't going to put a serial number on it.

Criminal has to acquire it somehow.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Criminal has to acquire it somehow.

From other criminals and worst case smuggled in like drugs. The law will not stop criminals.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

But not 5% of all mass shootings.



Well, no criminal has ever used a tactical nuclear weapon. I guess that means civilians should be able to own them.

Handguns are used in more mass shootings than rifles.

You keep moving the goal posts. Not to mention arguing about things no one is talking about like nuclear weapons. Next are you going to tell me to move to Somalia because I don't like bad laws?

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by expatCA

From other criminals and worst case smuggled in like drugs. The law will not stop criminals.

I'm a hunter and competitive shooter, but the reality is, no law stops anybody from doing anything.

All laws do is punish someone after the fact.

I wish my fellow nra members would stop saying "The law will not stop criminals"

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Handguns are used in more mass shootings than rifles.

But pistols have a valid self defense purpose. A semiautomatic rifle does not. "Because it is fun" is not a reason for a machine designed to kill large numbers of people efficiently to be legal. People would think it is fun to fly an F-18 fully loaded with all sensors and weapon systems as deployed by the US Navy but that is also illegal, for obvious reasons. Well, obvious to people who are not gun nuts, anyway. Maybe not obvious to you.

You keep moving the goal posts.

Not at all. It's simple. Some weapons should be for the military and only for the military. I think a semiautomatic rifle -- not a semiautomatic pistol, but a semiautomatic rifle -- is one of those. A civilian doesn't need a weapon that is as powerful as a rifle and fires as rapidly as a pistol.

Not to mention arguing about things no one is talking about like nuclear weapons. Next are you going to tell me to move to Somalia because I don't like bad laws?

Somalia is your paradise. No government to speak of and everyone has a gun. That's what you want, right? What's the problem? Maybe your ideal situation is actually not ideal.

And, nuclear arms are arms. Keep and bear arms would technically include that. But it doesn't because there is a clear public safety risk. To most of us, it is obvious that there is a public safety risk with semiautomatic rifles that does not exist to nearly the same degree with semiautomatic pistols.