September 29, 2006, 09:10 PM
September 29, 2006, 09:10 PM
September 29, 2006, 09:25 PM
incidents like the 1967 protest at the Capitol where the Black Panthers
carried guns Wow, race had nothing to do with that:rolleyes: .
"Rewritten" and "simplified", sure. "Better", "same", or "worse"? Start writing letters now.
September 29, 2006, 09:28 PM
It has potential to be a good thing, but it also has the potential to make things worse.
September 29, 2006, 09:33 PM
rewritten;NO CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOWED TO OWN,BUY ,SELL,TRADE,TRANSPORT,USE,TOUCH OR LOOK AT ANY FIREARM:evil:
September 29, 2006, 10:31 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.
September 29, 2006, 10:55 PM
They can start with "Shall Issue..."
September 29, 2006, 11:01 PM
yeah, and the IRS has "simplified" Tax Law several times in the past years, but its more complicated now than ever...
September 29, 2006, 11:02 PM
Why does this make me think of the Simplified 1040-Super-EZ form?
You know, the one that has only one field to fill in: How much money did you make last year?
And it has only one instruction: Send it in.
But maybe I'm a bit cynical about our authoritarian police state legislature.
Did you know you can't smoke in a public park or on the beach here in San Diego? Park, BTW, includes Balboa Park, which is a pretty big part of the center city, and not really a "park" as you might think of it.
In the neighboring town, Del Mar, though, you can't legally smoke anywhere in public, including in your own, enclosed vehicle. I know someone who was pulled over and ticketed for having a cigarette in his enclosed SUV while driving through town -- this was his only violation.
California is not the same state I grew up in, that's for damn sure.
September 29, 2006, 11:06 PM
"Okay, let's take a look at these assault weapons laws. How can we simplify 'em?"
"How about, err, 'any centerfire rifle which has a flash hider, a bayonet lug...' -- well, wait."
"No, no, too similar - we need something like 'any centerfire rifle with a forward pistol grip...' ehh..."
"Y'know what, we're trying to simplify here, so let's simplify. 'All centerfire rifles' good with you guys?"
"Capital. There we go, then."
Color me cynical.
September 29, 2006, 11:35 PM
with statues written in response to incidents like the 1967 protest at the Capitol where the Black Panthers carried guns
Yup, and the law was signed by Ronald Reagan.
September 30, 2006, 02:36 AM
There is no way to simplify California gun laws without making a broad swath of things either legal or illegal. Without some significant changes in the legislature, gun owners will get nothing, but will hopefully be able to stop any major new bans.
I thought the part about of the article that said, "They likely also would have to go up against police organizations, who are "pretty happy" with state gun laws." The Attorney General's Firearms Division can't even get the gun laws straight. The cops sure as hell can't get it straight, but the funny thing is, that doesn't even matter, as the way the situation is here, L.E. will seize anything they want, and hold it for anything from a week to... basically forever, if they can find even the most pathetic pretense of a crime, and hold the firearm as evidence, and never try the case.
September 30, 2006, 02:55 AM
"It's a substantial body of law," Sterling said. "Staff will have to do
quite a bit of initial legwork."
I'll fix it:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
September 30, 2006, 09:19 AM
This sounds more like "Feel good" legislation! What with the almost unanymous vote that it received, you KNOW that it won't benefit gun owners!
Also, even if they "simplify" the laws, it will make it more difficult to defend yourself in court! It will come down to a, "You should have known exactly what you violated....the law was simplified for YOUR benefit!"
Add to that, a few years down the road, the "simplified" laws will be deemed as being "too vague"....so they'll spend even MORE time and our tax dollars on "amendments", and even re-writes of legislation, just to "clarify things"!
September 30, 2006, 03:29 PM
I think we need to work with the legislators to get them to define what the gun laws are supposed to do.
All the things in the Penal Code are supposed to deal with punishing 'bad' behavior, and discouraging 'bad' behavior by threat of punishment; of course, not everyone can be discouraged.
In general, I think gun laws are supposed to keep guns away from those 'we' have good reason to suspect will misuse them - children, mentally ill, violent criminals* - and then, to punish misuse, just as laws against robbery and murder punish behaviors.
'safe gun' lists do not do either of those - they interfere in product liability law, where if a firearm really is dangerous to its user/owner, there might be a civil liability of the manufacturer. If California really wants a safe gun list, let them buy their own experimental copies and create a banned lst of those which fail simple safety checks. The presence or absence of 'loaded chamber indicators' and 'magazine disconnects' are not safety issues.
Restricting features of firearms do not do either of those. The AW list is conceptually a mess; I'll just stop there...
I think we'd be better off with essentially non-negotiable sentence enhancements for the actual use of firearms in committing crimes (and not the idiotic things like trading a gun for drugs counting as using a gun in a crime!).
My basic principle: a law must be shown to actually make Californians safer, via a mechanism which is understood, and with repeatable measurements that demonstrate a change in behavior which reduces injury to the public. Or: "If you can't prove it helps, don't do it."
Now, if only we can get the Perata's and Koretz's of the state to accept some such governing principle.
(* yes, I do subscribe to the idea "if we can't trust them with guns, why are they out of jail?", but most people don't, and I don't see that changing.)