Meanwhile in California...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,386
... some legislators have now attached draconian gun-restricting provisions to completely unrelated proposed laws to sneak them through.

Here's an excerpt from the email I got from NRA/ILA, with emphasis added:

Below is a list of the amended bills:

Assembly Bill 156 (McCarty & de Leon) - AB 156, introduced as legislation to combat global warming, now requires the Attorney General to maintain information about ammunition transactions and vendor licenses.

Assembly Bill 857 (Cooper & de Leon) – AB 857, introduced as legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, now serves as a restriction on curios, relics, and home-built firearms.

Assembly Bill 1135 (Levine & Ting) – AB 1135’s introduced as legislation to form the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency, now serves as a reclassification of certain semi-automatic weapons to assault weapons. With this change any magazine capable of being removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm would now be classified as an assault weapon. This includes firearms that require a “tool” to remove the magazine such as rifles equipped with a “bullet button”.

Assembly Bill 1511 (Santiago) – AB 1511’s introduced as energy saving bill, now severely limits the ability to loan a firearm between two law abiding citizens, for example a hunting trip or home protection.
 
"Any magazine capable of being removed without disassembly".....Isn't removing a magazine part of disassembly? Would that then make every semi-automatic pistol an assault weapon?
 
Mark Twain once said that people are better off not knowing how laws and sausages are made. This is par for the course. Give a law a name and throw anything you want into it. When people complain, the standard reply is "but it's just a law about...". I made comment recently about what actually drives our legal system and the legal beagles here got their knickers in a twist.

The fact is that it is not criminal, though it should be. Extremely unethical, but that is to be expected of the vast majority of politicians and lawmakers. Don't talk about ethics too loudly, it makes lawmakers uncomfortable.

Have these passed and become law, or are they still proposals that may be defeated?
 
"Any magazine capable of being removed without disassembly".....Isn't removing a magazine part of disassembly? Would that then make every semi-automatic pistol an assault weapon?

It applies to centerfire semi auto rifles.

The funny thing about is that if it goes thru, all of the law abiding people that have bullet buttons can now take them off since they'll have to be registered as assault weapons anyways.
 
It is at the point now where it is the DUTY of those in CA to ignore these laws.....
 
Same thing happens the other way, such as anti-abortion legislation being attached to highway funding for example. Or anti-Obamacare, etc. I agree it shouldn't happen but it does.
 
Why do so many CA citizens allow the"Soylent Green" brand of environmentalists/anti-Sec. Amendment types to hold their state hostage in so many ways?

The label "progressive" must have them fooled into switching off their thinking caps.
 
BigBore 44:
It does sound like it would apply to semi-automatic pistols, but I haven't seen the actual text. There was something similar awhile back that only would have applied to centerfire rifles.

1911 guy:
These are current proposals.

danez71:
Are you certain that under this proposal people will only have to "register" their newly-designated "assault weapons", or will it become forbidden to own such?

Ignition Override:
It's very simple, the population of Los Angeles and San Francisco is generally very left-wing and those cities have so much population they are able to steamroll the rest of us.
 
Am I missing something? How do guns even remotely fall into bills introduced as environmental/energy bills? That's political false advertising... I know it's nothing new, but maybe pro-gun politicians should submit bills to keep children safe or give all Americans a dollar day and within those bills include pro-gun dialogue.

"Bill #12345: All Americans will receive $1 on December 25 each year. Yada, yada, yada... And the 1986 machine gun registry will be reopened... Yada, yada, yada... And SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, machine guns, and suppressors will no longer be included as NFA items.... Yada, yada, yada..."

Of course the media would make a huge deal out of that, but looks the other way when anti gun politicians are being deceitful.
 
Am I missing something? How do guns even remotely fall into bills introduced as environmental/energy bills? That's political false advertising... I know it's nothing new, but maybe pro-gun politicians should submit bills to keep children safe or give all Americans a dollar day and within those bills include pro-gun dialogue.

"Bill #12345: All Americans will receive $1 on December 25 each year. Yada, yada, yada... And the 1986 machine gun registry will be reopened... Yada, yada, yada... And SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, machine guns, and suppressors will no longer be included as NFA items.... Yada, yada, yada..."

Of course the media would make a huge deal out of that, but looks the other way when anti gun politicians are being deceitful.
Guess what, it's even legal to completely gut a bill and insert totally different legislation in it.
 
Here's what I just wrote my Assembly representative

Here's what I just wrote my Assembly representative. Given that after you write the message you have to check a box whether you "support" or "oppose" the canned topic of your message, I don't know whether it's reasonable to expect it will actually be read, but at least I tried:

Despite already having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, California still experienced the recent San Bernardino terror attack. Criminals by definition do not obey laws, disarming the law-abiding citizens who are the potential victims only makes us less safe.

Now some of your Assembly colleagues have attached extreme gun-restriction provisions to other proposed laws which are completely unrelated, in an attempt to enact by stealth rules the citizens of California do not want. I refer to the following:
Assembly Bill 156 (McCarty & de Leon) - AB 156, introduced as legislation to combat global warming, now requires the Attorney General to maintain information about ammunition transactions and vendor licenses.

Assembly Bill 857 (Cooper & de Leon) – AB 857, introduced as legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, now serves as a restriction on curios, relics, and home-built firearms.

Assembly Bill 1135 (Levine & Ting) – AB 1135’s introduced as legislation to form the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency, now serves as a reclassification of certain semi-automatic weapons to assault weapons. With this change any magazine capable of being removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm would now be classified as an assault weapon. This includes firearms that require a “tool” to remove the magazine such as rifles equipped with a “bullet button”.

Assembly Bill 1511 (Santiago) – AB 1511’s introduced as energy saving bill, now severely limits the ability to loan a firearm between two law abiding citizens, for example a hunting trip or home protection.

These gun restrictions were already attempted to be passed in the open and failed, so the proponents are now resorting to highly dishonest trickery to pass them. If the Assembly wants to try to enact "gun control", at least do it in the open.

PLEASE OPPOSE THESE PROVISIONS BEING ADDED TO THESE BILLS, AND VOTE NO ON THE BILLS IF THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT REMOVED.

Thank you very much.
 
44 years ago I did... ;)
You were smart to do it when you were young and energetic.

If this garbage (or its clones which are in a referendum on the November ballot) passes I will get a lot more serious about moving, so far it's mostly fantasy looking at real estate listings in other places etc. The other day I had a nervous-making experience on the street and after I was thankfully safely back in my house I was very upset about not being able to carry here... after further thought calmed myself down with the realization that my actions would have been exactly the same had I been armed, but then got upset all over again when I realized "yeah, but what if that hadn't worked?" :uhoh:
 
You were smart to do it when you were young and energetic.

If this garbage (or its clones which are in a referendum on the November ballot) passes I will get a lot more serious about moving, so far it's mostly fantasy looking at real estate listings in other places etc. The other day I had a nervous-making experience on the street and after I was thankfully safely back in my house I was very upset about not being able to carry here... after further thought calmed myself down with the realization that my actions would have been exactly the same had I been armed, but then got upset all over again when I realized "yeah, but what if that hadn't worked?" :uhoh:
My dad moved out of California to Arizona about 8 years ago and never looked back. He hasn't been happier. Great firearm laws in AZ!
 
My dad moved out of California to Arizona about 8 years ago and never looked back. He hasn't been happier. Great firearm laws in AZ!
Yes, Arizona is high on my list. My favorite cousins live there half the year and it's close enough to drive back to CA if needed in connection with various responsibilities I have here.
 
At the risk of another moderator warning, I'll add another observation. Sometimes when a lot of people migrate from one state to another, for tax or economic reasons, they can take their politics with them, and change the political climate of the state they are running to. This has happened in some traditionally pro-gun states, in parts of Colorado, Virginia, and Florida, to name a few. You can guess as to where these new, anti-2A residents left.
 
Old lady, I'm as sure as I reasonably can be.

Even in CA you can own an 'assault weapon' but you have to register it as such with extra paperwork and of course an extra fee.

Most people didn't want to do that on the rifles they had that fit the definition so they installed the bullet button to avoid it.


Some assemblyman(?) retired and he had 4 or 5 things going thru. Once he left, the vultures swooped in a gutted his entire bills and turned them into these, thus by passing work they would have had to do to get them to this point.

Gov Brown vetoed some very similar things in the past but that's no guarantee this time.




I did move out of CA to AZ for about 9 yrs and just moved back about 3 yrs ago. Wifes family reasons.
 
You were smart to do it when you were young and energetic.

Oh I wasn't all that "smart", I enlisted in the Navy ... :)
But the anti gun attitude had started to show up even in the, then, rural area that I grew up due to people from the City moving up. No more roving the fields in search of quail or jack rabbits. Even got snarked at by the hippies on the place behind us when I was plinking on our place. :mad:
 
THE PEOPLE are electing these reps to office. It's been said long ago you get the Congress you deserve.

The pendulum will swing the other way but the bad part is that it always goes just as far.
 
THE PEOPLE are electing these reps to office. It's been said long ago you get the Congress you deserve.

The pendulum will swing the other way but the bad part is that it always goes just as far.

While that sounds clever, I didn't vote for them and I don't deserve them.

And it seems to condone that the Rights of the minority are free to be trampled by a majority.

Thats Un-American.


How many people realize, that in CA, the 2 with the highest primary vote get to the general election?

What that means is that both people can be from 1 party.
 
Last edited:
California needs to suffer a huge setback in gun control legislation vis-à-vis a 14th Amendment and 2nd Amendment lawsuit.

From Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

From John Bingham (the guy who wrote the 14th Amendment) in 1871 reiterating the meaning of the 14th Amendment (three years after it was ratified):

"[T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows [Bingham reads the first eight amendments word for word.] These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment."

(Note: "Privileges and immunities" are synonymous with "rights", as they are understood and discussed in the 19th century political arena.)


So, the 14th Amendment says that the States CANNOT "abridge" the RKBA of its citizens.
 
Wow, the Californian's are really screwed.

I can attest to the changing dynamics in Colorado, lots of Californians moving here and most of them reside in Denver, the power center of the state and a left wing region.

Denver can pretty much override the will of the rest of the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top