California Gun Laws are so evil, why?.......

[Leanwolf]

MTRAVINSKI - "Sorry,... but times have changed form the framers day. I support 2A and don't want our RKBA to be infringed upon, ..."

That statement is 100% contradictory. You've allowed yourself to be brainwashed by the left to believe that the Constitution is "old fashioned," a "mere relic" an "out-of-date bulwark against Good Government," that needs to be scrapped in order to "progress" to a modern Utopian society.

As I said in another thread, the gun grabbers and anti-self defense Constitution haters do not find any restrictions on our Right to keep and bear arms "unreasonable". To them, every tyrannical restriction made to date, is just a "reasonable, common sense" law.

There is an old saying, "Life is hard by the yard, but a cinch by the inch." That is the many-years strategy of the far left anti-guns activists and true believers. Can't ban 'em all at once, but "inch by inch by inch by inch..." the final goal of virtually complete disarmament of the U.S. worker peasants rabble can be achieved. Therefore, restriction after restriction after restriction have been passed so today, there are more than 22,000 laws, Federal State, and local, infringing our Right to keep and bear arms.

(You may find this hard to believe but by their very nature, criminals don't bother to obey the laws.)

If you were a member of the Calif. Rifle and Pistol Assoc., you would receive their monthly newsletter -- and sometimes, special Alert Bulletins -- informing you as to how the far left Democrats and some RINO legislators in Sacramento, seek incessantly to pass more and more restrictive, anti-guns laws against honest citizens. They never, ever, disengage.

I lived in Los Angeles, 36 years, and was involved in a number of the political fights to try and stop the destruction of our Rights. We won a big one in 1982, Prop. 15, which would have banned handguns and eventually, virtually all long guns, but then it just became an overwhelming surge by the far left controlled media, politicians, extremely wealthy individuals, organizations, etc., to pass more and more restrictive laws and it became almost impossible to stop them. Instead of banning them all at once, it was as I stated above, "inch by inch by incremental inch."

If you truly want to become informed, learn the anti-guns laws of Calif., and also join the Calif. Rifle & Pistol Assoc., and NRA, and learn what is going on in your State.

L.W.

Life member of Calif. Rifle & Pistol Assoc., NRA, and Calif. Wildlife Federation.

 

[ranger335v]

"So hand grenades and tanks are okay. How about nukes? ---- A common anti line. What about nukes then, huh..... They always want to go to the extreme to debate."

Yes. Group-think (non-thinking) liberals run Kaliformiastan and it shows in everything but the climate. The guns laws there have done as much good for producing a workers utopia as the anti-business laws help produce jobs, the lavish spending for silly public works has helped no one but laughing politicians, the tax a lot and spend a lot more has the whole state asking the rest of us to take them on as a welfare duty.

The intention of the 2nd was and remains clear, all able bodied men were considered militia. Those who would joined organized militias. There being no standing army, nor could there ever be one large enough to protect against every threat demanded that the people be prepaired to defend both themselves, their homes and their nation with the arms they had at hand and that was personal weapons (Not tanks or nukes people! Only looney libs would consider such a silly notion to be a rational argument.)

It was a fact that the national government (British) did confiscate personal arms when and where it could. Our founders considered personal arms - military arms, not bird guns or squirrel rifles - to provide for safety against threats from both external and internal evils so the ownership of "weapons", not hunting guns, was stated to be the right a free people, not a privilidge of the upper classes as the British viewed them.

Want to see what our guys thought for sure would be the future threats? Check the prescribed oath of office for those we elect to "serve" us, note that they are sworn to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was our DOMESTIC government they feared equal to external invaders if we allowed it to grow massivley overbearing and dictitorial, as we have done and to our shame, IMHO. Like in California, New Jersey, Ill, New York, etc.

Since no "common sense" anti-gun law has ever done anything it was promised to do, the reverse in fact, do libs ever recognise that? NO, they just want to put more and more on law abiding citizens while wishing to be compassionate toward those who are real threats to public safety. They KNOW they can't really do anything about crime with antigun laws but they want to do something, send some message to crooks, so badly they are willing to disarm the harmless and put us in the grasp of the goblins.

I am a free man. I may be killed by either the goblins or the BATF but I will go down fighting on my feet, not quivering and begging for mercy my knees.

 

[Mags]

So hand grenades and tanks are okay. How about nukes?

What a silly statement, the civilians (DoE) already own the nukes; the military (DoD) owns the delivery systems.

By the way I personally don't have one problem with a law abiding citizen owning a nuke. I think the goverment should have no more rights to any arms than the law abiding general population that they govern. The goverment forgets the Constitution is to protect the citizens from the goverment not the goverment from citizens or even citizens from citizens.

 

[kenno]

"Or should we all be allowed to have ANYTHING our troops get to have?"

You are obviously in love with the idea that you can infringe on the God given rights enumerated in the Founding Documents, only slaves are 'allowed' freedoms.

In this Nation Under God no man has a legal or moral right to treat another man as a subject and slave. Military Weapons in the hands of the citizenry is the wall that tyrants must pull down before they can enslave the public for nefarious means.
You should go back and re-read Saul Alinsky, look in the index under 'stupid'.

 

[Walkalong]

Weapons in the hands of the citizenry is the wall that tyrants must pull down before they can enslave the public

Absolutely. Weapons control has been about people control since the dawn of man.

 

[Buck Snort]

kenno wrote: "You should go back and re-read Saul Alinsky, look in the index under 'stupid'."

Every thinking American who wants to know the strategies and tactics of the political left should read Saul Alinsky.

 

[ShadyScott999]

I won't even start. I don't think it would be THR. I am temporarily giving you the Troll pass. Only time will tell...

I may be on you like a spider monkey later.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Compared to most other states, the state government of California treats its citizens as incompetent children when it comes to firearms.

Art, I think you give California way too much credit. Compared to most other states, the state government of California treats its citizens as incompetent children when it comes to EVERYTHING!

 

[harmonic]

Or should we all be allowed to have ANYTHING our troops get to have?

Dude, with that attitude, California will be a gun free state in no time. You're a Democrat's delight.

I lived in Kalifornistan till '05 and it's obvious that the socialist elite in Sacramento are going to take all of your guns. It's just a matter of time. And they don't do it all at once. They do it incrementally.

They start by outlawing an evil black rifle that's semiauto, has pistol grip and flash suppressor, w/detachable mag.

Then they'll take away the 50 BMG.

Then they'll outlaw mags over 10 rounds.

Then they'll impose arbitrary drop safety tests for handguns which will eliminate 90% of past and present firearms.

Then they'll require microstamping which is so expensive manufacturers won't do it.

Then they'll place restrictions on how you can purchase ammo and from where.

And people like you won't even know they're coming after your pump shotgun till it's too late.

I tried to warn people back when kal passed the above idiot laws, but nobody cared cause it didn't impact their own guns.


.

 

[Yoda]

Let's look at the minimum rather than the maximum...

By turning the discussion to nukes and tanks, you are trying explore what may be the extreme MAXIMUM limits of personal protection and individual freedoms. how about this: Let's instead try to define the MINIMUM that should be "permitted."

AT A MINIMUM, do you not think your state (it was once my state) should allow "normal" capacity magazines? Adjust your way of thinking: 10-round capacity magazines are not "normal." They are "reduced." What California calls "high capacity magazines" are accepted as "normal" throughout virtually all of the other free states (which generally excludes the North East).

AT A MINIMUM, do you agree that honest citizens should be able to carry firearms, concealed or openly, for personal protection? Politicans that have professional bodyguards for their personal protection, yet want to deny common citizens any ability to protect themselves, are really afraid of ALL the people. They don't see any difference between an honest, hard-working man and a street thug. To them, everyone who isn't a member of their self-defined circle of elites is a threat.

AT A MINIMUM, why are the MOST COMMON types of rifles considered "assault guns" and banned, when these are the most practical firearms for many otherwise-legal activities? Except for the fact that California politicans see "evil-looking" guns as a threat, what is it about a .223 that is launched from an AR-15 platform that makes it more dangerous than when it is fired from a bolt action? Except for the fact that FREE MEN have adopted the AR-15 as a badge of their freedom, what is it about a pistol grip that is inheriently dangerous? Frankly, what California politicans see as dangerous are free men carrying the exact category of arms that our Founding Fathers meant for them to carry, especially when those free men profess a determination to defend their freedoms from the politicans, should it ever become necesssary.

AT A MINIMUM, what is it about gun registration that makes anyone safer? The bad guys do not register their guns. Only honest people bother to do this. What is gained by registering the guns of honest folks? The only thing that gun registration accomplishes is the simplification of gun confiscation, and the only guns that will be confiscated via gun registration are those guns owned by honest people.

AT A MINIMUM, what is the real point of a mandatory waiting period? The people who want to control your life tell you it is a "cooling off period" to be sure no one buys a gun and uses it impulsively to shoot someone in the heat of passion. What does that tell you about how the politicans see you? Yes, there have been RARE cases where people have bought guns and then instantly used them to do some terrible things, but there are also many more cases where people needed a gun in a hurry but couldn't get one in time to protect themselves against an abusive ex-spouse or a rioting mob. One hidden agenda of the mandatory waiting period is to simply discourage gun ownership.

AT A MINIMUM, what is the real purpose of bans on lead bullets throughout the range of the California Condor? There was absolutely no scientific evidence that the Condors were eating game killed with lead ammo and getting sick from it. The real agenda was to subtly discourage hunting,and as the Condors recover and extend their range, the restrictions can be extended to include all of California, and even extended into neighboring states.

AT A MINIMUM, what is California accomplishing by mandating that every new gun sold in the state pass a "safety test?" Sure, it sounds "common-sensical," but once a gun passes a test in one year, what is the REAL point of forcing the manufactuerer to pay to submit the exact same gun to the exact same tests every subsequent year? What is the REAL point of requring EVERY variation of the gun to be similarily tested? If a gun is proven to be "safe" when it has a black plastic grip or a three-inch barrel, why force the manufacturer to resubmit the gun for the exact same tests before it is sold with a green plastic grip or a two-inch barrel?

I could go on. Hopefully, you should now be asking yourself why people want to divert discussion of basic rights away from the basics.

Face it: The people who run your state are not afraid that you will want the MAXIMUM, they don't want you to have the MINIMUM.

- - - Yoda

===========================

 

[WoofersInc]

Sorry, not trying to be a smart-ass, but times have changed form the framers day. I support 2A and don't want our RKBA to be infringed upon, but I can also see the other side of the argument

.

Let's just take a look at that point in your arguement. Yes times have changed since the Constitution was written.

There were no laptops, or cell phones, or internet, or any of that type of stuff back then either. They are however protected by the First Amendment. And, god forbid you talk about touching any of those things and the left and the liberals will lose their minds.

So why does this then, not also apply to the Second Amendment?

You can't use the arguement of times are different for one amendment and ignore that fact on another.

My suggestion for the OP is to stop drinking the kool-aid being handed out by the far left and realize normal everyday citizens are not a threat no matter what weapon the happen to have.


Also think about it for a second. I live in Nevada. I have a lot of things that would make me an instant felon in California. Why does a state line dictate if I am a criminal or a honest law abiding citizen. California has a long way to come. It is one of the big reasons that I left.

 

[benEzra]

Is it not being able to have an assault rifle or a .50 BMG, or a big-ass clip?

"Assault weapon" is prohibitionist scare-speak for the most popular non-automatic civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "military grade" weapons. Nothing, zilch, nada.

M16's, actual AK-47's, and other automatic weapons are as tightly controlled under Federal law as howitzers, bombs, and shoulder fired missiles, and have been since 1934. California's laws have nothing to do with that, and everything to do with banning ordinary civilian rifles that look "too modern" to some idiot in Sacramento.

I still get my shotguns, rifles, all sorts of handguns and accessories, ball & cap with no FFL, etc...

You can't own the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, unless you make silly alterations to the stock shape or change them to nondetachable magazines. You can't even own a detachable-magazine firearm with the same capacity as a Henry rifle from freaking 1860.

You can own a Ruger mini-14, but if you put a stock with a protruding handgrip on it, you commit a felony. A felony.

Even guns that are legal in freaking Massachusetts are banned in your state.

Is there not a line to be drawn between guns for civilians and military-grade weapons? Or should we all be allowed to have ANYTHING our troops get to have?

Seems to me a line does have to be drawn somewhere, it's just a question of where.

That line has long been drawn at automatic weapons and firearms over .50 caliber by the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968; weapons beyond those limits require a more extensive vetting process and a BATFE Form 4.

California doesn't ban "military grade" weapons. It bans the most popular non-automatic CIVILIAN rifles with ergonomic handgrips, and guns with post-1860's capacities. And it banned .50 caliber target rifles at the behest of the VPC, a group that wants to move the caliber limit down into the fast .30's, even though I don't believe a .50 BMG rifle has ever been used in a single U.S. homicide.

California's ban has nothing whatsoever to do with fighting criminal violence, and everything to do with harassing lawful and responsible ownership. Nationwide, all rifles combined (AR's, AK's, deer rifles, .22's, all of them) account for fewer murders than shoes and bare hands, and I believe California's rifle percentage is now higher than the rest of the nation. Your laws are aimed squarely at screwing the law-abiding gun owner, and that's it.

Oh, and try to get a CHL in California without being either a celebrity, super-wealthy, or making large cash "donations" to your local elected officials.

I'm glad you're content with what little gun choice you have (apparently you lean toward guns with straight wooden stocks and low capacities), but I have to say that I would not move to California even if you offered me triple my current salary. Not only would I have to put up with all the other nanny-state crap, but approximately half our family's gun collection would be illegal in your state. No thanks.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I am having a hard time not branding the OP as a troll. Maybe it is someone from the Brady Campaign who needs some real work to do at the office besides making coffee runs.

Anyway, there are plenty of reasons to "hate" CA's gun laws... and it has little to do with wanting to own "tanks" or "nukes" as you so eloquently suggested. Heck, I can't even carry my little 7-shot pea-shooter .32 acp in CA unless I make a huge campaign contribution to the local sheriff.

 

[Librarian]

BTW: Nobody has explained to me exactly which laws it is, in California, that are so much worse than anywhere else.

Start here and read it all.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Dude, with that attitude, California will be a gun free state in no time.

California will never be a gun free state... the criminals will always have plenty of guns.

 

[Noveldoc]

Exactly. Note what a great job all these laws are doing keeping guns out of the hands of the street gangstahs.

Tom

 

[natman]

I'm constantly hearing about California gun laws and the evil liberals in "Californistan" trying to take away my guns and freedom and everything else. What exactly is so bad about California gun law? Precisely which laws are the ones everyone hates so much?

Is it not being able to have an assault rifle or a .50 BMG, or a big-ass clip? I'd love to have a BMG. I'd love to have hand grenades too, and a tank, but it ain't gonna happen. I still get my shotguns, rifles, all sorts of handguns and accessories, ball & cap with no FFL, etc... Is there not a line to be drawn between guns for civilians and military-grade weapons? Or should we all be allowed to have ANYTHING our troops get to have?

Seems to me a line does have to be drawn somewhere, it's just a question of where.

The traditional line for extra supervision and tracking (NFA) is full auto weapons. California draws that line considerable tighter, with an outright BAN on semiauto guns that look like military weapons and a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds.

On top of that the intent of the California legislature is to make gun ownership as difficult as possible. Their idea of an instant check is a 10 day wait. Only a California bureaucrat could consider 10 days "instant". Private party sales must be done through an FFL. Shipments into the state from out of state dealers must go through extra paperwork. Handguns must be "safety checked" in order to be sold in the state and can become "unsafe" if the manufacturer stops paying the state to keep the model on the list. Soon you won't be able to mail-order ammunition.

 

[2009_gunner]

Thanks to Jon Snow for saying it so well, and saving me several minutes of furious typing. California's politicians are corrupt in the soul.

 

[aka108]

California is cursed by having a hugh population of intellectual liberals concentrated along the coast line from San Diego to Santa Barbara and up in San Francisco Bay area. Enough population to run the larger geographic and less populated areas of the state. These people feel everyone else is not competent enough to live their lives without supervision and regulation by various government entities. I feel sorry for those CA residents in the conservative areas whose lives are dominated by large clusters of liberals in small geographic areas who know it all.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm not sure our original poster is going to respond again or if he's just decided we're all nuts and he's running for the hills.

However, if we could PLEASE avoid using the tired old liberal-vs.-conservative and Dem.-vs.-Repub. language we'd probably get a lot farther with folks.

Calling all gun-grabbers "liberals" greatly offends (and drives away) those folks who think of themselves as liberal-minded but who do value the inherant rights enumerated in the BOR. Just because they may be just awakening to the view of an immutable right to arms doesn't mean that they won't someday come to be stanch allies. Kicking them in the teeth with insulting and dissmissive language does nothing to bring them into the fold.

Second, the Repub.-vs.-Dem. thing is a ridiculous oversimplification of the political landscape -- especially in CA. Republicans don't all support gun rights and Democrats don't all oppose them.

Try a little harder to reach out. No one ever convinced anyone of the truth of their convictions by insulting them.

 

[danez71]

Thank you Sam. Well said.

I guess I'm a conservative liberal. Contridiction? Nawww. I'm conservative and I want my LIBERTIES and freedom. I dont want to have a government super nanny!

These "lib-****" type comments are emotional, lame, and only show the lack of ability to make a case based on logic.

Its is exactly the tactics CA uses to restrict gun. Ironic isnt it?

Post #15 hit the nail on the head.

(born, raised and lived in CA for almost 40 yrs)

 

[Zack]

I'd love to have a BMG. I'd love to have hand grenades too, and a tank, but it ain't gonna happen.

And why not? Those things are not prohibited to be owned by an American citizen.

your saying we can own grenades? I seen smoke grenades $100 each but real frag nades? thats not legal..... ???? I never seen one and I bet it would cost 5,000 per nade?

 

[Art Eatman]

All of us who have posted here have pretty much spoken more to the politics of California than to specific laws. However, we've certainly given the OP much to consider. Let's stop for now and if he's not trolling, he can ask for specifics in another thread.

It would probably help if those who are knoweldgeable as to California's gun control laws would point-by-point show how they do not achieve the ostensible goals, but merely inhibit the law-abiding citizen.