Tuesday, February 12, 2013

California Gun Control Leads the Nation

Mother Jones

California would ban the sale of all semiautomatic rifles that accept removable magazines, slap a hefty tax on ammo, and require every gun owner to take a yearly safety course under a new package of firearms laws that would give the Golden State the nation's strongest gun controls.

These and many other proposed firearms laws were announced late last week by leading state Democrats and the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Many of the laws are expected to pass, in part because the Democratic Party in California now controls the governor's mansion and a supermajority in the Legislature.

"As it is with many issues, California is out front on firearms regulations," said Mark Hedlund, a spokesman for California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. "We don't represent the NRA. We don't think that the NRA represents the majority of Californians, by a long shot."
California's newly proposed gun laws would:
  • Ban the possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
  • Prevent the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer of any firearms that can accept detachable magazines
  • Close the "bullet button" loophole by banning tools that allow the quick changing of gun magazines
  • Regulate ammunition sales like the state regulates gun sales. Ammunition dealers would need to be licensed and anyone buying from them would need to obtain a permit and complete a background check.
  • Create a 5 cent tax on each bullet purchased, for the purpose of funding crime prevention
  • Prevent felons and other adults barred from gun ownership from living in a house that contains any guns
  • Prohibit the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally
  • Take steps to phase out legal possession of assault weapons that were purchased before California outlawed their sale
  • Require all firearms owners to take an hours-long gun safety course every year, similar to what the state now requires for obtaining a concealed-weapon permit
  • Require gun owners to purchase insurance to cover damage they may inflict
  • Require CalPERS and CalSTRS, two of the nation's largest pension funds, to divest from companies that make, sell, or market firearms or ammunition

14 comments:

  1. Um, what about all the talk about how gun control isn't about banning guns? I see gun bans in that list of sins from the California legislature. That's in addition to many other items of proposed foolishness. Here's the key point, though. Your side's already won California. Doing more damage there is just digging the hole deeper. The United States isn't following along.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These rules are great. Hopefully the gunsuck gunloon sexual deviates will all get a bad feeling, and leave CA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that's a good thing Nick because all of your neighbors who happen to own guns personally mess you up every day, right?

      Delete
    2. Hello Nick

      In appreciation for those immature comments; I'm going to donate $25.00 on your behalf to the NRA.

      Delete
  3. Now Nick, I usually don't respond to stuff like what you posted, but I'm so offended by what you said I just can't not say something. I am currently on a 3 month work assignment in CA. I hate it here. I'm 3 blocks from an area where cops refuse to travel in numbers less than 6. I didn't bring my gun here because I knew I don't have a CA carry permit. I had my car broken into less than 2 weeks after I moved here. There are murders by gun, knife and other tools happening right down the block. But hey, thanks to the stupidity of people like you, and Mikeb, I have to resort to a knife, to be able to defend myself and my wife against gangsters with guns. Thanks for that.... Oh, and as for your assertion that gun owners are sexual deviants. I'm a gun owner, not a sexual deviant. So that debunks your statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you exaggerating a little bit? What the hell part of CA are you in?

      Delete
    2. Oceanside Ca, cops call the area 2 blocks down "purgatory" and won't go there without 3 cruisers. Not comforting. Got my car broken into, thank god I don't have a spare house key in my car anymore like I used to.

      Delete
  4. Shame on California's legislature for proposing laws that persecute every citizen who owns firearms. For example, "Create a 5 cent tax on each bullet purchased, for the purpose of funding crime prevention"

    Why should good citizens who own firearms for hunting or personal protection -- who must purchase ammunition for said activities -- fund crime prevention? Everyone benefits from crime prevention so everyone should pay for it.

    Regardless of what MikeB claims about his position, the reality is that gun control advocates want and are trying to push for total citizen disarmament. Since they cannot outright prohibit and confiscate all guns, they are trying to make firearm ownership so difficult and painful that no one will bother.

    Can you imagine if we passed similar laws for something like owning garden tools, speaking your mind, or voting? Want to partake of any of those: you need safety training every year, liability insurance, and to pay a tax for every garden tool you purchase, or every time you speak in public, or every time you vote. Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Total civilian disarmament," that's the bogeyman in the closet.

      Delete
    2. I keep guns in my closet, and that keeps out bogeymen. But the true goal of gun control freaks is total civilian disarmament. We aren't fooled.

      Delete
  5. Mike, do you think this undermines the national conversation on “assault weapons”?

    Prevent the future sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or transfer of any firearms that can accept detachable magazines

    This is a zero feature test for semi-automatic rifles. Right now it is one “military feature” that gets a gun banned. The national conversation from your side is that these features make all the difference between a gun that should not belong in civilian hands, and ones that they respect the right to own. California is now saying that these features don’t matter- a “loophole” in fact, that allows identically functioning guns to still be sold. Incidentally, we’ve been saying this all along, so it is quite frustrating that when the time comes to ban more guns they say, “You know, you’re right. Having a pistol grip on a rifle really doesn’t change anything.” Ugh!

    Speaking about our predictions coming true:

    Take steps to phase out legal possession of assault weapons that were purchased before California outlawed their sale

    Jade loves to say that no one has ever confiscated registered guns. Now what? Are you going to oppose this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Phase out legal possession" is the same as door-to-door confiscations?

      Delete
    2. The end effect is the same, so the answer is yes in the long term.

      Delete
    3. Legal possession that will no longer be legal- i.e. taking away guns. I don’t know what they mean by “phase out”. Maybe if your last name starts with A-M you become a felon on Tuesday, and if it starts with N-Z you become a felon on Wednesday? The point of this legislation is to outlaw the previously grandfathered possession of guns that were owned before they were banned. When they were banned they said you get to keep what you already own, but you have to register it or be arrested if you are caught in possession. Now they are saying you can’t keep it anymore- AND we know who you are and what you own. This is exactly what gun owners were supposedly “paranoid” about happening. So what do you say to them now? Do you support this? I am looking for a straight answer here.

      What about the part where guns without “military-features” are also banned. The national conversation is that these guns are ok to own. What do you say to that?

      Delete