Quote of the day—Steve H.


This is the URL where many of my dreams go to die.

Steve H.
February 7, 2012
[The URL is to the list of the gun California allows you to own.

What if the URL were to the list of religious or political philosophy books the government allowed you to own and/or read? How long would that survive constitutional challenges?

Via the gun discussion email list at work.—Joe]

4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Steve H.

  1. What you’re saying then is that the list constitutes self-indictment on the part of the state government.

    So when they win, they lose. But they were losers to begin with, so when they lose by winning it means that everyone loses with them, rather than them having to lose all by themselves.

  2. A couple of quibbles. The link refers to the list of CA approved safety devices (safes, locks, lockable cases etc). Proof of purchase within 30 days or a safe affidavit is required upon purchase of any firearm in CA. The 1st Amendment version would be that purchase of a Bible (or any other religious text) would require an affidavit to be signed (under penalty of perjury, mind you) asserting that the purchaser owned a CA approved bookcase.

    The list of CA approved handguns isn’t a list of what one can own, but what a dealer can sell/transfer in CA. Assuming that the handgun doesn’t trigger the CA assault weapons law, one can still purchase/transfer handguns not on the list under several exemptions, mainly via person-to-person sale/transfer or the single-shot exemption (firearm is converted to a single-shot configuration with size and barrel length requirements under the law, sold/transferred, then the owner is free to convert the firearm back to it’s original configuration).

    So not only is the legislature in my beloved Clownifornia evil, for imposing such blatantly un-Constitutional laws on CA residents, they’re jaw-droppingly incompetent, in that the law is hopelessly ineffective in banning the handguns that they wished to restrict.

  3. IllT; The laws are not designed to solve any problem other than the “problem” of liberty. They’re designed to get you to fall in line, to get you accustomed to doing what you’re told, even if you gripe about it now and then, and they’re designed to give a few bureaucrats something to do to make them feel important whereas otherwise they’d be operating a shovel or a deep fryer (which, when you think about it, would be a much more respectable and honorable job).

    Quite to the contrary; such laws threaten peace and stability and they know it, but havoc and chaos are favored by the power hungry. “Why, look at all that chaos” they’ll tell us. “That demands more laws, more funding, more resources, and more tools to deal with it.” Lather, rinse, repeat. And even some among the pro gun demographic will be quicker to blame the political prisoner than to blame those who put him there. “He’s a fool– he shouldn’t have been doing such and such…”

    We say we are winning, and in some small part that is true because of the trend in public opinion, but we have a very, very long way to go.

  4. I didn’t think there were any face-to-face transfers allowed in California anymore, not hand nor long gun, only intra-family inheritances.
    And who wants a single-shot Medusa or Mateba, anyway?
    The California DOJ list of PAP (Peon-Approved Pistols) is as anti-liberty as a list of books banned BY Boston (not merely by the Catholic Church IN Boston).

    And as for it being a long road back to liberty, we have to remember that after equal rights for blacks and whites to ride in rail cars together in New Orleans blew up in the faces of the blacks and of the railroads who didn’t want to have to run two railcars everywhere (Plessey v Ferguson), it took almost 60 years of modest yet continual gains (imagine the World Series won soley through base hits) to come to Brown v Board of Education.

    To continue with the analogy, so far we’ve gotten the courts to rule that a) a program has to be offered, and b) it has to be equal. The next step is if a program isn’t offered, it has to be integrated.

    Eventually the Second Amendment will get the respect the First Amendment had among Leftists during the Reagan and both Bush Administrations. And the First Amendment will retain that respect even during Democrat Administrations.

Comments are closed.