California is suffering terrible attacks by the anti-gun politicians. One of the battles is that Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is running for governor in 2018 and has managed to put an initiative on the ballot for this fall which:
- Prohibits Possession of Large-Capacity Military-Style Magazines: The Safety for All initiative outlaws possession of large-capacity magazines of 11 rounds or more and provides for their legal disposal. If passed, California would join New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and The District of Columbia in banning possession of these military-style clips.
- Treats Ammunition Sales Like Gun Sales: The initiative requires licensing of ammunition vendors and point-of-sale background checks for ammunition purchases. Under the initiative, if a person is convicted of a felony, a violent misdemeanor, has a restraining order or has been declared dangerously mentally ill, they will no longer be able to buy ammunition in California. California would be the first state to require background checks at point of sale.
- Ensures People Prohibited from Owning Guns Do Not Possess Them: The initiative defines a clear firearms relinquishment process for those convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor.
- Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns: The initiative requires firearm owners to notify law enforcement if their firearm has been lost or stolen. With the Safety for All initiative, California would join 11 other states and the City of Sacramento requiring lost and/or stolen firearm reporting.
- Shares Data with Federal System on Prohibited People: The initiative mandates that California share data with the FBI/NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).
Bad stuff.
How do they imagine this cannot be infringing up on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms? Short answer, they don’t. They intend it to infringe up on the rights of gun owners. That is the entire point.
In response the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), which is the official state association of the NRA, put up a website asking for money and released this ad:
It’s a very emotional ad, but that is what it takes to reach a lot of people.
friends:
were i residing in california, i would take a very simple approach.
i would violate the law. let the bastards try and enforce it.
the battle will begin on the front porch. simple as that. they’ve pushed their way to it, time to push back.
john jay
Nope. It would be in the grocery store parking lot with your car boxed in so you couldn’t even open the doors. Ten or more officers would have rifles pointed at you from all directions. As soon as you were secured they would execute the search warrant on your property and trash everything as they stole everything gun related and shot or stomped all your pets to death.
Don’t forget that you’ll never have a chance in court. Assuming you’re not ‘shot while resisting arrest’, you will be pilloried and slandered in the media as a potential terrorist, gun nut, etc.
Although I’m not sold they’re smart enough to use the ‘grab the guy outside the house’ tactic, Joe, based on prior SWAT team incidents. It never seems to occur to them.
True, but firebombing your house and killing everyone inside by SWAT will satisfy the fascists just as well. And we know from precedent that such actions will go unpunished.
Maybe. Then again, maybe no more free “Wacos”.
And rest assured they’d be very selective about its enforcement. Nobody wants to be the test case or example. But at some point these “lawmakers” need to be tried for conspiracy to defraud the public, deny civil rights, and being criminally stupid.
Let it pass into law, help it pass into law, then push for vigorous, ruthless and extremely public enforcement?
If, as you say, this is the preferred path to freedom, then let’s be consistent about it. We should stop opposing these anti rights laws, start supporting them and pushing for maximum enforcement as the means of bringing the injustice of it all to light.
No. It’s almost always better to prevent a repressive law from being passed than to encourage it’s passage. Once a law is in place it is then debatable as to the best way to rid ourselves of the law.
Not unless it (for example the law on reporting thefts to release one from liability) is immediately, and I mean within the same day, applied to automobiles and gasoline.
If someone is injured by a stolen car, let the person responsible for the car being there (i.e. the purchaser who clearly has the wherewithall to buy the dangerous instrumentality in the first place) be responsible for damage it does.
Hey, that would get people into public transportation. Show a legitimate need before getting a plate to drive your car on the street — and commuting and shopping don’t count.
Why, yes, I have been watching the news lately; why do you ask?
Just to clarify about Hawaii, Hawaii “only” bans 11+ magazines for handguns, not long guns (where any capacity magazines are “allowed”). We do, however, have full “registration” for every firearm transfer, including a 14 day “waiting period” for handguns that requires three separate trips to the police station. I won’t bother to list all the other crap right now.
I have every confidence that The System will put everything right and that the issue will be settled to the satisfaction of everyone, once and for all, for ever and ever.
At least the public gets to vote on this. Let’s see what the voters in California say before everyone gets their panties in a bunch.
There are some things which should never be put to a vote. Should it be put to a vote whether to require everyone to worship the same set of gods or put to death? Should it be put to a vote whether criticizing an elected official is an act of treason?
I thought it was well established historical precedent that all traitors and infidels should rot in dank subterranean dungeons, where no light ever enters and the world above is maintained as a designated Safe Space free of dissent and dangerous ideas. Everyone above ground seems to agree, so voting is definitely not necessary.
You want 20 million uninformed opinions deciding the outcome of YOUR rights, freedoms, duties, and livelihood?