California Laws

Bob259 · Post by **Bob259** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:13 am

Saw this posted on the Rimfire site... poster said it was in a NRA email he had received....

Tuesday, April 8, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider legislation that would require gun owners to obtain a "permit-to-purchase" before buying handgun ammunition. Assembly Bill 2062 would require that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to buy handgun ammunition and would impose severe restrictions on the private transfers of handgun ammunition. Applicants for a "permit-to-purchase" would be required to submit to a background check, pay a $35 fee, and wait as long as 30 days to receive the permit. Under AB2062, it would be unlawful to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require vendors to keep a record of the transaction including the ammunition buyer's name, driver's license, the quantity, caliber and type of ammunition purchased, and right thumbprint, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice or the number of his handgun ammunition purchase permit. All ammunition sales in the State of California would be subject to a $3 per transaction tax. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited. Any violator of AB2062 would be subject to civil fines.

Seeing there are also .22 handguns is the .22 included in this foolishness or only centerfire rounds??? Beware of Politicians trying to protect you!!!!

Not good if true as I'm sure NY will follow suit. They are going to drive law abiding gun owners and citizens to be a criminal.

BlauBear · Post by **BlauBear** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:36 am

It is hard to understand what they're trying to accomplish other than simply making it more difficult to own and use a gun. Hopefully this thing will die in committee without ever reaching the legislature.

Since I'm usually the token liberal I frequently disagree with the political positions taken on this board and at the range, but don't mistake charitability for stupidity or toeing any party line. Laws that infringe on personal liberty without a damn good reason are wrong to the point of evil and this particular piece of excrement passes that test.

Gun laws are needed, but they must be reasonable, effective toward some specific goal and enforced equitably. We also need a system that identifies and treats the mentally ill that should not ever have a weapon of any kind, not laws that disarm everyone because a vanishingly small percentage of the population might commit a spectacular atrocity.

Our legislators need to start solving the right problems instead of looking for opportunities to push an agenda.

Jerry G · Post by **Jerry G** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:40 pm

What are gun laws needed for? First off they are unconstitunal. Second off, do the criminals realy follow thoes laws or does it just make you feel good?

I try not to be non-confrontational on this blog but this is where I draw the line.

BlauBear · Post by **BlauBear** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:01 pm

Jerry G wrote:What are gun laws needed for? First off they are unconstitutional. Second off, do the criminals really follow those laws or does it just make you feel good?

I try not to be non-confrontational on this blog but this is where I draw the line.

No confrontation here, Jerry, since I have no expectation of changing any minds, and I'm not trying to. I knew that post would hit some nerves because my opinions usually do upset people on both sides of an issue, but free speech is another right and we are just chatting here. My advantage is that so long as neither side gets things all their way it's pretty tolerable for me.

Another opinion is that every citizen has a duty, not just the right, to own a firearm and know how to use it. This does not win me any liberal friends and is usually good for a laugh from conservatives trying to visualize Nancy Pelosi shooting skeet, but that's still alright. If nothing else I may have some entertainment value.

dwl · Post by **dwl** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:43 am

Good Morning Jerry and Herr Bear;

Nice piece of legislation! This will solve what problem, the transfer of ammunition between family members? It certainly won't make a difference in crime in the big city.

I was in L.A. during the '92 riots. L.A. County immediately declared a ban on all ammunition and gun sales. That didn't stop the crime. L.A. County then tried to get Orange County to ban the sales to prevent the "flow of guns and ammunition" into Los Angeles. It didn't stop the rioting. It didn't stop the assaults and robberies.

Only one thing stopped the out of control crime in L.A. during the riots - law enforcement. Since the LAPD was unofficially on strike, the state called in the Marines and the rioting stopped immediately.

By the way, the Marines weren't called in until the rioting began reaching the West Side of Los Angeles, i.e. the Nice Part of Town where the wealthy live. Other cities, with their own police forces, called in all their officers and shut down any rioting right away. Police officers, while not on duty, drove to Orange County and bought ammunition to defend their own families.

Gun contorl is class warfare. The rich and politically powerful fear that the populous will object to laws and policies that make the rich richer.

dwl

BlauBear · Post by **BlauBear** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:33 am

That great liberal thinker, Judge Isaac C. Parker (a.k.a., The Hanging Judge) said it isn't the severity of justice that deters crime, but the certainty of it. Laws applied equitably and swiftly are our preferred defense against chaos.

Existing gun laws have worked poorly because they are difficult to enforce and easily evaded because they are focused on the individual owner while broader gun laws would aim to choke off supply and then reduce the quantity in circulation. Clearly measures nobody on this board would agree with.

We can agree on training that emphasizes safe, responsible behavior - hallmarks of the sport anyway - and a realistic presentation of who we are. As I was channel surfing just now I caught minute of a Bronson movie and realized (again) that it's no wonder people see guns negatively. Present the reality - we aren't drunken cowboys from a western movie, trick shots or vigilantes. For the most part, we're just people with a hobby.

jneihouse · Post by **jneihouse** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:58 am

Present the reality - we aren't drunken cowboys from a western movie, trick shots or vigilantes. For the most part, we're just people with a hobby.

Now what will I aspire to be when and if I decide to grow up?????

Kitty

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:28 am

Don't do it. Growing up is overrated. Had basically the same discussion with my wife last night when she asked why I kept spending money on "toys" like motorcycles and guns.

BlauBear · Post by **BlauBear** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:30 am

Jason wrote:Don't do it. Growing up is overrated. Had basically the same discussion with my wife last night when she asked why I kept spending money on "toys" like motorcycles and guns.

Dang! She lets you have two expensive hobbies?!

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:00 pm

I wouldn't say she lets me, no...

dwl · Post by **dwl** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:35 am

Come on Jason, you can say it.

"I'm a man. I can assert myself. If I have to. I guess."

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:00 am

Heh... I see that I am not the only student of Red Green.

OnaginOffagin · Post by **OnaginOffagin** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:35 pm

[

Existing gun laws have worked poorly because they are difficult to enforce and easily evaded because they are focused on the individual owner while broader gun laws would aim to choke off supply and then reduce the quantity in circulation. Clearly measures nobody on this board would agree with.

Well, "choking off suppy" has really worked well with cocaine, heroin, and (blush) illegal immigrants, hasn't it? I fear you will just create another profitable brand of contraband, which will invariably arm more criminals while leaving law-abiding people helpless in their homes. A government unable to protect its righteous citizens has no business taking away their means to protect themselves.... "reasonable gun control" is about as believable as Hillary Clinton trying to join the Army or having once been under sniper file. No, thank you. I will simply not comply with your "reasonable gun control laws" If that makes me a criminal in the land I once fought to defend, the land in which I was born, so be it.....

BlauBear · Post by **BlauBear** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:19 pm

OnaginOffagin wrote:Well, "choking off suppy" has really worked well with cocaine, heroin, and (blush) illegal immigrants, hasn't it? I fear you will just create another profitable brand of contraband, which will invariably arm more criminals while leaving law-abiding people helpless in their homes. A government unable to protect its righteous citizens has no business taking away their means to protect themselves....

The last thing we want, of course, is all the government we're paying for. People afraid of guns are frustrated at there inability to stop guns so they're ready to try more aggressive legislation with limited support from either party. Bush's performance includes an unpopular war and a crashing economy that have left all Republicans with an uphill battle, and several gun friendly legislators are already out of office which has led anti-gunners to believe they have a chance to win. But this is not the disaster some of us fear since Democrats do not automatically support gun control any more than Republicans automatically oppose gun control.

At one extreme is the position that there should be no gun laws at all, and at another extreme are people that think toy guns are alright, provided they're locked up at a registered gun club. Should convicted felons be allowed to own guns? Should trained citizens be prohibited? I'll argue that government must demonstrate compelling public interest before prohibiting a citizen from any behavior (a line of thought most people avoid), so explain, please, how a law like this is legal?

OnaginOffagin · Post by **OnaginOffagin** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:20 pm

[several gun friendly legislators are already out of office which has led anti-gunners to believe they have a chance to win. But this is not the disaster some of us fear since Democrats do not automatically support gun control any more than Republicans automatically oppose gun control.

At one extreme is the position that there should be no gun laws at all, and at another extreme are people that think toy guns are alright, provided they're locked up at a registered gun club. Should convicted felons be allowed to own guns? Should trained citizens be prohibited? I'll argue that government must demonstrate compelling public interest before prohibiting a citizen from any behavior (a line of thought most people avoid), so explain, please, how a law like this is legal?[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand your point, or even your question......
some postulates:
- more democrats than republicans support gun restriction
- the democrats won control of the legislature this time mainly because they sought out pro-gun democrat candidates (eg, James Webb, Va) and instructed other candidates to downplay their opposition to gun ownership
- 70% of the American public believe that gun ownership is a Constitutional right
- The Supreme Court shows every sign of reaffirming the 2nd Amendment as it was originally designed, an individual Constitutional right
- convicted felons, by and large, are stripped of their civil rights, including the right to bear arms, and should continue to be stripped
- every repressive dictatorship or authoritarian govenment in the world, past and present, including China, North Korea, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia, prohibited the private ownership of arms
- most gun crime in our society is committed by criminals, who pay no attention to laws by definition; the only people to obey gun laws are law-abiding citizens, who don't commit crimes, anyway
- to "vacuum up" all the guns in our country would cause irreparable harm to our Constitution, especially to the 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments of Our Bill of Rights, effectively destroying the political heart of our Republic, perhaps the longest-lived, greatest democracy that ever existed
- any legislation, any attempt, to dilute our Constitution is absolutely abominable, and I believe all Americans will rise up in opposition. A serious attempt at gun prohibition in our nation will result in nothing less than Civil War.

That is my belief and my stand, take it or leave it.

Mel Goudge