Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
45 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Gunpocalypse in CA rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On top of already having the most strict gun laws in the nation, CA rammed through a bunch of bills that would have done nothing to prevent San Bernardino. More gun laws that criminalize regular people who choose to be armed. A quick summary of the insanity:

Even firearms with bullet buttons will be banned now-- remember, a bullet button is a device that actually makes it harder to operate the magazine release and requires you to use a tool to detach the magazine. Current owners will have to register their previously CA-legal AR rifles equipped with the bullet button and the gun will live and die with them as being registered to the owner as an "assault weapon". The AR rifle is the most popular and common rifle in America now. Even the gimped CA version is too "assaulty" for CA legislators.

Ammunition purchases will be tracked and people must have permits and go through background checks just to buy ammo. There will be a DOJ database of ammunition buyers. So if you are a competitive shooter or if you just like to stock up on ammo, the State will know exactly how many rounds of ammo you have purchased and will be watching you.

No transfer of firearms to any other person. Not even family members. So if your sister is frightened by a stalker and asks to borrow your gun for the weekend or if you are at a shooting range and someone wants to shoot your gun and you go to the bathroom, you have just broken this law. Prepare to have all your gun rights taken away and pay some jail time.

No magazines holding more than 10 rounds will be legal to possess. Previously, the sale and production of these was already illegal-- now you gotta turn them in-- no grandfathered items allowed to be possessed.

Last but not least, a non-violent misdemeanor will disqualify you from being able to buy a gun. Get busted for a DUI or possession of a controlled substance? Maybe your party gets a little loud and you are slapped with a noise complaint misdemeanor or you are arrested or fined for disturbing the peace? What about the non-crime of resisting arrest which is basically you have done nothing else wrong but you refuse to be led away in handcuffs by strangers? What if you are one of those political activist types and you have a protest outside of a designated space and time that some permit says you are allowed to protest? Say goodbye to your gun rights the same as felons and violent criminals. This is broad and sweeping to include almost any run in with the law resulting in jail time or fines as being a cause for the loss of your rights.

Bravo, CA. Keep bankrupting yourself with the high speed rail to no where (that won't even be high speed or go where it was promised to go and also cost billions more than the bonds passed to pay for them), but make sure those law abiding gun owners are made more of a pariah. These laws will do nothing to stop gun crime and will only create an entire new class of criminals out of ordinary people.

Anyone who knows the law of unintended consequences can see where this has already gone. Gun shops around the state are slammed. Rifles and ammo are flying off the shelves (with a 10-day waiting period of course). Politicians are the best salesmen for the firearms industry. There is no doubt in my mind, that the end game for the gun control lobby is the complete eradication of the second amendment and confiscation of arms even if it takes another 200 years. That is the hope of these people. "Common sense gun control" has long left the purview of CA.


Quote:
“The ‘Gunpocalypse’ legislation signed by the Governor today will create new criminal liabilities affecting millions of law-abiding people, cost the state tens of millions of dollars in new fees and fines, and eviscerate fundamental, individual rights,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs in a press statement.

“These are constitutionally-illegitimate laws passed by a patently illegitimate government that had the audacity to attack and criminalize millions of its own people in Stalin-esque fashion. We expect mass non-compliance with these laws and encourage good, peaceful Californians to carefully consider the risks of voluntarily identifying their firearms, magazines, and ammunition to law enforcement officials, especially the California Department of Justice.”

Thankfully, the Gov vetoed a few of the bills.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/newslinks/legal-insurrection-...

Here's a LA Times article that misleads you just four sentences in to make it sound like the bullet button makes the firearm more lethal or dangerous.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politic...
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
signed will:

— Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners

— Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

— Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.

These are of course all great policy. Glad to see Brown having the balls to sign these.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jonb wrote:
signed will:

— Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners

— Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

— Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.

These are of course all great policy. Glad to see Brown having the balls to sign these.

I support 0 of these. Background check to purchase ammo? Guess that means you won't see Walmart carrying ammo anymore in CA.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:

No transfer of firearms to any other person. Not even family members. So if your sister is frightened by a stalker and asks to borrow your gun for the weekend

How well is she trained? Does she even know how to operate your gun well? Has she ever done any target practicing whatsoever? Given that she doesn't own a gun, it's unlikely.

Therefore, as someone suggesting this as a realistic, sensible scenario, you are a Bad Gun Owner(TM) It's precisely because there are so many careless gun owners that the regulations come in. So you are feeding the kind of thing you want to avoid, congratulations!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
dandechino wrote:

No transfer of firearms to any other person. Not even family members. So if your sister is frightened by a stalker and asks to borrow your gun for the weekend

How well is she trained? Does she even know how to operate your gun well? Has she ever done any target practicing whatsoever? Given that she doesn't own a gun, it's unlikely.

Therefore, as someone suggesting this as a realistic, sensible scenario, you are a Bad Gun Owner(TM) It's precisely because there are so many careless gun owners that the regulations come in. So you are feeding the kind of thing you want to avoid, congratulations!

How is a background check going to prove that she knows how to use the gun?

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mlcarter815 wrote:
I support 0 of these. Background check to purchase ammo? Guess that means you won't see Walmart carrying ammo anymore in CA.

What about the spike in making your own ammo that is bound to happen. That is all going to be lost tax revenue for the state.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
mlcarter815 wrote:
I support 0 of these. Background check to purchase ammo? Guess that means you won't see Walmart carrying ammo anymore in CA.

What about the spike in making your own ammo that is bound to happen. That is all going to be lost tax revenue for the state.

The first time they floated the ammo bill was like 10 years ago. I bought a reloading press.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mlcarter815 wrote:
hibikir wrote:
dandechino wrote:

No transfer of firearms to any other person. Not even family members. So if your sister is frightened by a stalker and asks to borrow your gun for the weekend

How well is she trained? Does she even know how to operate your gun well? Has she ever done any target practicing whatsoever? Given that she doesn't own a gun, it's unlikely.

Therefore, as someone suggesting this as a realistic, sensible scenario, you are a Bad Gun Owner(TM) It's precisely because there are so many careless gun owners that the regulations come in. So you are feeding the kind of thing you want to avoid, congratulations!

How is a background check going to prove that she knows how to use the gun?


Exactly. He's making a false dilemma. If someone I care about is under threat and fear for their life and safety, it is better to loan them a gun, show them how to use it, maybe even schedule a training session at a nearby range.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
hibikir wrote:
dandechino wrote:

No transfer of firearms to any other person. Not even family members. So if your sister is frightened by a stalker and asks to borrow your gun for the weekend

How well is she trained? Does she even know how to operate your gun well? Has she ever done any target practicing whatsoever? Given that she doesn't own a gun, it's unlikely.

Therefore, as someone suggesting this as a realistic, sensible scenario, you are a Bad Gun Owner(TM) It's precisely because there are so many careless gun owners that the regulations come in. So you are feeding the kind of thing you want to avoid, congratulations!

You know, just as a heads-up, there are _lots_ of people out there who are very capable but have just chosen not to purchase a weapon. Your idiotic suggestion that dandechino is a "Bad Gun Owner" only shows how much hate and ill-will you have, not whether or not this is a dumb idea.

Example one: Every infantryman that got out of the military and moved to NYC or LA. Odds are impossibly high they know what they're doing, but they probably don't own a firearm because they live in places where politicians like sounding good instead of doing good.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
mlcarter815 wrote:
hibikir wrote:
dandechino wrote:

No transfer of firearms to any other person. Not even family members. So if your sister is frightened by a stalker and asks to borrow your gun for the weekend

How well is she trained? Does she even know how to operate your gun well? Has she ever done any target practicing whatsoever? Given that she doesn't own a gun, it's unlikely.

Therefore, as someone suggesting this as a realistic, sensible scenario, you are a Bad Gun Owner(TM) It's precisely because there are so many careless gun owners that the regulations come in. So you are feeding the kind of thing you want to avoid, congratulations!

How is a background check going to prove that she knows how to use the gun?


Exactly. He's making a false dilemma. If someone I care about is under threat and fear for their life and safety, it is better to loan them a gun, show them how to use it, maybe even schedule a training session at a nearby range.

The loaning a gun to someone for their safety isn't the first thing I thought of when I read about the law. Whenever someone in my family turns 13 and is ready to go deer hunting for the first time, they use a single shot 20 gauge shotgun that my grandpa bought back in the 60's. I learned on it, my brother learned on it, my cousins all learned on it, my dad and his brothers all learned on it. If we lived in California now, we'd have to take background checks to do this, which is a huge pain in the ass.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
I think the background checks for family members proviso probably violates Heller's argument thst gun ownership, on ones property, is sacrosanct. As long as the family member keeps the weapon on private property, that rule is probably unenforceable.

For hunting, my bet is that the checks will be part of the license application.

Personally, I like the idea of an outright ban on magazines with a capacity over 'x'. Doesnt restrict ownership, but does help make shooting rampages more difficult, they would constantly have to reload.

Some things I like, some things I dont. I think the background checks for family members is incredibly tone deaf, if nothing else.

Darilian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
jeremycobert wrote:
mlcarter815 wrote:
I support 0 of these. Background check to purchase ammo? Guess that means you won't see Walmart carrying ammo anymore in CA.

What about the spike in making your own ammo that is bound to happen. That is all going to be lost tax revenue for the state.
if it leads to more jams and squibs in the ammo criminals are using then im all for
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:

For hunting, my bet is that the checks will be part of the license application.

How does this work? Background checks to get a hunting license?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
mlcarter815 wrote:
Darilian wrote:

For hunting, my bet is that the checks will be part of the license application.

How does this work? Background checks to get a hunting license?

They run your name through the database when you apply for a hunting license.

In theory, it would be easy. In reality, its an unfunded mandate, because the dirty secret of background checks is that there is no one database setup to handle the backlog of requests for information. Instead, there is a ramshackle network of State and Federal databases that aren't networked and have a huge logjam of information.

Shit, even the FBI's database is rife with errors and misinformation, with people being put on the list for spurious reasons or never put on the list because of bureaucracy.

But really, getting a hunting license should be like getting a driver's license- you take the test, you pay the money, and they run your name through the system to see if you have any outstanding reasons why you shouldn't have the license, like a court order for too many DUI's. Within the state, it wouldn't be much of a hassle. But for out of state transfers, it would be a nightmare.

I don't have a problem with background checks in theory- but I think that rather than looking at them as a panacea, the nation needs to spend the money to get the infrastructure up and running, and put in safegaurds so that the system of who is put on the list or taken off of it is reasonably transparent and open. And that's the hard part.

Darilian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
I think the background checks for family members proviso probably violates Heller's argument thst gun ownership, on ones property, is sacrosanct. As long as the family member keeps the weapon on private property, that rule is probably unenforceable.
probably, but the only way to change Heller is to get another case to the SCOTUS. With the shakeup in the Court, it may not stand in the future.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
single sentences wrote:
if it leads to more jams and squibs in the ammo criminals are using then im all for

What about the women who need it for protection from an abusive ex ?
Unless your goal is to remove the ability for women to defend themselves. Do hate women or just the constitution ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
single sentences wrote:
if it leads to more jams and squibs in the ammo criminals are using then im all for

What about the women who need it for protection from an abusive ex ?
Unless your goal is to remove the ability for women to defend themselves. Do hate women or just the constitution ?
i don't see any provisions that would forbid women from getting guns or ammo to defend themselves. why do you make shit up?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
mlcarter815 wrote:
Darilian wrote:

For hunting, my bet is that the checks will be part of the license application.

How does this work? Background checks to get a hunting license?

They run your name through the database when you apply for a hunting license.

In theory, it would be easy. In reality, its an unfunded mandate, because the dirty secret of background checks is that there is no one database setup to handle the backlog of requests for information. Instead, there is a ramshackle network of State and Federal databases that aren't networked and have a huge logjam of information.

Shit, even the FBI's database is rife with errors and misinformation, with people being put on the list for spurious reasons or never put on the list because of bureaucracy.

But really, getting a hunting license should be like getting a driver's license- you take the test, you pay the money, and they run your name through the system to see if you have any outstanding reasons why you shouldn't have the license, like a court order for too many DUI's. Within the state, it wouldn't be much of a hassle. But for out of state transfers, it would be a nightmare.

I don't have a problem with background checks in theory- but I think that rather than looking at them as a panacea, the nation needs to spend the money to get the infrastructure up and running, and put in safegaurds so that the system of who is put on the list or taken off of it is reasonably transparent and open. And that's the hard part.

Darilian

A hunting license is like a fishing license. You buy a new one every year. It is nothing more than a tax on hunting.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
i don't see any provisions that would forbid women from getting guns or ammo to defend themselves. why do you make shit up?

Shocking that you dont see the market effcts. By shocking I mean not at all shocking.

An abused woman is more likely to leave a relationship with less money then she had with the man and have to pay a lot for starting back up on her own.

Now if she need a handgun to protect herself, you have just driven the costs up for a weapon and ammo as well as placed artificial limits on the type/amount of ammo she has access to. The costs for her to train safely have now increased as well the extra time and labor involved in getting it.

So yes, these law hurt women.

So I feel perfectly comfortable asking the laws supporters, do you hate women defending themselves or the constitution ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
jeremycobert wrote:
jmilum wrote:
i don't see any provisions that would forbid women from getting guns or ammo to defend themselves. why do you make shit up?

Shocking that you dont see the market effcts. By shocking I mean not at all shocking.

An abused woman is more likely to leave a relationship with less money then she had with the man and have to pay a lot for starting back up on her own.

Now if she need a handgun to protect herself, you have just driven the costs up for a weapon and ammo as well as placed artificial limits on the type/amount of ammo she has access to. The costs for her to train safely have now increased as well the extra time and labor involved in getting it.

So yes, these law hurt women.

So I feel perfectly comfortable asking the laws supporters, do you hate women defending themselves or the constitution ?
as a libertarian i believe this is the time to say "let charity handle it" - husbandshooters against wifebeaters foundation
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
who said anything about ammo for abused wives getting more expensive anyway
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
single sentences wrote:
who said anything about ammo for abused wives getting more expensive anyway

did you miss the notes above ?

Quote:
1 — Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners

2 — Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

3 — Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.

1. costs go up for everyone except crimnals.

2. artificially limiting the amount of a product you can buy in bulk. the costs go up for everyone

3. removing the ability for family members to legally pass a handgun to a family member in needs will drive the costs up in the market for everyone except criminals.

Your good intentions have increased the costs of self defense and done nothing to prevent criminals for possessing them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jonb wrote:
signed will:

— Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners

— Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

— Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.

These are of course all great policy. Glad to see Brown having the balls to sign these.


He really should be impeached immediately, but the electorate there doesn't have the balls to do it.....

Ah well. We'll return liberty there some day.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
jonb wrote:
signed will:

— Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners

— Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

— Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.

These are of course all great policy. Glad to see Brown having the balls to sign these.


He really should be impeached immediately, but the electorate there doesn't have the balls to do it.....

Ah well. We'll return liberty there some day.



Ferret
On what grounds?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
jeremycobert wrote:
single sentences wrote:
who said anything about ammo for abused wives getting more expensive anyway

did you miss the notes above ?

Quote:
1 — Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners

2 — Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

3 — Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.

1. costs go up for everyone except crimnals.

2. artificially limiting the amount of a product you can buy in bulk. the costs go up for everyone

3. removing the ability for family members to legally pass a handgun to a family member in needs will drive the costs up in the market for everyone except criminals.

Your good intentions have increased the costs of self defense and done nothing to prevent criminals for possessing them.
all that the original three points have to do with your three points is the garbled transmogrification that occurred between the former entering your eyeballs and the latter exiting your fingertips
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |