|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 25, 2018, 08:38 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,742
|
My Thoughts if they are allowed to be shared
The new gun laws only creates a new way to tax lawful commerce and hassle/tax people for practicing regularly with their firearm and creates a slippery slope whereby people circumvent the law in the same way people ignored unjust Jim Crow laws in the south during segregation. Criminals will not follow these laws any more than firearms laws. What we have in California is government that is unwilling to keep serious repeat criminals behind bars and instead keep chipping away at civil liberties. There are people in my area with convictions for felon in possession of a firearm running around free with less than 1 year served committing crimes on probation without spending any serious time locked up. rc
|
January 25, 2018, 09:01 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 26, 2018, 02:06 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 6,161
|
Move out of California.
|
January 26, 2018, 02:09 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 6,161
|
Quote:
|
|
January 26, 2018, 02:38 AM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 27, 2018, 05:29 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,705
|
Is it just me, or does a subject like California laws often seem to go from a simple discussion to a confrontational situation? Somebody on here maybe should mellow down !
|
January 29, 2018, 02:12 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
|
I went to my FFL to purchase ammo this weekend. Previously the ammo was out on the sales floor. It was labeled and items on sale were clearly marked. I would purchase ammo on sale as I could if it fit my gun. However, now there is no ammo visible. You have to go to the gun counter and ask for the ammo you want. Nothing is displayed and nothing is on sale.
So, I asked for the ammo for my guns starting with .375 Win. The clerk then walked to the room behind the counter, entered his cipher code and disappeared. In a few minutes he returned and said "Sorry, no .375 Win. If fact we are out of any ammo with win after it." Then I asked for 22LR. He said "Nope, all out." Rather than simply running down my caliber list I asked for my Bersa Handgun thinking they would have that caliber. So I purchased 50 rounds of .380 ACP. This is my first ammo purchase this year. What a pain! Had to give him my drivers license so he could fill out the log book. This took several minutes. Fortunately, I did not have to do a background check (that comes later) so did not have that fee and wait time. The clerk did say if I want to order ammo online I can have it shipped to them and they will hold it for me with a $5.00 fee. I think I will be buying as much ammo as I can before the background checks kick in. WHAT A PAIN!
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns! Luke 22:36 Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2018, 09:38 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/C...Punishment.asp |
||
January 30, 2018, 12:30 AM | #34 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
The subject of this thread is California gun laws. Let's stay on topic.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
January 30, 2018, 12:54 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
|
Quote:
For local Californians, have you noticed a significant price increase thus far due to compliance costs? |
|
January 31, 2018, 07:21 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
|
I haven't notice price increases. However, the inventory of the LGS is down about 90% with the new Assault Weapon Ban in California. Just now they are starting to get AR15's in stock with the fin attached to the pistol grip. However, when they used to have 20 or 30 ARs they now only had TWO!
It used to be fun to walk in to the gun store and just browse. Now it is just depressing. However, their Archery section and range are great!
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns! Luke 22:36 Quote:
|
|
February 2, 2018, 04:48 PM | #37 |
Member
Join Date: July 8, 2017
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 23
|
I use some very obscure ammo: 8mm Lebel rifle, 9mm Browning Long, .455 Webley ... stuff like that will never be "on the shelf" at your neighborhood gun store. It's gonna have to be shipped to the nearest store, and the owner doesn't want to be a public warehouse. I dunno what he's gonna charge, but it won't be free.
-- Michael B., in Berkeley |
February 2, 2018, 07:14 PM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Parsed to the essence, any regulation is an infringement. As to your argument, the word "reasonable" does not appear in the Second Amendment, so a strict and honest interpretation would not even touch on that. Yes, I am aware of Frank Ettin's past posts to the effect that, historically, all the rights in the Bill of Rights have been subject to "reasonable" regulation. But that history is based on the other rights, not the RKBA. The Second Amendment is the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that states, right in its own language, that it shall not be infringed. Since regulation is infringement, the 2A actually says that it shall not be subject to regulation. |
|
February 2, 2018, 07:56 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,705
|
Totally agree !
|
February 2, 2018, 08:28 PM | #40 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And there is a long history of couts sustaining laws (both federal lawa and, after the First Amendment began to be held applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, state laws) regulating (and thus abridging) rights protected by the First Amendment. A few examples are:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||||
February 2, 2018, 08:42 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
Been waiting for a cartoon with a man scrunched inside his 36 gun safe with a single shot 22 on his hip, staring out thru the open door.
MY fear that this is their end game to meeting the requirement, 'to keep and bear arms'.
__________________
L2R |
February 4, 2018, 12:14 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
So CA is working on a new bill AB-1927 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1927
This will allow a person to add them selves to the prohibited persons data base . Not only in CA but federally . At first i think ok what ever floats your boat , if you want to do that to your self you deserve the consistency. Upon more thought and the fact you’ll be able to do it online . What’s stopping someone that has your personal info from putting you on that list ? The example that comes to mind is uber anti gun parents putting there kids on the list . It’s my understanding to get off the list it would take the same procedures it takes if you’re on it now . Meaning you’ll have to prove you’re not a felon or get a doctor to sign off on your mental state . I’m interested in seeing the actual application and what safegards will be in place to prevent abuses .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; February 4, 2018 at 02:33 PM. |
February 5, 2018, 11:04 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
February 5, 2018, 11:28 AM | #44 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
AB-1927
Quote:
Quote:
The subject complied. The subtext underlying this bill is that a mental health professional can threaten suicidal persons with involuntary commitment UNLESS they "agree" put themselves on the list. I have ALL SORTS of problems with this sort of coercion. (FWIW I'm not happy about the actions of the mental health professional discussed above, but that's a different story.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
February 5, 2018, 12:46 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
I don't see anywhere that it states the reason for the list is for mentally unstable persons . Only that to be removed from the list you must prove you're not unstable . Which makes sense right . If you're not prohibited do to a felony or other crimes . That leaves mental stability as the reason you're on the list .
That brings up an interesting point . If you put your self on the list and nothing has come up since making you a legit prohibited person . Why can't you just take your self back off the list . Sounds like that in it self would be unconstitutional . I'd think the application would have you state something like " I metal god feel my metal heath is lacking in such a way I should no longer be able to posses firearms " Please sign below . That way you have informed the state of your instability therefore requiring you to prove you are actually a stable person to get back off the list . Right ? because you'd have to be crazy to voluntarily give up your 2nd amendment rights
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
February 5, 2018, 12:50 PM | #46 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic) Quote:
|
||
February 5, 2018, 01:37 PM | #47 |
Member
Join Date: January 31, 2018
Location: Somewhere in western Poland
Posts: 46
|
Without any extra talk, i'll bluntly address the question in the topic name.
Thoughts on new CA gun laws? They're dumb, and won't stop the shootings/gun related crimes completely because Americans are too clever. |
February 5, 2018, 02:06 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
I suspect the vast majority of gun grabbers fall into two camps. The first camp just wants to grab all the guns they can so it will be easier to enforce their policies which aren't held by a majority of Americans. The second camp somehow believes that grabbing all the guns just from law abiding Americans will largely eliminate gun crimes. |
|
February 5, 2018, 02:30 PM | #49 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
While a CA resident would seemingly be able to put him or herself on the list for any reason whatsoever, IMHO it is abundantly clear that this program is aimed (no pun intended) at people who have been admitted, or potentially may be admitted, to acute care psychiatric facilities. Otherwise, what would be the reason for placing the informational materials there? Also, there's this provision in the bill, my emphasis in boldface: Quote:
If the program is NOT intended to assist mental health professionals, why would this exemption be there? (EDIT: I'm thinking that this topic may deserve its own thread, given that this thread was originally started to discuss laws that have already been enacted.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; February 5, 2018 at 02:32 PM. Reason: footnote |
||
February 5, 2018, 03:18 PM | #50 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
It was just introduced on 24 January. It hasn't even been assigned to committee yet. There's an excellent chance it will stall and die a natural death (many bills do). There's also an excellent chance that even if it does start to move through the process it will be amended so many times that it will be substantially different from this initial version. But in any case, let's stick with a discussion of actual new law.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|