Gun Control

California Senate Makes Multiple Moves to Restrict Gun Rights

Detachable magazines, ammunition purchase without background check, and magazines holding more than 10 bullets among many things the California Senate wants to outlaw.

|

The California Senate late last week passed 11 new bills aimed at restricting gun rights in various ways (even more than the state already does), all of which must go to the state Assembly now before ending up on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk. (Brown is not always a reliable supporter of gun right restrictions.)

Among the things that would be risk getting you locked up in California if the Senate gets its way includes buying ammunition without a background check, possessing magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or selling or making semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. If you already own such, you will be required under penalty of law to "register them with the state as assault rifles," reports the Los Angeles Times.

jdlasica via Foter.com / CC BY-NC

The politicking was as usual pretty partisan along Democratic (pro the new laws) and Republican (against) lines and drowned in unproven rhetoric about the harms they will prevent and weapons that allegedly have "no legitimate use" despite being owned by millions legitimately, in the sense of not being used to harm innocents.

Details of some of the other bills, from the Times report:

—Require owners of homemade guns to get a serial number for the firearms, register them with the state and undergo a background check.

— Ask voters in November to reverse a provision of 2014's Proposition 47 that made thefts of guns worth $950 or less a misdemeanor. The measure would allow felony charges in all gun theft cases. Republicans supported this measure.

— Mandate that gun owners report lost or stolen firearms to the authorities within five days of discovery that they are missing. Some straw purchasers illegally sell guns and then later claim they were stolen.

— Limit lending of firearms to specified family members.

— Establish a Firearm Violence Research Center at one of the University of California campuses to study potential policies to reduce shooting deaths and injuries.

Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee notes both the complicated inter-Democratic war over Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom's anti-gun ballot measure tied in to the Senate bills, as well as the fact that the bills are more about punishing gun owners than any proven public safety benefits:

The bills were rushed through the Senate for reasons that have nothing to do with gun violence, but rather three-sided political jousting.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing his own gun control ballot measure, and he and de León have been feuding, with the latter openly urging the former to drop his measure.

One factor is fear among some Democrats that having Newsom's gun control measure on the November ballot would encourage turnout among gun-owning voters that would hurt the party's other causes and candidates, as it did in the 1982 election for governor.

And of course Attorney General Kamala Harris cheers the bills.

Advertisement

NEXT: Weiner: A Horror-Comedy Documentary About Ambition in Electoral Politics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Brown is not always a reliable supporter of gun right restrictions.

    WHY MUST YOU MAKE MY HEAD HURT PARSING YOUR DOUBLE NEGATIVES?

    If only the Bill of Rights applied to citizens in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia.

    1. We all know certain states are allowed to preempt the Constitution, but only for certain parts of the Bill of Rights. Because legitimate government interest, and FYTW.

  2. California is like a friggin’ Greek tragedy.

    1. Greek tragedies entertain people

      1. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?

        1. Not until it ends.

          1. It ends like in Illinois and Chicago. Rampant gun murders, massive middle class flight out of the tax base, and stronger single-party Democrat rule with concurrent increases in corruption.

  3. The bills were rushed through the Senate for reasons that have nothing to do with gun violence, but rather three-sided political jousting.

    Watch as they rush through corrections so that law enforcement, former law enforcement and celebrity bodyguards don’t lose their self defense privileges.

    1. Agreed. I read Newsom’s proposed ballot initiatives, and they’ve already been redlined by law enforcement and other privileged classes. I’m sure they will get their turn, here.

  4. Why was Superman so desperate to stop Lex Luthor?

    1. We all have our little faults, SugarFree

      1. But my mother lives in Hackensack.

    2. Blue tights, solar powered, constantly burdened with saving the world, and his arch-nemesis is an evil business mogul… read between the lines SF, for Christ’s sakes!

      1. Wears his underwear on the outside?

        He just might be SugarFree.

  5. This will all seem funny to you until it drops California’s gun death rate to zero. Which will definitely happen, right?

    1. *Legal* gun deaths, right? RIGHT?!

    2. When only the cops own guns, we are so fucked.

    3. I live in the state. I was at my daughter’s house last night when somehow the topic came up (I usually avoid this with her). At one point, she stated she would be in favor of all guns being banned. I responded, gee, how is drug prohibition working? She favors legalization there. She sat in stunned silence for a few seconds, and then changed the subject. Sigh, where did I go wrong?

      1. You moved to California and didn’t add disclaimers to the states education program? Not honestly sure, but being in California apparently makes people irrationally afraid of guns as the only dangerous object in existence.

        1. She was already out of high school when we moved here, but she did go to college to become an RN, here. I was tempted to mention the statistics on unnecessary deaths in hospitals/clinics, but thought better of it, so I can keep proximity to the grandkids and possibly save them.

  6. semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines … will be required under penalty of law to “register them with the state as assault rifles”

    Oh, FFS! Better ship a bunch of Ruger 10/22s to the Iraqi army.

    1. That actually wouldn’t be a bad idea. At least then when the dropped their guns while running away ISIS would end up with squirrel shooters instead of tanks and rocket launchers.

  7. No AM links this morning or no links ever again?

      1. Oh crap.Didn’t scroll down far enough. Thanks Florida Hipster.

  8. And there you have it: the left’s archetype for how gun rights should be handled nationwide. Legislate the right down piece by piece until it’s essentially meaningless.

    Plus it pisses off the icky nonleftists, who are just knuckle-dragging, racist pigs anyway. Anything that hurts them is desirable.

    1. But every liberal around swears that they don’t want to take your guns away!

      1. Because they are dishonest evil shits.

        1. Always pay close attention to their smirk when they say it. It’s subtle but it’s there.

            1. ^This.

              A buddy and I actually got an anti-gun leftist Democrat to admit she is and has always been for full-out confiscation of all weapons. It was fairly easy to use logical arguments to corral her into the admission.

        2. My wife and I were watching Saturday Night Live when they talked about the NRA supporting Trump. They went on a screed about how nobody wants to take your guns, blah blah blah.

          I just about through the remote through the fucking tv.

          1. Look, it’s not complicated!

            They don’t want to take your guns, ok?!

            They just want to take your guns!

            Why is this so hard to understand?!

            -Proglodyte

      2. They don’t want to take your guns away, they just want reasonable regulation like Australia.

  9. Establish a Firearm Violence Research Center at one of the University of California campuses to study potential policies to reduce shooting deaths and injuries.

    Requiring everyone associated with the Center to personally use a shotgun to blast a carcass would stop this silliness.

    1. A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state sure sounds like a mandate that everybody be issued a full auto, trained in its use and required to be strapped at all times would pass Constitutional muster. Have we tried that policy yet to reduce shooting deaths and injuries? Are we going to consider trying it? No? We’re just going to consider policies to dissarm law-abiding citizens in the hopes that it somehow reduces gun use by criminals?

      1. The Constitution’s provision that an army cannot be funded for more than two years was there in hopes that the country would not have a standing army. A militia of the people, armed with military grade hardware, was to be called upon for two years of service should the need arise. The idea was that a country with a standing army would not stay a free state for very long, while a country with a population that is the standing army would.

        1. This of course is why they pass a motion every two years to fund the armed forces. Or at least they used to, they may not even bother with this farcical nod toward the Constitution anymore.

          1. It is also the reason the acquisition system is a broken, inefficient piece of garbage.

            2-year money

          2. Oh, they do. Every two years defense contractors scramble to renew contracts, setting off a fresh wave of pants-shitting as the employees wonder if they’re going to keep their jobs.

    2. It would not make a difference. This is really about academia welfare (akin to corporate welfare). A bunch of leftist researchers want a never-ending source of gov’t funding whereby they can scaremonger every year about some new trend in their chosen field to get more and more funding while nothing actually changes and nothing gets solved.

      Money, money, money. That’s all it’s about.

  10. — Mandate that gun owners report lost or stolen firearms to the authorities within five days of discovery that they are missing. Some straw purchasers illegally sell guns and then later claim they were stolen.

    So, how long before simultaneously owning a gun and a canoe boat with no legitimate use is illegal?

  11. Restaurant Owner Convicted of Manslaughter for Serving Meal Contaminated with Peanuts

    The entire thing is a boatload of crazy with several options on the Where To Start list. But this one’s my favorite.

    During his trial it emerged that Zaman ran up ?294,000 debts in his restaurants so was substituting ingredients for cheaper alternatives.
    Yet he was still paying for his son to go to the prestigious private St Peter’s School in York from his business account.

    1. I like that he “put profits ahead of people”, but was 300,000 pounds in debt.

    2. “contaminated with peanuts”

      I say again, if you have a deadly nut allergy, don’t get off the plain if you fly to Asia. Because everything is “contaminated” with peanuts.

      1. I would add “don’t eat at any restaurant, anywhere”.

        BTW is anyone looking into how to cure these allergies? I’m sure it can be done; my mom was allergic to a variety of things (none of them food items) until they fixed it and that was decades ago.

        1. According to the article, he told the person taking his order that he could not have nuts, but he was given nuts. I find for the plaintiff.

    3. Did he state that his products were peanut free? If so, that would be fraud. Otherwise, anyone who has a problem with peanuts should assume they are everywhere, unless otherwise stated.

  12. I wonder if Guinness has a record for the number of felons created in a legislative session.

    1. Three felonies a day, man.

        1. Why does anyone need more than three felonies?

  13. “Require owners of homemade guns to get a serial number for the firearms, register them with the state and undergo a background check.”

    It should be fundamentally unconstitutional for a state to do that.

    It should be fundamentally unconstitutional for the federal government to do that–and the federal government doesn’t require that homemade guns get a serial number, that you have to register them with the BAFTE, or that you have to undergo a background check to build one. However, the federal government might justify such regulation through Filburn (however perversely) and its commerce power.

    It’s also important to remember what California is trying to make illegal here: using tools and raw materials that are commonly available to build something. Owning a drill press and a chunk of steel should not be illegal. Using them to make something in your own home for your own use, a use that is specifically protected by the Constitution, moreover, should not be illegal.

    Notice, they’re not making it illegal for convicted felons to build and possess their own guns–that is already illegal. They’re not making it illegal to sell home built guns without a background check either–that’s already illegal, too. They’re trying to make it illegal for otherwise law abiding citizens to buy steel and use tools to make something for themselves that is perfectly legal.

    1. Why? They can already require you to get a serial number for motor vehicles, register them with the state, and undergo a background check (if they so desired).

      Nobody has a problem with license plates – they help the police solve crimes after all – so why would you have a problem with a firearm license plate?

      And that ‘for your own use in your own home’ – is a bullshit weasel. Rights and the ability to exercise them do not, and should not, have some special privilege while ‘inside the home’. You wouldn’t for a second accept the rationale that you only have complete free speech while inside your home and ‘only for personal use’ – you’d see that for what it is right quick.

      1. “Nobody has a problem with license plates – they help the police solve crimes after all – so why would you have a problem with a firearm license plate?”

        Do you need a license plate to drive on private property though? I know you don’t need a driver’s license.

        1. Sure – with special permission from the government.

          Which is the same legal regime as ‘in your own home and for personal use only’.

          1. No Agammanon,

            The reason you need a driver’s license and license plates for your car is the government owns the road. Driving on these roads is a privilege granted by the state.

            You don’t need a driver’s license to drive on private property. I grew up in a rural area and knew plenty of underage kids who drove vehicles on their family’s property helping out with farm work (yours truly included). The government couldn’t and didn’t do anything about it.

            1. That’s how it’s supposed to be. But many states have DUI laws that apply to drivers on private property. So it doesn’t seem too out of the realm of possibilities that they could require a license to drive anywhere.

              1. I’m guessing such laws fall under some kind of reckless conduct.

                For example, operating a bulldozer doesn’t require a license (?), but operating it while drunk would be reckless conduct (?). Once again, I’m just guessing.

                1. No, I’m pretty sure the DUI laws just always apply, even if you are riding a bike in your own back yard. There was a case (in Florida, I think) a few years back where exactly that happened.

                  1. The same cop that gave the kid on a bicycle a DUI also gave a guy in an electric wheelchair a DUI. They both stuck.

            2. Lurker Kurt is correct, Agammamon is not. Driving on private property does not require a license plate/registration nor does it require a driver license. It is only for when vehicles are operated (or parked, in the case of registration) on a public, not privately-owned, road or highway.

        2. Do you need a license plate to drive on private property though? I know you don’t need a driver’s license.

          I suspect that depends upon the state.

        3. Do you need a license plate to drive on private property though? I know you don’t need a driver’s license.

          I believe that if your car isn’t registered with updated tabs and it’s sitting in your driveway, you can get a ticket.

          1. Farmers’ kids drive trucks all over their farms from the age of 13 or so.

            All over the country.

            1. I can’t find any hard proof, but the internet is full of people claiming they got a ticket for a vehicle parked on private property, ranging from a driveway in a home to a parking lot of a business or apartment.

              1. I think that varies a lot by state. I know some states have laws that say you can only have so many unregistered cars on your property before you can be considered an unlicensed junk yard.

              2. Happened to me in Virginia. The vehicle was not in disrepair but was unregistered. Cop told me if it was in the garage it would be fine, but not in public view.

              3. Do not assume that just because the police hand out tickets, they are in the right.

                http://nypost.com/2016/05/16/i…..g-legally/

                This guy got $12,000 in parking tickets for parking LEGALLY. He went to court, WON, and they still wrote him tickets.

                http://nypost.com/2016/05/13/d…..s-tickets/

                Tickets are mostly about (illegally) generating revenue for the gov’t (I say illegal because it should be a tax and not a fine, and taxes need to be approved by the legislatures), not about justice.

            2. And they can do so because there are special exemptions written into the law to allow it.

              Otherwise they’d be in the same boat as *you* would be if you drove your unregistered car onto the farm.

              1. Show me one of these laws.

                They can do it because kids have been driving vehicles on farms since vehicles made it onto farms, and a license is a license to drive on a public road.

                Incidentally, kids don’t need a license to drive motorcycles off road either. I see thousands of kids driving off road in Glamis every years.

                http://tinyurl.com/hv84pxe

            3. I was driving tractors on public roads around 3rd grade.

      2. “Why? They can already require you to get a serial number for motor vehicles, register them with the state, and undergo a background check (if they so desired).”

        I don’t believe requiring a background check to make, buy or sell a car would be Constitutional for a state to do.

        And one injustice doesn’t justify another.

        And saying “for your own use in your own home” had two purposes.

        One was to make it clear that they’re making it illegal to do something that doesn’t necessarily have any impact on anybody else and may even make claim to a right to privacy.

        The second was in reference to Filburn–which gave the federal government special permission to regulate what you make on your own property for your own use under the guise of the commerce clause. The State of California has no claim to regulate interstate commerce and therefore Filburn does not protect them in regulating what you do on your own property for your own use.

        1. They can already require an ID to fly – they can require a background check to own a car. They can require one to own a firearm, and already do if you want one through an FFL.

          They can already require waiting periods before you take possession.

          And my point about ‘for your own use’ is that that is completely irrelevant. Doubly so after Filburn V Wickard. My freedom to exercise my rights is not dependent upon it having no affect on anyone else. Otherwise we’re right back to my 1st amendment example – you only have freedom of speech when its in your own home and for ‘personal use’.

          1. Otherwise we’re right back to my 1st amendment example – you only have freedom of speech when its in your own home and for ‘personal use’.

            Isn’t that precisely where we’re legislatively going? Any and all campaign finance restrictions essentially pass muster because it’s speech that’s not in your own home and for personal use.

          2. “Otherwise we’re right back to my 1st amendment example – you only have freedom of speech when its in your own home and for ‘personal use’.”

            “In your own home and for your own use” suggests that doesn’t have much impact on the people around you.

            In addition to the other things I said, “in your own home and for your own use” means that the arguments of the gun grabbers are null–because it doesn’t have any impact on other people.

            Yes, it’s an answer to a bogus question. But it’s a legitimate answer to a bogus question. In addition to answering the question of why I shouldn’t be allowed to exercise my rights in public, I can also respond to people–who aren’t libertarians–that what we do in the privacy of our own homes doesn’t impact them.

            This is a bullshit culture war law–just like criminalzing sodomy. People–who have a right to own a gun–making their own guns in their own homes have no impact on you any more than two guys bumping uglies in their own bedroom. And there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out to gun grabbing liberals. In fact, it needs to be said.

            1. We should point out a few important points:

              1) Driving is not specifically protected by the US Constitution as free speech and RKBA are.

              2) Speech is not at all useful if there is no one to hear it, so if you were in your own home, speaking to no one, it is not truly being exercised. Political speech requires influencing others, often the masses. Necessarily, that means it must be done outside the home, as with a town crier riding around town ringing a loud bell and yelling at the top of his lungs.

    2. A coworker told me a story about a friend of his who made a gun. Apparently it was pretty nifty. So nifty that when he, like a good boy, took it to a BAFTE office to make sure that what he was doing was legal, the agent he showed it to took it from him and refused to give it back. When he pressed the issue the agent feigned ignorance. Right there in a room full of law enforcement officers, one of the officers blatantly stole an item from someone who was trying to do the right thing, then invoked FYTW . On the upside I doubt that that guy ever trusted law enforcement again.

      1. We’ll get internal affairs on that right away.

        1. Acapulco, apparently.

          Death can strike anywhere in Acapulco these days: A sarong vendor was slain on the beach in January by a gunman who escaped on a Jet Ski. Another man was gunned down while enjoying a beer at a seaside restaurant. In the hillside slums that ring the city, a 15-year-old girl’s body was found chopped into pieces and wrapped in a blanket, her severed head in a bucket nearby with a hand-lettered sign from a drug gang.

          Ruh roh.

          1. America shrugs at this the exact same way they shrug at drug-war corpses piling up in the inner city.

      2. When people who make kits for sale do so legally, they usually present the kit to the BAFTE for approval for sale. The BATFE will write them a determination letter stating that the kit in question is sufficiently raw that it doesn’t constitute a gun sale. The seller will often make the official BATFE determination letter for their kit available on their website for download. Some people that make these kits are damn near reputable. If you’re going to buy a kit, get it from a reputable company and download the BATFE determination letter for your records.

        1. Or, you know, say fuck off slaver and not give them the power by refusing to come by, head bowed and cap in hand, asking for their permission.

        2. I was under the impression that this guy didn’t just use a kit, he actually designed the darn thing. Home-inventor style. Instead of going to the Patent office he went to law enforcement who promptly stole the thing.

        3. Unfortunately, ATF has a nasty tendency to change their mind and take back their earlier determination after the product has been manufactured and even sold. In those cases, they require the manufacturer to get all of the now illegal products back at their own expense. It’s a very efficient way to destroy a business and send a warning to others at the same time.

    3. Last week in one of the articles about the Oklahoma abortion bill, I said that any state legislator who votes for an unconstitutional law should be jailed and banned from ever holding public office again.

      That definitely applies here.

      1. But how will they know its *really, truly* unconstitutional until it gets in front of the USSC and even they can’t find a fig leaf to cover it?

        1. At this point in time, my opinion is that any legislator, at any level, who votes *for a law* should be banned from ever holding public office again – if its that important a law then they’ll make the sacrifice, its its not I’m pretty sure we could live without it.

          1. “At this point in time, my opinion is that any legislator, at any level, should be banned from ever holding public office again”

            Fixed.

            1. “At this point in time, my opinion is that any legislator, at any level, should be charged with a felony and banned from ever holding public office again”

              Fixed better.

      2. The next time we do this (experiment with a constitutional republic), there needs to be punishments built in.

        Anyone else find this odd?

        The Constitution’s purpose was to limit government. It granted the legislature the ability to make laws that complied with those limitations. The legislature made laws and came up with the associated punishments for breaking those laws. Yet…the legislatures never made laws that provided punishments for those violating the Constitution. Seems to me, that should have been some of the first laws made.

        1. It should have been prebaked into the Constitution itself.

          You author or sponsor a bill that is found to be in violation of the Constitution or the rights of the people? One weekend with the pain monster in Warty’s basement.

          You uphold a law as constitutional when an average person can tell that it’s not? Your seat on the court is vacated, never to be filled again, and you are exiled to Durkadurkistan.

          1. and you are exiled to Durkadurkistan.

            Bombing the Durkadukis is one thing, but damn, have a heart man.

        2. Hell, you have to have standing to get a judge to even hear your argument about something being unconstitutional. Obama could do (or has done) something blatantly unconstitutional on it’s face, and if Congress, a state,l or a private citizen goes to court, the judge will say, “Yeah, but are you harmed?”

      3. But ‘unconstitutional’ is too often in the eye of the beholder. It only takes 5 members of the court to say it ain’t so.

    4. Owning a drill press and a chunk of steel should not be illegal. Using them to make something in your own home for your own use, a use that is specifically protected by the Constitution, moreover, should not be illegal.

      +1 3d printer.

  14. Somebody, please invent the warp drive already!

    1. We can do the Time Warp if it’ll help you feel better. It’s just a jump to the right…

      1. Dude.

        It’s a jump to the left.

        And then a step to the right.

        *shoots self for knowing that*

        1. Welcome to my web little fly.
          *laughts maniacally*

    2. Seriously. Get me off this stupid rock.

    3. It’ll take more than drinks with a few Vulcans to fix this.

      1. You best be careful if you go drinking with these guys, Hamster.

        1. Hard. Core.

          I bet we can guess their secret handshake.

          1. Watch out! That’s not really his hand in there.

      2. I live next to a Missile site in Montana.

        And I have plenty of booze.

  15. Glenn Greenwald, for all his issues, has been great on gun rights because he’s repeatedly pointed out that if you put a strict gun control regime in place, it would just replace the current war on drugs, and all the associated problems would continue under the auspices of a war on guns. In particular, lots of black people would go to jail for non-violent gun ownership instead of non-violent drug ownership.

    Leftists have somehow convinced themselves that going after guns is okay because it would punish their enemies, the evil white male. But who’s more likely to actually be jailed over this – a rural white dude living in an area with one redneck sheriff covering 50 square miles of territory or a black guy living in the inner city with cops swarming everywhere? In fact, a lot of conservative, gun owning white guys would probably live in an area where the sheriff wouldn’t even bother arresting illegal gun owners because he opposes anti-gun laws himself.

    All the evils liberals decry as a result of the drug war, including the racially disproportionate punishment rates, would continue under their proposed anti-gun regime and they’re too stupid to realize it.

    1. Progressives do not care about their clientele nearly as much as they signal?how can they rationalize their impossibly flawed economic and social policies except by ignoring the routine failures? It’s nothing to them but logrolling. So what if blacks are disproportionately harmed by drug or gun policy? Progressives will consider it a sucess no matter how man blacks are brutalized just so long as a few high-profile white men are arrested or killed. They’re salivating at the thought of another Ruby Ridge or Waco. Political violence is in their blood, it’s the reason they wake up in the morning and the last lingering thought as they fall asleep. “Stamping on the human face forever” isn’t a precaution, it’s their mantra. They live and breathe the promise of rounding up and executing dissidents. That a few (hundred thousand) eggs must be broken to make their omelette of racialist dystopia is part of the appeal. They’re thoroughgoing bigots.

      1. So what if blacks are disproportionately harmed by drug or gun policy?

        And decades of propaganda from the likes of Bill Bratton have convinced most blacks themselves to go along with this.

    2. Lazy, ignorant politicians, especially demtards, lean on vapid “tough on crime” rhetoric.

      1. I don’t buy it; ignorant and lazy might be a good descriptor of idiot college commies coming into this with no historical or economic knowledge thanks to crappy, statist indoctrination, but aging commie progressives have had decades to mull over the abject failure of nominal progressivism. They know, and they don’t care: helping others is and always has been cover for helping themselves. Expedience in the pursuit of power isn’t a vice, it’s the centerpiece of their political philosophy. Throwing poor blacks under the bus is virtuous if it means punishing whites for the original sin of denying government’s pervasive authority over their lives. They are bloodthirsty partisans when it comes to exercising power.

        1. ^This. It is a case of evil, not being lazy or ignorant.

        2. The Progressives know, and have always known, that gun control isn’t going to make for a safer society, and they don’t really care.

          It’s not even helping themselves, so much as it is hurting their class enemies.

    3. I wonder why leftists have the same attitude towards white males as Adolf Hitler had towards the Jews.

    4. All the evils liberals decry as a result of the drug war, including the racially disproportionate punishment rates, would continue under their proposed anti-gun regime and they’re too stupid to realize it.

      This is already the case with the existing anti-gun regimes in many cities and states.

    5. Right now, there is a war on guns going on in every major city, ALONGSIDE the war on drugs. So the leftists are already getting the results of their war on guns, and the unintended consequences do not seem to perturb them one bit.

  16. one of the bills makes all guns with detachable magazines of any quantity of ammunition an assault weapon. that includes pistols not just rifles. the whole thing is a fucking joke that will just make so many of us criminals overnight. I may have to leave but its hard to start a business over after 33 years but hey they don’t give a shit.

    1. So, any semi-ato pistol, and many if not most revolvers (that cylinder is a magazine, after all, and many have swappable cylinders) into assault weapons?

      1. No – its will require them to be *registered like ‘assault’ weapons already are* in California.

        It will not turn them, by legislative fiat, into assault weapons, simply expand their already existing weapon registry to cover these other firearms.

        1. Pedantic quibble noted, and appreciated.

      2. lets not remind them that revolvers were once referred to as “police automatics” back in the olden days apparently.

    2. Recall that DC tried to define any semiautomatic as a “machine gun”.

  17. So what happens to Commiefornia when the epicenter of the motion picture industry shifts to another state or country?

    1. Then they can go commiefornicate themselves.

    2. It might as well shift to China, most blockbusters are written for that audience now anyway.

    3. When I was a kid in the 60’s & 70’s virtually every TV show was filmed in LA, and most were set there. Now it’s NYC, Toronto & Vancouver. Can you think of a current TV show set in LA?

  18. But…but….Heller. And McDonald.

    California, NJ, New York, Massachusetts just fucking ignore the Supreme Court, and nothing else happens.

    1. Someone has to challenge it, then the Supremes have to agree to look at it. By then Giant Douche or Shit Sandwich will be president and have appointed a living-constitution, judicial-deference justice. The law will then stand.

      1. It was challenged in NJ in Drake v. Jerejian. The third circuit ruled that prohibiting NJ citizens from bearing arms does not burden the right to bear arms. And SCOTUS let it stand by refusing to take up the appeal.

        1. Drake is what I’m talking about. The Supreme Court also let Highland Park’s ban on semiauto assault rifles stand. It’s as if segregated schools were allowed to continue after Brown v Board of Education.

          1. Were they allowed to continue?

      2. Someone has to challenge it, then the Supremes have to agree to look at it. By then Giant Douche or Shit Sandwich will be president and have appointed a living-constitution, judicial-deference justice. The law will then stand.

        This^

        Judicial review needs to happen before a bill is signed into law, for this very reason.

        1. As if they have time to read a stack of paper that’s literally taller than most humans.

          Why read it when you can just stamp it and play golf?

    2. California, NJ, New York, Massachusetts just fucking ignore the Supreme Court, and nothing else happens.

      And what it the punishment for a state/city ignoring the court? Where is that written down?

      (See my comment above)

      1. Clearly none. Incentives, how do they work ?

  19. OT(?): Officer in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore acquitted of all charges, because fuck everything.

    Burn the fucking system to the ground, as a wise man once said.

  20. VA secretary: Disney doesn’t measure wait times, so why should VA?

    “When you got to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? Or what’s important? What’s important is, what’s your satisfaction with the experience?” McDonald said Monday during a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. “And what I would like to move to, eventually, is that kind of measure.”

    Oh, my sides.

    1. Disney sure as fuck measures wait times and everything else – including shit the VA would be fucking surprised any *private* company would worry about.

      1. McDonald is saying he shouldn’t measure wait times ?

    2. And what I would like to move to, eventually, is that kind of measure.

      Hospitals are already under a CMS mandate to survey their patients for “patient satisfaction”. I doubt it applies to the VA, but it would be trivially simple for the VA to adopt the “HCAHPS” survey so they could compare themselves against hospitals nationally.

      Yet they haven’t, which makes me think McDonald is just blowing smoke here.

      1. Look he said he wants to move to something like that…..eventually….

      2. When has any healthcare regulation applied to the VA?

    3. Holy shit, has this guy not been to an amusement park in 20 years?

      The whole point of the fast pass, et al, is to measure wait times and to ensure a more satisfactory experience.

      Hell at this point, it would probably be a huge improvement if the mouse were to take over the VA.

      1. We don’t want to create a two-tier healthcare system.

        *drops microphone*

    4. Someone that stupid could only wind up in politics.

  21. Oh, y’all thought they were just going to go away?

  22. So just ask them how many crimes are committed under each item they want to “fix”. You’ll get a blank stare.

    Like when California banned the 50 cal, even though there had never been a single crime reported with that rifle in California history

    1. It’s signaling.

      What are the Democrats going to run on, high taxes and overspending?

      Gotta find a wedge issue somehow–and making Christians bake cakes for queers doesn’t drive opinion like it used to.

  23. Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website?

    ??????? http://www.nypost55.com

  24. But Trump is way more dangerous.

  25. RE:
    California Senate Makes Multiple Moves to Restrict Gun Rights
    Detachable magazines, ammunition purchase without background check, and magazines holding more than 10 bullets among many things the California Senate wants to outlaw.

    One cannot have a socialist slave state if the unwashed masses are armed.
    The Kalifornia elites ruling over the undermenschen are introducing these laws for their own good.
    What I mean by “their own good,” is the ruling elitist turds own good.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.