Gun Control

Governor Jerry Brown Signs Six, Vetoes Five Gun-Right Restricting Bills

One bill the California governor signed will require uncompensated destruction, sale, or confiscation of existing peacefully owned magazines with a capacity of larger than 10.

|

A raft of bills intended to restrict Californians' rights to possess or exchange their weapons went to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk this week, and today he signed six and vetoed five of them.

Templar 1307/Foter

Via a press release from the pro-Second Amendment Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), with descriptions that reflect their perspective, a list of the six signed and four of the five vetoed. (The last one on the vetoed list was not discussed by the FPC). The names in parenthesis are those of the legislator who introduced the bills. The [bracketed] interpolations are by me:

  • AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
  • AB 1511 (Santiago): Criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including family members, sportspersons, and competitors.
  • AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes a non-violent misdemeanor [falsely reporting a firearm as having been stolen] a prohibiting offense.
  • SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
  • SB 1235 (de Leon): New restrictions on ammunition purchases; creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.
  • SB 1446 (Hancock): Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully-possessed standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 round; exemption for retired police

 The five vetoed by Brown:

  • AB 1673 (Gipson): Would have redefined "firearms" to include objects that are not firearms [the bill would make legally a weapon "a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body that requires further machining or molding to be used as part of a functional weapon so long as it has been designed and is clearly identifiable as being used exclusively as part of a functional weapon."]
  • AB 1674 (Santiago): Would have banned buying more than one firearm of any type within a 30-day period
  • AB 2607 (Ting): Would have dramatically expanded the reach of secret "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" [From the bill's own language, it would "authorize an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the last 6 months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order," greatly expanding the ability of the state to restrict gun possession rights absent any crime. The bill would have allowed for confiscation of existing owned weapons at the suggestion of a co-worker or boss, among others. The Los Angeles Times focused on that now-vetoed bill in a story this morning.]
  • SB 894 (Jackson): Would have re-victimized victims of theft by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms
  • AB 1176 which would make "the theft of a firearm grand theft in all cases and punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years."

In an emailed press release from FPC, they noted regarding the signed SB 1446 that its:

statewide, confiscatory ban on lawfully-possessed "large-capacity" magazines [can be evaded by] law enforcement interests [who] once again cut shady deals to exempt their retired members from the long reach of the new gun control laws.

Earlier this year, Firearms Policy Coalition, two other civil rights groups, and a number of individuals filed a federal civil rights lawsuit–captionedGarcia v. Attorney General Kamala Harris–that challenges California's gun law exemptions for retired law enforcement officers on Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection grounds.

California should have already learned that bills like 1446 that require confiscations of widely and innocently owned items can be expensive (and pointless) to enforce from its past attempts to take away previously legally owned weapons from people whose later actions placed them in prohibited categories.

No one who cares about civil liberties should cheer the newly minted creation of overwhelmingly harmless contraband. No compensation will be provided for the now banned over-10-capacity magazines, which must be destroyed, sold, or turned in by July 1, 2017. A brand-new excuse for police searches of the innocent is thus created, one with a built-in excuse for police to feel "endangered."

I reported on versions of many of these bills passing the state Senate in May. 

I wrote in the Orange County Register in December about why California doesn't need new gun laws.

Steven Greenhut wrote here about how most of these bills qualify far more as harassment of the innocent than any kind of insurance of public safety. Greenhut observed: "The number of guns owned by Californians has soared over the past two decades, and the population has grown dramatically—yet firearms-related deaths have fallen over the years. Is gun violence a problem of gun supply by legal owners or the behavior of criminals?"

Correction: The headline originally mistakenly said only four gun-related bills were vetoed today.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Problem with Rationalia, Income Inequality Studies Is a Lucrative Field, Hating on Trump: P.M. Links

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. I thought California already had some of the most restrictive reasonable, common-sense gun laws in the country. How far can they go before they start becoming unreasonable and uncommon-sensible?

    1. 100% total confiscation of all non-government issued firearms?

      1. No, they are pretty much going after the ammo, it seems. Proggie logic dictate, “If there’s no ammo…. those icky, icky guns are just paperweights!”

    2. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for six months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $14000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Just try it out on the following website…
      Go here________________ http://www.Earnmore9.com

      1. Bullshit. She’s not using her laptop – she’s doing lap DANCES. She’s fucking for a living.

    3. They have to call them “common-sense gun laws” because the internet won’t let them get away with calling them “gun laws that have actually worked somewhere.”

  2. Overall another ungolden day in the Golden State.

    1. The only think golden out of Sacramento is the showers the legislature takes on the state.

        1. *thing

  3. …exemption for retired police…

    That’s just straight up evil right there.

    If it’s worth throwing someone in prison who refuses to have his property confiscated, then it’s worth confiscating it from law abiding former law enforcement officers too.

    1. What do you have against caste systems?

      1. I think it’s closer to Feudalism.

        1. Particularly Japanese feudalism where it was illegal for non-samurai to carry swords. I don’t think the European nobles gave a shit as long as the peasants paid their taxes.

          1. Actually, banning possession of arms was pretty common in Europe, too — just not in England.

    2. We can’t have them running around for 40+ years on our dime without the ability to terrorize whomever they please. Sheesh that would just be cruel.

    3. That was the first thing I noticed, too.

    4. I’d be tempted to make a “titles of nobility” claim along with the equal protection claim on that. The right to bear otherwise-prohibited arms was a traditional feature of a noble title, and “retired police officer” is not an actual employee of the government.

  4. Criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults

    Now, if only California would get around to criminalizing loaning of *really* deadly items between personally known, law-abiding adults. I’m talking automobiles and swimming pools, for starters.

    1. It’s never a bad time to create some new criminals.

    2. There was no urine in your pool when I returned it.

      1. Hmm, there was plenty in it when I gave it to you in the first place.

  5. First they come for the guns, then they come for your other property.

  6. I’m sure these were all carefully read and debated without any appearance of rushing to do something.

  7. I’m really worried. In 5 or 10 years, when statistics show how many fewer gun deaths have occurred because of these new laws, all the other states are going to want them.

    1. Not because of? gun deaths are already falling.

      In Australia, they were falling before and after the gun control laws went into effect.

      1. Don’t get too confident. They’ve managed to pull it off with OSHA.

        1. Yeah, liberals believe that the AWB decreased mass shootings even thought they went from 7 a year before the AWB to 8 a year to during the AWB to 9 a year after the AWB and that the Australia gun control law prevented shootings even though shootings went down before and after the law passed.

          Ignore everything before the law passed!

          1. What does the Average White Band have to do with mass shootings?

            1. They have to pick up the pieces.

              1. Only after they cut the cake.

          2. “7 a year before the AWB to 8 a year to during the AWB to 9 a year”

            Do you mean an 7 year decline to an 8 year increase to a 9 year decline?

      2. Just the opposite in Chicago – more guns restrictions resulted in more gun deaths.

    2. In the U.S., the homicide rate has been in decline anyway –

      Here’s what happened in Britain after they enacted their Firearms Amendment of 1997.

      http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode:1
      In the box to the left under “Select filters:
      Country or Area (206)”, scroll down and check “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. Then scroll down on the left and click on “Apply Filters”.

      Notice the both the absolute increase in homicides and the increase in the homicide rate beginning immediately after in ’98 and continuing for 7 years after that. Homicides peaked in 2002-2006 and declined after that due to increases in incarceration beginning around 2005 – http://www.parliament.uk/brief…..n04334.pdf (see p.3 of 23). Homicides didn’t return to 1997 levels until 2008.

    3. I’ll try to make the link work. Homicide has been falling in the U.S. anyway. I couldn’t find separate historical stats by state.

      The fucking link is supposed to fucking work

    4. Here’s another link to what happened in England and Wales after the U.K.’s strict Firearms Amendment of 1997. See p.17 of 118.

      Note the steep increase in “currently recorded” homicides starting immediately the year after enactment in 1997 spiking in 2004 and not returning to pre-1998 levels until after 2011.

      We don’t know what will happen in California. Only time will tell. But from the British experience, their gun-control increased homicides.

    5. In 5 or 10 years when statistics show that more deaths have occurred because of those laws, you’ll support repealing them, right?

  8. It’s a real mystery how California’s prisons became so overcrowded.

  9. At least we’ll have more test cases to get before the SCOTUS soon. Thanks, California!

    1. That is a scary thought.

    2. Let’s hope whoever is the next PUS appoints pro-gun members to the SCUS. Otherwise, better hold off on those test cases.

  10. SB 1235 (de Leon): New restrictions on ammunition purchases; creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.

    This clown, de Leon, is making the rounds in a viral video. He quite clearly has no clue what the hell he’s saying.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0

    1. I *thought* that name seemed familiar.

      Pelosi, Boxer, Waters, de Leon, ….

      1. Ser Gregor, the Hound, Queen Cersi, Raff the Sweetling…

    2. creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.

      How very Big Brother-y of them.

      1. “Here’s a great crime-fighting tool! Let’s give law enforcement a list of people who have repeatedly been through extensive background checks, and are far less likely to commit crimes than the people who are not on the list!”

  11. Thank God I live in a state that’s not going to be anywhere near close in the Presidential election, otherwise this shit would really tempt me to vote for y’all know who.

  12. Hey, they exempted retired police from the >10 round magazine ban. It’s good to know our betters are getting the privileges they deserve.

    What a crock of shit.

    1. Seems to me that exempting anyone from unconstitutional infringement on our right to self defense is itself a violation of the equal protection clause.

      -jcr

      1. There’s a lawsuit going on about this very issue.

  13. SB 1446 (Hancock): Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully-possessed standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 round; exemption for retired police

    How do they expect to enforce this? Outside of the Bay Area and LA I can’t see many sheriff’s and local law enforcement pushing this.

    1. It gives police one more way to fuck with non-police; there isn’t a police force anywhere in America that isn’t in favor of that.

  14. Further proof that God loves the 1911.

    1. Serious question. Which tend to be better, the cheap Turkish 1911s or the cheap Phillipino 1911s? Asking for a friend.

      1. The word i heard was that the “Best cheap 1911” is not very cheap – its the springfield armory GI model.

      2. By Filipino, do you mean Armscor/Rock Island Armory? I have a RIA 1911 full tactical setup. Cost just over $800 with ambidextrous safety (yay for being left-handed) and tritium sights. Love it. It performs as well as, if not better than, my Kimber.

        1. Yeah RIA, she can’t really afford much more than that and they seem to have a fairly good reputation. Buds has the lower end ones for around $400 and the reviews are good. Thanks for the feedback.

          1. Yea. They’re great. I’d just recommend upgrading the sights as an absolute necessity. The standard ones are almost unusable.

            1. For ammo, start by putting 200 round of 230 grain brass-cases ball ammo through. Blazer is a good brand. Then you can shoot the cheap steel-cased Tula or Wolf just fine. Just make sure to clean after each range day.

              1. Last one, I promise. Another great investment is a GSG 1911 22. It’s a full-size 1911 with full 1911 parts compatibility chambered in 22lr. Less than $300. Makes for a very inexpensive way to practice since .22lr ammo is dirt cheap and 45 acp is ridiculously expensive. Might even be a better first buy, since it allows lots of repetition of mechanics on the cheap.

          2. Good reviews on the Taurus PT1911 as well as the RIA.

            I have my eye on the Springfield Range Officer line.

          3. If your hands will work with a double stack mag, the SAR K2 .45 is just under $500 from Bud’s.
            Good trigger, good sights and 14 + 1 rounds. Bud’s puts them on sale occasionally. I paid
            $450 last year just after a sale price of $400 expired. So maybe $450 next sale price. I bought 3 extra mags, so I am ready.

      3. Get a Colt. They’ve cut prices since the bankruptcy and used ones can be had for a fair price in a private party sale.

  15. Wouldn’t the confiscation/destruction requirement for magazines without compensation run afoul of the 5th amendment? Is California even aware of the existence of a Constitution anymore?

    Is the Supreme Court ever going to enforce the constitution, or would that massively inconvenience them from removing their thumbs from their asses?

    1. Wouldn’t the confiscation/destruction requirement for magazines without compensation run afoul of the 5th amendment?

      Not under the prevailing view of the Takings Clause, unfortunately. Courts have generally said that statutory and regulatory prohibitions of this type aren’t compensable takings because the property isn’t being appropriated “for public use.” Furthermore — and this is the real bullshit — even if that wasn’t the case, courts have also said that for regulatory takings to be compensable, property owners must be deprived of all beneficial use of their property… and the fact that this law allows people to sell or move their mags out of state would probably be enough to satisfy courts that it doesn’t meet that threshold.

      Is California even aware of the existence of a Constitution anymore?

      These people do not care. They give a shit about process to precisely the extent that it provides the substantive outcome they prefer, and not a nanometer more. And the federal district and appellate courts covering California are chock-a-block with these hacks, who’ll come up with positively Byzantine arguments to protect unenumerated rights they like while flat-out ignoring Heller and McDonald.

      1. Just to elaborate on this, a little. These people will mouth a few platitudes about how they respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment because political decorum still requires them to do so, but they’ll immediately yes-but it to death with the usual tedious bullshit: no right is absolute, can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, reasonable regulations, nobody needs. Occasionally one of them will allow the mask to slip and display their authoritarianism and cultural bigotry — I’ll never forget Don Perata, the contemptible architect of California’s expanded Evil Black Rifle ban, telling an aspiring Olympic shooter that he considered it a feature rather than a bug that she’d have to leave the state if the law passed — but they’re otherwise really good at pretending to give a fuck about process and the Constitution in the abstract while giving absolutely no fucks in practice.

      2. Just to elaborate on this, a little. These people will mouth a few platitudes about how they respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment because political decorum still requires them to do so, but they’ll immediately yes-but it to death with the usual tedious bullshit: no right is absolute, can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, reasonable regulations, nobody needs. Occasionally one of them will allow the mask to slip and display their authoritarianism and cultural bigotry — I’ll never forget Don Perata, the contemptible architect of California’s expanded Evil Black Rifle ban, telling an aspiring Olympic shooter that he considered it a feature rather than a bug that she’d have to leave the state if the law passed — but they’re otherwise really good at pretending to give a fuck about process and the Constitution in the abstract while giving absolutely no fucks in practice.

      3. Courts have generally said that statutory and regulatory prohibitions of this type aren’t compensable takings because the property isn’t being appropriated “for public use.”

        Following which the court declared it an unconstitutional taking and a bunch of government employees went to jail for theft, right? Right?

        Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, how is there such a thing as a legal taking “not for public use”?!?

          1. Point taken, but the decision in Kelo is actually predicated on expanding the definition of “public use” not outright saying “we can take your shit, public use or no”. The government’s argument, which the Court’s “liberal” wing lapped up, was that taking for nebulous (and as yet unrealized AFAIK) public benefit is a form of public use. That technically rules out taking property for the sake of taking it. Although I can see a pretty straight slippery slope from the Kelo argument to “by removing this property (guns) from private use altogether, we manifest a publicly beneficial use of it” or somesuch bullshit.

  16. AB 1511 (Santiago): Criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including family members, sportspersons, and competitors.

    I know FYTW and all, but what is the Constitutional basis for this? It’s presumed that all adults have the right to buy and possess a firearm until they forfeit that right via due process of law.

    Seems to me that this would violate a person’s right to property. They should only be liable if the weapon is used to hurt someone because it’s their responsibility, and that’s a tort, not a criminal offense.

    1. “regulated” + “commerce clause” = FYTW. After Wickard v. Filburn there are no meaningful checks on the power of government.

      1. The Commerce Clause and Wickard have nothing to do with this. This is an exercise of state, not federal, power. The federal government is (theoretically) constrained by the Commerce Clause; states, in contrast, have a general “police power” and are free to regulate in ways the fedgov isn’t.

        The operative constraints here are the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, but the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has heretofore refused to find any state regulation of guns impermissible, notwithstanding Heller and McDonald.

    2. I’m curious too. I guess they consider it an unauthorized transfer?

    3. I know FYTW and all, but what is the Constitutional basis for this?

      There isn’t one, but no one has successfully challenged the law yet. There was an attempted lawsuit challenging the law but the judge threw it out because “no one has been arrested, therefore no one can show harm”.

      So in the case of Washington’s facsimile, until someone is thrown in a cage for “transferring” his firearm, the law will stand.

      1. So in the same vein, it’s ok to threaten to throw a judge into a wood chipper because until they are in the chipper, there’s no harm?

        Do I hear that idiot Preet knocking on my door?

        1. Tell him “fuck you very much” for me

      2. What? Which jurisdiction ruled that the explicit threat of jail was sufficient to show harm?

        1. Washington state.

          ‘In his order dismissing the suit, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle wrote that the plaintiffs’ “alleged threat of prosecution is not genuine” and that because “Plaintiffs have failed to show a genuine or imminent threat of prosecution,” they do not have “standing to bring this challenge.”‘

          http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat…..check-law/

          1. I could have sworn that a federal court somewhere else did accept that threat of prosecution granted standing. Was it Heller maybe?

      3. The State of Washington has consistently refused to prosecute anyone under the “transfer” law knowing that it would be struck down by the courts. It doesn’t matter because controlling transfers was never the purpose of the law.

        The law enables the government to track all gun purchases and establish a database of gun owners for the purpose of eventual confiscation. In a few years the state will know where almost every gun is and will be able to implement confiscation, not mass confiscation but targeted confiscation of guns from people on “no fly” lists or who have been in “rehab” or who have pissed off a politician.

        The purpose of a law is rarely the stated purpose but what it will eventually enable the government to do. No one actually believes that magazine bans or ammo registration will cut down the number of mass shootings. Even politicians aren’t that dumb.

        The next move will be using that fact that someone is on a list (suspected terrorist, psychological problems, drug user) as “probable cause” to search and seize property. In essence, something that does not require probable cause will be used to establish probable cause.

        1. In a few years 3D printing will make this all a mute point. All these laws due is further polarize our country with no real benefit.

  17. AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.

    Don’t know what this means.

    Criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including family members, sportspersons, and competitors.

    Already have that here. A law that has resulted in zero prosecutions thus far.

    SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.

    How is this different from #1?

    SB 1235 (de Leon): New restrictions on ammunition purchases; creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners

    So again, we are getting lists.

    SB 1446 (Hancock): Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully-possessed standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 round; exemption for retired police

    Once again, if you’re not police, you’re little people.

    1. Re: AB 1135. You can currently own an “assault rifle” in CA if it features a “bullet button”, which is a fitting on a magazine release that prevents you from detaching the magazine by hand; you have to use a small tool (a key, etc) to release the magazine. This bill does away with that exception and turns ARs, etc with bullet buttons into “assault rifles”.

      1. So if you currently own, say, an AR with a bullet button, it becomes an “assault weapon” subject to registration on 1/1/2016.

  18. Are they serious with the “the theft of a firearm grand theft in all cases and punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years.” What ever happened to the opposition to mandatory minimums and overincarceration Democrats cared about? Thank God he vetoed that one.

    1. Eh. As a very pro-2nd person, I have absolutely no problem with this. Penalize theft, especially of weapons, harshly.

      1. They should punish car theft the same way

        1. Do they not? Pretty sure theft in an amount > $500 is a felony.

      2. Anything can be used as a weapon.

        1. True, Zheodor.

          However, the larger and more dangerous the item, like a car, the less likely it is to be easily concealed. Most would also have a hard time hurting someone 500 feet away, or even 20 feet away, with a knife. I guess that’s the logic (such as it is) behind this farce.

          UKR’s gun laws prohibit pistols for the same rationale – that they are easily concealed. Doesn’t work, really, but getting ammo *is* something of a trick, depending upon the weapon. Rifles, OTOH, since they have a permanent stock, have no such restrictions. Ammo is still expensive, not surprisingly.

          It’s amazing how similar TPROC to former Soviet Bloc countries these days. They should just call their legislature a Politburo and elect a Premiere at this this point.

      3. Are they penalizing the thief or the victim? It is California, after all.

        Also, how clear is the definition of theft? If I borrow your gun either with your explicit permission or at least an implicit understanding, would that constitute theft even if you had no interest in pressing charges?

        1. I believe, “Yes,” is the correct answer to all your queries, kbolino.

  19. AB 1511 (Santiago): Criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including family members, sportspersons, and competitors.
    So you can’t let somebody else shoot your gun, ever?

    1. They won’t define, they won’t tell.

      We have the same law here in Washington. Officials, police and prosecutors refuse to define “loan” or to be specific in the language of the actual law: Transfer.

      No one knows what “transfer” means. It’s literally up to the whim of the arresting officer or prosecuting attorney.

      1. And that’s the way they like it. First test case will be some unsavory white supremacist child molester or similar.

      2. Isn’t that the same thing with letting your spouse shoot your SBR?

        1. Same principal without a gun trust.

    2. In actuality the process explained in Hunter’s Safety courses for crossing fences is now a crime.

      Handing your gun to your fellow hunter while you cross the fence or you holding their gun while they cross is now a crime.

      Fucking go to hell California.

  20. SB 1446 (Hancock): Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully-possessed standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 round; exemption for retired police

    How is that supposed to work?

    bills like 1446 that require confiscations of widely and innocently owned items can be expensive (and pointless) to enforce

    yeah, my thoughts exactly. BUT DONT LET IT STOP US FROM DOING IT AGAIN!

    Are handguns already limited to 10 in CA? meaning, can you buy a standard firearm (a la Glock 19)…but own non-standard CA-compliant mags? or are you fucked because there “are no” lower-capacity magazines for your given model of weapon?

    I’m just confused how even people that would WANT to comply would be able to do so without finding themselves with a gun that can’t be used at all. And potentially un-salable?

    1. All my gun boxes say “illegal in California”.

      1. Keep in mind that ‘illegal in CA’ generally means ‘illegal for sale by a FFL holder to anyone (who’s not a cop)’. You can still *possess and import* those weapons – subject to the normal CA registration requirements – you just can run a business selling them. I think even PP sales of them are legal, they just can’t be sold at gun stores.

    2. Import, transfer, and sale of magazines with greater than 10-round capacity has been illegal in California since 2001 or 2004, I can’t quite remember which. You can buy 10-round mags for anything, and until now you could keep larger-capacity mags you owned prior to the ban.

      Now, says California, you have to get rid of any of those grandfathered mags.

      I expect compliance to be negligible. People will buy a few 10-round mags for the sake of appearances, and if anybody asks their old grandfathered mags were all lost in a tragic canoeing accident.

      1. Yep, they will have to get rid of them, but they will also be banned from selling them to folks that live in states that don’t elect fucking gun grabbing representatives.

    3. CA only allows the sale of pistols that have been researched/inspected/whatever by Top Men. There’s a list of allowed models. Presumably only those which feature

      1. Ugh. Cut off. Those which comply with CA laws are allowed. For instance, I have a 1911 chambered in .22lr which would usually have a threaded barrel. In CA, that’s illegal so the manufacturer epoxied a nut onto the barrel. It’s now legal and made the list. Similar things with magazine limits; just modify slightly.

        1. And their ‘safe research’ consists of a drop test to see if the gun will fire if dropped. There’s pretty much no modern firearm that won’t pass it, but it allows new designs to be held up for a year or more until the state gets around to certifying them.

          The Gen 3 and earlier Glock 19’s are legal for sale in CA – the Gen 4, which is functionally identical, is not yet.

          1. It’s so expensive that I don’t think a lot of companies care. I imagine the profit margins are thin on entry pistols (glock,XD,S&W, ect) that playing the CA game isn’t worth it.

    4. You’d have to take a normal mag and open it up and put a stopper in so that there’s only room to load 10 rounds.

      Its functionally identical to what you have to do with a pump shotgun to limit it to 2 rounds in the magazine for bird-hunting. In that case there’s just a little wooden dowel preventing you from putting more rounds in.

      I don’t think a magazine sized to only hold 10 rounds would even fit inside the handgrip of a G19 – it’d be jammed up in there and shorter than the handgrip.

    5. You could only buy 10 round magazines. But you could keep older, larger ones. You could also buy repair kits for older ones. In practice it meant you could assemble standard capacity magazines. Just don’t be dumb enough to do it for a magazine that wasn’t made prior to the ban.

  21. My coworker borrows his father-in-laws shotgun on Wednesdays to go shoot clay pigeons. Now he’s a criminal. Do you guys have the hotline so I can report him?

    1. Can you image at the range?
      “Oh hello, that’s a nice ____ you have. Would you mind if I tried it?”
      Nope.

  22. RE: Governor Jerry Brown Signs Six, Vetoes Five Gun-Right Restricting Bills
    One bill the California governor signed will require uncompensated destruction, sale, or confiscation of existing peacefully owned magazines with a capacity of larger than 10.

    We should all congratulate Comrade Brown on his excellent work in turning the People’s Republic of Kalifornia into a society where law-abiding citizens are disarmed.
    One only has to look at the USSR, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba, etc to see how well the masses behave once they are disarmed.
    It comes down to trust.
    Why wouldn’t we trust the socialist slavers in power?
    They wouldn’t do anything evil, and they are always looking out for our best interest.
    They said so many times.
    They wouldn’t lie.

    1. There are some states where no matter the god damned laws they pass we won’t be disarmed.

      I am getting really really fucking sick of Progressives on the march in America.

  23. Are handguns already limited to 10 in CA? meaning, can you buy a standard firearm (a la Glock 19)…but own non-standard CA-compliant mags? or are you fucked because there “are no” lower-capacity magazines for your given model of weapon?

    Just draw a line on the magazine, and label it “Fill to Here.”

  24. Guess I’ll be buying my weapons and ammo out of the back of a van in south central LA. Better practice my Spanish.

    -jcr

    1. West Oakland for me. 🙂

      1. Vallejo or GTFO.

        1. What’s hacienda heights, chopped liver?

      2. DJK, are you local? We’re having an H&R meetup in SF this Sunday afternoon, with special guest Derpetologist. Email me at my handle + gmail.com if you want to come! (Or be on the list for future meetups.)

  25. I’m going to buy as many different calibers as I can once the tracking starts. I say we all do it and that will fuck up the database.

  26. What were the five he vetoed? Mandatory execution of gun owners? How insane does a gun control bill have to be to be too much for Jerry Brown?

    1. “Mandatory execution of gun owners.”

      *makes note of excellent idea for next “Meet your representative event”*

  27. I expect people will be moving.

    1. They are. Unfortunately they bring their Calidiocy with them.

      1. I will be moving to Nevada after I retire.

        The derp in California makes me sad, it really is a lovely place and that has been its downfall. The somethin for nuthin crowd is drawn to it.

  28. The gun grabbers are a cult. Any of these items, you ask how many violent criminals would it have stopped, or even how many violent crimes were committed by people doing X, and I suspect you’d get a blank stare.

    Years ago they banned the 50 cal, despite not one crime having ever been committed by that gun, ever.

    1. No dude – they banned the ‘Barret M82 .50 BMG’ by *name*. And only that rifle in that caliber. So you are still free to buy other .50 cal rifles in CA *and* Barret simply rechambered the M82 to .416 Barret and kept selling what was essentially the same weapon.

      Which, as you pointed out, has never been used in a crime inside the United States – because criminals are not going to shell out 8-12k *and 3 dollars a round to knock off a bank. I don’t even know what sort of crime you would do with one of those that you couldn’t do as well or better with any number of other rifles. Not many professional snipers are interested in political assassination against moving targets inside an armored car in the US and the sorts of people that make up the general criminal population couldn’t hit *stationary* target with this gun.

      1. Its insane the way these people think about firearms. Just insane. ‘Can fire a 30 magazine clip in under a second’.

        1. Metal attains magical evil mind altering qualities when its shaped in the form of a gun….

          1. So do Pop Tarts.

    1. I’m not even angry at the stupidity of lawmakers anymore. You really just have to look at the people who elect them.

    2. This will buy her some more votes, although unlikely she’ll need them as a D in Filthadelphia.

      1. She could conceivably get primaried, but not for this. (I was relieved to learn that I do not reside in her district but it was really, really close.)

    3. Brown recently protested a Confederate flag in a display at the state Capitol and Gov. Tom Wolf ordered it removed. Brown says it’s a symbol of hatred and murder which wasn’t mentioned in the Capitol display and likely won’t be on the battlefield reenactment.

      “If they’re not going to tell the story properly, then they should not be displayed and they should not be reenacted unless they’re going to tell the truth,” she said.

      The only way to deal with these people is to goad them to keep talking

      Because eventually it becomes obvious that they’re just relying on a few stock phrases, but otherwise have no fucking clue what they’re talking about.

      “Not telling the truth”? What exactly is the truth, then? explain how history happened, ma’am, and what the “proper” form of historical re-enactment *should* be.

      In fact, why don’t you put on an example of your “cleansed” historical re-enactment. I think that would make wonderful campaign-ad footage.

      1. “You have to tell the truth!”

        “Ok, ok, they actually used a slightly different formulation of gunpowder but it’s more dangerous and we don’t want the reenactors to get hurt”

        “That’s not what I mean!”

        “It’s a reenactment of a battle, not a recitation of the entire history of the war.”

        1. +Monster Island is actually a peninsula

    4. Aaaand peak derp reaches a new jumping off point.

  29. For German soccer supporter. Ancelotti pens article praising them:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foo…..ty-experi/

    1. As long as Bayern are better than tiki taka this season.

      (Almost nothing would satisfy me more than seeing Man Shitty go out in CL qualifying.)

  30. Trust democracy.

    1. The Lonely Island should sue.

    2. That’s something she can tell her grandchildren.

      1. Let’s just hope that isn’t grandfather shaking his grandchild’s hand.

    3. I think I’m going to do this downtown this weekend.

    4. When we next saw her, she featured in her own installation called “Plop Egg” where she squeezed paint-filled eggs out of her vagina, allowing them to burst colorfully onto blank canvases below outside of Art Cologne (see HERE)

      How original. The spectrum of feminist art seems to be endlessly expanding into new, uncharted realms

      1. I guess the chicken came first.

      2. I think you mean, “speculum,” GILMORE….

        I seem to remember that was an art fad at one time as well, IIRC. Something along the lines of some Prof using an overhead projector to display her cervix whilst reciting, “The Vagina Monologues.”

      1. Irish people? Drunk? And FIGHTING? Whaaat?

  31. Fuck that fucking state. I don’t know how anyone can live there.

    1. I was born there and the only way I could live there today would be if I was allowed to Purge a significant part of the population (and 99.9+% of Sacramento).

      1. I feel the same way about New York.

        1. I spent 20+ years in both NY and CA and feel the same way about both.

    2. I don’t know how anyone can live there.

      Something something the weather something something.

      1. If you want sunny days and a dry heat, there’s always El Paso.

      2. My wife doesn’t want to leave family…….

  32. Did anyone mention “libertarian moment”?

    Forget Mexico – if Trump promises to wall off California from the rest of the country that SOB has my vote.

    1. Trump is misunderstood. His policy is to protect Mexico.

    2. Did anyone mention “libertarian moment”

      I haven’t seen Winston lately..

    3. Forget the “libertarian moment”. Talk about “libertarian momentum” or more accurately, the lack of libertarian momentum. Every time we think we’ve started to move, as in the Heller and McDonald decisions, we find ourselves slammed to a stop by authoritarians who, like the Terminator, just won’t quit until we are dead.

  33. Fascist

  34. Lunch at a tavern today, sitting at the bar. Off to my right is a guy I recognize; an attorney. A guy sitting to his right asks his take on the Lynch/Clinton meeting; he says it was totally unethical. In his comments, like Clinton knowing what is ‘secret’, knowing what is ‘unethical’ is presumed to be part of an attorney’s professional skills, even if a specific action isn’t prohibited in writing someplace.
    OK, sounds like he might be a guy with whom I could have a drink, but then he goes on to point out that the real problem is the harm it might cause the Ds in the election….
    Yep, unethical as hell, but who cares about that?

    1. “The appearance of corruption”. What’s silly is that every sane person knows that Lynch and the Clinton machine have been\are\will be coordinating with each other to get Hillary elected and yet people are Shocked! Bill would do this.

    2. Putin is arguably more honest then Shrillary; not necessarily better, but at least he has a discernible moral compass.

      That’s very telling…

  35. This is outrageous

    This elderly and frail veteran and his elderly and frail wife wife are *not* on medicaid – if they were, they’d be able to live together in a “community care foster home.” But by Hawaii law, only one non-medicaid person can live in a community care foster home.

    But the government says they have other options of places to live, or else the foster home can ask to change its licensing classification.

    That seems to be it.

  36. Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.

    I’m confused – don’t they *want* magazine locking devices?

    1. AB 1135 and SB 880 are the same fucking text.

      1. Bills have to pass both houses, therefore it’s advantageous to introduce the same bill in each house and substitute one at the end of the process.

    2. I’m confused – don’t they *want* magazine locking devices?

      Oh, magazine locking devices themselves are fine. It’s the *firearms* they want banned.

    3. I think the intent is to ban anything that isn’t muzzle loaded.

    4. They already prohibit non-locking ones; this makes the prohibition on magazine-fed versions of those weapons complete.

    5. This seems to explain it.

      Basically, magazine locks require a tool to be used to remove the magazine. These were introduced to circumvent/comply with the detachable magazine ban that California already had in place.

  37. What? Moonbeam actually *vetoed* some of these bills? Jeepers! I guess they will come back to those at a later time (it’s a shame aneurysms aren’t contagious when they take votes) . These Proglodytic Haplophobes never give up…

    Oh, DOHERTY! Yeah, you! If you post a graphic with a language most of your readers don’t speak, ‘twould behoove you to provide *GASP* …alt-text… (yes, I know it’s been a furrin’ language to you as well, Doherty – yet you mastered HMTL links to hawk your books) with an English translation.

    “GRAZHDANIE! Sdavajte Oruzhie!”

    “(CITIZENRY! [You all] Deliver [to us your] Guns!)”

    The proper response is, “Pisdec, syka!” (Careful using this one – it can get you killed.)

    1. Maybe Doherty figured that American Socialist would be along to provide the translation. AmSoc probably has a framed copy of the poster in a shrine.

  38. Before Jerry headed off to Europe on vacation over the 4th he couldn’t resist stomping the 2nd.

  39. But the regulations Texas had for abortion clinics were too much of a burden on a constitutional right. These of course are not.

    Fuck you California.

  40. I basically profit close to $10k-$12k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it…Then this work opportunity is for you

    ========== http://www.Today70.Com

  41. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  42. Are you Facing Mortgage foreclosure? Overwhelmed and drowning in credit card debt? Collection agencies won’t leave you alone? IRS on your back? Losing sleep because of the stress and uncertainty of your financial situation? You are not alone. We understand your debt problems or should you need to start a business/project and we can help you. Contact us via email: royalworldfundings@gmail.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.