Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

California Wins Battle in Ongoing War Against ‘Assault Weapons’

New Golden State registration rules are OK, judge says.

Ultraone/Dreamstime.comUltraone/Dreamstime.comLaw-abiding Californians' right to buy and sell AR-15s and other popular semi-automatic rifles shrank this week after a judge upheld state rules targeting "assault weapons."

The National Rifle Association's state affiliate had challenged rules, set to take effect on July 1, that expand the existing definition of "assault weapon" to include centerfire rifles with "bullet buttons," plus a slew of handguns and shotguns. Those rules, the group's lawsuit argued, extend far beyond what a 2016 state law authorized.

"The legislature has found and declared that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of the citizenry of California," Superior Court Judge Mark Snauffer, a Democratic appointee in Fresno, wrote in an little-noticed opinion published Wednesday. "The challenged regulations appear to carry out the intention of the legislature."

Snauffer's decision underscores how hostile to gun owners the California judiciary has become. Just as the state is trying to nullify federal marijuana and immigration laws, it's also trying to effectively nullify the federal Second Amendment. And unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, California's anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats might get away with it.

"We're disappointed but not surprised," says Sean Brady, an attorney at Michel & Associates who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association in the case, known as Villanueva v. Becerra. "These complex technical cases are usually challenging, particularly when you're up against the state."

The technical question arises from a fairly straightforward law. In 2016, the California legislature expanded the definition of so-called assault weapons to sweep in ones outfitted with a bullet button. A bullet button is a quick release system that allows magazines to be swapped in and out by using a bullet tip as a tool. The goal of the law was to restrict removable magazines.

But the state Department of Justice seems to be targeting more firearms—and requiring their registration by July 1 upon pain of criminal penalties—than the law actually authorizes. The plaintiffs argue, convincingly, that the department "has promulgated and is currently enforcing a whole host of regulations that go far beyond the registration process without adhering to the [Administrative Procedure Act's] requirements."

For instance, the regulations reclassify certain shotguns as assault weapons (assault shotguns?), move up the deadline for obtaining a serial number for 3D-printed or homemade firearms, and limit the definition of "family member" for joint registrations of affected firearms.

Under California law, probably the most Draconian in the country, so-called assault weapons are heavily restricted. They cannot be rented at gun ranges. They cannot be inherited. They cannot be sold to another California resident. They cannot be imported. And owning one is a crime unless it's registered with the government. Officials appear to hope that the number of Californians with fully functional AR-15s or equivalents will keep shrinking and eventually, with time, drop to zero.

In addition to this administrative challenge to the 2016 Assault Weapons Control Act, the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed a constitutional challenge invoking the Second Amendment. It had no more success. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, an Obama appointee, sided with the state a few weeks ago, saying: "Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right."

A third lawsuit challenging the Assault Weapons Control Act on both constitutional and administrative grounds has been on hold since it was filed in November. Plaintiffs in this case, Holt v. Becerra, include the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

"We're very disappointed in what I think is a very wrong ruling by the court in Fresno," says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. "We're reviewing it and reviewing options. We'll do the best we can to give gun owners a fighting chance."

Given the political leanings of much of the California judiciary, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Instead, this week's decision will embolden government officials working diligently to turn the Golden State into a Second Amendment–free zone.

Photo Credit: Ultraone/Dreamstime.com

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, California's anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats might get away with it.

    I'd hate to guess how that would turn out.

  • Longtobefree||

    Picture San Francisco and Los Angeles and Sacramento under siege by hundreds of thousands of musket wielding citizens while the federal government *Trump* nationalizes the guard to keep the governor from using them. The cops split 50-50 and decide that since no dogs are in use it is not their fight. Behind the muskets would be the trebuchets throwing 55 gallon barrels of gasoline. The homeless would rise up to take what is rightfully theirs, running out of town the half of the residents who always claimed to have concern for the homeless but never actually did anything useful. The remaining citizens would be at their windows, watching through their cell phone camera viewfinders and going puff puff pass. After the rebels were victorious, they would roll a D6 to determine the number of new states to apply for admission to the union, and establish a territorial protectorate to house progressives safely where they would not infect others. The constitution would be re-established, and the ninth circuit dissolved.

  • HGW xx/7||

    A Team America sequel perhaps?

  • Rat on a train||

    55 gallon barrels of gasoline
    Not in California. Barrels of batteries perhaps.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Just crash a Tesla into the State House. Put it on autopilot, Let It Go, it'll incinerate the whole place.

  • dchang0||

    By the time this scenario happens, neither gasoline nor batteries will be affordable.
    It would take serious economic collapse for the normally complacent people of Western countries to actually take up arms to overthrow their political class.
    It'll be rocks and burning trash--stuff that can be gathered freely--that are in the trebuchets.

  • TangoDelta||

    You're making the assumption that fire and trebuchets won't be banned. Thanks to Elon Musk there already is a contingent that is hell bent on banning fire especially fire throwing apparatus. Mark my words, no trebuchets and no fire by 2020 if not sooner.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The state government of CA should mostly be put in prison, and at least parts of the state under martial law.

  • gphx||

    Tell that to the LAPD Gatling Drones.

  • a tandem||

    The surveys of serving police officers who profoundly low support for the type of gun control California is enacting.

    fortunately gun sales in California are breaking records, which is a good unintended consequence of the gun ban lobby. Long term it is the ultimate in luddite thinking since 3d and more importantly, mill down (be it CNC or your drill press) tech will relentlessly get cheaper more widespread, and use stronger and stronger polymers.

  • barfman2018||

    *barf*

  • ||

    No, per Scalia, who literally wrote that Scary Looking Guns bans were unconstitutional.

  • JesseAz||

    You'd think with how many times you've quoted that small excerpt, you would have had time to read the full decision by now. But you seem all consumed by an out of context piece of dicta like it's your favorite shiny object.

  • Sevo||

    "But you seem all consumed by an out of context piece of dicta like it's your favorite shiny object."

    I thought he was stupid, but it seems he really is addled.

  • Wolf Larsen||

    So's your mom.

  • a tandem||

    DC caved on its threat to ban all semi auto rifles.
    It also lost its ability to ban all semi auto pistols.

  • Longtobefree||

    "Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right."

    So an outright ban on certain judges opinions would not substantially burden justice in California?

  • barfman2018||

    *barf*

  • ||

    No, because Scalia said Scary Looking Guns bans were unconstitutional

  • JesseAz||

    No he didn't. Banning semi automatics would ban 90% of all common use weapons which is what was explicitly defended by the seller decision.

  • Sevo||

    "He did confirm that 2A does not protect semi-automatics."

    I asked him in the past to define "semi-automatic weapon"; crickets.
    Pretty sure, in his condition, he's convinced they are black, scary gun!!!!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    The sheriff is near?

  • a tandem||

    "He did confirm that 2A does not protect semi-automatics."

    He never said any such thing. There are no guns more common than semi automatics, so you are wrong. In fact the proportion of semi auto guns has gone from about 50% of guns sold in the 1980's to about 90% today. you can see the sales trends on the gun sale sites.

    the most popular gun in Canada is the mini-14 semi auto rifle. That is the gun used in the biggest student shooting in the world (utoya Norway). Canada does even have that on its "restricted list."

    Washington DC LOST its post heller attempt to ban semi auto handguns. it only registered revolvers for six months after Heller -- until its own city attorneys issued a finding that not allowing semi auto pistols violated Heller.

    DC and NYC also don't prohibit the mini 14, the proven most lethal "assault rifle"

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    I'm not a particular fan of the AR-15 (I prefer the cleaner action, lower sights and in-line stock of the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle), but this inspires me to go purchase a few.

  • John||

    I agree Mini 14s are cool But these assholes are making me want an AR 15 out of spite

  • iffickck||

    I picked up some lowers for exactly that reason

  • AlmightyJB||

    The 80% lowers have become quite popular.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, the anti-gun statist pigs are the top gun salesmen in the world.

  • Tony||

    It's our fault you're gullible, bitter NRA toadies?

  • iffickck||

    Tony doesn't understand implied scarcity

  • Tony||

    So you're hoarding guns for investment purposes?

    What if they become totally illegal in the future? You gonna shoot your way through the bureaucrats?

    The sick dynamic here is that school shootings sell guns. The NRA loves school shootings. And you people are their marks.

  • ||

    "What if they become totally illegal in the future?"

    Did you cum writing that?

    "The NRA loves school shootings. And you people are their marks."

    Hyperbole wrapped up in hysterics. A more proggish statement you can't get.

  • Tony||

    I'm referring only to those here who think they're boasting or being clever or something when they say they're going to behave like zombies under complete NRA mind control and go feed the gun industry some cash purely out of spite.

  • You are very stupid||

    It could be economic interest.

  • ||

    I buy on principle all the time and if I were American I'd do the same damn thing just to piss faux righteous pearl-clutchers off.

  • MarkLastname||

    Tony, do you realize what a delusional conspiracy theorist you sound like? Does it occur to you that some people actually just like guns and that's why they buy them when the probability of the market for them being suppressed goes up?

    Is it sick that an HIV epidemic leads investors to buy up stock in vaccine companies? No, it's just supply and demand. Now go take your midol.

  • Nardz||

    "You gonna shoot your way through the bureaucrats?"

    I damn near cane reading that

  • Nardz||

    *came!

  • SIV||

    Me too

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    ""What if they become totally illegal in the future?"

    Did you cum writing that?"

    Tony did get hard, but did not cum until he saw a twelve year old boy walking across the street.

  • John||

    Yeah tony something being illegal makes it valueless. That is why there is no money in cocaine. You are just an idiot

  • Tony||

    And as libertarians you at least surely remember getting your drugs on the black market. Just as easy-peasy for guns right? Gonna be comfortable with guys with illicit trunkfulls coming to your place, or you heading out to their neighborhood to score your black-market AR?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What?

    Are you trying to say that people here were for the drug war? Or are you trying to say that black-market goods sell for less money than if they are legal?

    Or just that it's less safe to buy things on the black market? What was your point there?

  • Tony||

    My point is that maybe banning guns is more effective than banning weed because almost no people will want to bother with the trappings of the black market in guns, especially when it's just for a jerkoff toy.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.1.18 @ 4:59PM|#
    "My point is that maybe banning guns is more effective than banning weed because almost no people will want to bother with the trappings of the black market in guns, especially when it's just for a jerkoff toy."

    I'm guessing that in your bubble world, you actually believe that.
    Your masturbation fantasies are yours alone, but among the Marin County rock-'n-rollers in the '70s, it wasn't uncommon to have what amounted to a Tupperware party featuring various semi-automatic (yes) pistols. And if the guy didn't have stock on the one you wanted, it would get delivered promptly.
    What 'trappings' do the voices in your head fancy, you imbecile?

  • Tony||

    I'm saying perhaps a significant fraction of the truly committed gun wankers would decide not to bother going against the law. Most of the guns are already in the hands of a small minority of weirdos. If the problem is severe, they would have brought draconian measures on themselves by refusing to be anything but maximally dogmatic this whole time. What would you be willing to compromise with the vast majority of this country that wants more regulation? Nothing, right? Because this isn't a democratic civilized society like so many others that manage this problem quite well, you get what you want just because you say so.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.1.18 @ 11:18PM|#
    "I'm saying perhaps a significant fraction of the truly committed gun wankers would decide not to bother going against the law."
    You stupid shit; an assertion, especially from an idiot like you is worth nothing, so we can ignore that bullshit.

    "Most of the guns are already in the hands of a small minority of weirdos. If the problem is severe, they would have brought draconian measures on themselves by refusing to be anything but maximally dogmatic this whole time."
    More imbecilic assertion. Do you have any idea what "evidence' means?

    "What would you be willing to compromise with the vast majority of this country that wants more regulation? Nothing, right?"
    What would you be willing to compromise if the vast majority of this country wantesd gays to be stuffed in jail, you fucking idiot?

    "Because this isn't a democratic civilized society like so many others that manage this problem quite well, you get what you want just because you say so."
    No, it is not democratic specifically to keep fucking imbeciles like you from making the rules, fucking imbecile.

  • Tony||

    What would you be willing to compromise if the vast majority of this country wantesd gays to be stuffed in jail, you fucking idiot?

    The only passably substantive sentence in your post. I was willing to compromise being a full-fledged citizen for most of my life, and my forebears were willing to offer being total social outcasts in exchange for not being murdered by bigots like your forebears. Then we convinced most Americans to think more like us and less like you.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Tony, you ignorant slut. It's the members of any readily-targed minority who MOST need guns to defend themselves. Google "pink pistols", and quit embarassing yourself.

    -jcr

  • MarkLastname||

    You're retarded collectivism is showing. You (gays? Leftists?) don't have different 'forbears.' Your ancestors were patriarchal, racist homophones, and the gay ones were racist and sexist just the same.

    More over, you have it precisely backwards: they lived in far greater fear of forced government castration or incarceration than of their neighbors spontaneously lynching them. It's a mastery of propaganda that the education system managed to convince you that national governments have historically played the role beneficent protectors of the unfortunate.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, you stupid shit, what are those 'trappings'?

  • TxJack 112||

    50 million people is a small minority of weirdos?

  • dchang0||

    Re: "almost no people will want to bother with the trappings of the black market in guns"

    Small arms trafficking is one of the most lucrative black markets in the world.

    Ironically, the Mexican drug cartels are best poised to supply America with black market guns if a nationwide ban were to take effect. You can do this today: find your local friendly illegal pot dealer and ask him to get you a black market pistol or rifle. Cost can vary from $100 to $1500 depending on whether the gun is traceable by the cops and the quality of the firearm.

    If guns were completely banned in the USA, the drug cartels will set up home gunsmiths around the country to meet all demand from the black market, just like they did with grow houses.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    The only point Tony has is at the top of his skull.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, if you want your unconstitutional dictatorship, feel free to attempt to impose it. In fact, you're welcome to choke our rivers with as many of your dead as you see fit before you're all rounded up and sent to.......maybe Antarctica?

    Leave the penguins alone

  • Zeb||

    Fuck you, Tony. That's just shitty and wrong.

    I almost never say "fuck you" to anyone. You really deserve it for this shit.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    A consistent point on this topic he seems to love, is that if you resist guns being banned you'll be murdered by the feds.

    He hates cops, but he sure does like the idea of people committing victimless crimes being murdered if they don't step in line.

  • dchang0||

    The possibility of being murdered by the feds is precisely why every American ultimately needs a gun.

  • Tony||

    And fuck you back. This precise attitude is the proximate cause of the regular mass murder of young people in this country. So I'm against that.

  • ||

    No it's not.

    You're totally being an irrational dick. Like that idiot Hogg.

    And if Zeb says it, then maybe you should think about that!

  • Tony||

    People being able to get their hands on these weapons easily allows mass shootings to happen often. People are able to get these weapons easily because of propaganda that works such as we are discussing.

  • iffickck||

    So... other people break the law, and you infringe on my rights.

    Makes sense.

  • Tony||

    You don't necessarily have a right to own these weapons. Certainly not a constitutional one.

  • iffickck||

    So you've incorrectly insisted numerous times.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "You don't necessarily have a right to own these weapons. Certainly not a constitutional one."

    Well, without the consent of the governed to obey the law, we all revert to "might makes right," and might is greatly amplified by firearms.

    Remove the current system of law you worship so much, and some of your neighbors who have weapons will make their own laws and apply them to you.

  • John C. Randolph||

    You don't necessarily have a right to own these weapons.

    Molon labe, motherfucker.

    I will also remind you that the Nazis murdered gays before Jews when they got the chance to disarm their people.

    -jcr

  • dchang0||

    Punishing the innocent is standard operating procedure according to statists, authoritarians, and socialists.

    Starve a few million innocent Ukrainians to death for no good reason? Sure, let's do it.

  • JesseAz||

    Single parent households were involved in 19 out of the last 21 mass shootings. Ban divorces and out of wedlock consummation.

  • dchang0||

    We can't ban divorced and single motherhood. The Republican Bible Thumpers have been trying that wet dream of theirs for years.

    BUT, we CAN stop subsidizing single motherhood by wiping out welfare of all kinds. Then, women would think very hard before having unprotected sex.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, every mass shooting death is squarely the fault of progressives. So you have the blood on your hands of everyone who died.

    Just go drink your Drano. Your suicide will be celebrated by your family.

  • MarkLastname||

    Alcohol is the proximate cause of more deaths than guns in this country; doubtless you want to bring back the Volstead act.

    Young people are about as likely to be killed in a school shooting as a Muslim terrorist attack. If innumerate hysterical paranoia justifies limiting people's freedoms, why not require Muslims to wear ankle bracelets and live in ghettos? For the good of the children, right? If you can save just one life, isn't it worth it?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I frequently advise him to drink Drano. he never listens.

  • ||

    You gonna shoot your way through the bureaucrats?

    Yes, that's why we own them. Duh.

  • perlchpr||

    You gonna shoot your way through the bureaucrats?

    Yes. That is precisely the plan.

    The second amendment isn't about hunting deer. It's about hunting politicians.

  • Tony||

    I hear there are procedures these days to deal with the perceived problem that is the micropenis.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's always telling that leftists think of a penis whenever they see or think of a gun.

  • Bruce D||

    Tony, you wrote,

    I hear there are procedures these days to deal with the perceived problem that is the micropenis.

    I'm sure you know all about that.

  • a tandem||

    tony, thanks you are insuring mroe amerincas own more and more guns!

    That gun control nuts, firearms haters, have some sexual inadequacy is understood it has been understood since Freud. But that is not the issue

    the issue is the gun control lobby loves school shootings, murder and mayhem even though gun murder keeps falling, to th lowest levels in two generations, thanks to more and more legal owners preventing about 2/5 million crimes a year.

    More good news:gh, even though people telling a survey they have a gun in the home 9all modern training says never tell anyone) , it is likely households with guns are up to about 60% of Us homes now.

    We know NRA favorable have hit 58% among all Americans (thanks to bloomberg's ban and seize all guns" lobby) in the latest Gallup

    more and more Americans know, if you are not a criminal yourself, having a gun in the home makes your household members about 30% safer from crime and violence:
    http://assets.pewresearch.org/.....60x367.png

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The NRA loves school shootings.

    And the left loves drunk driving deaths.

  • TangoDelta||

    No, it's the democrats and the media who love school shootings. It pushes both agendas and is ratings gold for the media. What's not to like? You might say dead kids but then planned parenthood is far more effective without the glam headlines and doesn't sell to the general public.

  • TxJack 112||

    Lets say they are illegal in the future, how do you plan to get them? The police going to go house to house and search for them? Or do you think people are just going to willingly surrender them? What will you do if states react as California and others have to immigration laws and simply refuse to obey the new gun bans? There are 50 million gun owners and over 400 million guns, if we were the problem, it would be obvious. The problem is you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object and want to trample of the rights of others so you feel "safe". Sorry, it that were possible, I would fight to have the drivers licenses of a lot of people taken because there are far more idiots on the road.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Can't quite accept the fact that anyone could possibly disagree with your statist gun control opinions without the NRA, can you? Sorry to have to inform you that gun control doesn't have the political support that Feinstein and the New York Times have been telling you.

  • a tandem||

    NRA has 58% favorables among all Americans in the most recent gallup.

    And Pew, Gallup, and WSJ, NYTimes, WaPost, ABC, Ipsos/Reuters, NBCpolling all show declines in support for additional substantive gun control and gun bans in 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10 and five year metrics.

    In 2007 Washington Post did a survey in the 95% Democrat residents in DC on support for handgun bans and on whether gun ownership should be an individual right. 89% support handgun ban, 71% thought gun ownership should not be an individual right. In 2017 the polled again, 51% supported handgun ban, 40% thought gun ownership should not be an individual right.

    That is a gutting - in a virtually all left Democrat polity, of the core gun control lobby positions in just a decade. That gutting was brought about not by the NRA but by the gun control lobby itself being its own worst enemy (good).

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The AR-15's DI gas system can be fired for 2,000 rounds before becoming clogged, and it has higher sights than a Mini-14 specifically because, unlike the Mini, it actually does have an in-line stock.

  • a tandem||

    mini 14 was used in the biggest school or any mass murder shooting by an individual.

    the again the biggest mass school shooting in the US (Va-tech) was with handgun.

    The gun control lobby is comprised of people who don't know firearms at all.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I was just defending my beloved AR from gross slander.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I'll stick with my Calico carbine. It combines the maximum number of offensive features in a rad looking ergonomic package. I even have a Hellfire trigger stowed inside the hollow Kelly grip.

    Calico. Just the thing when you REALLY want to annoy the gun controllers.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Which reminds me: I really want to try printing new 100rd magazines, they're kind of pricey to buy.

  • Agammamon||

    Hope you put more care in crafting your magazine than you did in crafting that link;)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Unfortunately, there are some characters that are actually permissible in URLs, which Reason's system doesn't know how to handle. The link was properly crafted, Reason's commenting system just has its limits.

    Here's a link that's so brain dead simple, even Reason can understand it.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    "Under California law, probably the most Draconian in the country"

    I think somebody owes New Jersey an apology.

  • Dillinger||

    New Jersey apologizes first.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Cos more Canukistaners there?

  • HGW xx/7||

    Between backasswards rulings such as this and the wanna-be Stalin known as Ms. Harris, my thoughts that California couldn't get any worse as quickly being cast aside. They're beyond help.

    The sad thing is that the best solution - to let California secede - will never be allowed by the federal government. It would be a dream come true for both sides of the table, but it seems we're destined to fail as one.

    The lefties have made it clear that they intend to put all they have on California and use it to steer the rest of the country in to ruin.

  • Rich||

    The sad thing is that the best solution - to let California secede - will never be allowed by the federal government.

    Why would it never be allowed? Because the feds get so much tax money from CA?

  • HGW xx/7||

    I suppose it's the sense I get from the entrenched parties and the incestuous power they hold. Losing any state would be a blow to the control they wield and demolish the status quo they thrive on.

  • iffickck||

    if Texas says "them or us" it could get interesting

  • TxJack 112||

    California could never secede because it is part of the national power grid. They would have to break that link and they lack the resources to generate power themselves thanks to left wing environmental loons. Texas on the other hand is not part of the national power grid. If Texas actually did secede again, it would likely take a few other states along, like Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc. because there is a lot in common between them. More important, about 1/2 of all the gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel and heating oil refined in the US, is refined in Texas. If Texas left, the US would be hurting if we decided to ship all that overseas instead of selling it domestically.

  • Rich||

    But what a feather in the cap of a true conservative president.

    "We got rid of California during MY watch!"

  • a tandem||

    California is a net taker. None of the studies Rich will cite take into account the huge transfer from red states in the massive federal tax deduction from stare and local income taxes and property taxes and use taxes, nor corporate federal deductions from state level corperate and business taxes.

    essentially about 2/3 of Californians hundreds of billions in state and local taxes on business and individuals state are paid for by other states. None of this is counted in the supped "blue states contribute more" pseudo-studies. California (like New York state) also advocates and benefits from trade sanctions on other countries that cost US consumers and which benefit mainly only California, another funds transfer

  • Cy||

    The federal government is all over California. I don't suppose they want to give all of that land and utility up.

  • TangoDelta||

    Exactly this. It's strategically important but little else.

  • TangoDelta||

    They don't get much tax money from CA. Everyone thinks CA is a donor state but it simply isn't true. CA residents earn 14% of the US income but pay only about 12% of the Federal taxes. How is that a donor state when Minnesota earns less than 2% of US income but pays over 3% of Federal taxes?

  • a tandem||

    Exactly.

    California is a net taker. None of the studies Rich will cite take into account the huge transfer from red states in the massive federal tax deduction from stare and local income taxes and property taxes and use taxes, nor corporate federal deductions from state level corperate and business taxes.

    essentially about 2/3 of Californians hundreds of billions in state and local taxes on business and individuals state are paid for by other states. None of this is counted in the asserted "blue states contribute more" pseudo-studies.

    California is also a huge beneficiary of illegal immigrant low cost labor, but he long term costs of those illegals is mostly distributed federally

  • AlmightyJB||

    What pisses me off is that the rest of us will end up picking up the bill when they go bankrupt. That will include paying for those ridicules pensions.

  • HGW xx/7||

    But we'll get their solar panels, too! Those should easily offset all other costs in a matter of months!

  • Paulpemb||

    But if there is any cosmic justice, Jerry Brown will still be alive, so we can bring up his recent comments about how the state isn't obligated to bail out cities that overpromised pension benefits to their workers and laugh at him.

  • dchang0||

    I figure Calif. and the feds will renege on the public sector pensions.

    There simply isn't enough money to pay for all the promised pensions and Social Security, and printing that much more will trigger hyperinflation and currency collapse.

    I figure the governments will simply lock up the matter in court until enough elderly die that they don't have to pay. If you're collecting a pension at 55 and you are expected to die at 85, they only need to delay for 30 years. They can spend 10 years raising taxes like Illinois is doing right now until that doesn't work because every net taxpayer has left, then another 10 years printing money out of thin air, then 10 years tied up in court. Voila, you're dead.

  • TangoDelta||

    I could be talked into the utility of a law that says if the US has to bail out a state then that state has to pay it all back and would lose a Senator and half their representatives until the debt is paid off.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Feel free to disagree, but I would much rather see every single marxist slaughtered or subjugated before letting that trash take one square inch of my country. Plus, if you let them secede, we have a hostile marxist nation bordering our own. Best to put them down ASAP.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Sounds like you're marginalized and disaffected enough to be ready to go "the full LaVoy."

    Why wait any longer? Is a lifetime of bitter, inconsequential muttering genuinely worth living? Or are you a masochist who enjoys having your betters shove progress down your throat?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    As long as you're ready to go "the full Kent State."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, I have no betters, and certainly not among the progtarded. Your limited mind is probably unable to grasp that.

    You are truly an ant amongst gods.

  • MarkLastname||

    At least you're admitting now that what you're doing is shoving your views down other people's throats. Totalitarianism is justified to you it seems as long as the right religion is imposed at the point of a gun.

  • a tandem||

    Art has post on the Washington Post comments section on firearms implying US murder has been rising for decades and that we need Maryland style gun control national saying Virginia is awash in in gun violence.

    a) in fact US gun murder plunged about 56% in a generation

    b) Maryland has more gun murder and gun crime than Virginia, in fact it has has higher murder rate than Texas.

  • dchang0||

    California will secede one person or family at a time. That is to say, the people who won't put up with its rising authoritarianism and socialism will move into the free states, leaving behind the leftist people who like California just the way it is.

    In the end, Calif. will fail (but so will the federal gov't) due to its socialist policies; Calif. will fail sooner and beg the feds for a bailout, but the feds won't be able to bail Calif. out because they will be just as broke.

    At that time, those families who are armed will be in better positions than those who are not, just as is going on right now in Venezuela and Brazil.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another bigoted goober dreaming of the glorious day when Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, Wyoming, and the other can't-keep-up rural and southern backwaters are accepted and recognized as America's ideal communities!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    As opposed to South Chicago, West Denver, East and South Central LA, downtown DC, and other can't-keep-up urban shitholes.

  • TangoDelta||

    Now, now, they aren't shitholes but less developed countries who aren't part of the OECD.

    Oh, my bad. You're right, those urban areas are shitholes.

  • TxJack 112||

    Never ceases to amaze me how people such as you always begin a post attacking us as bigots and then go on to make the most bigoted statements in your post. "All the other cant keep up rural and southern backwaters", seriously? What exactly do you mean "cant keep up"? What we are not as "progressive" as you? For that, I thank God because progressives like you are arrogant jackasses. Your bigotry is far beyond those you choose to attack because you actually believe you are superior to all of us. The sad part is you are too stupid and too arrogant to even grasp you are a bigot.

  • TangoDelta||

    Bro, as a current Calitard I can say you've hit the nail on the head. As soon as I can find either a job on the east coast or can finally retire, I'm outta here! Folk say the weather is wonderful but every Thanksgiving that's fucking 90+ degrees is just another reason to find a way out of Sud Cali post haste.

  • Dillinger||

    zzzzzzzz re: *always* hoping robed idiots save us from other robed idiots

  • Rich||

    the regulations ... limit the definition of "family member"

    Hmm. Limiting the definition of "family member" *might* cause the progs some problems.

    *** waves gavel ***

    "For the purposes of *this* law, a 'family member' is defined to be 'the gun owner xirself'."

  • Tony||

    If it were something that exploded rather than a dick substitute fetish object you guys wouldn't have anything to say about these regulations. You gonna defend yourself against a mugger with an AR-15? Or do you just think people should be able to have them as toys? Of course they are allowed even in California, as explained, you just have to register them. Like cars. I mean be anarchists all you want but you can't be surprised if some jurisdictions want to regulate things whose only purpose is to kill quickly.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>you just have to register them

    why give in to the "with whom"?

  • You are very stupid||

    "Like cars."

    Which amendment covers cars?

    See, your kind always forgets that when you drone on stupidly about this subject.

  • Tony||

    Which amendment covers the type of weapons under discussion?

  • You are very stupid||

    The 2nd.

    Getting people who din't rationalize that protection away is a different matter entirely.

  • Tony||

    No assault-style rifle has ever been protected by the 2nd amendment by any constitutional case law.

    It may someday the way things are going. Until then stop bringing up irrelevant things.

  • You are very stupid||

    That's the same Court that said blacks weren't people and sodomy was illegal.

  • ||

    THEY COULD - hiccup - NOT FORESEE - burp - ASSAULTY WEAPONS! - Fart.

  • gormadoc||

    (hiccup)...(burp)...(fart)

    FTFY

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Please Rufus, you need to see a doctor about your flatulence. It's not normal.

  • You are very stupid||

    No assault-style rifle has ever been protected by the 2nd amendment by any constitutional case law.

    By the way, I thought I'd point out that little goal post shift you did

    Until then stop bringing up irrelevant things.

    You first.

  • You are very stupid||

    I'm going shooting, then hitting the bar they have there.

    Have a great weekend everyone.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Have fun.

  • Tony||

    You don't get to decide what the constitution says.

  • Zeb||

    The second amendment is explicitly about weapons of war. Not hunting or self defense. War.

  • You are very stupid||

    Nice parody.

  • Tony||

    And I'm sure one day Trump's future Heritage Foundation–packed court of corporate tools in robes will agree with you. It's just that it's not the case right now.

  • luckygunner||

    I don't particularly care that you and some other people don't respect my rights.

  • Tony||

    Well that's the entire reason we have courts, silly.

  • luckygunner||

    I'm sure you turned in all your gay friends too.

  • Tony||

  • luckygunner||

    Sorry, I don't click youtube links.

  • ||

    Tony is like that coward in The Mummy.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "The second amendment is explicitly about weapons of war. Not hunting or self defense. War."

    Spot on.

    "Well-regulated militia" at the time meant bringing the troops UP to standard (making sure they were properly equipped, like the British Regulars (redcoats)). Today, regulated means held down by restrictions. But in the original, Constitutional meaning, we would be ISSUING M4s and M16s to our civilian militias, purposefully giving them the "weapons of war" they need to be up to combat standard.

  • JesseAz||

    The definition of assault style weapon didn't exist for the first 200 years because most of American history wasn't filled with retards.

  • Daniel D. Teoli Jr.||

    2A is not a right ...it is an opinion.

    Hil already admitted she though Heller was decided wrong. Someday SCOTUS may say a 2A means you are entitled to muzzle loaders only.

    Homosexual marriage between 2 hairy men as husband and wife was decided 5 to 4. Heller was decided 5 to 4.

    Dems are predicted to take perpetual control of the gov. Conservative views are not popular with younger people. As the old timers die off, just a matter of time before the dems take control and call in the guns.

    Look at how dem run states operate with gun control. Now imagine it without a strong 2A.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "Dems are predicted to take perpetual control of the gov."

    Well, even if this prediction were to come true, leftists routinely destroy the places they take control of. It is simply impossible to achieve their economic and political goals.

    And so, guns will become important by the time their regimes collapse under their own hubris.

    For instance all those homemade zip guns and homemade full-auto firearms will come in handy in Brazil soon. If not to overthrow the gov't, at least to defend one's family from looters and rioters.

  • a tandem||

    "Dems are predicted to take perpetual control of the gov. Conservative views are not popular with younger people. As the old timers die off, just a matter of time before the dems take control and call in the guns."

    What? you strung tighter complete falsehoods.

    support for gun bans is only a majority in the 56-70 and 71-up cohorts!

    support for gun bans goes DEON as cohort age goes down, a dozen polls and surveyed show this.

    As the geezer die support for gun bans is, and will continue to decline as we see in 40, 30, 20 and ten year trends now!

    Not to mention the entire gun control lobby funding is virtually all septuagenarians and octogenarians

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, what is the legal definition of 'an assault style rifle'? No case law has ever provided one.

    So stop bringing up irrelevant things. Like every comment you have ever made.

  • a tandem||

    Daniel is an example of the utter nuttery and falsehoods the gun control lobby depends on.

    support for gun bans, is LOWER not higher in younger cohorts.

    "Americans aged 18-34 most likely to oppose assault weapons ban, poll finds"
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017 /nov/19/americans- millennials- assault- weapons-ban-poll (remove the spaces in that URL

    Even in California a majority of 18-40 years old oppose an assault rifle ban.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The second.

  • MarkLastname||

    Haha. I'll make a deal with you: let's regukate guns exactly as we regukate cars. You pass a test, reach 16, and you can buy any one you want without restriction unless you use it in a crime. Sound good?

    Of course not. Guns are far more regulated than cars. This analogy works against you. Regulating guns like vehicles would take you overall in opposite direction from the one in which you want to go.

  • gormadoc||

    I'm willing to bet that 90% of people who own the weapons covered by this law haven't killed anything with those and don't intend to. I'm even more willing to bet that 99% of the weapons have never been used to kill something.

  • gormadoc||

    "only purpose is to kill quickly"
    l2r, LoneLibertarian

  • Tony||

    Okay, kill quickly and masturbate to.

  • barfman2018||

    *barf*

  • Tony||

    I must say your contributions are pleasingly parsimonious.

  • iffickck||

    Why do you do that? Make a fool of yourself, then slink off, then sneak back in here and make a fool of yourself again with shitty little bitch comments you think no one will be paying attention to?

  • Bruce D||

    Tony seems to know a lot about masturbation. I wonder if he looks at a porno mag or a gun mag.

  • TxJack 112||

    seriously.... we dont need to know how you like to spend your time....

  • Zeb||

    Dude, the 2nd amendment is explicitly about arms suitable for fighting in war. So work on repealing or modifying that and until then shut the fuck up with your weak, dishonest, condescending bullshit.

    You don't have to register a car if you aren't driving it on public roads, so that's a bad comparison as well.

  • Tony||

    That's a theory I'm sure some gun nuts will present in court one day. Until then, these weapons are not in any way protected by the 2nd amendment. You may say they should be, but they aren't.

  • luckygunner||

    Actually, the 2nd amendment says they should be but it's you, the feckless cunt, who say they aren't.

  • Tony||

    But they aren't. Antonin Scalia himself said as much.

  • luckygunner||

    But he isn't the 2nd amendment.

  • Tony||

    He isn't much of anything these days.

  • barfman2018||

    *barf*

  • ||

    Actually Scalia said Scary Looking Gun bans are unconstitutional. Literally he said that. Literally.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No Tony, he didn't. You are once again, engaging in a combination of lying and being incredibly wrong.

  • MarkLastname||

    But he didn't say that. Read the whole decision, moron. When you're using Hihn as your source you're really in trouble.

  • Bruce D||

    They're protected under Miller because they can be used readily in militia service, unlike Miller's sawed off shotgun. And they're also protected under Heller, being in common use at the time, though subject to some regulation but not prohibitive per Scalia.

    Regardless, one has an individual moral right own what one wants provided one respects the rights of others.

  • TxJack 112||

    "The reason you say this is you swallow the crap an AR-15 is a weapon of war. Like all anti gun loons, you are fixated on how it looks, not how it operates. An assault weapon by definition is a selective fire rifle. Selective fire means it can fire semi auto, selective (3 rd bursts) or full auto. A civilian AR is not selective fire, it is semi auto only. Look at the most common way people like you and Dopey Dianne Feinstein define an "assault rifle". It has 1) a pistol grip, 2) adjustable stock, 3) detachable magazine holding more than 10 rds, 4) a handguard, 50 a muzzle flash hider. Here is the problem with this definition, I can but a 22LR, that looks exactly like an AR and has all these features except under no stretch of the imagination is it a "weapon of war."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, that you say they aren't means less than nothing to real Americans.

  • TxJack 112||

    What I love about people like you is you swallow the BS you hear and have no clue about the realities of guns. If I shot you with my AR, you have a much greater chance of survival than if I shot you with my 41 magnum. The 41 mag is a revolver and only holds 6 shots. However, the entrance wound is .410 inches and the exit would the size of a football. The internal damage guarantees you will be dead before you hit the ground. An AR shoots a .224 caliber bullet. That is slightly larger than a 22LR. Technically, it is a 22 caliber bullet. People survive being shot by ARs every day. People rarely if ever survive being shot by anything with MAGNUM in the name.

  • gormadoc||

    The entirety of the adults in my state is recognized as the militia. Can I have my restricted arms, please?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Wow. I must have read the redacted version.

  • barfman2018||

    *barf*

  • ||

    No, the militia clause and 227 years of constitutional precedent proves him right.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well, since it looks like we might be replacing another justice soon, there is a good chance that all this can be straightened out.

  • Bruce D||

    SCOTUS decides that. Not you.


    Always remember that when voting. Always remember to NEVER vote for a Democrat, because they'll put anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court.
  • Bruce D||

    SCOTUS decides that. Not you.

    Always remember that when voting. Always remember to NEVER vote for a Democrat, because they'll put anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, after you marxists are dealt with, we will make sure you are registered. Free range communism is clearly problematic.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "You gonna defend yourself against a mugger with an AR-15?"

    Find me one case of a "mugger" using an AR-15, you asshole.

  • TxJack 112||

    There is so much in this statement that is beyond stupid. First no, I would no defend myself against mugger with an AR because he would see it and unless he is a total moron with a death wish, find someone else to mug. I would most likely use a handgun. Second, in Texas we have a serious problem with feral hogs. Hogs are fast, hide in thick brush and are not easy to kill. ARs are used to hunt hogs because they are the most effective rifle for the circumstances. It is estimated there are 1.4 million feral hogs in Texas and they cause about $400 million in damage to crops annually. ARs have a legitimate hunting purpose. Anyone will tell you if you choose to try and hunt hogs in the brush with a bolt action rifle, you will likely end up seriously injured or dead. Hogs have tusks 4-6 inches long that are razor sharp and they use them effectively. They can run up to 25 mph so you are not going to outrun them if the attack.

  • a tandem||

    "whose only purpose is to kill quickly"

    Cars prevent how many crimes? guns are used by civilians to prevent about two and a half million crimes every year. In fact broad gun ownership is why the US has one of the lowest rates of murder of non criminals in the developed world.

    If you are not a criminal you are safer form murder and carinal violence in Texas than you are in Australia.

    and what is your constant obsession with guns as peni/ses? Freud noted in fear of guns often comes from sexually inadequate and you are doing nothing but reinforcing that. Do you feel 'short-changed"?

  • gormadoc||

    "Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right."

    I would love to see them try and apply this logic to marriage or speech. Let's restrict both more!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We should apply that also to all forms of marxism. Which will include progressivism.

  • gormadoc||

    "The NRA was TOTALLY helpless against the ban ... for ten long years... which alone proves it was constitutional."

    How long has the drug war been happening? Or military excursions without a declaration of war or prior Congressional approval? Torture of POWs? Are those constitutional?

  • luckygunner||

    I dismissed him there too, because if you think 10 years is long in terms of jurisprudence, you don't know anything about it.

  • ||

    How did Justice Scalia lean?


    He said gun bans in general and Scary Looking Gun bans specifically are unconstitutional.

    His Heller decision reaffirmed the 1939 decision (US v Miller) that the only weapons protected by 2A are the modern equivalent of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia service -- muskets and single-shot pistols.. roughly what we now call hunting rifles.

    No it didn't. US v Miller said that guns that had a connection to military service were protected. They just didn't have any evidence that a sawed off shotgun was used by the military. So the NFA was actually unconstitutional under their ruling.

    Heller said the same thing, and the equivalent of muskets and single shot pistols are AR-15s and Glocks.

    So yet again, you are wrong.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah.......that doesn't mean what you think it means. Good try though.

  • TxJack 112||

    Tactical shotguns are used all the time in combat. The problem with this definition is like the definition of assault rifle used by anti gun zealots. A tactical shotgun has an 18 1/2 in barrel. It is totally legal to "saw off" a shotgun as long as the barrel is no shorter than this length and the overall length of the gun is 26 inches. However, being sold right now are "pistols" made by Mossberg and others that have shorter barrels and pistol grips. Since they do not have a stock, they are not considered rifles. They are shotguns, but classified as pistols. The point is to claim we are limited to what weapons are available at the time the 2nd amendment was ratified is moronic. We are not limited in our speech to what was acceptable at the time the 1st amendment was ratified. If that were true, all the porn laws declared unconstitutional in the past 50 years would still be in force. Common use means weapons commonly used by a majority of the people. The AR 15 is the most popular rifle sold in the US. You cannot get more common use than that.

  • a tandem||

    ":The NRA was TOTALLY helpless against the ban ... for ten long years"

    The NRA was able to use the ban to successfully roll back scores of major gun laws federally and in US states. The ban showed that the claim that gun control lobby did not want bans but just background checks was a lie.

    And in fact the ban was beaten in court in a dozen cases that limited the ban. here is your proof:

    Semi auto rifles in civilian hands immediately before the ban (DOJ BJS estimate) 400,000. Semi auto rifle sin us hands at the end of the ban: 5,000,000. (Semi auto rifles today est 30 million assembled, 15 million lowers from 80% and up.).

    And your factcheck (about the worst source you can find on gun issues) article does not address whatsoever the fact that sales of guns that could easily work around the ban increased.

    .

  • damikesc||

    So, again, we CANNOT remove 20M illegala...but 300M guns is doable?

    Tree of liberty. Blood.

  • Tony||

    Keep making the problem more difficult and then act shocked when the measures are more draconian than they would otherwise have needed to be, why don't you.

  • barfman2018||

    *barf*

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, I think it's about time to take you to the vet and have you put down. You're just too problematic.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, do you understand that the moment all the non progressives arrive at the same conclusion I did years ago, you and your kind will be wiped off the map in the blink of an eye. You are entirely dependent on people like me to protect you and enforce your bullshit. Once they turn on you, It will only be a bunch of weak pussies, such as yourself, to fight back.

    The people on my side have weapons, tactical training, are capable of fighting without weapons. Your snark won't protect you from any of that.

    To put it bluntly, one of us is worth a thousand of you. The only reason you get to continue is the enlightened tolerance afforded you by your conservative and libertarian betters. That tolerance is not infinite. Best you back down and learn to obey.

  • MarkLastname||

    What non-draconian way is there to confiscate millions of guns? Tens of thousand of people would die, likely most of them 'people of color.'

  • Cyto||

    Have we already talked about the jury award in the wrongful death suit in Florida?

    I saw it via Drudge, of all places. A nutpunch worthy of Balko.

    Police are called for a noise complaint because some dude is blasting Drake in his garage. Police show up, knock on garage door. Dude opens door. Police shout "He has a gun" and he closes the door. They shoot and kill him through the door. Dude is found with unloaded gun in his pocket.

    The jury finds for the plaintiffs and awards them $4. One dollar for his funeral, and one dollar for each of his three kids. And then they found he was 99% responsible. So the award was reduced to 4 cents.

    I don't know what happened there, but that really does sound like the jury was saying "fuck you" to the dude's family.

    Police story is he brandished a weapon and refused to drop it. This is kinda hard to reconcile with the fact that they shot him in the head through the door and dropped him right there... so he would not have had time to stow the weapon he was brandishing in his back pocket.

    I didn't bother to dig into original sources for more details. The summary article was more than enough.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Hey Tony? Care to go into how this is a completely reasonable extension of the state's authority?

  • gormadoc||

    A long tradition of court decisions have declared that police acting this way is a-okay. Therefore, it is.

    That's my attempt at a consistent Tony.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you don't like it, call your representative.

  • Tony||

    Libertarians struggle with perhaps more than anything else the distinction between "is" and "ought."

    FTR I'm against citizen juries.

  • Nardz||

    "FTR I'm against citizen juries."

    You prefer expert juries, I presume?

  • Tony||

    Haven't studied the issue enough to know what better alternative there is, but there has to be one.

  • ||

    Haven't studied the issue enough to know what better alternative there is, but there has to be one.

    ^ Tony, in a nutshell.

  • Sevo||

    Ask him for the more humane alternatives to ending WWII were after he whines that 'nukes were horrible and nasty and the worst thing any one could possibly do ever and forever and you're horrible for suggesting otherwise and I'm right!'
    He doesn't even bother to answer except half a day later when he hopes no one looks:
    'you're a big poopyhead'.
    Pretty sure 'arrested development' is correct here.

  • Tony||

    No participant in WWII did not commit massive crimes against humanity, including nuking two cities. Refraining from implementing actual genocide is not itself a sign of high moral rectitude.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    One side did what they had to to be free. The other side did what they did to dominate the other side.

    Fighting to be free versus totalitarians like you is a sign of moral rectitude. that you are a sociopathic marxist explains why you can't understand that.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.2.18 @ 12:58AM|#
    "No participant in WWII did not commit massive crimes against humanity, including nuking two cities."

    You would prefer millions of more deaths 'cause NUKES!', you stupid piece of shit? That's the alternative, and that's what you're proposing.
    I have asked you at least 15 or 20 times for ANY alternative to ending WWII which would have been more humane.
    As a fucking imbecile, your answer is and ever has been: 'NUKES ARE ICKY!'
    So, recognizing you are a fucking imbecile, we can henceforth ignorr your fucking imbecilic answers

  • Tony||

    Thank you for complimenting me on my ability to know what I don't know. I must admit it's overwhelming to be among so many who know exactly how humans should live everywhere.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.1.18 @ 11:26PM|#
    "Thank you for complimenting me on my ability to know what I don't know. I must admit it's overwhelming to be among so many who know exactly how humans should live everywhere."

    No, shitbag, you were called on claiming to suppose a better alternative while admitting you didn't know one thing about it.
    IOWs, you were called on posting the same bullshit you do on a regular basis.

  • Tony||

    Whatever its virtues, the jury system, undeniably, puts legal incompetents in charge of deciding complex legal questions.

  • ion hydro||

    If the law is so complex ordinary people can't understand it, how can you expect them to obey it??

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Your most frequent argument is that it is and so it's correct. That's what you argue every time you're backed into a corner Tony. That's largely your argument in this topic.

    Which is largely useless. To go at a news article and say "Well, that happened, so it must be good."

  • Tony||

    Any court decision that permits the regulation of guns is good to me. The constitution is, ultimately, whatever the political sentiment of the electorate says it is.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.1.18 @ 11:28PM|#
    "The constitution is, ultimately, whatever the political sentiment of the electorate says it is."

    Fortunately, assholes like you are constrained from spreading your assholery. By the constitution, asshole.

  • Tony||

    You mean by judges implementing your preferred policy from the bench. Which is, as I said, the same thing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any gun control is unconstitutional.

  • Cyto||

    "Any gun control is unconstitutional."

    This is so patently obvious that it makes me crazy that it isn't even part of the argument.

    "Shall not be infringed" is absolute. It doesn't allow for "common sense gun control". It doesn't even allow for "it would be insane not to do this" gun control. There isn't a single bit of gun control legislation that is constitutional... probably including the very existence of the ATF.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony is really a great poster child for my whole point about stopping the progressives before they can oppress everyone.

  • TxJack 112||

    Seriously? Do you even understand the Constitution? It is not decided by the political sentiment of the electorate. If it were there would be little debate. Clearly you are one of those morons who believes it is a "living and breathing document" because you want to bend its meaning to impose your will and ideology on others. I wonder what you will do if the movement to call a convention of states is successful and that convention severely restricts the power of the Federal government so any national ban on guns or declarations of other issues are no longer valid. It is possible because it is clearly outlined in the Constitution and the process is there to deal with the problem of Congress refusing to act or acting against the will of the majority of states.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm pretty sure Tony would be completely good with this.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    there's a literal Nazi in charge of the federal government. Disarming the people is more important than ever.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Actually, there is no contradiction in simultaneously comparing Drumpf to Hitler, and advocating common sense gun safety. Because this is the fundamental point: the gun fetishists hoarding deadly military style assault weapons tend to be the same people who voted for Drumpf. Therefore gun control would weaken the American neo-fascist movement.

    #GunSense

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I realize, Liberty =x= Equality/< Unpastable >, that you are an (extremely done-out) parody account, but Drumpfenheilgeschutzwerfer's election actually caused a spike in black and Hispanic gun purchases.

  • Tony||

    I am still into the parody guy. I dunno, it's pretty good.

    And if only blacks and latinos were the ones buying guns you can bet someone's ass that the conservative position would firmly inhabit its law & order wing.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You have terrible taste in men.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You can't claim Future Him status when your website is FormerlyRedTony dotcom.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And if that happened it would be wrong. I don't even understand your point here except that oftentimes people are hypocrites. In which case, great. So true, so obvious.

  • Tony||

    Pretty obvious... gun nut conservatives would give their guns to Hillary Clinton to melt down and build Fortress Hillary, home of Earth's permanent empress somewhere in upstate New York, if it meant they didn't have to encounter brown people when getting their nightly Big Gulps at 7-11.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.1.18 @ 11:32PM|#
    "Pretty obvious... "
    Tony has voices in his/her head.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes Tony, I'm sure you jack off to him. Just like you do to barely pubescent boys.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    8.5

  • In Time Of War||

    So...all the brilliant democrat types are ideologically pure and refuse to own any truly effective, "anti-hitler" weapons. And all the gun nuts will be disarmed.

    What's your plan, just show up at the gas chamber when you're told to?

  • TxJack 112||

    What exactly is "common sense gun safety" ? You all use the term and yet refuse to ever clarify what it actually means. The fact you classify a civilian AR as a military style assault weapon and that they are hoarded by gun fetishists, only shows your true point of view. You are not a libertarian but a progressive. A libertarian would not have an issue with anyone owning any type of gun. However, even I think there should be some limitations and have no problem with the ban on automatic weapons. Mainly because unlike you I am informed and intelligent so I do not look at an AR as a military "assault" weapon since it is not and never has been.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "Officials appear to hope that the number of Californians with fully functional AR-15s or equivalents will keep shrinking and eventually, with time, drop to zero."

    I guess we don't consider cops who pull over black people and beat them up as "Californians".

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck off communist shit head

  • ranrod||

    New Yorks 1,000,000 new illegal gun owners..

    REFUSED TO REGISTER THEIR MEDIA LABELED ASSAULT WEAPONS....

    One million plus new felons, all armed with scary, high capacity, media labeled assault weapons! The deadline for New York residents to register their so called "Assault Weapons" and "High" (read standard) Capacity Magazines came and went. An estimated million plus, formerly law abiding, gun owners have refused to comply with Cuomo and down state Democrat's naive belief that the NY Safe Act, passed in a so called emergency session of the New York legislature, could force free people to register their hard earned property.

    And who can blame these once lawful gun owners, with a president that picks and chooses which laws he will follow or enforce, as well as an Federal Attorney General that operates daily with a Contempt of Congress charge and gun running scandal, "Fast & Furious", hanging over his head. Why should the average New York joe, bother to follow the law, especially when it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States, the one true law of the land.

  • ranrod||

    How the Nazis Used Gun Control..
    The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany's Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not. In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for "public safety." The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

  • ranrod||

    In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not "politically reliable."

    Years of repression that followed, society was "cleansed" by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them "free," and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/ how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/

  • Echospinner||

    For which sound reasons Aaron Zelman founded the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.

  • ranrod||

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Reading through all the comments is so much nicer when you have this plugin* for your browser that automatically hides all of Tony's obtuse, rancorous attempts to disrupt any considered and informed discourse on the subject of guns. He's only here to bait as mant commenters as possible into ad homs and coarse language.


    *not real :(

  • LedPhoot||

    Bullet Button = Quick release system? Uh no, it is NOT.. A quick release system would be the standard mag release on an AR-15 that requires NO TOOL to operate. The bullet button SLOWS DOWN MAGAZINE CHANGES by requiring some kind of tool to drop the mag, not simply depressing a release button with your finger tip. Clearly they have no problem misrepresenting facts and uneducated / uniformed are all too willing to blindly follow.

  • Echospinner||

    Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering about that. Don't have one but I was sure there was a standard release button. Why would anyone want this bullett button thing?

  • Naaman Brown||

    California outlawed the standard magazine release button.
    Under California law, you had to use a tool to release the magazine.
    No one really wanted the bullet button thing: California forced it on owners of guns with detachable magazines.
    Now they have decided that the bullet button (recessed magazine catch inaccessible to one's finger tip that requires a separate tool to release the magazine) is not difficult enough.

  • Cyto||

    More to the point, they drew a nice bright line under the "slippery slope" argument.

    Every time the proffer some new restriction, limitation, registration requirement, reporting requirement, etc. someone makes the argument that this is just a first step.

    And then someone else counters that this is the slippery slope logical fallacy.

    And pretty much every time we end up sliding further down that slope than the poo-poo'd slippery slope dire predictions would have called for.

    In this case, having a Bullet Button is now by definition an assault weapon. But before they were by definition not assault weapons.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    In my experience, the only people who dismiss talk of "slippery slopes" as a fallacy are the people who are busy greasing the slope, in the hope you'll slide down it.

    Everybody else realizes it's a valid concern much of the time.

  • TxJack 112||

    The button only showed someone is always willing to fill the niche created by stupid laws. They passed that law thinking that it would make people not want them because of the hassle.

  • Agammamon||

    Snauffer's decision underscores how hostile to gun owners the California judiciary has become. Just as the state is trying to nullify federal marijuana and immigration laws, it's also trying to effectively nullify the federal Second Amendment. And unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, California's anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats might get away with it.

    You know, with how hostile CA is to the laws the rest of us live under, their lording it over the rest of the country for being a net taxpaying state, why aren't more of them interested in and lobbying for secession? The only thing holding them back from making their utopia is the rest of us - let's do the right thing and cut them loose so we aren't holding them back anymore.

    If you love something, set it free and all that.

  • Tony||

    So you want another Latin American shithole on our border.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.1.18 @ 11:34PM|#
    "So you want another Latin American shithole on our border."
    I'll bet, like that dimbulb trueman, that Tony thinks that means something other than that Tony is drunk again.

  • Sevo||

    So you're guessing that our resident lefty asshole is equating California with Venezuela?
    I have to admit that is not particularly surprising...

  • Tony||

    "Again" implies that I'm sometimes sober.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're certainly never intelligent.

  • Daniel D. Teoli Jr.||

    Once the black guns are confiscated, the patriots have lost all hopes of any meaningful defense against tyranny. The conservaphobes are then free to call in each class of guns (rifles, pistols, shotguns) with not much that the gun owners can do to rebel. Once the patriots lost their black guns, the conservaphobes have basically won the battle and it is only a matter of proverbial time before the rest of the guns are confiscated.

    We can see how this played out in England. Once they confiscated the various classes of guns they went to work on confiscating the knives. In Scotland they demanded pellet guns be registered. In the UK it is illegal to even have pepper spray. That is the model the conservaphobes plan for America...complete disarmament.

    If Hillary had got in her plan was to stack the SCOTUS in her favor, then she would have bankrupted the gun companies with class action suits. The gun companies would have been allowed to stay in biz only if they made smart guns that can be remotely licensed and turned off and on like a cell phone.

    That is how she would get around the 2A. Traditional guns will be outlawed, only smartguns will be legal. Once the Dems had the vote, then they would move to abolish the 2A. Smart guns are only pushed by Dems and gun haters and not gun lovers.

    Just remember, when the black guns go...all has been lost.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Smart guns are an abomination. The government wants people to only have smart guns or no guns.

    Smarts guns will be controlled by government so they can shut them off.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    2nd Amendment:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Impeach every treasonous judge that cannot read English and tries to usurp the protections of the People's right to keep and bear Arms.

  • Cyto||

    I think that includes every single one of them. Did anyone dissent on the banning of automatic weapons?

  • TxJack 112||

    Do you even know why automatic weapons were banned in 1934 and permanently in 1986? Crime. In the early 30s there was a 2 yr crime wave that resulted in a lot of people and police being killed because they were outgunned. The response of the government was to ban the free sale of automatic weapons. In 1986, they were permanently banned in response to gang wars in LA, NY and Chicago over crack distribution. Until then, if you had the right license, you could own one and since they were still being made, they were cheap. Many were still finding their way onto city streets and hundreds of innocent people were dying. Heller made it clear that we, the people, have a right to common use weapons. An AR-15 is a common use weapon, not an M4. That is why it is constitutional to ban one, but not the other.

  • Cyto||

    to your point:

    Given the political leanings of much of the California judiciary, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Instead, this week's decision will embolden government officials working diligently to turn the Golden State into a Second Amendment–free zone.
  • Cyto||

    The fact that there are political leaning involved at all shows that the California judiciary is not doing it right.

    The same could be said for every court, I'm afraid.

  • J. Lebowski||

    Maybe Californians should propose 2nd amendment sanctuary zones like certain counties in Illinois have tried to do.
    I mean c'mon, we have entire illegal immigrant sanctuary cities that openly violate federal immigration law. California even goes as far as to declare itself a sanctuary state. If lawlessness is the new fad, why not make it across the board lawlessness?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    "The challenged regulations appear to carry out the intention of the legislature."
    No mention as to whether or not the "intent" of the legislature was constitutional.
    That must be a decision that is above his pay grade, and/or intelligence level.

  • Duelles||

    Got to buy 3 more AR-15s. One for each of my kids. Maybe make a few Glock 17s off the Internet. And stay the hell away from CA

  • TxJack 112||

    Build 'em yourself. Will cost the same but you can get better parts and make them exactly like you want.

  • TxJack 112||

    I have no problem with this ruling for one reason. If the people of California wish to be complete idiots and elect people bent on disarming them and leaving them defenseless, so be it. There is no low forcing them to remain in California and if the issue is such a problem, they can move to a state with better gun laws. My much larger concern is when the anti gun zealots attempt to impose these types of laws on a national level. I do not want idiots in California, NY, NJ, CT, IL, or MA telling me what I can and cannot own in Texas. The bill of rights in the 10th amendment reserves all powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states, and this includes gun laws. We never should have permitted the NFA of 1934 because it placed us on the road we find ourselves on today. California has the right to pass stupid laws if they choose.

  • TxJack 112||

    A California democratic appointed state judge upheld the ruling... I am so shocked....

  • gphx||

    Let California ban all guns. Let them secede. Then we can conquer their unarmed, dumb asses, take it back, and kick them out. We did it before, we can do it again, only this time whitey is included.

  • a tandem||

    Gun sales in California are going through the roof this month according the FBI NICS numbers.

    More gun control = more guns and more gun owners. It has been shown time and time again.

    For those who think gun ownership is declining that is simply because all modern training and attitude is to never tell anyone. the younger you are, or if you are a female the more and increasingly more likely you have had formal NRA/other certified training, and you are most unlikely to tell a pollster you have a firearm.

    GSS, the surveyed flogged as the "gold standard" is a stranger banging on your door and asking you, face-to-face and recording your answers on a form. This method is shown to undercount by half any high confidentiality question. GSS shows 1% gun ownership in DC whereas the peer reviewed prestigious BMJ two years ago shows 25.9% of DC residents own guns (this comes to an estimated 40% of households in DC).

    That is a 40:1 between actual ownership and the massive undercount on GSS method.

    NRA has gone from gallup approvals in the 40th percentile 25 years ago, to 58% of Americans approving in the most recent Gallup.

    both pew and Gallup in sperate surveys showed about 35-40% of Americans knew owning gun made their home safer from crime, to 60-63% knowing it today.

    That 58% to 63% is likely the current rate of gun ownership by household.
    http://assets.pewresearch.org/.....60x367.png

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online