Post by: pianoman9701 on June 15, 2013, 09:01:42 AM
Measures would ban detachable and large-capacity magazines, and also require background checks to buy or sell ammunition.
Spurred by mass shootings in Connecticut, Colorado and Arizona, the California Senate on Wednesday approved seven bills to tighten regulations on guns and ammunition.
The measures would:
• Outlaw detachable magazines in rifles and so-called button bottoms;
• Prohibit magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
• Require background checks for all buyers and sellers of ammunition;
• Reclassify certain shotguns as assault weapons;
• Require all gun buyers to take a firearm-safety certificate class;
• Expand crimes that would result in a 10-year ban on owning or buying firearms. Additions include drug- and alcohol-related offenses, hazing, violations of protective orders and court-ordered mental health treatment.
The legislation cleared the Democratic-controlled chamber on party-line votes. All Republicans voted against the measures; four Democrats voted against the ammunition background checks.
The bills move to the Assembly, which is also controlled by Democrats.
"We all can recite the horrific acts that have occurred in our country over the last year," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat representing Sacramento. "These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."
Background checks for ammunition is one of the most controversial measures. Here's how the Los Angeles Times summarizes it:
Californians who want to buy ammunition, and the vendors who sell it, would have to submit personal information for a background check to determine whether they have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns. Vendors would have to get permits starting July 1, 2015, and purchasers starting two years later. ...
Ammunition purchasers would submit their information and a $50 fee to the state Department of Justice which would maintain a list of qualified buyers that would be checked by ammo stores. Purchasers would have to show their driver's license or other ID at the time they buy bullets.
Republican Sen. Jim Nielsen of Gerber said his colleagues were "criminalizing legal, historic behavior in the state of California and putting onerous burdens and regulations and requirements on law-abiding citizens."
One Democrat who also opposed the bill cited the constitutional right to own a gun.
"Implied in that is the right to buy the ammo to go with it," Sen. Roderick Wright of Inglewood.
In early May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed an eighth gun-control bill, SB 140. It boosts funding to confiscate guns from people who have criminal pasts or are mentally ill.
Post by: Maligator on June 15, 2013, 09:22:23 AM
Not to worry though, soon enough they will drive away all the viable businesses, law abiding Citizens & be left with criminals, illegals & a bankrupt state :bash:
Post by: snowpack on June 15, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 15, 2013, 10:50:12 AM
Post by: nocklehead on June 15, 2013, 10:55:19 AM
Another example is the city of Seattle, where one cant legally carry a blade more than 3.5 inches long, however most dont see this as a violation of 2A.
Wheres the push to get automatics back?
Another would be suppressors or silencers, where is the push to allow any PERSON (as in Blacks Law- def.1 : A human being)
to purchase or build one? I just dont see it....
There SHOULD be such a push to restore the REAL 2A, that things like magazines on little black rifles arent even an issue. The "left" should be so overwhelmed by bills being introduced to allow RPGs, grenades, exotic weapons, etc. that even attempting to mess with .223s would seem ludicrous.
Could "the people" defeat the British military these days?
Unfortunately, most 2A supporters still have some control freak, statist views....such as thinking that 18 yr olds (who are PEOPLE) shouldnt be allowed to buy a handgun, or that gov. background checks on arms are somehow constitutional.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 15, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
Post by: nocklehead on June 15, 2013, 12:07:05 PM
Yeah, you should probably fight all of the pro-2A people who aren't for legalizing personal use of artillery. The antis love this stuff. They just sit back and watch as any kind of cohesion dissolves because nuts start pointing fingers at people on the same side of the fence instead of concentrating on the Diane Feinkensteins of this world. Try getting a clue as to whom you should be attacking and opposing in this battle. This is exactly like bow hunters going after modern hunters while the wolf lovers sit back and take it all in.
I thought you have me set to ignore PM? hmmm, well, I guess you lied.
It seems you are the one who wants to fight, instead of opening your mind, and call names such as nuts, and clueless.
Im happy to debate the constitution any day with you PM, just try to keep your immature statements to yourself, it muddys up the waters for all parties involved.
It seems youre version of 'right wing' is somewhere near the 5 yard line, of the leftwings endzone.
Which makes me genuinely curious as to what YOUR personal vision of a republic respecting its 2A would look like and what regulations you would want imposed on others with threat of force?
Post by: Bean Counter on June 15, 2013, 01:46:50 PM
I may even stop driving the pacific coast highway whenever I road trip up to WA. I already fill up my gas tank just outside that state on both ends just on principal.
Post by: nocklehead on June 15, 2013, 02:58:27 PM
- Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Im quite sure the founders meant ALL guns and ammunition, especially those also used by British armies...to call the redcoats allies whilst their people are disarmed and the monarchy continues is an abomination of everything we've fought for."
-Nocklehead
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2013, 06:51:35 AM
Yeah, you should probably fight all of the pro-2A people who aren't for legalizing personal use of artillery. The antis love this stuff. They just sit back and watch as any kind of cohesion dissolves because nuts start pointing fingers at people on the same side of the fence instead of concentrating on the Diane Feinkensteins of this world. Try getting a clue as to whom you should be attacking and opposing in this battle. This is exactly like bow hunters going after modern hunters while the wolf lovers sit back and take it all in.
I thought you have me set to ignore PM? hmmm, well, I guess you lied.
It seems you are the one who wants to fight, instead of opening your mind, and call names such as nuts, and clueless.
Im happy to debate the constitution any day with you PM, just try to keep your immature statements to yourself, it muddys up the waters for all parties involved.
It seems youre version of 'right wing' is somewhere near the 5 yard line, of the leftwings endzone.
Which makes me genuinely curious as to what YOUR personal vision of a republic respecting its 2A would look like and what regulations you would want imposed on others with threat of force?
Unfortunately, I'm a moderator on this board and have to read your paranoid and rambling posts. Go too far over the line and I'll remove them or you.
Post by: nocklehead on June 16, 2013, 10:04:23 AM
I havent crossed any "line" Pman, if I have, please inform us all what it is.....I think youre really shining a light on yourself. were just having a conversation with no profanity, you attack me, call me names, and threaten to ban me??
Whats your deal? Why do you want everyone fitting in your neat little box? Is this Korea? You cant even debate without going there? pretty sad IMO.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2013, 04:53:08 PM
My personal opinion Knocklhead is that you need to pick your fights and choose your partners. You need to know who your enemies are, and you need to stick to the people who have like views. Turning against the people who are on the same side of the issue as you is crazy. I believe that you should focus on those who oppose you. Sportsman in general tend to be very fragmented. We go off into these micro groups like Archery and muzzleloading and modern, and forget that we're in the same flight. Unity is the only thing that will help us beat the people who are trying to take away our rights.
Post by: nocklehead on June 16, 2013, 06:14:30 PM
I was wrong to mix moderation with personal opinions.
My personal opinion Knocklhead is that you need to pick your fights and choose your partners. You need to know who your enemies are, and you need to stick to the people who have like views. Turning against the people who are on the same side of the issue as you is crazy. I believe that you should focus on those who oppose you. Sportsman in general tend to be very fragmented. We go off into these micro groups like Archery and muzzleloading and modern, and forget that we're in the same flight. Unity is the only thing that will help us beat the people who are trying to take away our rights.
I wasnt trying to pick any fights, I was merely trying to point out that the reason anti gun people can even attempt to getaway with this is due to our present interpretation of the constitution.
I do absolutely think the word "arms" in 2A was meant to include blades, swords, gunpowder, lead and lead casting supplies, canons, etc. etc.
While in a modern sense, the 2A does ALLOW for artillery lets say, the times when its use would be legal and justifiable by the people acting as an organized militia are rare.
I believe the easiest way to reverse whats happening in places like CA, is to clearly state, as a collective, that bullets and gunpowder, brass, and reloading supplies, these things are all our "ARMS". We can not passively state these things either, although its only right to use a gun in defense, when it comes to legal support of 2A, we need to be on the offense.
"We" should be the ones constantly trying to ram legislation down "their" throats.
I will say though that education and patience is the best way to deal with antis, take a liberal shooting, give them deer meat, and talk about guns naturally around them, whatever it takes to peacefully make them see your side of things...we need to remember they are human too, and show them so are we.
Post by: csaaphill on June 17, 2013, 06:02:57 PM
So not just the second amendment, but free speech bothers you as well?well for waht it's worth i liked your quotes :tup:
I havent crossed any "line" Pman, if I have, please inform us all what it is.....I think youre really shining a light on yourself. were just having a conversation with no profanity, you attack me, call me names, and threaten to ban me??
Whats your deal? Why do you want everyone fitting in your neat little box? Is this Korea? You cant even debate without going there? pretty sad IMO.
Post by: bearpaw on June 17, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
I was wrong to mix moderation with personal opinions.
My personal opinion Knocklhead is that you need to pick your fights and choose your partners. You need to know who your enemies are, and you need to stick to the people who have like views. Turning against the people who are on the same side of the issue as you is crazy. I believe that you should focus on those who oppose you. Sportsman in general tend to be very fragmented. We go off into these micro groups like Archery and muzzleloading and modern, and forget that we're in the same flight. Unity is the only thing that will help us beat the people who are trying to take away our rights.
I wasnt trying to pick any fights, I was merely trying to point out that the reason anti gun people can even attempt to getaway with this is due to our present interpretation of the constitution.
I do absolutely think the word "arms" in 2A was meant to include blades, swords, gunpowder, lead and lead casting supplies, canons, etc. etc.
While in a modern sense, the 2A does ALLOW for artillery lets say, the times when its use would be legal and justifiable by the people acting as an organized militia are rare.
I believe the easiest way to reverse whats happening in places like CA, is to clearly state, as a collective, that bullets and gunpowder, brass, and reloading supplies, these things are all our "ARMS". We can not passively state these things either, although its only right to use a gun in defense, when it comes to legal support of 2A, we need to be on the offense.
"We" should be the ones constantly trying to ram legislation down "their" throats.
I will say though that education and patience is the best way to deal with antis, take a liberal shooting, give them deer meat, and talk about guns naturally around them, whatever it takes to peacefully make them see your side of things...we need to remember they are human too, and show them so are we.
I think if we combined both of you guys points we'd have a winning plan. :tup:
Post by: csaaphill on June 17, 2013, 06:37:07 PM
Post by: nocklehead on June 18, 2013, 07:07:16 AM
whos got a great big saw and we'll saw them off the main land. :tup:
Hey the Sierra Nevada's got lots of wild game, Ive never seen more turkeys in one area! Some big ol' deer too! We only need to saw off the coast and southern cali! I prefer a peaceful takeover though, after all, we're the armed hunters. :chuckle:
Post by: huntrights on June 22, 2013, 09:43:04 PM
The California legislature has gone over the top with their continual flood of anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation. Many people in that state have been brainwashed with so much anti-gun and anti-hunting propaganda that they have unfortunately elected state and local representation that has lost touch with the Constitution and Bill of Rights and why it is the foundation of our freedom. New York and some other states appear to be equally as bad.
We're all very passionate about fighting against the extremist views and actions of the anti-gun and anti-hunting crowd. Because of the intensity of our commitment to defend and protect our rights and freedoms, it is understandable that some disagreements may arise among those of us that are very much on the same side in many of the challenges we have faced together. The political world is a tricky place; much of our success in keeping the rights and freedoms we cherish depends on our commitment and resolve to work together on the major issues with an understanding that we may still have some differences in our individual opinions. If we open our minds, we can learn a great deal from those differences.
We have many political and cultural challenges ahead. We need to fight against immediate legislative threats in addition to educating the general public with facts about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; we are a free people for a reason. People need to know that hunting is conservation and that hunting and hunters are the primary reasons the United States has one of the most envied and successful wildlife management models in the world.
We must work together and continue to get others engaged if we are to avoid becoming another anti-gun/anti-hunting state like California.