You are not logged in. Log In |  Register New Search
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  

Posted:  5/30/2013 9:08 AM #37919
CTD Blogger

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 10828
Last Post: 8/20/2014
Subject: BREAKING: CA Senate Votes to Require Background Checks for AMMO and BAN Semi Auto Rifles
From States such as Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Colorado just recently passed some of the strictest gun control legislation in the United States. California, which has long been the definition of anti gun policy making has decided it will not be outdone in the game of who can be the most anti gun state. With that in mind, the California state senate today passed a multitude of anti gun bills. Two of them are particularly bad. The first will require background checks for anyone who is buying or selling ammo. Ammo is already expensive and hard to come by. What do you think these additional requirements are going to do to the cost of ammo in CA? Will ammo EVER be readily available again in CA if these bills are signed into law?


The second bill, according to the LA Times,

The Senate also approved a bill that would outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture in California of semiautomatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines. SB 374 also would require those who own such weapons to register them with the state.

Other measures approved by the Senate would ban the possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 bullets, and regulate mechanisms, called “bullet buttons,” that allow the quick replacement of ammunition magazines on semiautomatic rifles.

Uh. Wouldn’t banning rifles that can accept detachable magazines along with rifles that use bullet buttons (mechanisms that significantly slow down the changing of magazines) effectively ban most modern semi automatic rifles in the state of California?

Not all of the California state lawmakers are off their rockers. Some are even denouncing the measures.

Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) opposed the measure as too broad. “We are criminalizing legal, historic behavior in the state of California and putting onerous burdens and regulations and requirements on law-abiding citizens.”

One thing is for sure, I will not be stepping foot in California anytime soon. They can keep their earthquakes and gun control. California gun owners: you are more than welcome to join us in the free states.

Posted:  5/30/2013 1:59 PM #37923

Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2063
Last Post: 9/30/2014
GREAT NEWS! We can effectively subtract the California population from the gun and ammo market. Fewer buyers means less money chasing goods, and that forces prices down. Reduced revenue to manufacturers means less money squandered on developing stupid proprietary calibers and unneeded products. Need yet another "new" polymer handgun? Sorry, you'll just have to make do with the models already out there. A thousand "same difference" AR15s aren't enough choice? Too bad. You'll live. I want people to take responsibility for their votes. Citizens in a republic get the government they deserve. When people elect Democrats instead of Americans, I want them to pay the price, feel the pain, and suffer. I want them heavily taxed, victimized by crime, and I want their rights abridged and infringed. I want Americans stranded in such states to pack up and move - and from now on be a little more circumspect about where they seek their fortunes. As they say in real estate - "location, location, location." And instead of just schools, shopping, and climate, I want politics to become a prime consideration. I want oppressive states to realize that money, people and jobs are deliberately not choosing them for genuine political reasons. Just as I want "sanctuary" cities and states to be attractive to illegals, so they don't live near me. Sooner or later, it will dawn on the electorate, even the low-information electorate, that votes have consequences, and they are often dire.

Posted:  6/1/2013 5:10 AM #37952
Lucius Severus Pertinax

Joined: 6/1/2013
Posts: 1
Last Post: 6/1/2013
My first Question is: What is CTD's position in all this?
The second, and much larger question is: At what point does  Regulation become Infringment?
Here in California, I think we have arrived.
I personally regard anyone in Sacramento with a "D" after their name to be a greater threat to me than any meth-head, nut-job or gangbanger.
What follows is a comment I made in the Sacramento Bee in response to the article announcing the  passage of the above mentioned bills:
Many decry the  so-called "slippery slope" argument. For the last two generations, however, the incremental removal of firearms from the hands of all civilians has been the manifest strategy of the Left. These are the same as those who laugh at the common saying: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".  A slight restatement of that old saw may help to make it more clear: " If guns are outlawed, only those who MAKE the laws will have guns."

That brings us to a question directed at the gun-grabbing Lefties:
"Are you SURE you want to live in that World?"
"Are you REALLY sure?

Think before you answer...for once you enter that World, there is little chance leaving it alive.
Think about how many people on this planet LIVE in that World already.
Think about how the overwhelming majority of those that DO live in that World do NOT like it and would like to escape.
Think of how many millions, in the past century, perished trying to escape or avoid living in that World.

But above all.. THINK!

I agree we should make it difficult for criminals and nutcases to get their hands on guns. But.... at the same time, we need to be careful about WHO gets to decide who is a criminal or a nutcase and by what criteria.
In his recent address in Minnesota, Barack Obama used the phrase "responsible gun ownership" about half a dozen times; but never did he define, in specific and concrete terms, what HE means by it. It would not take much for his spin doctors to redefine "responsible" as meaning "politically reliable"

It is also increasingly apparent that people in Washington and Sacramento either do not grasp the difference between a "privilege" and a "right"; or do not think such a difference does or should exist. They seem to want to be the arbiters of everything you and I can and cannot do, out of some curious notion they know better than us.

A Privilege is something that is granted for some legitimate and defensible reason by a higher authority; the default is "No".

A Right is intrinsic and inherent; it can only be removed given a legitimate and defensible reason. The default is "Yes".

One peculiarity of criminal law as practiced in California, is that when a criminal is arraigned for, for example, armed robbery, even if he is already a convicted felon who has no business having a gun in the first place, the weapons charge is almost always thrown out first, when it comes to a plea bargain. I suspect this is done because the prisons are so crowded already.

It would, I think, do a lot more good if legislation were passed mandating that the weapons charge, in such instances, be the LAST thing to be thrown out.

Therein lies the difference; when one regulates a THING, like firearms, the only people affected with any consistency would  be those who obey the law and would most likely not even need the law to act responsibly; e. g. the great majority of people would not run red lights even if it were not illegal; because it would STILL be stupid and dangerous.

On the other hand, when one regulates a BEHAVIOR, only those that engage in the proscribed behavior are affected;  those that do not are untouched.

Diane Feinstein herself  admitted that no law is going to stop a determined "grievance killer". She is quite correct. But we CAN make much better headway against the vast bulk of gun crime by severely punishing those who willfully misuse firearms and leave those who don't (like me!) alone!

Slippery Slope?  Remember that the path to tyranny is seldom a precipice. Remember also, the slope it is lubricated by the ignorance, complacency and false, self-awarded, moral superiority of those who  smugly think: "it can't happen to me".

They  steal our Liberties, then sell them back to us in the form of Licenses and THEIR price!
  They think they can alter physical reality by playing word games: declaring an "assault rifle" is whatever THEY say it is. By the same logic, they could pass a measure that would insist upon calling a hoe a shovel; and expect us to  believe it, too!
Back in 1989, when the original Roos-Roberti Assault rifle Act was passed requiring registration of what THEY were pleased to call "assault rifles". Compliance turned out to be an estimated 20-30%. This time around, we can expect it to be even lower.  But that is just fine with the Statists in Sacramento; they WANT to make us into criminals-  making it easier to intimidate and control us.
And they will not stop.....they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be argued with, they cannot be compromised with. Above all, they can NEVER be trusted. Any so-called "negotiation" with their sort is only an exercise in determining how much THEY gain and WE lose.  If these abominations  indeed become so-called "Law", I urge all gun-owning Californians  to NOT Comply..


Posted:  6/1/2013 10:40 AM #37953

Joined: 5/31/2013
Posts: 5
Last Post: 6/1/2013
I recall DeLeon passed a bullet ban law a few years ago and the state supreme court tossed it out as "Unconstitutional", and these same guy brings it back?  They have no respect for the Constitution and will break its laws.  So therefore we should not comply as well!   I will simply make trips out of state for my ammo purchases or make my own if DeLeon gets away with his draconian bullet law! Everyone in the Bay Area with a "D" with their name is an automatic F- rated on gun issues.  The far left San Jose Mercury News hates all guns and wants them all banned!  They are always advocating some ban or regulation into our lives.  During elections, they only endorse Democrats.

Posted:  6/4/2013 11:15 AM #37970

Joined: 6/28/2005
Posts: 1337
Last Post: 1/28/2015
Cheaper Than Dirt! stands with the law-abiding citizens of California who are adversely affected by these infringements of their Second Amendment rights.
CTD Forum Moderator

Jump to:
  Previous Topic    Next Topic