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 Permits...at 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..