6 New Gun Control Laws Pass in California

[2aguy]

IF:

• A license were required to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun
• Every gun registered to a licensed owner
• Every gun insured
• The license could be suspended for cause*, guns surrendered and later returned upon expiration of suspension
• A suspended license could be revoked for cause**, and guns destroyed or sold to licensed gun dealer
• License valid in the state of issue only, unless interstate process established for hunters, LE and interstate commerce
• Each State to have the right to license, register, suspend and revoke, or not impose any or all of these restrictions

* A license suspended for cause (cause may be: civilly detained as a danger to oneself or others, an arrest and or a conviction for a crime specified in the state's penal code, i,e battery, domestic violence, criminal threats, child or animal abuse, on probation or parole with a no weapons term or condition, a second or subsequent conviction for DUI; said suspension sustained by a court of original jurisdiction with the right of appeal.

The initial application for a license to be determined by each state as to the eligibility of the applicant in a background check in a state based data base.

** A license revoked for life for a violent felony, i.e. Homicide in the first or second degree, rape, armed robbery, mayhem, kidnapping, illegal entry into the US. A license revoked will be recorded on the FBI Record of Arrests and available to each state doing a background check.

Any licensed person who sold, loaned are allowed an unlicensed person to obtain a bun would have his or her licensed suspended for not less than one year, if said gun was used to commit a crime at least 5 years, a not more than $5,000, and if used to cause death or great bodily harm a felony, and if the facts warrant,an arrest for accessory ir conspiracy, a revocation of said license and in jeopardy of a jail or prison sentence.

Putting aside that a lot of the ideas you write are not acceptable, how will passing such laws stop criminals from using guns?

They don't.

That isn't even remotely the point. Licensing gun owners puts gun owners in legal jeapordy...should they fail to register due to forgetfullness, or a mistake or clerical error.....Wry Catcher owns them......

They need to license gun owners so they can get at them.....since gun owners don't commit actual crimes, there is no way to touch them....until they screw up the licensing process...

and guns destroyed or sold to licensed gun dealer

You give no credit to the intelligence or responsibility of gun owners.

Another Duh moment posted by 2aguy: Hey everyone, criminals commit crimes! (2aguy said so)

1. A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.
2. Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.
3. Crimes are punished, only someone who commits a crime will lose their privilege to be licensed
4. Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control
5. The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one
6. If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.
7. We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America
8. There is little hope any bullet points will be employed, at least until we get the money out of our political process.

Moron there have been slightly more gun studies on gun violence since the 90s......that has not changed....

Driving a car is not a Right.......requiring a license, that has a fee attacked to it is no different than when you kept blacks from voting by using Poll Taxes and Literacy tests......and a fee that would keep the poor from owning guns is against the 14th Amendment, just like Poll taxes and Literacy tests were....but you still tried to get those....

Due Process that requires extensive lawyers fees, court costs and excessive time to exercise a right is an infringement...just like Poll taxes and literacy tests....

And all for what......you admit it will not limit gun violence...but you want it anyway....and it won't reduce the prolifieration of guns..because Europe has every single thing you want....and is awash in illegal guns...as I have shown over the years with articles on the topic.....

Getting money out of the political process?.....yeah....and you are more than likely a hilary voter...twit....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, criminals don't obey the law (Duh). Yet guns are ubiquitous in Chitown, and nationally. How do they acquire them? How do they acquire the ammunition?

So then what is the purpose of the new laws? What exactly do you and the other liberals expecting them to accomplish, besides making clueless non-gun savvy upper west side/berkeley liberals feel good about themselves, since we are both in agreement that they will not stop criminals from either obtaining or using them?

He knows......they want to punish normal people who want to own a gun. They have committed a mortal sin, and must be punished.

You are a LIAR. Normal people still commit crimes. It's why we have laws and are a nation of laws. We require a surgeon to be licensed, is that punishing him or her?

No one has the "right" to perform surgery you fucking moron...

Sorry, the party you insulted is not within your space, and that makes you a coward. Your failure to understand the surgical example is one more piece of evidence probative to the fact that your propensity to call others a moron is a symptom of psychological projection

 

[2aguy]

IF:

• A license were required to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun
• Every gun registered to a licensed owner
• Every gun insured
• The license could be suspended for cause*, guns surrendered and later returned upon expiration of suspension
• A suspended license could be revoked for cause**, and guns destroyed or sold to licensed gun dealer
• License valid in the state of issue only, unless interstate process established for hunters, LE and interstate commerce
• Each State to have the right to license, register, suspend and revoke, or not impose any or all of these restrictions

* A license suspended for cause (cause may be: civilly detained as a danger to oneself or others, an arrest and or a conviction for a crime specified in the state's penal code, i,e battery, domestic violence, criminal threats, child or animal abuse, on probation or parole with a no weapons term or condition, a second or subsequent conviction for DUI; said suspension sustained by a court of original jurisdiction with the right of appeal.

The initial application for a license to be determined by each state as to the eligibility of the applicant in a background check in a state based data base.

** A license revoked for life for a violent felony, i.e. Homicide in the first or second degree, rape, armed robbery, mayhem, kidnapping, illegal entry into the US. A license revoked will be recorded on the FBI Record of Arrests and available to each state doing a background check.

Any licensed person who sold, loaned are allowed an unlicensed person to obtain a bun would have his or her licensed suspended for not less than one year, if said gun was used to commit a crime at least 5 years, a not more than $5,000, and if used to cause death or great bodily harm a felony, and if the facts warrant,an arrest for accessory ir conspiracy, a revocation of said license and in jeopardy of a jail or prison sentence.

Putting aside that a lot of the ideas you write are not acceptable, how will passing such laws stop criminals from using guns?

They don't.

That isn't even remotely the point. Licensing gun owners puts gun owners in legal jeapordy...should they fail to register due to forgetfullness, or a mistake or clerical error.....Wry Catcher owns them......

They need to license gun owners so they can get at them.....since gun owners don't commit actual crimes, there is no way to touch them....until they screw up the licensing process...

and guns destroyed or sold to licensed gun dealer

You give no credit to the intelligence or responsibility of gun owners.

Another Duh moment posted by 2aguy: Hey everyone, criminals commit crimes! (2aguy said so)

1. A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.
2. Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.
3. Crimes are punished, only someone who commits a crime will lose their privilege to be licensed
4. Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control
5. The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one
6. If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.
7. We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America
8. There is little hope any bullet points will be employed, at least until we get the money out of our political process.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Tell me genius...if the CDC is prevented from studying gun violence...how did they do the study in 2015 on gun violence for the city of Wilmington, Deleware? Do you ever question the anti-gun nuts you worship?

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.


CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.

In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”

 

[Skull Pilot]

age/sex.

In most areas, militia was able bodied men between the ages of 16-45, others, 16-57.

Females were not allowed to join a militia, no matter their age.

Once again, not all men are mentally or physically allowed to be in the Militia. COTUS gives the power to train the Militia under the rules set by the Congress. Has the Congress established such rules? If the State has the authority to appoint officers to train the Militia, which States have done so?

All the pretend constitutional experts abound on 2nd A. threads, so any number of them ought to have the answers to these questions on speed dial.
I await an answer which does not begin, end or include because gun right cannot be infringed. They are, get over it.

The second was put in place so people could form militias independent of the government
The government already had the power to raise an army

BULLSHIT! Why do you make stuff up?

Yes, the government could fund an army (Art. I, sec 8, clause 12), no such restriction to State Militias.

Not making anything up

the second was meant to allow the people to form militias not the government.

The bill or rights enumerates the rights of the people and restricts the power of the government

Have you not read Art. I, sec 8, clause 16? Maybe you should with an unbiased eye.

Yeah did you not see the "as may be employed in the service of the United States "Part?

BTW that does not contradict my assertion. The militia was the people not the government

 

[2aguy]

IF:

• A license were required to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun
• Every gun registered to a licensed owner
• Every gun insured
• The license could be suspended for cause*, guns surrendered and later returned upon expiration of suspension
• A suspended license could be revoked for cause**, and guns destroyed or sold to licensed gun dealer
• License valid in the state of issue only, unless interstate process established for hunters, LE and interstate commerce
• Each State to have the right to license, register, suspend and revoke, or not impose any or all of these restrictions

* A license suspended for cause (cause may be: civilly detained as a danger to oneself or others, an arrest and or a conviction for a crime specified in the state's penal code, i,e battery, domestic violence, criminal threats, child or animal abuse, on probation or parole with a no weapons term or condition, a second or subsequent conviction for DUI; said suspension sustained by a court of original jurisdiction with the right of appeal.

The initial application for a license to be determined by each state as to the eligibility of the applicant in a background check in a state based data base.

** A license revoked for life for a violent felony, i.e. Homicide in the first or second degree, rape, armed robbery, mayhem, kidnapping, illegal entry into the US. A license revoked will be recorded on the FBI Record of Arrests and available to each state doing a background check.

Any licensed person who sold, loaned are allowed an unlicensed person to obtain a bun would have his or her licensed suspended for not less than one year, if said gun was used to commit a crime at least 5 years, a not more than $5,000, and if used to cause death or great bodily harm a felony, and if the facts warrant,an arrest for accessory ir conspiracy, a revocation of said license and in jeopardy of a jail or prison sentence.

Putting aside that a lot of the ideas you write are not acceptable, how will passing such laws stop criminals from using guns?

They don't.

That isn't even remotely the point. Licensing gun owners puts gun owners in legal jeapordy...should they fail to register due to forgetfullness, or a mistake or clerical error.....Wry Catcher owns them......

They need to license gun owners so they can get at them.....since gun owners don't commit actual crimes, there is no way to touch them....until they screw up the licensing process...

and guns destroyed or sold to licensed gun dealer

You give no credit to the intelligence or responsibility of gun owners.

Another Duh moment posted by 2aguy: Hey everyone, criminals commit crimes! (2aguy said so)

1. A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.
2. Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.
3. Crimes are punished, only someone who commits a crime will lose their privilege to be licensed
4. Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control
5. The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one
6. If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.
7. We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America
8. There is little hope any bullet points will be employed, at least until we get the money out of our political process.

How did the CDC do this gun research in 2015 twit....your anti gun sources are lying to you.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0



When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.



They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, criminals don't obey the law (Duh). Yet guns are ubiquitous in Chitown, and nationally. How do they acquire them? How do they acquire the ammunition?

So then what is the purpose of the new laws? What exactly do you and the other liberals expecting them to accomplish, besides making clueless non-gun savvy upper west side/berkeley liberals feel good about themselves, since we are both in agreement that they will not stop criminals from either obtaining or using them?

He knows......they want to punish normal people who want to own a gun. They have committed a mortal sin, and must be punished.

You are a LIAR. Normal people still commit crimes. It's why we have laws and are a nation of laws. We require a surgeon to be licensed, is that punishing him or her?

No one has the "right" to perform surgery you fucking moron...

Sorry, the party you insulted is not within your space, and that makes you a coward. Your failure to understand the surgical example is one more piece of evidence probative to the fact that your propensity to call others a moron is a symptom of psychological projection

And owning a gun is a Right...being a surgeon is not......committing a crime with a gun can already be prosecuted without licensing the gun owner or registering his gun.....same for a felon caught with a gun...they cannot legally register their gun and they cannot get a license...so if you catch them with a gun, you can already arrest them.....

So....your whole post on licensing and registering people is pointless.....

 

[Rustic]

There's a reason why the founding fathers put the second amendment in the Constitution, fucking big brother needs to be held in check.

 

[rhodescholar]

You are a LIAR. Normal people still commit crimes. It's why we have laws and are a nation of laws. We require a surgeon to be licensed, is that punishing him or her?

If places like NYC, chicago and Wash DC did not ban handguns, then those arguing for licensing and regtration might have had a better argument, but those locations have made it impossible to obtain a handgun, so there is a significant history of liberals taking the registration process to its extreme and banning weapons entirely.

 

[rhodescholar]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

People who like their rights should move out of California. It's turning into Cubafornia.

Nonsense.

Residents of California enjoy the same rights and protected liberties as anyone else the country.

And if California residents believe any laws have been enacted that violate their rights, they can have those laws repealed through the political process, or seek relief in court.

Otherwise, the laws of California are perfectly Constitutional and ‘violate’ no one’s rights, including the state’s firearm regulatory measures.

 

[rhodescholar]

People who like their rights should move out of California. It's turning into Cubafornia.

Nonsense.

Residents of California enjoy the same rights and protected liberties as anyone else the country.

And if California residents believe any laws have been enacted that violate their rights, they can have those laws repealed through the political process, or seek relief in court.

Otherwise, the laws of California are perfectly Constitutional and ‘violate’ no one’s rights, including the state’s firearm regulatory measures.

Statements like this don't hold much water. There have been many instances of restrictionist gun laws being overturned by the supreme court, including the total handgun bans in wash DC and chicago. Just because a city/state passes an ordinance does not mean it is automatically legal or constitutional.

 

[Rustic]

People who like their rights should move out of California. It's turning into Cubafornia.

Nonsense.

Residents of California enjoy the same rights and protected liberties as anyone else the country.

And if California residents believe any laws have been enacted that violate their rights, they can have those laws repealed through the political process, or seek relief in court.

Otherwise, the laws of California are perfectly Constitutional and ‘violate’ no one’s rights, including the state’s firearm regulatory measures.

Lol

 

[ChrisL]

People who like their rights should move out of California. It's turning into Cubafornia.

Nonsense.

Residents of California enjoy the same rights and protected liberties as anyone else the country.

And if California residents believe any laws have been enacted that violate their rights, they can have those laws repealed through the political process, or seek relief in court.

Otherwise, the laws of California are perfectly Constitutional and ‘violate’ no one’s rights, including the state’s firearm regulatory measures.

From what I've read, plenty of experts disagree with you. These are verified experts, not some nut who claims he's a lawyer on a message board. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

The NRA has some very powerful constitutional lawyers on OUR side. And NONE of these laws are going to prevent a criminal from obtaining and using a weapon to shoot and kill people. The actions of a few psychos should not trump OUR constitutional rights.

If you want to go there, why not ban the Muslim religion? Same thing right? A few psychos, so we should restrict or ban this religion because of it is potentially dangerous due to the few nuts who abuse it.

Fairfax, Va.— California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Friday a package of gun bills that were rushed through the state legislature with no regard for proper process. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) released the following statement in reaction:

“Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a draconian gun control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens. The governor and legislature exploited a terrorist attack to push these measures through even though the state’s already restrictive laws did nothing to stop the attack in San Bernadino," said Amy Hunter, California spokesperson for NRA-ILA. "These bills make no one safer, they only add another layer of laws that criminals will continue to break. The National Rifle Association is prepared to pursue all options moving forward – legal, legislative and political.”

Here's a summary of Brown's actions:

SIGNED BOTH- Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” This legislation effectively outlaws magazine locking devices, more commonly known as “bullet buttons”.These areconstitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and without public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.

SIGNED Assembly Bill 1511 would effectively end the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes. Under this legislation the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer, absent very narrow and limited exceptions. A simple loan to a trusted friend for a few days would take almost a month to complete from loan to return, requiring two background checks, two 10 day waiting periods, two fees and multiple trips to a gun dealer. The result of the misguided legislation would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for borrowing or storing a firearm with a friend.

VETO - Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that are “clearly identifiable as being used exclusively as part of a functional weapon”. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 could essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms.

VETO - Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the existing one handgun a month law to include ALL guns, including those acquired through a private party transfer. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.

SIGNED - Assembly Bill 1695 would create a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.

VETO - Assembly Bill 2607 would expand the class of individuals who could seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO).” The NRA opposes the current GVRO procedures because they provide a mechanism for an individual to lose the right to keep and bear arms with no due process of law. AB 2607 would compound these problems by significantly expanding the classes of individuals who could seek a GVRO. This expansion would now include employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary and postsecondary schools.

VETO - Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.”

SIGNED - Senate Bill 1235 would place unjustified and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases. This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a licensed vendor. First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried -- and failed -- at the federal level. Throughout the 1980s, Congress considered repeal of a federal ammunition regulation package that required, among other things, reporting of ammunition sales. In 1986, the director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the reporting requirement, stating: "The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current record keeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value." As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition to the removal of that requirement. SB 1235 will similarly fail to reduce violent crime, as a law requiring the registration of ammunition purchases by honest citizens will not deter criminals. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.

SIGNED - Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness. Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.

 

[ChrisL]

And the reason why the anti-rights people HATE the NRA . . . because they fight for our 2A right with their constitutional attorneys. They want to destroy the NRA so that we will be at the mercy of the government to infringe and ban on a whim.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What will the new laws do about situations like this?

Kathryn Steinle family files claims against San Francisco over her death by illegal immigrant

That this situation has not received the much greater attention it should have is rock solid proof that the media is liberal/leftwing-biased to an extreme.

The Remembrance Project

Here in the Bay Area the tragic killing of Ms. Steinle has gotten a lot of press and every law enforcement agency is going over their policies on guns.
SFPD once required its officers to carry their service gun at all time, and that meant off duty. That policy was revised years ago for it proved to be problematic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The NRA has some very powerful constitutional lawyers on OUR side. And NONE of these laws are going to prevent a criminal from obtaining and using a weapon to shoot and kill people. The actions of a few psychos should not trump OUR constitutional rights.

If you want to go there, why not ban the Muslim religion? Same thing right? A few psychos, so we should restrict or ban this religion because of it is potentially dangerous due to the few nuts who abuse it.

Fairfax, Va.— California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Friday a package of gun bills that were rushed through the state legislature with no regard for proper process. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) released the following statement in reaction:

“Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a draconian gun control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens. The governor and legislature exploited a terrorist attack to push these measures through even though the state’s already restrictive laws did nothing to stop the attack in San Bernadino," said Amy Hunter, California spokesperson for NRA-ILA. "These bills make no one safer, they only add another layer of laws that criminals will continue to break. The National Rifle Association is prepared to pursue all options moving forward – legal, legislative and political.”

Here's a summary of Brown's actions:

SIGNED BOTH- Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” This legislation effectively outlaws magazine locking devices, more commonly known as “bullet buttons”.These areconstitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and without public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.

SIGNED Assembly Bill 1511 would effectively end the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes. Under this legislation the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer, absent very narrow and limited exceptions. A simple loan to a trusted friend for a few days would take almost a month to complete from loan to return, requiring two background checks, two 10 day waiting periods, two fees and multiple trips to a gun dealer. The result of the misguided legislation would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for borrowing or storing a firearm with a friend.

VETO - Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that are “clearly identifiable as being used exclusively as part of a functional weapon”. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 could essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms.

VETO - Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the existing one handgun a month law to include ALL guns, including those acquired through a private party transfer. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.

SIGNED - Assembly Bill 1695 would create a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.

VETO - Assembly Bill 2607 would expand the class of individuals who could seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO).” The NRA opposes the current GVRO procedures because they provide a mechanism for an individual to lose the right to keep and bear arms with no due process of law. AB 2607 would compound these problems by significantly expanding the classes of individuals who could seek a GVRO. This expansion would now include employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary and postsecondary schools.

VETO - Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.”

SIGNED - Senate Bill 1235 would place unjustified and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases. This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a licensed vendor. First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried -- and failed -- at the federal level. Throughout the 1980s, Congress considered repeal of a federal ammunition regulation package that required, among other things, reporting of ammunition sales. In 1986, the director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the reporting requirement, stating: "The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current record keeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value." As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition to the removal of that requirement. SB 1235 will similarly fail to reduce violent crime, as a law requiring the registration of ammunition purchases by honest citizens will not deter criminals. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.

SIGNED - Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness. Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.

When did Gov. Brown become the Governor of Virginia too? Consider CALIFORNIA'S Gov. Brown and the Democratic Legislature to have fired the first shot at the terrorist organization NRA and its accessory, the GOP.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

 

[ChrisL]

The NRA has some very powerful constitutional lawyers on OUR side. And NONE of these laws are going to prevent a criminal from obtaining and using a weapon to shoot and kill people. The actions of a few psychos should not trump OUR constitutional rights.

If you want to go there, why not ban the Muslim religion? Same thing right? A few psychos, so we should restrict or ban this religion because of it is potentially dangerous due to the few nuts who abuse it.

Fairfax, Va.— California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Friday a package of gun bills that were rushed through the state legislature with no regard for proper process. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) released the following statement in reaction:

“Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a draconian gun control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens. The governor and legislature exploited a terrorist attack to push these measures through even though the state’s already restrictive laws did nothing to stop the attack in San Bernadino," said Amy Hunter, California spokesperson for NRA-ILA. "These bills make no one safer, they only add another layer of laws that criminals will continue to break. The National Rifle Association is prepared to pursue all options moving forward – legal, legislative and political.”

Here's a summary of Brown's actions:

SIGNED BOTH- Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” This legislation effectively outlaws magazine locking devices, more commonly known as “bullet buttons”.These areconstitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and without public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.

SIGNED Assembly Bill 1511 would effectively end the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes. Under this legislation the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer, absent very narrow and limited exceptions. A simple loan to a trusted friend for a few days would take almost a month to complete from loan to return, requiring two background checks, two 10 day waiting periods, two fees and multiple trips to a gun dealer. The result of the misguided legislation would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for borrowing or storing a firearm with a friend.

VETO - Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that are “clearly identifiable as being used exclusively as part of a functional weapon”. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 could essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms.

VETO - Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the existing one handgun a month law to include ALL guns, including those acquired through a private party transfer. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.

SIGNED - Assembly Bill 1695 would create a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.

VETO - Assembly Bill 2607 would expand the class of individuals who could seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO).” The NRA opposes the current GVRO procedures because they provide a mechanism for an individual to lose the right to keep and bear arms with no due process of law. AB 2607 would compound these problems by significantly expanding the classes of individuals who could seek a GVRO. This expansion would now include employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary and postsecondary schools.

VETO - Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.”

SIGNED - Senate Bill 1235 would place unjustified and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases. This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a licensed vendor. First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried -- and failed -- at the federal level. Throughout the 1980s, Congress considered repeal of a federal ammunition regulation package that required, among other things, reporting of ammunition sales. In 1986, the director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the reporting requirement, stating: "The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current record keeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value." As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition to the removal of that requirement. SB 1235 will similarly fail to reduce violent crime, as a law requiring the registration of ammunition purchases by honest citizens will not deter criminals. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.

SIGNED - Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness. Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.

When did Gov. Brown become the Governor of Virginia too? Consider CALIFORNIA'S Gov. Brown and the Democratic Legislature to have fired the first shot at the terrorist organization NRA and its accessory, the GOP.

Doesn't matter. The NRA is coming after your silly laws that don't do anything to stop a mass murderer or even every day crime in the urban areas.

 

[ChrisL]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.