California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation

[GWV5903]

By Zack Beauchamp

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations.

5. Universal registration of all guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition.

7. Regulating gun loans.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners.

DETAILS: California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation | ThinkProgress

If you are stupid enough to believe this, they have you on their leash, two steps beyond the kool aid...

Hate is a strong emotion, guns are only a tool, no one, no law can control that emotion...

 

[Missourian]

Aha...didn't know this was available.

Looks unwieldy and impractical.

No wonder I never heard of it...they hardly sold, were recalled, and apparently...they are no longer available...

And as I predicted, unwieldy and impractical.

The Innogun Hybrid, which I recently blogged about, is reminicint of the Crossfire MK-1 pump action / shotgun combo gun. the MK-1 was not a commercial success. From a Guns Magazine review …

“I might add that because of its design and its loading, unloading and firing protocols, shooting the Crossfire requires thought and attention to details. Without studying the instructional manual and video, the average person would be challenged to operate it. Even the owner is urged not to disassemble the Crossfire if there’s a problem, but to have it serviced by the Customer Service Department, a trained armorer or qualified gunsmith.”

Crossfire MK-1 rifle/shotgun | The Firearm Blog

California is trying to ban a gun nobody wants?

Not only don't want, but no longer produced.

Plus, I think there must be more to it...like I said, that gun would already be banned as a rifle with detachable magazine.

It looks like they want to ban all shotgun/rifle combos, breach loaders included.

 

[Papageorgio]

States are free to enact their own gun-control laws - so long as they meet the minimum federal standards.

Ain't states' rights and the Tenth Amendment great. The Tenthers should be elated.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

As long as those laws do not infringe on citizens Constitutional rights.

 

[Wry Catcher]

States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government according to the Tenth Amendment.

However states do not have the ‘right’ to violate their citizens’ civil liberties, one’s civil rights are not determined by majority rule nor does one forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence.

We would expect a California resident adversely effected by these measures to challenge such legislation in Federal court, should these proposals become law, with the goal of striking down such a law as un-Constitutional.

Of course such a law will be challenged, and no doubt the challenge will come from a conservative. Funny ain't it, the same guy who will wear a 'T' Shirt proclaiming support for the Tenth Amendment will demand the Feds outlaw a State's Right to impose a law passed by an elected legislature and signed by an elected governor.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Notice the proposed legislation does not prevent a citizen for owning, possessin or having in their custody and control all firearms, only certain types of firearms and other devices.

 

[Lakhota]

States are free to enact their own gun-control laws - so long as they meet the minimum federal standards.

Ain't states' rights and the Tenth Amendment great. The Tenthers should be elated.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

As long as those laws do not infringe on citizens Constitutional rights.

Infringe? I wish righties could understand something: The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 - and do you know how many times that state and federal courts have restricted it since then? The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time - and it no longer means what it says it means. Even Scalia has made that clear.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No wonder I never heard of it...they hardly sold, were recalled, and apparently...they are no longer available...

And as I predicted, unwieldy and impractical.

Crossfire MK-1 rifle/shotgun | The Firearm Blog

California is trying to ban a gun nobody wants?

Not only don't want, but no longer produced.

Plus, I think there must be more to it...like I said, that gun would already be banned as a rifle with detachable magazine.

It looks like they want to ban all shotgun/rifle combos, breach loaders included.

The news reports I heard here in San Francisco said they think this is new, which is ridiculous. These types of guns have been around since the first cartridge based guns were made. Maybe somebody in the legislature is dumber than average.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government according to the Tenth Amendment.

However states do not have the ‘right’ to violate their citizens’ civil liberties, one’s civil rights are not determined by majority rule nor does one forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence.

We would expect a California resident adversely effected by these measures to challenge such legislation in Federal court, should these proposals become law, with the goal of striking down such a law as un-Constitutional.

Of course such a law will be challenged, and no doubt the challenge will come from a conservative. Funny ain't it, the same guy who will wear a 'T' Shirt proclaiming support for the Tenth Amendment will demand the Feds outlaw a State's Right to impose a law passed by an elected legislature and signed by an elected governor.

Maybe because some of us realize that the 1th Amendment does not trump the 14h Amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Notice the proposed legislation does not prevent a citizen for owning, possessin or having in their custody and control all firearms, only certain types of firearms and other devices.

Notice that, as usual, you are full of shit. The proposed legislation requires everyone who owns a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds to destroy it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

States are free to enact their own gun-control laws - so long as they meet the minimum federal standards.

Ain't states' rights and the Tenth Amendment great. The Tenthers should be elated.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

As long as those laws do not infringe on citizens Constitutional rights.

Infringe? I wish righties could understand something: The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 - and do you know how many times that state and federal courts have restricted it since then? The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time - and it no longer means what it says it means. Even Scalia has made that clear.

If we went back to all Supreme Court rulings we had since that point in time we would still have slavery. Perhaps you should stop pretending the court gets it right just because you can't think.

 

[Lakhota]

As long as those laws do not infringe on citizens Constitutional rights.

Infringe? I wish righties could understand something: The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 - and do you know how many times that state and federal courts have restricted it since then? The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time - and it no longer means what it says it means. Even Scalia has made that clear.

If we went back to all Supreme Court rulings we had since that point in time we would still have slavery. Perhaps you should stop pretending the court gets it right just because you can't think.

Your personal attacks only make you look small. Currently, it's the states that are enacting their own brands of gun control. Viva states' rights!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Infringe? I wish righties could understand something: The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 - and do you know how many times that state and federal courts have restricted it since then? The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time - and it no longer means what it says it means. Even Scalia has made that clear.

If we went back to all Supreme Court rulings we had since that point in time we would still have slavery. Perhaps you should stop pretending the court gets it right just because you can't think.

Your personal attacks only make you look small. Currently, it's the states that are enacting their own brands of gun control. Viva states' rights!

What makes me look small is attempting to dumb my posts down so you will comprehend them.

It is not state's rights, it is the fact that the federal government does not have a lot of power to do the things you support, like banning marijuana. Unfortunately, you think SCOTUS is smarter than you are, which means we will eventually have legal salver in this country once again.

 

[Lakhota]

If we went back to all Supreme Court rulings we had since that point in time we would still have slavery. Perhaps you should stop pretending the court gets it right just because you can't think.

Your personal attacks only make you look small. Currently, it's the states that are enacting their own brands of gun control. Viva states' rights!

What makes me look small is attempting to dumb my posts down so you will comprehend them.

It is not state's rights, it is the fact that the federal government does not have a lot of power to do the things you support, like banning marijuana. Unfortunately, you think SCOTUS is smarter than you are, which means we will eventually have legal salver in this country once again.

The topic is gun control - and states are enacting gun control legislation. BTW, why would I want to ban marijuana?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your personal attacks only make you look small. Currently, it's the states that are enacting their own brands of gun control. Viva states' rights!

What makes me look small is attempting to dumb my posts down so you will comprehend them.

It is not state's rights, it is the fact that the federal government does not have a lot of power to do the things you support, like banning marijuana. Unfortunately, you think SCOTUS is smarter than you are, which means we will eventually have legal salver in this country once again.

The topic is gun control - and states are enacting gun control legislation. BTW, why would I want to ban marijuana?

Why do you want to do anything? My guess is it is because you are an idiot.

Gun control is unconstitutional, end of discussion.

 

[Dubya]

By Zack Beauchamp

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations.

5. Universal registration of all guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition.

7. Regulating gun loans.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners.

DETAILS: California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation | ThinkProgress

Now we are getting somewhere. If they could add a system to renew that registration, making sure the owner still has possession of the gun and add ballistics test, it should cut down on gun violence. Some harse penalties for possessing unregistered firearms and stolen weapons are also needed.

 

[Dubya]

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations.

Even the crazy California rationale behind this one eludes me.

These are breach loading (break barrel) long guns.

That means 2 shots.

For example, the one I would like, the Savage model 24v, is an over/under 30-30 / 20 gauge...two shots...a maximum of one 30-30 cartridge and one 20 gauge shell can be loaded at one time.

What on Earth could be the possible logic behind banning this weapon?

Is there another variation of the rifle shotgun combo of which I am unaware?

I remember old variations long ago.

 

[Lakhota]

What makes me look small is attempting to dumb my posts down so you will comprehend them.

It is not state's rights, it is the fact that the federal government does not have a lot of power to do the things you support, like banning marijuana. Unfortunately, you think SCOTUS is smarter than you are, which means we will eventually have legal salver in this country once again.

The topic is gun control - and states are enacting gun control legislation. BTW, why would I want to ban marijuana?

Why do you want to do anything? My guess is it is because you are an idiot.

Gun control is unconstitutional, end of discussion.

NO, gun control is NOT unconstitutional. State and federal courts have proven that.

Is Gun Control Unconstitutional?

 

[OKTexas]

By Zack Beauchamp

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations.

5. Universal registration of all guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition.

7. Regulating gun loans.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners.

DETAILS: California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation | ThinkProgress

Now we are getting somewhere. If they could add a system to renew that registration, making sure the owner still has possession of the gun and add ballistics test, it should cut down on gun violence. Some harse penalties for possessing unregistered firearms and stolen weapons are also needed.

You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute him for having one that is unregistered. How you gonna fix that?

 

[Dubya]

DETAILS: California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation | ThinkProgress

Now we are getting somewhere. If they could add a system to renew that registration, making sure the owner still has possession of the gun and add ballistics test, it should cut down on gun violence. Some harse penalties for possessing unregistered firearms and stolen weapons are also needed.

You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute him for having one that is unregistered. How you gonna fix that?

You fix it by believing you can prosecute someone for having a unregistered weapon. See how easy that was?

 

[Claudette]

By Zack Beauchamp

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations.

5. Universal registration of all guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition.

7. Regulating gun loans.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners.

DETAILS: California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation | ThinkProgress

Anyone let the gangbangers in on these new law proposals??

Bet they will be lining up to be first in line to comply.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Jeeze.