(October 30, 2015)
[California's Democratic Lt. Governor Gavin] Newsom and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have yet to release the language of the proposed statewide initiative, but the group has announced the basic parameters of the proposal. It would prohibit the possession of large-capacity magazines – thus forcing the owners to surrender something they had acquired legally.
Other factors of Newsom's initiative:
- Requires licensing of ammo vendors
- Point of sale background checks for ammo purchase
- Confiscation of firearms owned by people under a restraining order or crime conviction
- Requires immediate reporting of lost and/or stolen firearm
- Provides "... a process for better sharing data with the feds"
Let's look at some of these 'provisions', starting with:
PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES:
Define "large capacity". I'm thinking ten rounds, which seems to be the Gold Standard. May be eight, probably not less than six-rounds. (Revolvers set the standard, y'know, and if not ..what about 8-round revolvers?)
The problem is not that you have to reload more often, but that you have to carry more magazines in order to provide adequate firepower in a defensive situation.
I'm reminded of a story coming out of Portland, Oregon, several years ago.
Two policemen encountered a drunk slouched in a store-front doorway in the middle of the night.
They required him to produce identification. He pulled out something with a 'metallic glint', and so the two policeman (highly trained, skilled, experienced, etc.) unloaded their 17 round magazines on him.
They hit him twice. Well, they were frightened, felt they were being attacked, and perhaps they may have panicked just a little bit.
Turns out the drunk was bringing out a flask, to offer them a drink.
Oh, yes, the drink died. But the incident illustrates several points, not the least of which is that ina confrontational situation, people tend not to adhere to the strictest parameters of firearms accuracy.
And of course, if you can only have x-number of rounds in a magazine, you will have to carry more magazines. That's okay in a competitive environment, but on the street?
It makes it difficult to conceal three 10-round magazines rather than one 15 round magazines and a spare.
Require licensing of ammo vendors
The obvious purpose of this law is to require Bi-Mart and other retailers to (a) go through the process of licensing to sell a legal product (b) undergo periodic checks .. record keeping will of COURSE be part of the process ... and (c) be liable for any 'questionable' sales. The bureaucracy needed to monitor vendors will probably increase taxes in California, but at least Californians can sleep safe in their bed at nights knowing that they are protected by hard men who are prepared to defend them against people with a 50-round box of .22 Long Rifle ammunition,
POINT OF SALE background checks for ammo purchase
Well, this is a thing whose moment has arrived.
But if I buy a case of 1,000 rounds of ammunition, do I have to do I have to undergo a background check for the single purchase, for each box of 50, or for each round?
Yes, this is a facetious question; it's a facetious law, and deserves no respect at all.
Confiscation of firearms owned by people under a restraining order or crime conviction
Oh, let me think.
My wife and I have a difference of opinion, and she's pissed at me. So she files a restraining order and kicks me out of the house.
The police then come to the house and take my guns. And if I've taken my guns with me, they follow me to the No-Tell Motel and search my room. (Come to think of it .. even if I have no guns, they'll still search my room. Say goodbye to my home away from home, as motel managers are not sanguine about guests who bring the cops down on them!)
So, I have committed no crime. Did I mention that my wife is pissed at me?
Do you know what oversight is required to swear out a restraining order?
None.
If the spouse says she doesn't want you within a hundred yards, no contact, etc. --- that's a restraining order. It takes 10 minutes to fill out the forms and not all states require anything more than spousal testimony that she 'fears for her health and wlll-being, and that of her children'.
You don't have to have committed a crime, let along be convicted of it, for the Great State of California to search your room at the NoTel Motel (which is the only place you can afford) and take your firearms (which are the only valuable portable property you could grab before the missus tossed you into the street).
You only have to be under a 'restraining order'. And then, they own you.
Note: In truly violent relationships, restraining orders may be the only means by which a battered woman can protect herself from an abusive partner. Unfortunately, the legal lee-way which sympathetic enforcers provide to battered spouses applies equally whether or not they can prove a state of having-been-battered. This is generally A Good Thing, but there is ample room for abuse of the law, and it will be taken advantage of.\
Authorizes residential searches to confiscate firearms which were obtained legally by 'those people'
"Those People" includes YOU. No matter what you may have done to attract your attention, be it justified or not, the police in California need a minimum of justification to search your current residence. And if a firearms is found there-in .. they are the new owners.
Confiscated firearms? No explanation about what the subsequent disposition may be, or if there are processes by which a confiscated firearm may be recovered. Nor is there any mandate that requires the confiscatory agency to maintain your (confiscated) personal property "in good order". They can dump your heirloom firearm in a cesspool and if it comes back to you (if it ever comes back to you) in less than the pristine condition which you have maintained for years .. you have no way to sue for correction.
And of course, you cannot legally oppose a search of your premises if you are among the people who have been identified as "those people".
That includes not only convicted felons, but (here we go again) the husband whose wife is pissed at him and gives up his firearms just to recompense any slights (real or imagined) he may have imposed on her. And no, there is no judicial process which allows a neutral observer/judge to determing whether the process is reasonable. There's only the law.
Requires immediate reporting of lost and/or stolen firearm
"Immediate"?
IMMEDIATE?
Does that mean as soon as the theft/loss happens, or as soon as you notice it?
If you don't notice it for a year, is that an unreasonable time period, and are you liable to civil (monetary) or punitive (jail time) penalties?
How do you prove that you honestly didn't notice that a .22 cal revolver has been missing from your gun safe, and you have NO idea when you last noticed it?
Provides "... a process for better sharing data with the feds"
Really?
This would probably be A Good Thing" if we knew what it meant.
Oh, Perfidious Albion, this is the one article which we know, without doubt, will never come to pass.
All the other concepts are subject to abuse with no oversight. But THIS one actually requires The Great State of California to take action, and be responsible for its own action if it fails to accomplish the defined goal.
It may require the expenditure of funds which might better be used to prosecute the citizens who find it impossible to understand, let alone comply with, the other four articles of the proposed legislation.
Oh, actually, it's probably not best considered "proposed legislation".
It's just a set of burdensome rules which will inconvenience only legitimate citizens, legal firearms owners, and honest folks.
These proposed regulations will provide no impediment to criminal actions. They will serve no purpose other than to make resentful the honest firearms owners in California, and perhaps goad a few (perhaps more than a few) to resist the arbitrary measures by ignoring them, where-ever and when-ever possible.
And so we will see honest citizens punished by the state .. excuse me: "The State" .. which serves not its citizens, but only their own skewed political and societal priorities.
Because the Citizens are just shit. The only people who matter in California are the illegal aliens and the Liberal politicians who see them as 'future electorate'.
Welcome to The Brave New World.
Steven Greenhut is the the California columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
NONE of the opinions expressed here should be construed to be his, shared by him, or supported by him.
If there's shit to be spoken, Jerry The Geek speaks enough for any two
x
x
3 comments:
Simple. They want to take guns and ammo out of the hands of the average law abiding citizen. Guns in the hands of honest people scare the hell out of progressives.
Just Call Me Anon
They're just trying to make it more of a pain in the ___ to sell ammo. Some retailers, probably the smaller ones, will stop because it's not worth the hassle. Others will sell, but probably the large retailers will be all that's left. They'll inevitably end up in court - civil or criminal - and will ultimately decide it's not worth it and stop selling in the state.
Mission: Accomplished
California's liberal politicians are insidious, and tenacious. They never ever give up and they will prevail in the end.
Post a Comment