NBC Television in Los Angeles reports (April 4, 2007) that the L.A. City Council " ... went on record Wednesday in support of four state gun-control bills dubbed the "Shooting Victims Bill of Rights."
The four California State Gun Control bills would:
- "... require all new semiautomatic handguns to be equiped with microstamped technology by 2010".
- " ... require retailers to have a license to sell ammunition."
- "... require firarms owners to notify a law enforcement agency within five days within five working days of discovering that a gun has been stolen or irretrievably lost."
- "... allow California's Law Enforcement Agencies to use and compare forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database."
Bill #2 has no obvious application to the usual justification of Gun Control bills ... to restrict access of firearms to "legitimate purchasers". It's just a way to put a roadblock in the way of honest citizens and, in doing so, advance their own political career. (AB362) Violation (selling more than 50 rounds of loaded ammunition in a month) is subject to a fine of $500.
Bill #3 also has no obvious reason for being, other than to put the hammer in the hands of The State in the unlikely case of a gun-owner not reporting a stolen firearm. This bill would allow the state to prosecute the victim. (AB334) A fine ($100 or $250) may be imposed for failure to report a lost or stolen handgun.
Simple tyranny, nothing to see here, folks. Move on.
Bill #4 is a cheek-kiss to firearms registration. The Brady Bill requires firearms purchasers to be vetted by The State, in order to prevent firearms sales to people (felons, etc.) who shouldn't be allowed to purchase firarms; but it specifically requires vetting agencies to destroy records in order to avoid the possibility of registration. This bill requires records keeping, specifically "forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database." If the only information was dimension and rifling on a bullet, it might be useful to connect a bullet used in a crime in one state to be connected to a crime committed elsewhere via retrieved bullets found at both crimescenes. However, any bullet retrieved from sources other than a crimescene would presumably include information on the owner of the firearm. This is just another backdoor approach to registration.
When I have found ALL the actual bills and have read them, I will be better able to report on whether suitable limitations on personal information have been included.
Best guess, lacking any other information, is that this last bill fails to include such limitations.
California residents are invited to provide more information on these bills, for the purpose of determining how loosely they are written.
Incidentely, AB854 provides restrictions on the transfer (including loan) of firearms. The bulk of this very long bill is generally devoted to 'exemptions', and I haven't done more than scan it VERY quickly so far so I can't profess to understand it. However, it bears a second, closer look. My summary on a first glance is that it does absolutely nothing. That suggests to me that the purpose of this bill is so buried in obfuscatory verbiage that something significant MUST be goiong on.
This is a good subject for future evaluation.
Translation: I don't know what these scum-sucking, bottem-dwelling low-lifes have plugged in here, but I'm morally certain that there are some unpleasant surprises here for law-abiding citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment