Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform

I think there's something basically wrong with a politician (especially a proposed candidate for the presidency) who espouses an infringement on our essential liberties.

Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform in North Liberty – The Daily Iowan: NORTH LIBERTY — U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., rounded out his first visit to Iowa since announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president with a house party event in North Liberty, where he called for a ban and buy back policy for assault rifles.

Well, he's a Californian, so we cannot fault him for being true to his Democratic principles of his culture and his party (Democratic).

Still, he's an American first, and one would hope that he is cognizant of the ...nuances .. of the Constitution of the United States. 

As in: "Shall Not Be Infringed".

I'm not picking on this candidate in particular, except that he has recently made public his disdain for the Constitutional rights which we all enjoy ... so far.

You want to conduct a "buy back campaign" for "assault rifles"?  (One wonders how he defines them.)  Fine.  As long as it's voluntary, rather than mandatory.

But we all know that he's just one more Democrat who thinks that if he has the power to enact laws which affect every citizen in America, he will do so with absolutely NO regard for the Constitution.

I'm disinclined to address his thoughts on non-constitutional rights such as "abortion" or "illegal immigrants" or "Water Rights in Parched Counties" (speaking off the top of my head); but when he openly espouses denying the rights of citizens to Constitutionally protected rights (aka: Second Amendment"), he self-identifies himself as someone who has no respect for his fellow citizens.

It seems redundant for me to encourage Californians to denounce him for his WRONG political philosophy; but those who are eligible to vote for a candidate in California might wonder what OTHER rights he is willing to throw under the political bus in furtherance of his candidacy.

A "Buy-Back" policy?  That leaves it up to the individual firearms owner whether to yield his liberties to the state;

But a "BAN"?   That moves into the area where citizens of The State (here .. the Nation) have no alternative other than to yield to political pressure and conduct themselves according to a dictator who would undermine your RIGHTS ... whether or not you value them.

First a gun ban; what's next?  Would a Swalwell presidency require us to (for example)  present National Identity Cards when crossing state lines?

Who knows?  A President who feels comfortable with undermining one Constitutional right could conceivably segue to denying any other Constitutional right.

Just saying.

California Prop 65

More California Scheming?

Due to California laws, products sold in that state need to meet "product safety regulations" ... even if those laws don't logically apply to that product.

Bond Arms Firearms Cause CANCER... According to California Prop 65 - The Firearm Blog:

 After August 30th, Bond Arms products will NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE (including guns, barrels, holsters, accessories, apparel, etc.) in the state of California due to Prop 65, which makes all manufacturers label products that could have a chemical that could cause cancer or birth defects, even though it won’t.

(link added)

As a blogger, I'm beginning to LOVE California!   Their laws and regulations are quite as nonsensical and inane as are those of New Jersey!

Oh ... and "Bizarre", too!

    Comparing California and New Jersey;

California has the most lawyers of any state in the union; New Jersey has the most toxic landfills.    Why?

 New Jersey won the coin toss.

California has officially become a "NICHE" market for Firearms Manufacturers

California's new "Bullet-Stamping" law serves no useful crime-solving purpose, because it's prohibitively expensive and ineffective even if it were technically and economically feasible.  Which, as of this date, it is not. It only serves the Leftist agenda of making it more difficult and expensive for law-abiding citizens of that state to purchase  new semi-automatic handguns.

Teapot ... meet Tempest

If someone buys a soft drink in California and requests/receives a straw, and later sells the "Like New Straw Only Used Only One Time!" to a third party via the internet ... is that a Straw Purchase?

Borepatch: Criminalizing Soda Straws:

There is a proposed bill in the California House that would make it a crime to give a restaurant patron a straw unless the patron specifically requests one. Each instance would be punishable by 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Leaving aside the costs associated with incarceration and the availability of jail space for the offending wait staff, The larger issue is the ongoing criminalization of activities performed by non-criminals regular people everyone.

There are more "Second Amendment" allegories in here, but I've used my Bad Pun quota already.

Readers are invited to contribute.

Voter Qualification in The Land of Fruits and Nuts ... and yes, even People from Outer Space!

You don't need to be an Earthling to vote in San Francisco.

San Francisco Department of Elections issues voter registration forms for non-citizens | abc7news.com: Monday, July 16, 2018 05:42PM SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Monday the Department of Elections Issued Voter Registration Forms for non-citizens who are eligible to vote for members of the San Francisco Board of Education in the November 6th 2018 election. The measure passed in 2016 with a close vote of 54 percent to 46 percent following two failed previous attempts.

Well, that explains how the people that California has elected its governor.

California DOJ BLINKS!

This is our "Once a Year Day"!

California yields to the simple logic that what they require is incapable of enforcement.

California DOJ Withdraws Regulation Requiring Registration of ‘Assault Weapons’ | The Daily Caller: The California Department of Justice withdrew a regulation Wednesday evening requiring California firearm owners to register so-called “assault weapons” following a lawsuit filed by a group of gun rights advocacy organizations

California politicians have established a "need" for an exceedingly complicated and expensive legal path toward compliance.   Except they have not the laws to enforce the law.   Which makes the entire exercise merely an amateurish attempt to frighten legal gun-owners by the imposition of penalties which do not exist in law.

As usual, the Liberal Gun-Grabbers had not the foresight to do their homework. 

(As teenagers, did their mothers make them do their homework before watching television?   Apparently, not!   That's once more difference between the Common People and The Anointed.)

Bullet-Stamping Impossible, says CA Supreme Court

I said it in 2004, and California is finally admitting that the proposition that you can identify crime evidence by stamping an unique serial number on EVERY BULLET is an impossible task!

The Latest: California Justices Toss Bullet Stamping Suit | California News | US News: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Latest on a ruling by the California Supreme Court on a state bullet stamping law (all times local): 10:45 a.m. The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible. The unanimous ruling on Thursday rejected a lawsuit by gun rights groups that sought to throw out a California law that requires new models of semi-automatic handguns to stamp identifying information on bullet casings. The groups argued that technology did not exist to meet the stamping requirements, and a law can't mandate something that's not possible.

(Actually, I think the term "Bullet Stamping" is misleading; the intent is not to serialize the actual projectile, but to emboss on the base of the cartridge a code which uniquely identifies the firearm which fired the cartridge.)

So .. the whole "Bullet-Stamping" thingie is no longer an issue in California.

Because the Supreme Court of the State of California doesn't care that it's technically impossible to comply with the law.   Which implies that the law will be enacted.

I addressed it twice in 2014: here and here.

(BTW .. most alternatives include stamping or embossing  unique serial numbers on the base of a cartridge when the gun is fired the identifiers would supposedly identify the guj from which the round was fired..   That doesn't do much for rounds fired from a revolver, which are not automatically ejected onto a 'crime scene".)

Embossed serial numbers from firing pins and breaches of firerms can easily be sanded down or filled in until the actual serial number is obfuscated to the point where they are unreliable in a Court of Law.

The last time I addressed the issue was 2014, when I finally admitted that California had their heads so far up their nether regions that they were unlikely to ever change their unrealistic rhetoric.

Things have changed.  Sort of.

 California DID ... finally ... take a closer look at the mechanics of the  issue and realize that they were wasting time, money and political power on a never-win issue.    So they said "do it anyway", and washed their hands of the issue.

ONE OF THE ISSUES in this inane law is that the details were .. unclear.

Ultimately, EVERY gun part which might be used to stamp an unique identifier onto either the primer or the base of a cartridge is readily (and cheaply) replaceable ... or subject to obfuscation by use of a file or an emery board..

There is no part of a semi-automatic pistol which cannot be replaced or altered .. even temporarily ... with a "Box Stock"  part within a matter of seconds.  Which makes the concept that imprinting a "serial number" on the base of a cartridge not only unrealistic, but laughable.

You may argue that the "frame" of a handgun is inviolate.  It isn't; if I have a file and sandpaper.

While California is working hard to accept 20th Century realities... they still have a long way to go.

But a "We Did Our Best" is not good enough in a court of law.'

And it's still anti-Second Amendment to register a gun.

(updated August 05, 2018, to recognize that the California Supreme court rejected an argument which would have invalidated the new law)

California Gun and Ammunition Laws May Be Unconstitutional: professional shooter objects!

California''s Democratic  Rulers thought they were really onto  something. Since they can’t seem to control guns, even though they really keep trying to, they decided to control bullets instead. After all, what could go wrong with that?

They didn't figure that a National Figure would call them out on their paltry "Gun Control" plan, when California changed it to an "Ammunition Control" issue!

Olympic Medalist Files Suit Against California Over Bullet Control:

California " ...  Prop 63, which Second Amendment advocates characterized as “Gunmageddon,” outlaws direct mail order ammunition sales, puts all transfers of ammo under a “burdensome registration scheme,” imposes costly fees and price increases on bullet sales and mires would-be vendors in piles of Sacramento red tape. As such, it not only violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce but also tramples on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

Six-time Olympic medalist Kim Rhode takes a bit of exception to the new rules. Kim Rhodes has taken a stand in favor of law-abiding California gun owners who don't think that the Second Amendment has room for "Bullet Registration".

The newly enacted California State law offends the rights of lawful California firearms owners:

 " Prop 63, which Second Amendment advocates characterized as “Gunmageddon,” outlaws direct mail order ammunition sales, puts all transfers of ammo under a “burdensome registration scheme,” imposes costly fees and price increases on bullet sales and mires would-be vendors in piles of Sacramento red tape. As such, it not only violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce but also tramples on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The fact that California is attempting new twists to Firearm Laws in order to impose even more stringent restrictions on its' citizens right to Keep and Bear Arms is not "New News" is apparent to everyone who tracks arbitrary infringement on the Second Amendment in opposition the the rights of its citizens.

But this is just another assault on citizen rights; it's a new twist to an old rule, which is that California does not trust its citizens to safely and responsibly exercise their constitutional right to "Keep and Bear Arms" under the second Amendment.

Molan Labe

California Lt. Gov Gavin Newsome to NRA: "We ARE Coming for Your Guns":

 “We have a message for the NRA – National Rifle Association of America: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns,” wrote Newsome. The message was accompanied by a video featuring Newsome speaking on how the only thing more certain than another mass shooting is the “moral cowardice” of Republicans who ignore it.

Hat Tip: Red State


What in the  WORLD is this asshole talking about?

What ever gave him the idea that NRA members want to "hurt people"?

I have no information which suggests that the NRA, or members of this organization, have ever  (Individually or as a group) deliberately hurt people except in defense of  innocents who were arbitrarily attacked by other  people.  So I don't know what this means.

And what has all this to do with "Mass Shootings".  Has he information about NRA membership of murderers in the news, recently?  If so, I've not been privy to that news.

The charge of "moral cowardice" is equally as confusing;. As far as I know, the only moral cowardice possible is the dis-inclination to defend self, home and family against assault by those who choose to attack those who they assume are unarmed ... Lord knows the attackers are never, ever, members of the NRA! 

Is he accusing Republicans of "Moral Cowardice" because of their political affiliation?  Someone should tell the Republican Party that their membership is composed of "Moral Cowards".  I'm sure that would be news to them!

I am currently a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA); but the moral equivalence of the NRA has never been an issue; if anything, I sometimes feel that the NRA is insufficiently supportive of the Second Amendment.


An "armed society" is a "respectful society".  So saith the memorable author Robert Heinlein, and more people know his name than know the name of Gavin Knowsless!

And not all members of the NRA are "Republicans" who "ignore"  ... well, the original article is lacking in the definition of moral fiber which is, in his view, ignored by NRA members.  Many of our members are Democrats, and members of other policies; our common ground is to just be left alone to enjoy a day hunting, or shooting a match on the range.

God knows that our intention is not to "hurt people"!

Newsome speaks of "Moral Cowardice", but I'm sure that my brothers who are armed are as astounded as I am to learn that we are so charged.   Many of us are veterans, as I am, and whatever cowardice we may rightfully be accused of is to go to a foreign country and fight a war for a cause which we did not agree ... but we went there, and fought a war we did not believe in, only because our National Leaders decreed that we should do so.

So to my mind, the only "Moral Cowardice" of which we may be accused, is the we didn't emigrate to Canada instead of allowing ourselves to be drafted.  Did Newsome ever face such a moral quandary?

Newsome, you've spent too much time in The Land of Fruits and Nuts.  You should get out more.  Go visit folks in flyover country and discover America.  You may be surprised to learn that most Americans love their country more than their state or their selves, and are willing to get shot at when they are drafted into that "Crazy Asian War" which you so conveniently missed.

Newsome's entire screed is based on disrespect for his country, his people, and anyone whose political viewpoint differs from his.

I lived in California for a couple of years in the 1970's; The weather was great, but  I sure am glad I  moved out of there before people like THIS nimrod came into power!

Wishful Thinking? ("Too Much Ordnance in One County"?)

Slate questions whether the Government can bypass the Second Amendment by abrogating the right of law-abiding vendors to sell firearms.

The cited 9th Circuit Court decision that a local ordinance which prohibits "too many gun stores in one municipal locality" (not a direct quote) is a legitimate restriction on the single product which is protected by the Constitution.

The question is whether the 2nd Amendment allows a 2nd gun store to establish itself in the same community where another gun store already exists.

California has decided that ... no, you cannot.

The 9th circuit court has decided that local zoning rules allow a municipality to limit the number of gun stores in a given area does not violate the Second Amendment: hey, you already have one gun store in this county ... we've done our part!

OPINION:

If these were two shoe stores opening in the same county, the local government would not impose an ordnance restricting freedom of trade; But because their product is firearms (protected by the 2nd Amendment, which shoes are not) the locals feel free to impose an ordnance proscribing "too many gun stores" in one county.

Whatever happened to Free Trade in America?  Oh, it's all politics.

9th Circuit rules there’s no Second Amendment right to sell firearms.:

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment.

So ... if the 2nd Amendment acknowledges our right to purchase firearms, can a local ordnance legitimately prevent us from choosing between twocompeting  purveyors of firearms?   Whatever happened to the American right to buy the best product at the best price?

Oh .. it's not constitutionally protected.  And besides, they don't like guns.

Okay, I get it.

Someone put a few dollars in their pocket.  It's all about graft, and not about freedom.

But ... oh hell, isn't their a law against bribery?   And aren't elected officials above all that?

Wishful Thinking!

NOTE: Just a casual set of meandering thoughts; it was NEVER my intention to suggest that local officials have been influenced in their decision!

Appeals Court Ruling:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a swipe at 2nd Amendment absolutists by ruling that, however one interprets the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms,” it doesn’t mean that gun shops have an absolute right to locate themselves anywhere they wish.

(You have a right too keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to BUY arms!)

PS: I hope that the local folks who have decided that the 2nd Amendment is not an imposition on firearms dealers don't think that I'm at all denigrating their high moral position.

I'll Huffpost and Huffpost until I blow your house down! (Ex Post Facto? Never heard of it!)

The Huffingtons are at it again, working political double-speak rather than facing the facts.

The problem with "Universal Backgrounds Checks" isn't so much the issue with distrust of firearms owners as it is with the way the checks are conducted. Heck, legitimate firearms owners are no more eager for criminals that the "mentally adjudicated unstable" to own firearms than anyone else is.

The problem is with the supposedly secure record keeping; there was an agreement back in the '90s that the proposed Background Check system would validate, but not permanently record, firearms transfers.  In fact, as soon as a transaction was not denied because neither party was disqualified from firearms ownership, the record of the traction was suppose to disappear within a very narrow period.

Why did firearms owners oppose that facet?  Because they didn't want to agree to a "Firearms Registry", which would track firearms transfers in great detail with the subsequent consequence that a database of transfers would be tantamount to registry of firearms.

But it it isn't permanently recorded, why do Universal Background Checks require that the firearm description ... including Make, Model, Caliber and Serial Number ... recorded on the background check form?  If it isn't permanently recorded, why is it considered as important as the personal identification of both the buyer and the seller?

And no, that's not paranoia ... that's "learning from Experience" as Californians learned when their state Attorney General back in 1990 agreed that a certain rifle  (the "SKS") would not be 'tracked' because it was a legal rifle:

The situation became more complicated for the writers of the
Roberti-Roos law in 1992 when then California Attorney General, Dan
Lungren, approved the sale of Chinese-designed SKS, which use detachable
magazines.
Even though Lungren said the SKS “Sporter” was legal to sell, some
district attorneys throughout the state threatened to arrest anyone who
sold the gun claiming it violated the Roberti-Roos law.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/#ac4ggB4C1wdafWLi.99

 ... and then later that same Democratic Politician changed his tune and hundreds of up-to-then legal rifles which had been transferred between individuals and the detail entered into a state data-base were (arbitrarily) "reclassified".  Then the State decided that the specific firearm was an "assault weapon", retroactively downloaded transfer information from their database (which they swore would never be used for that purpose), and CONFISCATED EVERY RIFLE WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD UNDER THE ASSURANCES THAT IT WAS LEGAL!

And they were able to do so because every firearm transfer was part of their state database.

And now Huffington accuses the NRA of doublespeak?

Despicable!

Ex Poste facto laws are the way that politicians ... and politically biased pseudo "information sources", prey upon the naive and trusting citizens who put them in office and pay their salaries to protect their civil rights.

Just because they come right out in public and say "Oh, that's okay, we're not going to take THAT gun away from you", that doesn't mean they won't come back next week and declare it illegal.

Americans who rely on the Constitution to protect their rights, and their elected representatives (and their appointees) to respect those rights, have been getting a raw deal from both their representatives and the henchmen who do their dirty work for them.

And the Huffington Post is just one of their minions .. who don't get paid for lying to Citizens; they just do it for practice ... until  they  can get elected to lie to citizens who pay their wages.

The NRA's Background-Check Doublespeak | HuffPost:

... And if NICS is fixed to everyone’s satisfaction in a way that really prevents the criminals, the drug abusers and the mentally ill from walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, the idea that private gun transfers requiring background checks is a violation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t pass muster in any court. When all is said and done, the NRA’s opposition to background checks boils down to one, simple thing; namely, that government regulation of the gun industry is a bad and unnecessary thing. In that respect, the gun industry’s opposition to regulation is no different from every other industry.

 Nobody wants to take your guns away.

Except hollywood celebrities, comedians, talk-show hosts, Liberals, your State Government, your Federal government ... oh, since Al Franken was elected a U.S. Senator  these categories seem to overlap quite a bit, don't they?  I always thought it was inevitable that a "Franken" was elected to the Senate.  He fit right in with the rest of the Clowns; his recent legal problems only prove the appropriateness.

Democrats Lie because The Truth Is Unpalatable

All politicians lie, some are more skillful or subtle than others, but Diane Feinstein takes to lying like a pig to mud; it's her natural domain and she likes it.

Her recent press release (see below) admits that she will not be able to get a gun ban law past the Senate, because they tried it once and it didn't work .. after a 10 year "trial run" it bumped into the Sunset Provision which Republicans required before agreeing to that odious plan.

Feinstein argued then, and now argues again, that anti-gun laws would limit crimes with guns if they just get the 'military style assault weapons' off the streets.   *

* (Or if all firearms owners would shoot each other, with the last remaining gun ownerwho  would explode an atomic bomb rendering him/her to a fine mist along with all the guns in the world ... at which time the firearms industry would bootstrap itself because EVERYBODY WANTS A GUN!)

In 1994, she (and elected partners-in-crime) put American Citizens who own firearms through a decade of turmoil and trouble, and for no better purpose but to massage her ego.

She now claims: "we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war.

The truth (which is a stranger to the not-so-honorable Senator from California) is that her earlier plan *the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban* proved that the laws which she forced upon honest Americans did not significantly reduce the rate of people murdered or otherwise assaulted, which was the promise used to justify passage of the law ... provisionally.  It was accepted for a period of 10 years, with the agreement that Conservatives had no confidence in the plan but would ALLOW IT TO BECOME LAW;  but Liberals would, in return, allow the law to expire after ten years if it did not accomplish the goals which were the justification for the law.

After ten years, the Sunset Provision took effect:  The law didn't have any affect on violent crime rates, but it imposed an enormous (and unpalatable) burden on legal firearms owners.   The Senate agreed over steaks and drinks at The Capital Hill Hotel that the whole idea was a f*cking Flop and nobody wanted to be known as the Senator Who Trampled the Second Amendment.

And so, the law was repealed.

(Diane was not invited to the dinner; and hasn't had a dinner with a republican ... ever!) 

The NRA had little need to politicize the act, which all agreed was clearly a really bad idea.


Even the Washington Post had to admit that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban failed:

Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were  used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.

And Feinstein's statement that "The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004" is an outright lie. That odious piece-of-shit law was never instrumental in the goals it was based on; it only affected law-abiding people, It never even inconvenienced the criminals, although it might have made the black-market for guns more profitable.   Feinstein was "off-target", focusing on weapons which had never been a major factor in American crime rates: she wanted them banned then, and she wants them banned now, for no better reason than that she doesn't like them.

Since when has American law been predicated on a Senator's personal distaste for an inanimate object?  And why does California continue to elect a lunatic to the Senate? 

(Oh, sorry; that's what they do there.  I can't complain, my elected senators are not much more rational than California's, but they haven't been messing with my Constitutional Rights!)

---------------------------------------- supplemental references ---------------------------------------

Feinstein Press Release:

Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban - Press Releases - United States Senator for California: Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement: “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. “This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. “To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job.

Hotter than Hell, and twice as frightening!

California fires are getting WAY out of hand.

  Link to latest news (in case you don't  have a television) ...


H/T -- The G-Man

"I Fought The Law, and The Law Won"

Good for you, Judge Benitez; at least one high court officer understands his obligation to support the Constitution!

(The Judge denied California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom's petition for a magazine ban.)

Gavin Newsom Asks Court to Allow 'High Capacity' Magazine Ban: Breitbart

Note that Newsom’s claim contains an admission that the ban will not stop “high-fatality” attacks altogether. Rather, it is yet another in a long list of California controls that is promulgated in the name of safety, only to result in diminished freedom. The loss of freedom would result from the fact that only law-abiding citizens would follow a “high capacity” magazine ban, like any gun law, and law-abiding citizens are the very people who are not misusing “high capacity” magazines to begin with. This was not lost on 

note again:
(Judge Benitez) ... blocked the ban because its implementation would have meant “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens [would] have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”

Compare that decision to this story (see below).

Feds Fox California ... maybe

In a surprising decision (surprising to people who don't expect "common sense gun laws" in California), a Federal Judge has BLOCKED the California Gun Magazine Confiscation Law!

District Judge R.T. Benitz "... said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case."



The judge went on to say .. oh, just read the whole thing:

Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme | Fox News:

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday that blocks California from enforcing their gun magazine confiscation law. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case. He ordered that California immediately stop enforcing the law pending further legal action. "The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis," Judge Benitez said in the ruling. "However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Plaintiffs' entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds." 

OMG ... a Federal Judge actually cites the Second Amendment!

Coming up:  Madonna bears child, sings "Like A Virgin!"   and means it!

Assault Pistol?

SF Police: Shooter Armed with Assault Pistol | | oleantimesherald.com: Police say the shooter who opened fire at a San Francisco UPS warehouse Wednesday morning was armed with an assault pistol when police found him. Three people were killed as well as the shooter in the incident. (June 14)

Sure wish I had me one of them Assault Pistol thingies!   It sound like it would be ... say, just what the heck IS an Assault Pistol, anyway?

Is it a long barrelled handgun firing a medium range cartridge with selective fire and a bayonet (optional at extra cost for the civilian market )???

Put SF together with AP and you get F-SAPs.   They don't know what they're talking about, but they speak with complete confidence that they are always correct.

see AP's "Smart URL":

Subscribe for more Breaking News: http://smarturl.it/AssociatedPressGet updates and more Breaking News here: http://smarturl.it/APBreakingNewsThe Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats.
AP’s commitment to independent, comprehensive journalism has deep roots. Founded in 1846, AP has covered all the major news events of the past 165 years, providing high-quality, informed reporting of everything from wars and elections to championship games and royal weddings. AP is the largest and most trusted source of independent news and information.
Today, AP employs the latest technology to collect and distribute content - we have daily uploads covering the latest and breaking news in the world of politics, sport and entertainment. Join us in a conversation about world events, the newsgathering process or whatever aspect of the news universe you find interesting or important. Subscribe: http://smarturl.it/AssociatedPress

effing bunch of tards, all of 'em.

Oh, see also
http://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2017/06/15/the-fake-media-gun-experts-strike-again/

Fisking California Bill AB785 ... Possession of firearms by persons convicted of misdemeanors

I didn't understand the new California law, so I finally went directly to the bill to see what is really "NEW" about this.

Essentially, there is already a list of misdemeanors in California law which would make it illegal for a "convicted person" to possess a firearm for a period of 10 years.

This bill merely adds to that list (of penalized misdemeanors) the misdemeanor of  "hate crimes", which are predefined as follows:

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to, by force or threat of force, interfere with another person’s free exercise of any constitutional right or privilege because of the other person’s actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the property of another person, for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the exercise of any of those constitutional rights because of those specified characteristics.  

In order to save you the effort of searching the web (as I have just done) to find the referenced laws, I'm included a copy under the break.

You can see the entire section of law here.

(BREAK FOLLOWS)

No Big Magazines for YOU, California!

SF forces gun suppliers to agree to halt sale of high-capacity kits - SFGate:
(May 16, 2017)

San Francisco extracted a legal settlement Tuesday from online gun suppliers who may have tried to sidestep state and local bans on high-capacity gun magazines by advertising “repair kits” that could be used to assemble the forbidden weapons’ cartridge holders. 

But the question is ... can San Francisco do this ... legally? *

 (City Attorney Dennis ) Herrera sued five out-of-state companies in February, accusing them of violating state laws prohibiting the sale of gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. He said Tuesday the companies have agreed to a 10-year settlement that forbids them from selling or advertising the repair kits in California and requires them to notify customers on their websites that the kits and the large-capacity magazines are illegal in the state. 

I had thought this was a San Francisco ' local ordnance, but NOOoooo .. it's state law!

 (See the above reference for full text)

“Californians have spoken clearly. We don’t want these weapons in our communities,” Herrera said in a statement. “I have zero tolerance for gun sellers who try to skirt the law.”

Well, magazines are not weapons, but I catch your drift.

The answer to my above question is .. oh, hell yes! *

I won't ever go to San Francisco again ..

but I have family down there, which are too important to me, for me to be scared off by a bunch of hopolophobes.

So I will still go down to the wilds of California from time to time, but only carrying 5-shot and 6-shot revolvers.   No semi-automatics ... I get it.

But if California wants to throw me in jail for carrying a tiny revolver (or .380) for personal defense ... they can do so and kiss my patootie.

I'm kidding, of course.

California Firearms Legislation: Still Crazy After All These Years!

California legislatures are at it again, bringing up tired old laws which are impossible to obey.

California Supreme Court to rule on gun law - SFGate:
March 22, 2017

The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether gun manufacturers have the right to challenge a California law requiring identifying microstamps on bullets fired from semiautomatic pistols, a requirement the manufacturers claim can’t be met with current technology.
A state appeals court had ruled in December that gun groups could present evidence to support their suit seeking to overturn the law, an exception to the usual requirement that statutes can be struck down only if they are unconstitutional.
But the state Supreme Court voted Wednesday to grant a hearing to defenders of the law, which remains in effect while the case is pending. Six of the seven justices, all but Ming Chin, voted to review the appeal by the state’s lawyers.

I've been writing about this bizarre twist of "logic" (ala California) since 1985.

In fact, I've written about 30 articles on the subject, although not all of them referenced California's efforts to impose draconian laws on firearms manufacturers.  Other states (eg: New York) have attempted to strangle the second amendment by fiat.

(Example from 1993: at one time a New York Senator proposed to "tax ammunition out of existence".)

Guns And The Law: Alameda County Judicial Hearing

THIS IS QUITE LONG ... the arguments exceed an hour ... but I have found it fascinating to observe the process by which a lone lawyer (yech!) argued for the establishment of a "gun store" in Alameda County, California.

(Hat Tip: Arms And The Law)

Considering how the State of California has been so entirely anti-gun in recent years, it's refreshing to watch a young lawyer argue his client's case against a panel of judges who are obviously 'dubious' of the merits of his case.

The question is whether a 'new' gun store in Alameda County, California (eg: OAKLAND)  may remain open even though it has been established within X-number of feet of an existing commercial establishment which is also licensed to sell firearms.    Alameda county law prohibits establishment of a store which sells firearms, within X-number of feet of another such establishment.   The 'new' store is within a handful-of yards of the 'old' store; the question is whether that stand-off distance serves any useful purpose, and whether two stores which provide similar product cannot provide different services and be a benefit to the citizens of the county.

More important .. is that 'stand-off' distance' meaningful, or is it arbitrary?   If it is arbitrary, why can that distance be 400 feet instead of 500 feet, and why does the law not take into account the cultural differences between the two retail businesses?

The point made by the defense is that (a) the 'distance' is arbitrary and provides no benefit to the county other than limiting the number of resources for citizens who wish to purchase a firearm in Alameda county; and (b) the 'new' store provides many valuable benefits which had not previously been available to local citizens, not the least being training and instruction on safety, firearms laws, etc.
\
It's a rare treat to watch two teams of bright, dedicated proponents present their point of view.  And it's fun to watch the various judges doze off during the presenting of the opposing arguments.

I won't tell you how the story ends.

The following link has been tested, and it works for me:

Watch recording for John Teixeira v. County of Alameda, No. 13-17132