California is a strange state, to say the least. They cherish their image of openness, free speech and embracing diversity. At the same time they have one of the most restrictive and oppressive state governments in the country. Especially when it comes to gun control, California prides itself on that oppressive and now confiscatory –  nature. Because obviously gun owners are criminals, right? At least, that’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the laws that the California Senate has approved and passed on to the Assembly. Obviously, punishing legal gun owners will stop criminals from killing each other . . .

From the Sacramento Bee, here’s a quick list of the bills the Senate has sent to the Assembly to consider:

SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco: bans so-called “bullet buttons” used to get around existing laws banning detachable magazines

SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles: creates new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition

SB 374 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento: bans detachable magazines in rifles

SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley: prohibits possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition

SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara: changes the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons

SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate

SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: increases the number of crimes – including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.

Naturally, these are all measures that would be considered reprehensible by the same people proposing them if they were directed against free speech, voting rights or gay marriage instead of firearms. But lawful gun owners are the favorite whipping boys for the civilian disarmers who hold that legal gun owners are the root cause of “gun violence.” Background checks for voter registration? Mandating a civics class before you get to the ballot box? Defining marriage as being between people with certain features? Yeah, somehow I don’t think that would fly in San Fransisco.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

154 COMMENTS

    • Yeah, they just voted to ban a 10/22. But it’s for the children (and gov’t control.)

    • Wow is right. If this passes it will officially be my exit from the state.

      Hey Texas, ya got room for one more?

      • I will support CA by staying the puck away from CA so that my dollars will not help fund such a messed up state. I will also cross my fingers in support of CA to hope that it slides into the ocean soon.

        • We don’t live in the same country? I’d like some of what you’re smoking. And i’ve heard your plan that we’ll curtail California’s power by gun owners moving out. It’s another pipe dream, much like the seperate country one. Good luck with that.

      • I support CA gun owners by praying for “The Big One” that will knock the majority of that cesspool of a state into the Pacific Ocean.

        • I guess i better start praying for tornados and blizzards in Ohio. You still live in Ohio after Exenia, Tote?

        • Isn’t Congresswoman Fudge from Ohio? And for you that ignore history the Ohio of not too many years ago was firmly in the pro union and democrat camp. And it can be again. Remember, i still have family there and still visit.

        • Ohio has never been Democrat or pro-union. Just because a handful of college aged people swing the Presidential vote that way from time to time does not reflect upon the rest of the state.

          Again, when has Ohio passed a series of unconstitutional laws and kept pushing further infringements on the Constitution?

          Don’t get mad because you and your fellow Soviet subjects keep making bad choices.

        • Soviet subjects? We live in the same country, so what does that make you? And i don’t get angry. I’m sad that gun owners can’t pull together to fight these infringements. If we lose the RTKABA it won’t be because of a few “slave states”, it’ll be because of the “fvck them, I’ve got mine” attitude of gun owners.

        • We do not live in the same country. You and your fellow Californians decided to break off and ignore the Constitution long ago.

          “If we lose the RTKABA it won’t be because of a few “slave states”, it’ll be because of the “fvck them, I’ve got mine” attitude of gun owners.”

          What a nice way to twist is so that you and your fellow subjects can refuse to accept responsibility for your choices. If we lose it, it’ll be because of people like you staying behind enemy lines and doing nothing useful instead of shoring up the states that are already pro-gun and ensuring that the pro-gun states have overwhelming numbers in the House to prevent any legislation from passing at the Federal level. You are quite angry JWM, because you repeatedly refuse to accept responsibility for your choices and attack those who make better choices instead.

        • WLCE, cant even imagine there being another civil war, but costly culture war….you bet. It aint the states, but the majority of people in them that make these ghastly laws come into fruition. I think is will be a healthy dose of BOTH people leaving the grabber states while others stay and fight the good fight that will enable the 2nd Amendment to stay strong.

        • @Pat

          Letting the antis vacate Kalifornia for the State to improve also has the consequence of other States inheriting that plague. Colorado is a prime example. Pro-gunners abandoning the State should remember that while they get the immediate win of keeping their rights from being infringed/encroached upon, it strengthens the Anti’s positions and strengths, bolstering their self-righteous anti-Constitutional drivel and encouraging them to push their agenda elsewhere.

          Pro-gunners need to set aside any and all differences, ally, and go on the offensive, legally, to restore the respect and honor of those rights recognized by the Constitution AND its amendments.

    • I’m sure they can get AV equipment in there. They already have cell phones and pot in there…

    • Why, and for who? (cops or prisoners) The prisoners already have prety gun control from what I saw in that video ttag posted a while ago. The cops who shot up the newspaper delivery truck… Not the greatest trigger control.

      • I’ve heard it said that there are three Californias: Jerry Garcia’s California, Brian Wilson’s California and Merle Haggard’s California. Notice all the bill’s sponsors are from the first two. Maybe the Merle Haggards will take to the ramparts.

      • Democrat voting gun owners defending their votes via saying “Romney would be no better” in 3…2…1…

        • haha J&D Or by b*tching and moaning about losing their rights and then saying they could never vote for a republican because they don’t agree with them on anything. Yet you can find them every other month crying about something being taken away from them by the liberals they love so much. Perhaps they still find a way to blame republicans for that too?

  6. May be a mandatory class with a test on the constitution and bill of rights before being allowed on the ballot. This will be followed with yearly class on what the founders intended when drafting these documents.

  7. Hey, if the hippies are going to flee CA for Colorado and hippify a State, why don’t we Conservatives do the same thing?

    People who say that we need to all just get along and work together fail to understand the evils of politics and human nature: it’s ALL about power. Having power now, ensuring power later. Which is why our Founders set up our government the way they did, but power still corrupts in every capacity.

    It sucks that we can’t just set up government and then leave people the hell alone.

        • “Libertarians aren’t Conservatives.”

          That’s a good thing. Conservatives are just as f’d up as libs when you really pay attention. Libertarians are further right politically than the cons are now.

          Cons and Libs are both statists at heart, they both want your freedoms, just different ends of the BoR.

        • That’s absolute nonsense Rambeast. Conservatives seek SMALLER government therefore by definition cannot be Statists.

        • Depends on the Conservative.

          The urge to use government power to influence the behavior of the citizenry is not exclusive to any part of the political spectrum. The real fight is not between Liberals (i.e., re-branded Leftists) and Conservatives, it is between Authoritarians and those who love Liberty.

          The supporters of Liberty are at a disadvantage in this struggle because organizing us is akin to herding cats, while those comfortable with Authoritarian arrangements by nature fall into line easily.

        • Libertarians are not more left or right than anyone… they believe in individual rights.. so marriage, abortion, gunrights, etc…, are all left up to the individual.. Repubs and Demos are not in this class… they favor governmental intervention to differing degrees..

        • @Coloradan

          No, conservatives claim that they want smaller government while pushing for more government control over peoples lives. They only different from liberals in what rights they want to take away from people.

          There is a reason why Republicans continually support big government programs and just talk about “making them more efficient” – if they actually wanted smaller government, they would be discussing how to end those programs.

        • conservative claims of wanting smaller government are utter horseshit.

          Regan, Bush HW, Bush Jr.

          Yes, lots of small government /rolls eyes

          Like the democrats of now, conservatives will once again abide by the “my country right or wrong” statism once Zero leaves the office.

        • With regard to Conservatives wanting smaller government as BS…
          It is not the Constitutional Conservative Republican’s fault that other “Republicans” have strayed from conserving Constitutional Rights of individuals. Conservatives want to conserve the Republic (keep it small) and protect/conserve Constitutional Rights, not enlarge Government or give Government more power. RINOs don’t count. Power corrupts regardless of party.

          @Totenglocke
          Uh, I would like to cancel a lot of government programs. No, I don’t give a damn if grandma dies or if poor inner city people don’t like it. It’s called having balls…something 95% of American politicians LACK, because they only care about power…the very thing the Founding Fathers wanted to curtail.

          @Rambeast
          How are Libertarians further right than Conservatives are when Conservatives don’t want to legalize drugs and Libertarians and Liberals do? That looks pretty leftist to me.

          I share Alfonzo Rachel’s view regarding Libertarianism. Listen to Chapter 14 of his ebook and see if that doesn’t change your mind.

    • I think the previous law had a grandfathering clause. I’m guessing this one does not.

    • The bill is a little broader than that. It is a retroactive ban on ALL magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds, even if they were purchased when they were still legal to possess in California (Ex post facto law anyone?). Additionally, it will ban the possession of standard capacity magazines that have been permanently modified to only hold 10 rounds (i.e. 10/30 pmags).

      http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/sb396/

      • Thats unconstitutional isn’t it? If you owned something that was legal when you bought it then the gov can never take that away. Forever grandfathered

      • No, not ex poste facto. Ex poste facto is a law that criminalizes an act that was legal at the time the act was committed. Say for example, five years ago you did some then legal act, and today the law is changed to criminalize that act and to allow prosecution, not just for acts committed after the effective date of the new law, but before. That would violate the ex poste facto clause. For example, if it was legal to snort coke when you snorted it, the ex poste facto clause provides that you cannot be prosecuted for snorting prior to the effective date of the law; but you can be prosecuted for snorting/possessing coke after the effective date no matter when you obtained possession of the drug; it is your current possession that is being criminalized.

        This law if enacted into law will not criminalize the past ownership of 10+ capacity mags that were legally acquired prior to the ban, it will criminalize the current ownership of such mags after the effective date of the law. This does raise a “takings” clause issue, which the law seeks to avoid by giving you a long period of time to sell your mags out of state (if I remember, to June 1, 2017.)

        • Yeah, I would just say “Supremacy clause”, Second Amendment guarantees individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, says “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed”, and cite how SCOTUS says things in common usage are okay.

          /BS laws

          Damn, I should be lawyer.

        • Oh, and don’t try to come back at me with that weak game about how “well States have the right to govern themselves”, because Supremacy clause nullifies that essentially and they want to force Obamacare on people, even though States say no. The law/philosophy of our Government contradicts itself. Laws cannot contradict themselves, or logically, they nullify each other.

          Either States can give the Feds the bird, or they can’t. If they can, then no Obamacare at all in some States and no guns in others. Yes, that means CA can grow weed and the Feds can’t do jack about it.

          But if States CAN’T govern themselves and are subject to Supremacy clause, then States have no business restricting guns in any way shape or form.

  9. Ah, California. Fully realizing the utopia of a post constitutional state. Privilege granted by the benevolent and kind state government. Rules and regulations to gently guide populace and protect them from themselves.

  10. You can voice your opposition, and I clearly will, but these cleaned sand coiffed professional suit models simply don’t care. Crime is the problem, and government regulation is the solution. Of course, they are above the standards they set for us, as they alone have the wisdom and foresight to guide our wayward society.

    • It’s CA you could string them up all day but they would never understand, the oath of office they took meant nothing to them just like the Bill of Rights means nothing.

    • Funny. We in the insurgency movement have actually floated that very idea. Literally. Minus the rope.

  13. Cool! So now Californication will have NO GUN CRIMES! Because all of the new laws are going to stop criminals, surely NOBODY would do anything illegal like go to Nevada or Arizona and steal guns and/or ammo, or hijack law enforcement or military vehicles to get weapons, or break into stores or houses to get guns. Yup – the Mensa candidates in the Californication legislature sure thought these bills through!

  14. And yet they still pump out their California wine by the gallon causing countless DUI accident deaths and injuries, low fetal birth weights, fat girls at parties to think they are fun and sexy, and liver damage to innocent Americans. Think of the children!

      • As long as you’re drinking the wine the fat girls are fun and sexy. And let’s be honest here. Ain’t too many George Cloony’s commenting here either. Maybe the fat girls are drinking the wine so the guys at the party will look good to them?

        • 🙂 Yep, you’ve got to face the very real chance that the girls are drinking to make *you* look better.

        • I once made a comment in a break room full of my male co workers who were regaling each other with their tales of sexual prowess as men are want to do when away from adult supervision.

          In a room where the youngest guy was 40 something I said”If it wasn’t for drugs and alcohol I would be sitting in a room full of virgins.”

    • Skeev, nice name by the way, you MIGHT just be the most ignorant person on planet earth. Congratulations! I’m extremely impressed.

  15. You have misreported a bit. Let me explain

    SB-683 does not require any classes to be taken. That is a gross misreading of the bill. What it does is, as of 2015, abolish the Handgun Safety Certificate for buying handguns, and replaces it with a Firearm Safety Certificate.

    Really what it boils down to is now, to buy a handgun, you have to have an HSC. To get one, you don’t have to do much. Basically, you take a 25 question quiz, which a full blown mentally handicapped person could pass (“What is a safe direction” “A. At your friend. B. On the Ground…”) and pay $25. The card remains good for 5 years. While I am sure classes could be offered, the fact is a random hobo, placed on the spot, would pass the test, which FFLs can give on the spot in the store. This isn’t like a NJ permit to buy.

    This bill expands the requirement to all guns. It also clarifies that the test may be administered in Spanish and if necessary orally, and has a list of people (including NRA instructors) authorized to give it. It also clarifies that this card is not necessary to own or possess a gun.

    More importantly, SB 374 and SB 47 cannot both become law, they are mutually exclusive. SB 374 includes the text of SB 47 in slightly different ways. SB 374 DOES NOT BAN RIFLES WITH DETACHABLE MAGAZINES. This blog has shown a penchant for missing the facts. It prohibits semiautos with detachable magazines. For that manner, SB 47 changes the definition of fixed magazine so that the bullet button no longer counts. You can have a semiauto with a detachable magazine. The law is an AWB with a feature list. No features, detachable is good.

    With SB 374 and SB 47 you have hedging the bets. If the Dems expected both to pass and be signed, they would have withdrawn SB 47.

    SB 755- Yes, certain REPEAT drug offenses have been added to the list of misdeamenors that result in a 10 yr prohibition, provided that two offenses are within 3 years of each other and the ban ends ten years after the 2nd conviction. Both 755 and 683 are listed as “Watch” rather than “Oppose” by the GOC/GOA. Something to think about.

    • So, what’s the political situation like in the Assembly?

      In MD, we had the AWB from hell originate in the Senate, but by the time it got to the governor’s desk, it had some very significant modifications (eg, the feature ban was gutted, and the named list was basically the ban).

      • Democrats control both the CA Senate and Assembly. Anything the Sendate passes. the Assembly will pass. And then on to the Democrat governor, who will sign it. California is essentially a single-party state.

        • You didn’t read what I wrote, did you? Sb 47 and SB 374 cannot both become law, so the Dems are hedging bets by passing both. The governor is not pro gun, but he isn’t big on gun control either. He vetoes as many as he signs, including vetoing some of the same bills they reintroduced this year.

          If 374 was a certainty, 47 would have been withdrawn

    • Before you get uppity about this blog “missing the facts,” you might consider that it was directly quoting from a Sac Bee article. The source was quoted, attributed, and linked (features your “correction” lacked). Of course, you appear to have ignored that in an effort to prove you’re more “truthy” than a gun blog.

      • I am more “truthy” than this blog on California matters, because I have actually read the text of all these bills. I clarified what the bills were, and pointed out that two of them were not even on the Opposed list by the GOA. And tried to provide some insight about the 47 and 374 dynamic. Sorry for sharing information.

        And my comment was not snide like yours.

        California is 1/8th of America. To cast it aside is to shoot yourself in the arse. Not to mention we produce more food than the midwest, and more trade goes through this state than any other and we would, even with our lagging economy, still be in the top 10 if we were a separate country. What happens here is important. The NRA gets that, hence a full time lobbyist.

      • Actually, one of these laws bans all 10/22s–the Tactical is already banned because of its threaded barrel. Threaded barrels are a definite no no for any firearm. But this new bill expands the definition of “assault weapon” to include ANY “semiautomatic, rimfire or centerfire, rifle”…that has a detachable magazine. So 10/22s would be out, but tubefed Marlin 60s are still GTG. The intent of the law is to require all semiauto rifles to have a nondetachable internal magazine of some sort. So the Garand remains legal, but the M1 carbine and the M1A/M14 are history if this is enacted.

      • Just why do you have to get an FOID in Illinois, or two or three different permits to obtain a firearm in New York or New Jersey? The idea is that you have at least some clue as to how to safely load and unload a firearm and to safe it with a disabling device. The rest is a basic primer on the transfer laws. The fee is to cover the cost of administering the program. $15 goes to the state, and $10 goes to the guy (usually your FFL) for administering the test.

      • I don’t agree with the fee. And rather than a test I think it would suffice to have the gun handling and safety demonstration requirement done by the FFL, as well as clear availability and encouragement to know the laws. The demo, btw, just means the FFL shows you how to load and unload, where the safeties are, and how to use the gun lock. Kind of a minor nuisance requirement.

        That said, the whole law is just a minor inconvenience. It isn’t like getting a FOID in Illinois or a permit to purchase in New Jersey. It is a very easy multiple choice quiz that you can pass with just 70% right, and may retake as many times as needed. When I went to buy my first handgun, picked it out, the FFL gave me a booklet, said to read it. And then handed me the quiz and told me to take it. Did both, passed. Took a few minutes (ok I didn’t read the booklet).

        This is small potatoes compared to the waiting period.

  16. Just a last note, these bills aren’t anywhere near becoming law. They must now pass the Assembly Public Safety Committee, the Assembly Appropriations (where SB 249, aka SB 47, died last year) and the Assembly Floor. And then must be signed by the Governor.

    374, 53, and 396 will all, if they stand without major amendment, be vetoed. The Dems know this with 374, hence the 47 (to allow Brown the ability to take a “middle position” and appear reasonable…he threatened to veto it last year, so make it more palatable by contrast). SB 53 he will veto because it is an expansion to a law already passed and already stuck down by the courts as unconstitutional, and hence never having been enforced. 396 is so badly worded that it would appear it would ban most magazines for most guns, even 10 rounder, because it outlaws having a mag with a body large enough to hold more than ten, even if permenently blocked to ten. The effect would be a sh!# storm of litigation. Hence veto.

    Those are my predictions

    • The fact that you need to rely on Governor Brown to veto this insanity is, uh, not good.

        • I actually gave a reasoned argument, unlike your snide bigotry. You are the kind that makes gun owners look like idiots.

          SB 47 and SB 374 cannot both become law, as they amend the same section is somewhat contrary ways. It is a hedging the bets thing. Brown will have to veto one, if both pass. Chances are that is 374. If not, it is 47, but 47 would be moot at that point as 374 does that and more.

          CA is not a perfect state, by any means. But there is still a libertarian streak here, though muted compared to years past. Brown has vetoed as many as he has signed, often avoiding litigation. And the courts, while not exact 2a friendly, have already poked holes in bills they have passed before (including the AWB, the CA Supreme Court ruled that you cannot ban ARs and AKs by type). Politics here is a different dynamic, even a different sort of liberal, than on the East Coast.

    • This is the same state that is building a 50B$ section of high-speed rail between Madera and Bakersfield. All these laws will pass. Consistency? Constitution? Ha!

    • The real question is whether these bills will pass with a veto-proof majority. I wouldn’t bet on Brown being able to stop these even if he tries.

      • Therein lies the rub. There isn’t a supermajority anymore, but the differential is a single vote. So far everything is being passed on pretty solid party line votes in the Senate.

  17. The best view of californa i ever had was in my rear view mirror. That was almost 20 years ago. Now i would rather support the economy of anywhere else. If that is what the sheeple voted for, they own it.

  18. They come to the United States to escape their countries tyranny and they bring their tyranny to the States… let’s just open the borders why don’t we!

    • That’s part of the problem. CA has a pretty open southern border, and once you get through, its a “sanctuary state.”

  21. Would it not be awesome if you could walk out from under a sequoia tree and wiggle your toes in the Pacific Ocean.

  22. Leland Yee, shaming Chinese Americans when he’s not busy ranting about video games, he’s banning guns he neither owns nor understands. Disgrace. To the race.

    • Preach it brother. The history of China has been riddled with tyranny and suffering. He simply doesn’t know his own heritage. Shame indeed.

  23. How someone hasnt taken it upon themselves to rid the world of Leland Yee yet I am very surprised. How are there any patriots that still reside behind the state lines of California(Camp Pendleton does not count)? Good luck to those who havent left yet and are forced to deal with this.

  25. but they”l give illegals driver licenses – thus paving the way for them to 1) sit on juries, 2) vote, 3) collect more freebies and 4) buy guns (regardless of who they were or what they did before violating the borders of this country)

  26. KKKalifornia welcomes millions of illegal aliens with open arms and provides them with expensive social programs. Some of the results of such policies are hospital closures, a once great heath care and educational system collapsing, strains on infrastructure and limited natural resources, and oh yeah violent crime.

  27. Just take note that this is the kind of thing you all have to look forward to if we allow the Left-Wing Social Democrats to win big in the 2014 Federal and State Elections. Support those Democrats who support the Second Amendment, but throw the rest of the rascals out.

      • Occasionally, I make an attempt to be civil. As long as the treasonable scumbags have the upper hand in California, it doesn’t matter what you call them, they just pass whatever Laws they want and laugh at us Citizens.
        My main concern is to keep focused on how important the 2014 elections are going to be. California (and a few other States) is already ruined, but the rest of the Country still has a chance to insure Obama is the “lamest duck” in Presidential History and keep States on the tipping point from being ruined, too. That’s all I care about right now.

  28. Kalifornia has to be one of the most screwed up states in the US next to NY.
    Of course the rich in CA could care less about these laws because their bodyguards
    are no doubt exempt from these BS feel good laws.

  29. Well little froggies, the water’s at a full boil. What’s it gonna be? Jump? Or frog stew?

  30. Drawing parallels to the 1st amendment, I see it like this.

    Someone walks into a movie theater and yells “fire” when there is none. People get hurt. So, California now says no one can ever say “fire” again; even when my own home is on fire and I am trying to alert my kids sleeping in the other room.

    Now,replace yelling fire with using a specific gun.

    • It’s worse than that. In your yelling “Fire!” analogy California is ordering everyone to wear a muzzle at all times because they could yell fire in a crowded location and induce a panic.

    • Sriki,

      It’s worse than that. In your yelling “Fire!” analogy California is ordering everyone to wear a muzzle at all times because they could yell fire in a crowded location and induce a panic.

      (I hope the spam filter lets this comment through this time.)

    • What the heck? Why are my comments not posting?

      I’ll try again … for the third time.

      Sriki,

      The situation in California is worse than your example of yelling fire in a theater. California is requiring everyone to wear muzzles at all times because they could yell fire in a crowded location.

  31. They’re actually going to give the required training in English? Well, that’s something. Way to go, Californians. You’re taking your state back one training class at a time.

  32. There’s more Jet Black hair dye in that photo than in my grandmother’s bathroom closet. I guess now we know what happens as the chemicals leach through the scalp.

  34. The photo for this article should be the photo for the next photo caption contest.

    I will provide my caption right now in anticipation of that event.

    Yee, while laughing uncontrollably: “And those suckers [constituents] think we actually represent them!”

  35. It’s the people’s of California fault for voting these librards in and let them get away with all these bs , damn now Colorado is looking up to these gun grabbing liberals also.

  37. California and Colorado are absolutely disgusting political states. They are great examples of how state governments SHOULD NOT be run. Legalize drugs and ban guns. Who are these fricking people? How far down the hole do we have to go before this turns around?

    • So i assume you would want to legalize guns and ban drugs? You would want to increase the size and power of the government to legislate morality? you’re no different than the californian democrats.

      But i assume your position on this stems from you as a person. You probably need a big nanny state to take care of you, so that’s what you support.

  38. along with certian businesses that won’t get my hard earned cash i guess i can also add the following states 1. the whole n/e coast 2. the whole west coast 3. colorado 4. illinois

  40. I don’t even know what a “bullet button” is, but they don’t look like they do, either. They’re cute together, though….

  41. California now has worse gun laws then up here in Canada.. You guys are making laws and we are getting ours overturned ( long gun registry RIP June 15 2012). Good luck guys hope they get appealed and shot down.

  42. All you guys boycotting CA. Better not by any gas from any Conoco station, or Arco/BP. Also, don’t you there watch any movies or TV. And don’t buy anything imported from any Asian country (almost no electronics and many clothes).

    Don’t buy fruit and many vegetables, or nuts. Depending where you are that includes dairy and beef. Heck, there are many crops only grown in California. Say goodbye to guacamole, pistachios, etc. Most oranges that you eat too (Florida seems to focus on juice).

    California is a huge part of the US economy. Even without the massive industry we used to have (defense industry was large here). You people who speak of boycotting it benefit from it, and cannot avoid it.

    And BTW, the way tectonic plates work, CA is moving into the rest of NA, not into the Ocean. And bear in mind that only Texas has more gun owners than CA.

    • So we should just all roll over and sh*t ourselves… Somehow I think we’d be okay with a little less guacamole… That is until some enterprising American finds a better way…

    • Thanks JoshuaS! The reality for many of us Californians is that we did not vote for the a$$hats that rule in Sacramento and many of us have voted for and supported Candidates who believe in our Second Amendment Rights and more Conservative views for Business, Ecology and Social Welfare. The Social Democrats, however, have gained a majority in the Legislature and aging Governor Moonbeam too often goes along with them. So, what is happening here is not the “choice” of a large number of us and the rest of you should “take a lesson”.
      Anyway, as soon as our tectonic plate squeezes the Yellowstone Super Volcano into a major eruption in the near (geologic) future the Social Democrats will be taken care of….oh…and everyone else, too. Bummer!

      • “The reality for many of us Californians is that we did not vote for the a$$hats that rule in Sacramento and many of us have voted for and supported Candidates who believe in our Second Amendment Rights and more Conservative views for Business, Ecology and Social Welfare.” Um, can I get an exact figure on “many”? Obviously not enough, considering that California is widely known to be a DOMINANTLY liberal state Like, has never even been a swing state in the modern era liberal.
        “The Social Democrats, however, have gained a majority in the Legislature and aging Governor Moonbeam too often goes along with them.” Yes, because all Democrats are Socialist faggots. Not to mention how eloquently you turned yourself into an ignorant racist shit tard by calling your governor “moonbeam”. Nothing says I can’t win an argument like turning into a racist ass hat at the drop of said hat.
        “So, what is happening here is not the “choice” of a large number of us and the rest of you should “take a lesson”.” Again, the way democracy works and all, a large enough number of “you” DID choose and a lot of the liberal party in CA is extremely wealthy and well educated. So THEY probably don’t need to “take a lesson” <- still having trouble understanding what you meant there… ???
        And last, but certainly not least "Anyway, as soon as our tectonic plate squeezes the Yellowstone Super Volcano into a major eruption in the near (geologic) future the Social Democrats will be taken care of….oh…and everyone else, too. Bummer!" My favorite Tea Party quote of the century here. Well, if we don't get our way, better to die and watch the LIBERALS die with us than to actually make an attempt at reforming your party who is "…stuck in a vacuum-sealed door-locked spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good and denying the factual, lived truth of the world…" (shout out to Rachel Maddow for hitting the nail on the head there) and DOING something about it that is SENSIBLE! Something you people just don't seem to understand!!
        Your welcome for the lesson D-Dawg. 😉

    • Understand when I say, the word DISGRACE is a word that I take VERY personally. Also understand that my political ideology has nothing to do with my military service and vise versa. I understand that people are frustrated with the controls placed on firearms. I would just like to ask you a few questions.
      First, how can “A well regulated Militia” (exact excerpt from the Second Amendment) exist without any regulations and restrictions? The control must remain in tact, and that is what our government is trying to do.
      Second, what are you incapable of doing with a semi automatic AR15 with CA state restrictions that would require you to possess a firearm without those restrictions? I would be fully capable of using a CA restricted AR15 for any purpose that may be required of it, within the confines of the law.
      Third, where is there a lack of merit in my argument that if you wish to use an unrestricted weapon, join the military and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? I would like to see less people sit around and complain about laws, when they can’t proactively go out and make a true impact through their actions.
      Other than the misunderstanding with the disgrace of my brothers in arms, I appreciate your ability to remain cordial and rational throughout our “debate”. Most would just break down and call me a “liberal faggot”. Lol right? The only title I own is US Marine. 😛

      • When you read the Constitution, you will find it does NOT provide for a standing army. It was the intent that the army be called up from local militias, and they bring their own arms. That is how the (un)Civil War was fought.
        Well regulated means well trained. Something you and I got in boot camp. Mine was 35 years ago though. Some how you are getting the language confused. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
        A regulated militia means that the members have elected or appointed officers NCOs, and positions. An established chain of command, designated insignia that clearly defines them from civilians. They also receive training both in fire arms, and in drill and maneuver.

      • “First, how can “A well regulated Militia” (exact excerpt from the Second Amendment) exist without any regulations and restrictions? The control must remain in tact, and that is what our government is trying to do.”
        The definition of regulated in the time the Constitution was written is:

        REGULATED.
        a. Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard….
        b. Of troops: properly disciplined (Obs. rare).

        1690 Lond. Gaz. [London Gazette] No. 2568/ We hear likewise that the French are in a great allarm in in Daupine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 men of regulated troops on that side.

        Basically, trained and organized. In the early days of the US, boys grew up shooting. They were organized in their communities. They were the first responders, because there was no provision in the founding documents for a domestic, government controlled enforcement group to collect revenue (read: steal) and demand capitulation by gunpoint. The Sheriff, an elected official, is the only and the ultimate, law enforcer. The Navy, and by extension the Marines, are the only established defense force by our founders. They understood the dangers of a government with a standing army. They knew the temptation to use and tax to fund such a force in foreign “treaties” and “alliances” was too much to leave in the government’s hands. The citizen was the ultimate defense. When almost all citizens are armed and motivated, there isn’t a force in the world that could overcome that. As a bonus, it keeps the federal government in check when pushing it’s citizens around. Almost all other nations forbid their subjects from owning arms. Hence their centralized rule is absolute.

        “Second, what are you incapable of doing with a semi automatic AR15 with CA state restrictions that would require you to possess a firearm without those restrictions? I would be fully capable of using a CA restricted AR15 for any purpose that may be required of it, within the confines of the law.”

        Have you ever been through the aftermath of a hurricane? How about a riot or civil uprising? Any disaster from an asteroid strike, to a famine, long term power outage, fuel shortage (say a few refineries are destroyed in an attack), an invasion from outside our borders, government coup…the aftermath of any situation you can think of where you have to be limited to how many rounds you can load, how complex changing magazines needs to be, to accessories that would make you a more proficient shooter, things that would contribute to you getting killed in a really bad scenario. Limiting good people’s options in self defense makes about as much sense as thinking criminals will follow the laws that the good guys will follow because their “betters” say so.

        “Third, where is there a lack of merit in my argument that if you wish to use an unrestricted weapon, join the military and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? I would like to see less people sit around and complain about laws, when they can’t proactively go out and make a true impact through their actions.”

        I defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic by choosing who I vote to represent me carefully. I write them often to express my views of proposed legislation. I write them expressing my agreement or disagreement on their views. I train with my arms regularly, and bring as many people that I can afford to with me. I go to the legislature open mic events to speak face to face with my representatives when I believe the laws under consideration are unconstitutional an/or are a backdoor to unintended consequences.

        I never joined up, because I did not agree with the policies that good men were dying to enforce for reasons that were none of our concern and in countries we had no business invading. I woke up early to what the real reasons that our government projects force. All political, corporate, and alliance related…never for “freedom”.

        “Other than the misunderstanding with the disgrace of my brothers in arms, I appreciate your ability to remain cordial and rational throughout our “debate”. Most would just break down and call me a “liberal faggot”. Lol right? The only title I own is US Marine.”

        I almost never lower myself to petty name calling in a discussion, but there are times when I will do so in private. I often use vernacular that can be mistaken as intentionally offensive, and for that I try to minimize my passion in my writing, and correct when I can. Wear that title with pride, but remember that the enemies at home are far more a threat to the liberty of our countrymen than any foreign power.

        Read the federalist/anti-federalist papers, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and any literature by the founders, especially Thomas Jefferson. Understand what they intended when they decided to risk everything to free us from a despot. Once you understand what they meant when they proposed a government that answers to the people, you will start to see rights that have been bent, circumvented, and downright stripped by those we consent to govern us.

        Any restriction of a civil, natural, human right is a tumor ready to completely consume that right in time.

        • To be honest, your first definition for “regulated”, as pertaining to Militias, proved my point in a sense. “Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard….” is exactly what the government is doing with weapon restrictions. In all technicality, and bear with me because even I would find this extreme, the government has every right to define “arms” as knives, spears and other primitive weapons of that nature.
          Furthermore, I have experienced the aftermath of a natural disaster. My battalion responded to the typhoon that hit the Philippines recently while we were deployed on UDP to Okinawa, Japan. That is the control measure in an extreme situation such as hurricanes, mass power outages, etc… It does not need to be a cluster of civilians taking up vigilante justice. The government will send response units to areas worldwide (with proper authority) to handle those situations.
          Lastly, I appreciate your form of care you take in supporting and defending the Constitution. However, if more and more people reject the option of military service based on perceived legitimacy of the governing group in control at the time, we will soon be left with the inability to possess a standing army. Which in turn, in my opinion, would be the true downfall of this Union. There is a major difference between a group of guys with guns and a well drilled unit of troops who have been tirelessly trained in the art of war. Believe me on this, considering that if I were still an untrained civilian, I do not believe that I would possess the confidence required to close with and destroy an attacking force. That is why the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are the only “well regulated Militia(s)” we need. In turn, there is no innate need for civilians to possess firearms that have military capability.

          • “To be honest, your first definition for “regulated”, as pertaining to Militias, proved my point in a sense. “Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard….” is exactly what the government is doing with weapon restrictions. In all technicality, and bear with me because even I would find this extreme, the government has every right to define “arms” as knives, spears and other primitive weapons of that nature.”

            Regulated, meaning trained, and organized. This portion can be achieved in a matter of weeks if necessary. Easily obtainable in the event of the need for defense of the nation. The people must also have the means of individual defense of community/property and self/family. Even from those we elected to govern us when they decide to act against the will and well being of those they represent. From our own neighbors in times of chaos and desperation. They deserve and have the right to the best tools available. Not to be artificially limited by those that cannot possibly be in all places at once.

            “Furthermore, I have experienced the aftermath of a natural disaster. My battalion responded to the typhoon that hit the Philippines recently while we were deployed on UDP to Okinawa, Japan. That is the control measure in an extreme situation such as hurricanes, mass power outages, etc… It does not need to be a cluster of civilians taking up vigilante justice. The government will send response units to areas worldwide (with proper authority) to handle those situations.”

            When did self defense become vigilante justice? I, like many others, prepare the best I can for these events. I have supplies, a plan, and several backups to keep those closest to me safe. Those that do not think ahead, and do not concern themselves beyond the next trip to the grocery store will either evacuate, or get caught up in the chaos. These are the ones you should be concerned about. These are the ones that people like me will have to defend against. Along with the government thugs that might take advantage of the system being down. Defense and vigilantism are two entirely different beasts.

            “Lastly, I appreciate your form of care you take in supporting and defending the Constitution. However, if more and more people reject the option of military service based on perceived legitimacy of the governing group in control at the time, we will soon be left with the inability to possess a standing army. Which in turn, in my opinion, would be the true downfall of this Union. There is a major difference between a group of guys with guns and a well drilled unit of troops who have been tirelessly trained in the art of war. Believe me on this, considering that if I were still an untrained civilian, I do not believe that I would possess the confidence required to close with and destroy an attacking force.”

            The founders never intended there to be a standing army. A Navy was established to defend against piracy. They were against having an army. They knew this to be a problem. Any group of men that have an army at their disposal are going to misuse it, and as often as they can. The militia “the people” is the bulwark. A nation full of armed citizens is the ultimate defense force. They are highly motivated to keep their nation safe. They have the home field advantage, and are armed as well as any soldier in the world.

            “That is why the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are the only “well regulated Militia(s)” we need. In turn, there is no innate need for civilians to possess firearms that have military capability.”

            If those forces are turned against the people, or are compromised in any way, how do the people mount a defense? Do they use their 7 shot limited arms with bullet buttons, feature bans, ammo storage limitations, etc to defend against superior numbers?

            It’s really simple. Everyone has the right to the best available tools to defend their life, liberty, and property. Unimpeded, without any restriction.

  43. If the semi-auto ban/registration goes into effect-does that mean I can take off that bullet button? 😀

  44. The large cities control CA. Just as NY and Chicago screw up otherwise fine states. There are millions of guys and gals just like you that were unfortunately born on the wrong side of a line on a map. We didn’t cause it. We are fighting and we are weary, beaten and resolved to finish it. Don’t throw us away because we have lost battles. We have salvaged much from the wreckage that is our home. We still have legal ARs, AKs and the passion. The odds are not at all in our favor, yet we fight on.
    We could use help. CalGuns.net and the CRPA are outfits that wage a guerrilla war in enemy territory so the enemy doesn’t expand. If you don’t like these laws, help out. We might not be able to beat this on our own.

    • Pray there aint another mass shooting from now (preferably never) til the 14′ midterms, or we are screwed. I think (hope) the midterms will be the message the libtards need to hear in regards to the taking of our freedom (firearms). We can then get back what was lost and maybe continue the pattern that was trending our way before Newtown.

  46. This is a bunch of BULLS*** to the fullest. The government is to stupid to know criminals don’t buy guns and ammo at stores, they. buy them off the street, so I ask how does this bill affect criminals. It doesn’t really matter, the government does as it pleases the Constution means nothing to them.

  47. Thank god I don’t live in this damn state. I was born there, and I’ll NEVER return. I have to go there once this upcoming football season to watch a 49er game with my father at Candlestick, before they close it down. But beyond that, I will avoid this place like the plague. And the politicians are to thank for that.

  48. I have no problem with this law as a Californian as long as it applied to our other rights as well.
    How about a thumb print and registration card for voting Yee?
    How about a thumb print and registration card for being in the state Yee?
    How about a thumb print and registration card for getting a hospital visit Yee?
    How about a thumb print and registration card for getting a job Yee?
    How about a thumb print and registration card for for foodstamps Yee?
    How about a thumb print and registration card for Welfare Yee?
    No why not? Your “CONStituents would not be able to vot for you right?

  50. Ok, so say someone is a California gun owner that owns an AR platform rifle with bullet button and everything. It is perfectly legal to own right now. What happens when the bullet button becomes illegal? Is this gun owner expected to register the firearm? Are we expected to turn ’em in?

  51. Honestly people, how far do you have your heads screwed up the wrong end? To all of those who complain about weapon restrictions, consider this. The US Constitution’s Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Where, within this Amendment, is it stated that restrictions cannot be placed on the weapon and/or its owner. This delusional thought that the government is making it IMPOSSIBLE to possess firearms is ludicrous! You people are just complaining that you can’t own a firearm ON YOUR TERMS. None of these restrictions make it impossible to defend your home, enjoy a day at the range, or hunt with your weapon. I am an infantry Marine (if you don’t believe me, I could honestly care less), and I don’t even get to own my M4 service carbine under my terms. In fact, I have more restrictions placed on my ownership of my weapon. I don’t complain, though, because I understand the responsibility and regard towards safety that comes with owning a weapon. Here’s a thought for all you who sit and complain about the government “infringing” on your rights. Join the military, get that awesome full auto assault rifle with no post-ban restrictions, and go fight in a war with men you’ve built a relationship with. Worry day in and day out about your’s and their safety, as well as the emotional state of your family back home. Spend your days walking for miles, standing in a 3’x3′ wooden box for 4 hours at a time, and running towards the sound of bullets aimed at you. Lose someone you respect and care about. You might just come out of it all with an appreciation for the freedoms you DO have, thanks to the men who own guns without restriction.

    • Ah, the old “If you want the fun guns, join up.” line. Since you asked, the part of the second amendment that calls for no restrictions is that little part at the end that states “…shall not be infringed.”. I know many former Marines, and I showed this post to them. They have stated that either you are no Marine or you are an embarrassment to them and the memories of those that have fallen before and beside them. I would expect this kind of nonsense from an officer, but you, sir, are a disgrace.

      • That “shall not be infringed’ part pertains to the ownership of the firearm. It says nothing about restrictions on the firearm. Also in the Constitution, you live by these Amendments CONDITIONALLY. Believe it or not, your only INALIENABLE rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If somebody with a firearm infringes upon those rights of another person, they no longer have the right to that firearm. Funny how that works isn’t it? As for me being a disgrace to fallen Marines, you’re entitled to your opinion. Let me ask you though, have you served alongside a Marine who was killed in action in a combat theater? Same question applies to the “many former Marines” you spoke to? How about somebody in your platoon? Someone who lost their life while you were 5 kilometers away responding to an IED in the middle of your MSR? Lance Corporal Osbrany Montes De Oca, 0341, 2nd Battalion, 6th Marines, Weapons (73rd) Company, CAAT Platoon. Born 15 October 1991, killed in action 10 February 2012. Brother to Osmany Montes De Oca and Franklin Montes De Oca Jr. Son of Franklin Montes De Oca Sr. Engaged to Maria Samaniego. Buried in North Arlington, NJ. He was shot in the right shoulder with a single 7.62 mm round that happened to ricochet off the ball of his shoulder, severing his aortic valve. Best man an Marine I’ve ever had the privilege of knowing, let alone serving in combat with. Every February 10th since then, I have sat down at a restaurant by myself, bought 2 meals and 2 beers, and ate 1 of the meals and 1 of the beers. I would then request that the waiter/waitress would leave his meal and beer where they were untouched until the restaurant closed. I cannot watch a movie or TV show with a service member’s death without being brought to tears. Don’t ever tell me that I dishonor the Marines who came before me and fell. Knowing former Marines does not give you the right to tell me what level I honor my Corps and my country. The only disgrace I see here is a narrow minded civilian who believes that they rate to tell a Marine who he is to the uniform he has the courage and selfless dedication to put on every morning.

        • I don’t doubt your dedication to your brothers. I doubt part of your ideology. I find it very statist, and dangerous to the liberty of all. That is what I find disgraceful.

          The Constitution is the framework of our government. The bill of rights are the limits of government on it’s citizenry. The second amendment is absolute in it’s intention, protecting all the other rights as it is the teeth that allow them to continue to exist. To change that, you must repeal the amendment or amend the constitution for the restrictions desired.

          Instead, our representatives have progressively ignored the limitations enumerated by the founders and have become the bloated, thieving, wasteful, bureaucracy laden mess we have today. It’s been going on for so long that the larger portion of our society has accepted it as necessary, “for the children”.

          This has been achieved by incremental infringements. None of them alone seems like much, but to the discerning citizen, the slippery slope is all too clear. This is the point I am trying to get across. Once you allow your liberty to be trampled on, even just a little, you will never get it back. With the passing of enough time, you will find yourself in a prison, created by the apathy of your ancestors. We must fight for our freedom. Cling to it jealously. For once lost, the only way to get it back is revolution.

  52. I’m curious how this will affect armed guards? BSIS is setting standards for rifle and shotgun permits… how will this effect the standards? There would have to be a California Only section to the National standard of training. Reloading for example, would be a multi-day training seminar detailing the forms required, how to apply for approval to reload your duty firearm, the process to dismantle the firearm to access the magazine once approval to reload is verified and your permit to reload is mailed, etc.

Comments are closed.