So, we drive to Nevada, Oregon or Arizona to purchase ammo without Government knowledge. My, it is getting tough to be a law abiding citizen in that State. Californians who want to buy ammunition would have to submit personal information and a $50 fee for a background check by the state, under a bill passed by the Senate. The state Department of Justice would determine whether buyers have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns. Ammo shops would check the name on buyers' driver's licenses against a state list of qualified purchasers. The goal of the bill is "to ensure that criminals and other dangerous individuals cannot purchase ammunition in the state of California," said Sen. Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles), author of SB 53. The vote was 22-14, with a few Democrats joining the Republican minority in opposition. Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) said, "We are criminalizing legal, historic behavior in the state of California and putting onerous burdens and regulations and requirements on law-abiding citizens."
I suppose that it would ensure that about as much as criminalizing drugs has prevented individuals from obtaining them.
Wow, I did not realize the progressive assault was in full swing. I feel for my CA sportsman brothers and sisters. 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
Honestly one of the saddest posts I have ever read on the subject. Well yall voted them in, yall get to live with thier rule.
[/thread] I heard somewhere there was also another bill in the works that would require some sort of biometric lock on the gun itself so that only the owner can fire it. See SB293
Glad we left the place long ago. If this isn't an infringement on the 2nd, I don't know what else is. If I was still forced to stay there, I'd be sure to have most of my guns and ammo hidden away from prying communists/democrats.
No, not all of us did, but you are correct, we do have to live with this total BS--at least until we move out of state.
How can progressives keep a straight face and make the statement that taking away the right to own a gun is not the intent? I hear you 1wg, we will be leaving Colorado in 2015. I was from N. CA. Sometimes I feel like a gypsy, never putting roots down.
They are used to talking to their constituency, who are complete idiots who will eat whatever they feed them!
The only purpose to this is to keep guns out of the hands of poor, particularly poor minorities. Making firearms unaffordable keeps them out of the hands of the poor. Making the rules surrounding ownership complicated makes minorities into greater targets, causing them to eschew ownership rather than put up with the hassles. Nothing scares a white progressive like a black man with a gun.
Yep. Sure the technology exists. Is it feasible? No. It would make firearms so expensive that only the rich could afford them. It's nothing more than a law to make ownership of a firearm that much harder. I live in California and if any of these bills pass, I will be taking my taxes to another state.
Already did, Daniel, but guess what??? A well placed bullet will stop any black belt in their tracks.
How would that work if he is otherwise unarmed and close enough for a rifle to be ineffective and a handgun to be less effective or still "holstered"?
could of should of would of, how, why......all scenarios that work for you.....what if the bad guy is 25 and victim is 75, then what, ? Sheesh you guys are soo one dimensional.
What type of rifle are you talking about, a Kentucky long rifle?? If they are within arm or leg range a rifle is ALWAYS effective!! Ever hear of an 18 inch barrel, Dan??? And guess what, the stock doesn't have to be out in front of you. I have rifles with barrels ranging from 16 1/2 inches to 26 inches and there's not a one of them that i couldn't bring into play if I had it in my hands. Second, Dan, you have been watching to much T.V., with a belt holster I can get a gun into play in 1/2 of a second, with a western style holster I can have it out and fired hitting a person with in 10 yards in .3 of a second. If I'm unarmed that's when the rest of the training comes into play if they have a weapon.
From one perspective and in that alternative, how would you know that an unarmed person is a "bad guy" until he is up close enough for bare hands to be an effective weapon. How many muggers mug from optimal rifle firing distance?
Any cop will tell you that most shootings, involving police, happen within 3-5 feet. Having a gun is definately an advantage, but knowing how to use it is a bigger advantage. As far as the law goes in Cali, im just so glad i live in the free state of NH, live free or die.
Oh boy, Sheesh, Dan, you make a person tired. In my life time I have been in over 300 fights (remember, I said life time), how many have you been in??? In every one of them (except for the clown that came up behind me and laid me out with a base ball bat), I have seen them coming. Next, please tell me what mugger would try and attack a person with a rifle??? Now, depending which on which rifle I have( they are ALL nasty up close) they're accurate range is from 0 yards up to 200 yards (for the short range) and on up to 1000 yards. And, once more Dan, if they are in arm or leg range they are in rifle range, do you have a hard time understanding that??? I fail to understand why you don't know that if a person is within 2 feet of you and you have a rifle why you can't figure out how you will be able to shoot a person with it.
Take a look at this other thread I posted on the topic: http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/271876-california-bans-carrying-guns-public.html The lawmakers in California are blatently anti-gun, no question about it. Not possible. California has taken in hoards of illegals who have had many many children. Not that all Hispanics are bad, but most of them are ill-informed apathetic low-income voters who unquestionably give their vote to the Democratic Party because the media all around them constantly glorifies the Democrats, and all the social issues Democrats are pushing. When I say hoards, I mean millions and millions over the last three decades. Over half the children in the state are now Hispanic. If half these Hispanics who vote bothered to inform themselves of what the issues actually are, I doubt California would be experiencing the type of anti-gun climate it has. It's just a small number of holier-than-thou Liberals exploiting an ignorant demographic.
pre attack indicators, normal human interaction, by word or action bad guy signals intentions, location, ignoring verbal commands would be a start. People have determined on many occasions that a threat exists in the real world. Not much of a rifle fan, can't conceal it. Pistols can be used quite effectively at bare hands distances with surprising little practice. Take some time to learn and quite trying to make everything but weapons the only option. Bad guys don't typically pick the strong, they pick victims when there are obvious size, gender, numbers, environment, health differences. You know times when fists don't make squat bit of difference. Sam Colt makes lots of people equal. Your scope locked view of everything belies you lack of knowledge on the subject matter. Please don't offer your singular train of thought as a one size fits all.
I was referring to only unarmed opponents. Even armed persons have be overwhelmed by armed opponents; military history is full of such examples.
