Please change your bookmarks to my new (original) location at The Spent Round (via Blogger).
What a freakin’ clueless idiot. Hat tip: Freedom Outpost.
Our moronic senator thinks the Smith & Wesson M&P line is produced for military and police only.
It’s a product line, you dolt.
Dianne, did you know that rather large airport, the largest in the state you represent, was a gun-free zone? A lot of good that did, huh? So let’s just not only have those, but completely ban guns. The criminals will obey that law, just like they obey laws against murder, guns in certain locations, assault, etc.
So it’s no big deal when I read something like this.
And you can also add this.
If the United States would simply ban all guns, shootings wouldn’t happen. Criminals would be amongst the first to turn in their guns,
When people spew this kind of nonsense, it makes me think of gun-free zones and how they prevent crime. Oh wait.
Hat tip to Breitbart.
Wow. Talk about your 2nd Amendment being violated.
That said, you can be a concerned citizen, not affiliated with neighborhood watch, and still carry I would imagine.
I would never be a part of a group that had this clear violation of rights thrust upon them.
The Sanford Police Chief should be ashamed.
Let me ask you a question, Chief Smith, if anything happens as a result of your horrible decision, can the citizens sue the police department?
Of course the courts have already answered that with a resounding no. We do not have the right to be protected by the police.
I’m sure when the anti-gun folks see this story they will say the following:
“See? We must ban these kinds of weapons so they can’t be stolen!”
Stupid argument, but you know it will come up.
That said, they are stupid for leaving a weapon out in the open like that (well, sort of open, since it was in their garage). If you’re not using the gun, or don’t have it by your side for self-defense purposes, please, lock it up. You wouldn’t leave things like jewelry out in the open, right?
An AR-15 rig can run well over $1,000 depending on the features.
Here are the bills that were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown yesterday:
AB 48 – Initially I thought this bill banned all “large capacity” magazines, that is to say, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I’ve read the summary of this over and over and now I think not. See this part:
This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine conversion kit that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor or a felony to buy or receive a large-capacity magazine, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
That tells me that if you already have one, you’re fine. You just can’t receive one, or a conversion kit, nor can you lend one, nor a conversion kit. As you can see, these laws often have very confusing wording. This law would be extremely difficult to enforce and with this wording, I’m not sure how it could hold up in court.
AB 170 – This bill really doesn’t affect many people. It’s about .50 BMG rifles and machine guns. It discusses the definition of the “individual” as far as obtaining permits for these and obtaining or selling the weapons themselves.
AB 231 – Initially I thought this bill meant you always had to keep your weapons locked up at home. No.
Existing law establishes the offenses of criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree, when a person keeps a loaded firearm within any premises under his or her custody or control, the person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or guardian, and a child obtains access to a person’s loaded firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury, as specified, and criminal storage of a firearm in the 2nd degree, when under those circumstances, the child obtains access to the firearm resulting in injury other than great bodily injury or the firearm is carried off premises, as specified.
I take this to mean that if there are children present, your weapons should basically be locked up, if they are loaded. This leaves some grey area, though. For example, you are allowed to carry on your property, and in doing so, could that be considered a situation where a child is likely to gain access without permission? I would say no, but stranger things have gone through the courts. Personally, I would say this means you just can’t leave a loaded weapon out and readily available to be picked up by a child. I think you’re okay if you keep a loaded weapon nearby in your bedroom at night for home defense. A child is not likely to gain access to that weapon.
AB 500 - This bill keeps mentioning the 10-day waiting period and the Department of Justice examining its records to determine if the purchaser of a firearm is allowed to obtain one. Huh? Exactly. You’re thinking, “this is already in place, right?” It also brings into play a 30-day rule. Per the state, it’s not permissible to purchase more than one firearm within 30 days of a prior purchase. I seriously hope gun rights groups take this one to court. Who cares how many you buy so long as you’re allowed to buy them, right?
AB 538 – This one sinks its teeth into a few areas. Let’s break it down:
(1) Existing law, subject to specified exceptions, makes it a crime to openly carry an exposed, unloaded handgun outside a vehicle in specified public places.
Except in cases where the weapon is to be sold at an auction or other non-profit event.
(2) Existing law, subject to specified exceptions, including use by a member of a club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon established target ranges while the members are using handguns upon the target ranges or incident to the use of a firearm that is not a handgun at that target range, makes it a crime for a person to carry an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun outside a vehicle while in an incorporated city or city and county.
See what I mean about terrible wording? I read this to mean that it’s a crime to carry an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun outside a vehicle while in an incorporated city. Okay, check. If I’m walking to my car with my rifle, I can’t openly carry it. I think it means that, but the word “openly” is missing from this part, while it exists in the first part. But then it adds, “or city and county.” Huh? Does that mean everywhere? There’s no part of California, at least to my knowledge, that is not a county.
(3) Existing law prohibits a person from selling, leasing, or transferring a firearm unless the person is issued a license. Existing law provides for specified exemptions to that licensing requirement, including the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm by a law enforcement agency to a peace officer or retiring peace officer, as specified.
This part is pretty clear. It means you can’t transfer your gun to your kid. This must be down through a licensed person or dealer. So if you’re a grandparent and you really want your grandchild to have your old shotgun you have to say, “Well, let’s go down to the gun shop and fill out some paperwork, pay the transfer fee, and then let them hold it for 10-24 hour periods. Then you can have it.” And of course the state loves this because they get more money.
There are more parts to this involving the transfer of weapons (further explanation of what to do) and how you need a handgun safety certificate if you’re receiving one of those, etc.
AB 539 – This bill is about possession of guns by persons not authorized by law to possess guns and how they are to be informed of this and how they can transfer said guns to local agencies/licensed dealers.
AB 711 – This is a biggie – the banning of lead ammunition used for hunting.
This bill would instead require, as soon as is practicable, but by no later than July 1, 2019, the use of nonlead ammunition for the taking of all wildlife, including game mammals, game birds, nongame birds, and nongame mammals, with any firearm.
Non-lead ammo is bad for hunting, period. There are lots of stories about non-lead ammo simply not being lethal enough for hunting (wounded animals). This will be costly to enforce, and hopefully overturned.
AB 1131 – The mentally unstable bill.
(1) Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon for a period of 6 months whenever he or she communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Under existing law, a violation of this provision is a crime. Existing law allows a person subject to these provisions to petition the superior court of his or her county for an order that he or she may possess a firearm, as provided. This bill would increase the prohibitory period from 6 months to 5 years.
(2) Existing law requires that if a person who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition, or who is a mentally ill individual prohibited from possessing firearms, is found to own or possess a firearm, a law enforcement agency or peace officer is required to confiscate the firearm.
There’s more, but those are the pertinent items from it.
SB 127 – Another bill regarding “mentally disordered persons.” You can open the link and read about it there. I don’t have anything to add.
SB 363 – This is much like AB 231 (storage), but discusses fees. I’ll let you read it, as I’ve talked enough about it already.
SB 683 – This bill affects us all in a major way. This makes it law that by January 1, 2015, you must obtain a safety certificate and perform a safe handling demonstration to purchase any gun, period. The state will charge $15 per issuance of each certificate. This is yet another hoop that one has to jump through to get a gun in California. If you want this, how about removing the lengthy waiting period?
I suggest you visit John Lott’s blog today. It’s linked on the right. I caught this interview he did on NRO with Kathryn Jean Lopez back in May.
And I know you’re anxious for my take on the bills Governor Brown signed/vetoed today. I should have something to say this weekend. I’ve got a wedding to attend tomorrow, so it might not be up until late in the day or Sunday.
If you’ve visited any forum regarding the various gun laws that are being pushed, you’ll undoubtedly find someone in the comments trying to tell everyone who will listen that, “no one is taking away your guns!”
And then it’s usually followed up with something about how the NRA makes money creating fear, or someone who will provide some street cred by stating they own guns or served in the military and discussing how they have no problem with registration or limitations.
California’s SB 374 has provided much of this. Part of the bill is that people must register their “assault weapons” (this bill calls any centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine an “assault weapon”) annually or turn them over to the state for destruction. (Note: if this becomes law, how long before one of California’s law enforcement agencies attempts to sell the weapons outside of the state for a source of income?).
One guy, claiming to have served in the New York Army National Guard (on Politix; if you look for any thread on gun control, he’s easy to spot), says he has no problems registering his Glock 17. Apparently he didn’t mind the magazine restriction, either, which severely limits the amount of rounds that handgun can carry.
He then promoted his NRA using registration as a money-making strategy.
People who are fine with registration fall into one of these three categories:
- They think in the present and don’t think that registration can ever lead to confiscation (tell that to Australians).
- They just want guns banned, period.
- They might not think criminals will register their guns, but feel that through attrition, ultimately all guns will be out of the hands of the bad people as a result.
In spite of SB 374 staring people straight in the face, they don’t see confiscation ever coming up. Hello, SB 374 requires annual registration or the gun be turned over to the state. You can’t even transfer the weapon when you die.
One medical incident in your life can screw things up forever. It doesn’t take long to find instances of the state taking guns because of this.
And even in a thread completely devoted to California, people will chime in talking about 100-round magazines and automatic weapons. This proves they know little to nothing about guns or California.
The number of 100-round magazines, or beta mags, in California is without question small. Hell, the number of shootings involving rifles is very small, but let’s just stick to things that hopefully they can understand. Back to the 100-round nonsense…
You see (those of you who don’t know about guns), these magazines are prone to feeding problems and come at a hefty price. There’s almost no point in having one, unless you’re someone who is legally able to own and operate an automatic weapon. FYI – you still can obtain a permit for that, but it’s an expensive and lengthy process. I personally don’t know anyone who can.
As of now (this could change quickly), if you owned 30-round magazines (aka “standard magazines”) prior to their purchase being banned in California, you could keep them. The vast majority of AR-15 owners probably don’t have any. I don’t. All of mine hold 10 only. When I go to the range all I typically see are 10-round mags.
There’s no need for this new law. It’s not preventing anything. It’s creating new criminals overnight, however, and another attempt by the state to get more money.
The question is, how many people will register their weapons vs. lose them in tragic accidents?