Extreme CA state gun-ban bills advance in Sacramento

[Little-Acorn]

Democrats now have a supermajority in both PRCalifornia houses and an extreme leftist in the Governor's office. All have long records of legislating against the will of the people.

They shouldn't have any trouble enacting these bills.

And when resulting lawsuits get to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts (who achieved fame by rewriting the Obamacare law from the bench, changing the word "penalty" to "tax" wherever it occurred) should find it equally easy to change the word "shall" in the 2nd amendment to "might", and then ruling these laws constitutional too.

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_23858492/gun-control-bills-advance-sacramento

Gun-control bills advance in Sacramento

By Josh Richman
MediaNews Group
Posted: 08/14/2013 01:01:17 AM PDT

SACRAMENTO -- A package of bills that would once again give California the nation's toughest gun-control laws passed a key legislative hurdle Tuesday, setting up a white-hot Capitol showdown.

The Assembly Committee on Public Safety hearing offered a preview of that battle, as dozens of gun-control advocates -- including some who have lost loved ones to violent crime -- faced off against gun-rights supporters who believe that a basic freedom is threatened.

"This entire package is not focused on trying to prohibit or limit law-abiding citizens from having guns," state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told the committee. "It seeks to close loopholes that were never supposed to exist."

But National Rifle Association lobbyist Ed Worley scoffed at that notion. "We're not looking at a loophole, but rather a vast expansion of government control over a constitutional right," he said. By the hearing's end, the committee had voted along party lines to approve bills that would:

* add all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines to the state's list of banned assault weapons;
* ban owning any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, including existing ones;
* ban bullet buttons that allow fast swapping of rifle magazines;
* require long-gun buyers to pass a written safety test; and
* add more crimes to the list of those that would bar someone from carrying a firearm.

The bills, already passed by the state Senate, are moving inexorably closer to floor votes and the governor's desk.

Tuesday's votes followed similar actions Monday in the Senate Appropriations Committee, which voted to approve an Assembly bill aimed at prohibiting firearms in homes where any resident is legally barred from owning one, unless they're locked up or carried by a lawful owner.

Tuesday's Assembly committee debate over Steinberg's SB374, which would ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, was particularly heated.

The committee approved the bill 4-2.

Craig DeLuz, lobbyist for the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, spoke against SB 683, which would extend the state's safety-certificate requirement for handguns to long guns as well. Bill author Marty Block, D-San Diego, said 80 percent of the safety test would be the same for handguns and long guns, so state staffers determined it wouldn't be cost-effective to create two different tests.

The bill passed 4-0.

State Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, advocated for SB 396, her bill to criminalize possession of all high-capacity magazines even if they predate the state's 2000 ban or were made with do-it-yourself kits. Such magazines "have no place in civil society," she said.

She said giving owners a year of advance notice before the ban takes effect "as well as giving them options to sell their magazines outside California, sell them to a licensed dealer, destroy them or hand them over to police "should be enough to sidestep any potential lawsuits challenging the ban's constitutionality."

Tom Pedersen, lobbyist for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, argued that "criminals do not follow the law, so the bill will do nothing to curb violence."

The committee approved the bill 4-2.

[CSM]

So they are going ti implement a written safety exam. I wonder if they will then implement a written test for voting eligibility?

[Little-Acorn]

As usual, criminals will ignore these laws, and keep their guns, magazine, etc.

Only law-abiding citizens will disarm themselves.

Things are going exactly according to plan in the People's Republic of California.

[aboutime]

So they are going ti implement a written safety exam. I wonder if they will then implement a written test for voting eligibility?


CSM. What's the use? I mean. Really? If Ca. implements a written exam for safety. Shouldn't they FIRST make sure...through the failed educational system....that people can READ??

If the people can't speak or write in English. What good will testing do for GANG MEMBERS who take part in Daily DRIVE-BY shootings, and against Police officers during DRUG RAIDS?

[CSM]

CSM. What's the use? I mean. Really? If Ca. implements a written exam for safety. Shouldn't they FIRST make sure...through the failed educational system....that people can READ??

If the people can't speak or write in English. What good will testing do for GANG MEMBERS who take part in Daily DRIVE-BY shootings, and against Police officers during DRUG RAIDS?
You obviously missed the fine print where it says that criminals do not have to comply with the law. That's why we call them "criminals".

[Thunderknuckles]

Thomas Jefferson:
"...I am a great friend to the manly and healthy exercises of the gun."

Mr. Jefferson would clearly think very little of the diseased milksops in the California legislature :salute:

[hjmick]

You are already required to pass a written safety test to buy a handgun in California...



Have I mentioned how happy I am that I know longer live there?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are they going to stop and frisk every black, every Mexican and every gangbanger? If not the law is therefore meant only for the law abiding! Which means its intended to disarm and make practicly defenseless all law abiding citizens. Thus it voids the 2nd amendment. Yet they will claim that is ok apparently claiming state's right. OK, if one can be thus voided all can . So what is going to happen when the first ,third and 4th are voided??? This part of that crusade against guns that bamboy started first thing in his second term.. Bamboy does not defend the Constitution thus deliberately not adhering to his oath of office. That is grounds for impeachment!!! And there have been many other grounds before this.. ps. so much for the lying claim they'd never use a database on gun owners to come take our guns!!

[aboutime]

You are already required to pass a written safety test to buy a handgun in California...



Have I mentioned how happy I am that I know longer live there?


That explains why Gangs have just about taken over the entire state.

[aboutime]

Are they going to stop and frisk every black, every Mexican and every gangbanger? If not the law is therefore meant only for the law abiding! Which means its intended to disarm and make practicly defenseless all law abiding citizens. Thus it voids the 2nd amendment. Yet they will claim that is ok apparently claiming state's right. OK, if one can be thus voided all can . So what is going to happen when the first ,third and 4th are voided??? This part of that crusade against guns that bamboy started first thing in his second term.. Bamboy does not defend the Constitution thus deliberately not adhering to his oath of office. That is grounds for impeachment!!! And there have been many other grounds before this.. ps. so much for the lying claim they'd never use a database on gun owners to come take our guns!!

Tyr. That would be PROFILING! Only Gays, and Homeless people in San Francisco are Immune to PROFILING.

[truthmatters]

will you shoot the people who come to take your guns?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

will you shoot the people who come to take your guns?
Are you taking a survey or just gathering evidence to snitch with later on ? Inquiring minds would like to know.....--Tyr

[truthmatters]

Your on the internets and the world an see your answer without me doing anything. will you kill the government official who comes for your gun if they are banned?

[truthmatters]

You do realize the scotus said gun laws are perfectly constitutional right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your on the internets and the world an see your answer without me doing anything. will you kill the government official who comes for your gun if they are banned? Will you post your true identity and reason for thinking your detective ass is going to prove something with this line of questioning and even get an answer? If not then STFU BECAUSE YOU BORE ME.. My past posts here are clear enough for anybody to research and get an answer that they can have some confidence in. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You do realize the scotus said gun laws are perfectly constitutional right?
Not gun laws that actually void an amendment to the Constitution. -Tyr

[truthmatters]

no one is proposing one of those

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

no one is proposing one of those hahahaha. I give you 25 Pinocchio's for that one. Tyr

[truthmatters]

prove your claim

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

prove your claim Me no jump thru hoops for you pedro. I may do so to some extent for others that I know here but not you. You didn't answer my question about if you are the same snake using that same name from another forum I post at. Care to affirm with a yes or deny with a no?-Tyr

[truthmatters]

thanks for admitting you have no proof of your claims

[truthmatters]

Me no jump thru hoops for you pedro. I may do so to some extent for others that I know here but not you. You didn't answer my question about if you are the same snake using that same name from another forum I post at. Care to affirm with a yes or deny with a no?-Tyr
I have never before seen your name.Yes I do post at other sites its not illegal

[truthmatters]

there is nothing unconstitutional about the proposed gun law.

[aboutime]

there is nothing unconstitutional about the proposed gun law.


Any attempt by anyone to change the 2nd amendment in any way, without using the constitutional methods described by the authors of the constitution IS...UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[truthmatters]

the scotus has already said gun laws are constitutional. making stuff up on the internets doesn't change that

[aboutime]

the scotus has already said gun laws are constitutional. making stuff up on the internets doesn't change that



"Internets?" Oh how familiar you sound.

[hjmick]

HOLY SHIT! TM!?



Okay, who left the door open...? :lmao:

[truthmatters]

this is the same name I have in other places.

[aboutime]

this is the same name I have in other places.


Sure it is. And the same methods used in other places are familiar here too!

[truthmatters]

yeap facts

[hjmick]

this is the same name I have in other places.


Two or three other places at least, a couple of others, not so much...

[truthmatters]

I have used three names on internet chat sites.the first one was deshrubinator, then truthmatters and then evince.no other names

[logroller]

no one is proposing one of those
Up until the point of heller ruling (&mcdonald) a number of gun laws weren't considered unconstitutional either. Separate but equal was consider constitutional too; that is, until it wasn't. But never mind the lack of precedent or non-sacrosanct condition of stare decisis, I find it incongruent, law-wise, that a ban on certain types of weapons, magazine capacities etc, are lawfully proscribed for the general public, ie the People, ostensibly as "dangerous and unusual" weapons (as scotus has declared valid, ie sawed-off shotgun), while civilian law enforcement is exempted from such provisions. So far as I am aware, no lawful enforcement entity uses short barreled shotguns-- perhaps due to its being dangerous and unusual. But they do, and dare I say, exclusively use high capacity magazines and with increasing frequency possess automatic rifles. If such was dangerous and unusual, for what purpose do they need such weaponry? My points simple, if its good for the gander, its good for the goose-- Such is the well-regulated nature of a free state.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have used three names on internet chat sites.the first one was deshrubinator, then truthmatters and then evince.no other names
So you are evince from that other forum I sometimes post in. Yes, I use a different name there and oppose your bullshat and ignorance there too. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

yeap facts Liberal facts are like turds that stink up any place they are presented. You are entitled to your own stupid opinion but not your own facts. Even the states have no authority to void the 2nd Amendment any more than they do the first ,third or fourth. What you promote is that we allow and willingly go along with a government body negating our right to self-defense! Thus putting us into absolute dependence on government for our protection! Pure stupidity because how are they doing now when they can not even protect our borders or protects our cities . Gang violence, drug violence and other assorted crap is so common now that its considered ordinary part of life. And that's thanks to you liberal idiots IMHO.-TYR

[logroller]

As usual, criminals will ignore these laws, and keep their guns, magazine, etc.

Only law-abiding citizens will disarm themselves.

Things are going exactly according to plan in the People's Republic of California.
Loopholes should be closed-- i couldn't agree more. I mean, i don want people who are proscribed from having firearms to have them. So how about closing the law enforcement loophole-- because last i checked, the People isn't defined as law enforcement only. It's clearly a violation of equal protection. If my State sees that, befitting the necessity of the security of a free state, infringement does not exclude high cap, detachable mags and automatic rifles, then I see little purpose for their possession by agents of the State. Same goes for mandatory wait periods, tests etc. Equal protection, that's all I'm asking for. It's in the constitution, if that even matters anymore.

As so it shall be that, as a law-abiding citizen of California, I shall abide by the same laws as the State of California does; so I'll disarm just as soon as the State does.

[Little-Acorn]

Some people (such as myself) think these bills will go through and be signed into law.

Others don't.

----------------------------------------------

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/state-lawmakers-losing-fight-to-enact-more-gun-control-legislation-in-sacramento

State lawmakers losing fight to enact more gun control legislation in Sacramento

Local Assemblymember says passage is unlikely
Posted: 08/14/2013
Last Updated: 18 hours ago
Mike Hart

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - As the battle over gun control legislation appears to be going nowhere on a federal level, the fight continues in Sacramento.

California already has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books, but there are currently more than two dozen new bills working their way through the state's legislature. Following the Sandy Hook shootings, nearly 60 gun control bills were written, but now eight months later, just 26 remain.

Assemblymember Shannon Grove, a Republican representing the 34th District, said she doesn't believe any of the current proposals will make it through to the Governor's desk, and if they do, he won't sign them. "Even though Democrats have a super majority, there a quite a few who represent pro-gun districts," said Grove, "and they don't have votes to pass such legislation."

Of the bills that remain, Grove said two are getting a lot of attention; SB 53 that involves a $50 fee and application submitted to the Department of Justice to purchase ammunition, and, SB 293 that defines an "owner-authorized handgun" as one that has a permanent programmable biometric, or fingerprint technology, in order to operate.

Grove believes neither one will pass.