Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Near complete gun bans by a thousand regulations

    Near complete gun bans by a thousand regulations

    In  Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court made clear that sweeping gun bans are unconstitutional.

    In response, we are seeing a new trend — don’t “ban” guns, but make it so costly, burdensome, and fraught with legal risk of an innocent mistake that otherwise law abiding citizens “voluntarily” disarm.

    Everyone who is not David Gregory needs to worry about the swift arm of arbitrary prosecutorial discretion being smacked down on them with devastating life consequences.

    A good example is the complicated and at times bizarre (as in 7 bullet magazines) New York gun law passed with almost no notice to the public.

    California plans on topping New York, as detailed with obvious pleasure at Think Progress, California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation:

    1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. California’s assault weapons ban only restricts the possession of semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines if they have an additional, “military-style” feature like flash suppressors. The new laws would tighten this law by banning all such rifles regardless of external features.

    2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines. California law bans the transfer, not possession, of magazines that can hold over ten bullets. This allows people wanting to skirt the law to buy the constituent parts and make the magazines themselves. The new law would close that loophole.

    3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits. State law defines “detachable magazines” as, in part, magazines that can be released “without the use of a tool.” Bullet button kits allow magazines to be released quickly by pressing a bullet into them, thus creating an end-around the intent of the assault weapons ban. The new provisions would ban such kits.

    4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations. It would ban this class of class of weapon.

    5. Universal registration of all guns. The law would create “ownership records consistently across-the-board, ensuring all firearms are recorded” so that the background check system can prevent criminals from getting guns.

    6. Background checks on ammunition. This provision requires a “full and complete” background check on ammunition sales, “building on” laws existing in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

    7. Regulating gun loans. The legislators propose setting up an as-yet undefined regulatory system for the loan, as opposed to sale, of guns.

    8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns. California’s Armed Persons Prohibition (APP) database lists people who can’t legally own weapons (as a consequence of criminal or mental health records) under state law. This addition would prevent people on the list from living in a house that has a gun.

    9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway. Currently, 19,700 people who are on the APP list own guns. Police estimate that these people own roughly 39,000 firearms. This new law would authorize additional funding to enforce the law in this area.

    10. Required safety training for handgun owners. People with concealed carry permits are required under California (and many other) state laws to pass a mandatory safety and firearm instruction course. This provision would require all handgun owners, regardless of permit status, to undergo a similar process.

    A related proposal is to require liability insurance, which will price many people out of the market:

    Gun owners in California would have to buy liability insurance to cover any damage caused by their firearms under legislation proposed Tuesday by two state lawmakers.

    AB 231 was introduced by Democratic Assemblymen Jimmy Gomez of Echo Park and Phil Ting of San Francisco in the wake of the killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

    “The government requires insurance as a condition of operating a car -– at the very least we should impose a similar requirement for owning a firearm,” Ting said.  “The cost to society of destruction by guns is currently being borne collectively by all of us, and not by those who, either through carelessness or malice, cause the destruction.”

    However, Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said the government cannot legally require citizens to buy insurance as a condition for exercising a constitutional right — bearing firearms.

    “Also, what more can you do to discriminate against low-income residents who live in high crime areas and need their guns to defend themselves, than to require them to buy insurance they cannot afford?’’ Paredes said.

    Expect legal challenges should these proposals become law.  The new laws are too-cute by half, obviously intended to force otherwise law-abiding citizens to navigate Rube Goldberg-like regulatory schemes as a precondition to the exercise of a constitutional right.

    But in the meantime, as the cases take years to make their way to the Supreme Court, the street and drug gangs, and rogue left-leaning former cops, will have even more power knowing that they, and they alone, are able to defend themselves.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Henry Hawkins | February 10, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    Prohibitively liberal/Democrat states (NY, CA, etc) will pass gun control regs with ease, struck down only later in high court decisions, as occurred in DC. Resistance is futile.

    Citizens in the other states need to get ready to grassroot the hell out of any prospective regs coming down the pike.

    As for me…. MOLON LABE, m-er f-ers.

    We need a new law. Legislators are personally liable for laws passed that violate the Constitution and BOR.
    Imagine Chicago/Illinois politicians having to pay out of their own personal pocket the cost of losing.
    That ruling is being appealed, and one might almost be compelled to thank the City of Chicago for paying its court-mandated legal reimbursement to SAF for the landmark Supreme Court case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. And the amount of that bill? How does $399,950 sound?

      Financial liability is not, by itself, sufficient. Those who violate their oaths should be tried as criminals and, at minimum, jailed for LONG periods. For outright treason, execution is the prescribed penalty.

    Karadion | February 11, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    People don’t understand how bad this is.

    5. Universal registration of all guns. The law would create “ownership records consistently across-the-board, ensuring all firearms are recorded” so that the background check system can prevent criminals from getting guns.

    California already has a history of doing this specifically the SKS semi-automatic rifles. Many of those owners in the State of California had modified their SKS to accept a detachable magazines. Then when California passed a law requiring SKS owners to register their weapons, several years later, a Republican Attorney General (The one that ran against Gray Davis and lost) ordered all of those SKS turned in by the deadline in exchange for a small amount of money or face prosecution after the deadline. California (Both Californian liberal Republicans and Democrats) does not want you to legally own weapons. They will use any method even lying to you to make you give up your guns at any cost.

    […] killing of the Second Amendment by a thousand regulations is nonetheless abrogating the Second […]

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend