Under the current system, those who buy rifles and shotguns must go to a licensed firearms dealer. The dealer runs a background check on the buyer. If the new gun owner passes the background check, he or she must wait 10 days before they can take the gun home.
The records from that transaction are then destroyed.
“AB 1810 would stop the needless destruction of long gun records, which prevents law enforcement from using this information to quickly identify the owners of crime guns,” Feuer wrote in his arguments for the bill. “Without these records, law enforcement must painstakingly trace recovered firearms from the manufacturer, through the distributor, to the firearms dealer who sold the weapon.”
The opposition must be based upon the paranoid idea that gun confiscation is right around the corner, "if we allow this, next thing we know, they'll be coming for our guns."
Another bill has to do with lead bird shot and the environment. This is another area in which the pro-gun crowd stands in unison, more or less. They oppose this, not because they really care one way or the other, but because they oppose any and all laws restricting their gun rights, even ones that make sense. Of course, you've got the hunters who care more for the cost of their ammo than for the condition of the environment. They're an interesting bunch too.
What's your opinion? Are these laws going to pass the Senate and receive the OK from the governor? Should they?
Please leave a comment.
MikeB: “One has been nick-named the "long-gun registration" by pro-gun spin doctors. It's actually nothing more than not destroying sales records.”
ReplyDeleteI’m not so sure about that MikeB. AB1810 amends the current legislation for handguns to include all guns. California currently has mandatory registration with the DOJ of all handguns, whether they were purchased instate through an FFL or by a resident who moves to CA. Also sales records are not currently destroyed, they are just not allowed to be kept in a central database.
"It's actually nothing more than not destroying sales records."
ReplyDeleteSo they are creating a de facto gun registry. The reason they do destroy the records was to prevent just such a thing.
Mike, can't you recognize primary season electioneering?
ReplyDeleteThis will all vanish quietly before November, when the politicians rush back to the center.
I am going to make a claim for which I admit I do not have the facts and am not yet motivated enough to try to research it. I base my claim on having followed gun control politics for years.
ReplyDeleteCA is proposing to do with rifles and shotguns what they have previously done with handguns. My claim is this:
When CA proposed doing it for handguns, the NRA and other gunowner advocates probably said that if that were allowed to happen it would later happen to hunting rifles and shotguns. Proponents of the handgun law probably then angrily denounced the NRA and other gunowner advocates as paranoid liars, saying that their law would only affect handguns that were often used in crimes and the same thing would not be done with hunting guns.
Anyone agree or disagree, or have facts that I do not?
FishyJay, I'd bet you're exactly right. I like your style too in using your common sense in describing what you think probably happened.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this kind of incrementalism happen on both sides though?
Yes, and it is why none of us listen to the Brady Bunch or the Nutty Ranters Association anymore.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could be the person to change all that, rather than arguing about the same old lies again and again.
mikeb: FishyJay, I'd bet you're exactly right. I like your style too in using your common sense in describing what you think probably happened.
ReplyDeleteThanks. As I wrote, past experience has a lot to do with it.
mikeb: Doesn't this kind of incrementalism happen on both sides though?
I would not want to claim that my side was innocent of any tactic.
But gunowner advocates promising not to do something, calling their opponents paranoid and liars when they say that gunowner advocates really will do it -- and then the gunowner advocates go ahead and do it a few years later?
I can't think of many examples of that, but I can think of quite a few examples by the other side -- and that has played a large part in shaping my views on gun issues.
Put another way, an even more cynical gunowner advocate once told me: When gun control advocates say "Don't worry, we only want ABC, not XYZ," then you can bet the farm that XYZ is coming.
"Perhaps you could be the person to change all that, rather than arguing about the same old lies again and again."
ReplyDeleteI would like that very much. Can you help?
Start by reading my post on effective statistics.
ReplyDeleteThen do your information-finding on google scholar (I can give you some author names, if you'd like).
Then cite those sources on your blog, instead of going round and round with crazy arguments.
Anonymous, I'm willing to take your advice but I'm curious, exactly what arguments were you referring to?
ReplyDelete"Then cite those sources on your blog, instead of going round and round with crazy arguments."
The ones where you say something that you've said a hundred times before,
ReplyDeletethen the hecklers respond with something they've said a hundred times before
then you or crazy jade responds with a comeback you've used a hundred times before.
Then you make a new post and repeat the cycle.
You must see that almost every argument on this blog uses identical phrases, buzzwords, false-choices, meaningless statistics, and examples.
It's getting to be like mad-libs for crazy extremists, and watching it is like watching a car wreck.
Goodbye.
Now I get ya, Anonymous. I'll try to spice it up a bit for ya.
ReplyDelete