Presented as a public service by:
California’s premiere firearms community
www.CALGUNS.net and
www.CalGunsFoundation.org
California’s premiere firearms community
www.CALGUNS.net and
www.CalGunsFoundation.org
I admit it sure is complicated, but what if they had fewer exemptions, and what if they updated the lists of prohibited guns every year or so? The biggest problem with the AWB, it seems to me, was the definition of "assault weapon." Wouldn't something like this overcome that problem?
Please leave a comment.
This is current California law. The flowchart was made about 2 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI admit it sure is complicated, but what if they had fewer exemptions . . .
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you grow an ounce of intellectual integrity, and come out and say what you want: for all semi-automatic firearms to be designated "assault weapons," and banned.
. . . and what if they updated the lists of prohibited guns every year or so?
So you want legislators wasting their time on this idiotic lunacy every year?
I have a better idea: why not let the People's Republic of California secede, thus having no need to so much as pay lip service to the Second Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution). That would make them happy, and send the average intelligence of the nation soaring.
Is that what I REALLY want, Zorroy?
ReplyDeleteZorroy the Mindreader, I should say.
Is that what I REALLY want, Zorroy?
ReplyDeleteZorroy the Mindreader, I should say.
Well, isn't it? Would you not like that? For all your talk about "smart" gun laws, as opposed to ineffective ones (as if any are effective), can you name one restriction on gun rights you want repealed, or any proposed one that you would oppose?
Exemptions? Isn't that a "loophole"?
ReplyDeleteCA defined what an "assault weapon" is according to them. This flow chart is provided by calguns to help keep people out of jail based on how the law defines AWs.
By the way, the CA AG can add guns to the banned list carte blanche. There is a specific reason why they don't do this which I don't have time to get into right now, but I will tell you it has nothing to do with protecting gun owner rights.
Zorro, please don't throw us californians under the bus. We need the second amendment, and we need your help.
TS:
ReplyDeleteZorro, please don't throw us californians under the bus. We need the second amendment, and we need your help.
My apologies, TS; that was a horrid thing for me to say.
It was, in fact, also hypocritical, because I have nothing but contempt for the regional bigotry displayed so incessantly by our gracious hosts.
I do beg your pardon, TS. I was badly out of line.
Well, I don't feel very strongly about McCarthy's magazine capacity law, especially the incarceration part of it. I also think the silencer restrictions and the 1000-foot bubble law are pretty foolish.
ReplyDeleteThere are probably more.
You know what I'm mainly into, background checks, licensing and registration, the usual.
I plead not guilty to blindly following the Brady's and VPC folks on every single law, which is what your inferring.
Well, I don't feel very strongly about McCarthy's magazine capacity law, especially the incarceration part of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to claim that you "don't feel very strongly" supportive of a given gun law, but making that claim doesn't answer my question:
. . . can you name one restriction on gun rights you want repealed, or any proposed one that you would oppose?
So, I ask again: can you name one restriction on gun rights you want repealed, or any proposed one that you would oppose? Besides, feeling "strongly," or not, you do seem to have expressed some support for the 11-round magazine ban:
His point is when one of you lawful gun owners goes off the deep end it's better if you don't have that much fire power without having to relaod.
Granted, you were talking about Domenech's dumb ass, rather than necessarily your own views, but you made that statement in his defense, which would seem to indicate some sympathy on your part toward his view.
You have claimed to have "got[ten] off the whole AWB thing," but in the same comment went on to blame gun rights advocates for making the AWB worthless, rather than acknowledge that any attempt to ban so-called "assault weapons" is inherently idiotic, with or without any help from gun rights advocates. You have, in fact called for appointing Laci's idiotic ass as director of the BATFE, for suggesting that all semi-automatic firearms come under the draconian regulation scheme applied to fully-automatic firearms.
That, in turn, would seem to support my assertion here:
Why don't you grow an ounce of intellectual integrity, and come out and say what you want: for all semi-automatic firearms to be designated "assault weapons," and banned.
I would oppose McCarthy's magazine law. A modification of it I would support.
ReplyDeleteI would oppose suppressor restrictions.
I would oppose the 1000 foot law.
Was it really lacking in integrity when I said, I also think the silencer restrictions and the 1000-foot bubble law are pretty foolish?
Is "I would oppose..." good enough for you?
Was it really lacking in integrity when I said, I also think the silencer restrictions and the 1000-foot bubble law are pretty foolish?
ReplyDeleteI don't recall that I questioned your integrity regarding that part of your claim. This particular dispute was, as I see it, about your calling me a "Mindreader," when I claimed you would like to see all semi-automatic firearms designated as "assault weapons," and banned.
Actually, I still haven't seen you deny that contention.
I'll freely admit that, to my knowledge, you've been consistent in having nothing nice to say about the suppressor ban, or Rep. King's 1,000-foot "Freedom-Free Zones," although your "opposition" has been--well, I wish everything I wanted faced such "opposition."