Friday, May 31, 2013

California Senate Approves Gun-control Bills

USA Today

Spurred by mass shootings in Connecticut, Colorado and Arizona, the California Senate on Wednesday approved seven bills to tighten regulations on guns and ammunition.

The measures would:

• Outlaw detachable magazines in rifles and so-called button bottoms;
Prohibit magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
• Require background checks for all buyers and sellers of ammunition;
Reclassify certain shotguns as assault weapons;
• Require all gun buyers to take a firearm-safety certificate class;
Expand crimes that would result in a 10-year ban on owning or buying firearms. Additions include drug- and alcohol-related offenses, hazing, violations of protective orders and court-ordered mental health treatment.

The legislation cleared the Democratic-controlled chamber on party-line votes. All Republicans voted against the measures; four Democrats voted against the ammunition background checks.
The bills move to the Assembly, which is also controlled by Democrats.


  1. To quote John McClain, Cal-i-for-nia. If ever there was a state that needs a reboot, this is it.

    1. Ten Thousand YearsJune 1, 2013 at 8:52 AM

      You are the one who needs a reboot.

      If you refuse to cooperate, you will receive a free reboot, at the taxpayer's expense.

      We call it prison.

    2. Look! Look! E.N. has asexually reproduced again!

    3. You are worfress, Arek Bardwin!

  2. What does it say about your movement that in a response to a horrible event that occurred 3000 miles away with a gun that is already banned, California decides to ban more guns that weren’t used in this murder that happened on the other side of the country? I’ve talked at length and proved with statistics how California’s gun control doesn’t do anything, but for argument’s sake let’s say “assault weapons” are actually the scourge of criminality that you guys say they are, and California has reaped the rewards of not allowing proper grips on some rifles. California legislators have made it perfectly clear that these hypothetical positive results don’t matter- we’re getting bans on “normal” grips because somebody used a pistol grip in another state where it wasn’t banned. And this is what you call “common sense” and “reasonable”? This is the gun control movement coming home from a bad day at work and kicking the dog.

    Furthermore, this adds credence to the gun rights argument about the slippery slope. We’re the ones who said “assault weapon” bans are a gateway to more bans, and California is proving us right. You guys have spent the last 20 years trying to convince America how awful it is to allow citizens to own guns that are styled like full-auto military guns, but guns that aren’t styled this way are OK. Now California, after having this ban in place for more than 20 years, and having already expanded it twice, is saying those "military features" don’t matter- BAN THEM ALL (semi-auto rifles regardless of “military features”). What has happened after Newtown? The states with lots of gun control got more gun control. The states not “on the slope” stayed put, or even moved back in our direction.

    And California, having previously banned magazines that hold over 10 rounds with a grandfather clause, is now reneging on the grandfather clause. Bought it legally? Doesn’t matter- you go to jail. At the same time passing this bill, they are expanding the AWB and opening up registration for the newly banned guns with a grandfather clause. “Don’t worry- you can keep what you have.” And we are supposed to believe that? And we are supposed to not care that our children can’t take possession of their inheritance because these guns are now slated for confiscation and destruction upon our passing? Most parents I know care more about their children than they do themselves, so these grandfather clauses are hardly a concession, especial since we know that doesn’t mean spit to them a decade or so down the road when they have the political capitol on the heels of a tragedy to enact more bans, and pull grandfather clauses.

    1. Ten Thousand YearsJune 1, 2013 at 8:49 AM

      Why don't you do what we want you to do, and just turn them all in before we muster the strength to allow for the Ex Post Facto prosecutions of gun owners?

      You would be a fool to believe that we would even think of allowing common people to own or possess (outside of the military or law enforcement) any kind of firearm or weapon, for any of your silly "purposes".

      For someone who purportedly understands the meaning of a "May Issue" system that we advocate, legislate, and enforce, you don't seem all that capable of grasping the very simple concept that is the purpose of arms control.

      It may escape the likes of you, so I will put it in appropriately simple terms for your simple mind:

      We really don't want you to have guns. If you where charged with ruling a modern society, you wouldn't want to give the public the ability to fire back.You may disagree with us, but keep it to yourself. If you disobey us, however, you will face severe consequences. It is that simple.

    2. What TS points out is why we fight tooth and nail against any of your proposed bans, even if they have grandfather clauses. All it takes is the next bit of political capital, and there goes the grandfather.

      Thanks, but we'll keep our property and our freedom to continue purchasing and using our "assault weapons."

    3. And as for E.N.'s latest incarnation...

      Please feel free to go fornicate with a rusty fencepost.

    4. I've finally remembered why Jadegold's many sockpuppets sound familiar. They all remind me of Cobra Commander--an whiny, arrogant, bombastic fool. The writers of that character said they got him right when they made him less like Adolf Hitler and more like Yosemite Sam.


    5. It appears the imperialist western scum who infest and troll have made yet another attempt to emulate me, with the most decadent caricature that the antique imperialist system has to offer.

      We are aware that "Ten Thousand Years" signifies the counterrevolutionary moniker of the reactionary capitalist-roader emperors of centuries past.

      If you are a western troll, you are free range and fair game for taunting by the local gibbons, if you be an insubordinate counterrevolutionary in the motherland, I denounce you as bringing shame upon the eternal glory of the party.

    6. How dare this pitiful commoner who has adorned itself with the imperialist moniker "Ten Thousand Years" impersonate our beloved Brother Number One, in a simian attempt to pollute and corrupt our precious bodily fluids with western decadence. How dare you impersonate our most equal leader.

      You must be punished!

      With regards to the new Gun Ban,

      Soon the west will be free from armed insubordination and will join us in our collective struggle against the tyranny of individual freedom, and the truly Worfress Arek Bardwin!

  3. California's got some good ideas. I like the background check for buying ammo.

    1. And you claim not to want to disarm all of us. Do you realize the expense in time and money required to run background checks every time ammunition is bought? It's laughable when you say that you don't mind half of us having guns.

    2. Is the regeging a good idea?

    3. Ah, yes, a wonderful idea--a background check that doubles the price of the box of ammo you're buying. A background check for a fungible, consumable, and easily produced item.

      All that this will do is raise the price of ammo in stores and heavily incentivize participating in the black market in ammo. Suppliers with clean records can buy all kinds of ammo, keep range receipts from trips where they really just shoot 10-50 rounds, and claim to have burned through enormous amounts--who's to say otherwise?

      Hell, the could also just collect brass, reload ammo, and resell it under the table. And none of this covers how easily ammo can be smuggled in.

    4. "Do you realize the expense in time and money required to run background checks."

      Yeah, it's minimal.

    5. The real question is why do you guys want gang bangers, drug dealers and other criminals to be able to buy ammo. Is your own convenience that important?

    6. As I set up in my comment: Why should we pay double the price for ammo when that will not stop, or in any way seriously hinder the criminals from getting ammo?

    7. When was the last time you went through a background check? It can take minutes to hours. It costs money. It also would do no good, since ammunition can be brought into the state from outside, as Tennessean told you.

      This leaves me with two possible conclusions:

      1. You do not know what you're talking about.

      2. You are making statements contrary to what you know to be true when you say that you aren't trying to disarm everyone.

    8. Yes, because gun control had been such a smashing success at keeping criminals disarmed that we can move on to apply those same techniques to items that cost less than a dollar, are not serialized, and number in the tens of billions in quantity...

      At least stop freaking out when more shooters by ammo in bulk as a result of this, will you?

    9. TS, we've never tried gun control. You can't call the overlapping and conflicting regulations we have that are easily surmounted, gun control.

      Disallowing criminals from buying ammo legally would put a crimp in their style. The inconvenience to everybody else would be well worth it.

    10. And the inconvenience to Muslims of locking them up on suspicion would be worth it. As would locking up all black males. As would banning teenagers from stores. As would any of ten thousand other violations.

      Note that I do not support any of that. I oppose such acts because they are all violations of basic rights. But the argument of the control freak is that what he proposes will make us safe, if only we ignore a few rights to do it.

    11. Fucking Bull Shit. Never tried gun control. Sometimes the things you write are so ludicrous that words simply fail me.

      The mess of regulations that you are insulting here are the same rules and regulations that your side demanded, they're not something that we passed as a way to make it look like we had gun control.

      We pointed out how this system would fail, but your side said that it would work, and at least the inconvenience to criminals would be worth it . . . kinda like you just said about background checks for ammo.

      Sure enough, the laws failed as we said they would. And now, you want to disavow your side's old proposals and say that they don't count as gun control because we haven't tried your personal, trademarked solution. A solution that has the same vulnerabilities as the system we've already seen fail.

      Moreover, since your solution is yours alone, the only laws that get proposed are to do what we've been doing, only harder. If you really didn't think the current system counted as gun control, you would oppose these proposals since they just add to the current system in a haphazard way. However, you support about every one of them that comes down the pike.

      Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, bucko.

    12. Mike, this "ammo control" which you are praising as a good idea has been employed nation wide for gun sales for the past two decades. Now you are saying that's not "gun control"? How is it going to work for ammo then, especially in only one state?

    13. You're right. The effectiveness and benefit of this law will be reduced to almost nothing because restricted people can drive over to Nevada for their ammo. But what's your solution, let criminals buy ammo as easily as you can?

    14. Mikeb, you get giddy whenever you hear about a new ban. If you loved liberty, that would disturb you.

    15. "Fucking Bull Shit. Never tried gun control. Sometimes the things you write are so ludicrous that words simply fail me."

      Until we have what I consider proper gun control, and you know what that is, and it applies in all the 50 states, we do not have gun control. What we have is a mess, easily circumvented laws that are rendered nearly ineffectual.

      No, we have never tried gun control.

    16. Ok, so then why do this? Just to piss us off?

    17. "Until we have what I consider proper gun control, and you know what that is, and it applies in all the 50 states, we do not have gun control."

      Because national borders are magical and will be so much more effective than state borders at stopping smuggling.

      "The effectiveness and benefit of this law will be reduced to almost nothing because restricted people can drive over to Nevada for their ammo. But what's your solution, let criminals buy ammo as easily as you can?"

      Well, the can go buy it, or they can make it on their own if they're unable to go buy it there. Either way, they still get all the ammo they need. Meanwhile, your solution is to make it harder for ME to get ammo in the false hope that it will be harder for them?

      It sounds really bad when you say "So you want to make it easier for them?" No, I just don't want to make it harder for me when there's little to no impact on them. You like to insult us and call us crybabies, but what, exactly, is so unreasonable about saying: "Hey, the law you are proposing will be a big inconvenience to me, and a tiny one, if one at all, to criminals: please go back to the drawing board and come up with another idea that reverses that impact or only affects the criminal."

    18. You have to say the laws I propose would have little or no effect on crime in order to not sound like the most selfish bastard on the planet. I suspect you're lying through your teeth, but perhaps you're so blinded by bias that you actually believe that crap.

    19. If you want to call me a selfish bastard, then tell me: how will background checks stop a criminal from getting ammo?

      After all, Ammo can be smuggled in easier than the guns it goes in, ammo can be manufactured from old, used ammo, and ammo would be easy to supply in spite of the checks. Just get someone who goes to the range a lot, or is willing to, and have them buy more than they plan to shoot. They can show range receipts, etc. to show what happened to all that ammo they bought and sold to their criminal contact.

      Moreover, it's not like criminals spend much time practicing their shooting--many guns confiscated by police are non-working or dangerous to fire (like the one that the terrorist in London blew his thumb off with).

      A typical criminal needs a box of cartridges or less at a time, not a thousand round case, so it's laughably easy to circumvent this law: have your clean buddy buy 1 box and give it to you. After all, the police will be spending their time interrogating those of us who practice a lot about why we're buying ammo by the case.

      So, How will this be an effective way of cutting off the supply to criminals? How is it not just a pointless inconvenience and expense to people like me--one that costs me time, money, and privacy, but costs criminals nothing.

    20. It would make it harder for disqualified people to get ammo. Don't you think that's important? Is your convenience more important than that?

    21. You keep asserting that, but I keep pointing out that the work around is so easy that that it wouldn't matter. The "inconvenience" to them of getting their unconvicted buddy to buy a box for them is nothing. Moreover, they'll likely get a box of ammo with the gun from their black market contact, and since they're not going to a range, that's all they need. The ammo will certainly not be a problem for the black marketeer selling guns.

      So, no. It won't make it harder for them and will only inconvenience me and cut down on the amount of practicing I'm able to afford.

    22. T., the same argument is made for background checks on gun purchases. Are you opposed to them too simply because they inconvenience you and are easily worked around by the disqualified?

    23. It's a factor in my dislike of the present system of background checks. However, part of my point on the Ammunition controls is that they have less chance of being effective.

      Even if we trusted the government enough to enact your idea of utopian gun control law with full registration, etc., it would be impossible to enforce the background check law and stop the illicit flow of ammunition. How do you prove that a person isn't just shooting the extra ammo he buys, not selling it downstream, etc. etc.

      I'm saying that the nature of ammo means that background checks for buying it can do nothing to stop the flow. They're also not going to help you make an arrest after a crime, because the buyer can say that he fired the round, left the brass on the range, and somebody else must have reloaded it and sold it to a criminal--you're going to need more direct evidence lock up this supplier.

      Therefore, the better solution is to know that putting a brackground check before the purchase is a waste of resources. Instead, use a law making it illegal to transfer ammo, as well as guns, to a known prohibited person and go after the suppliers.

      It would take the same large amount of police work to dig up enough evidence, but at least you'd have the resources otherwise used to set up the background check system.