Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Friday that would have imposed the nation's toughest gun ownership restrictions on Californians, saying it was too far-reaching.
The legislation would have banned future sales of most semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, part of a firearms package approved by state lawmakers in response to mass shootings in other states.
It was lawmakers' latest attempt to close loopholes that have allowed manufacturers to work around previous assault weapon bans. Gun rights groups had threatened to sue if the semi-automatic weapons ban became law.
"I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights," the Democratic governor wrote in his veto message.
The bill sought to ban the sale of assault rifles, but Brown objected that it also would have applied to low-capacity weapons commonly used for hunting, firearms training and target shooting, and some historical and collectible firearms. Brown also didn't want thousands of legal gun owners to have to register their existing weapons as assault rifles and be blocked from selling or transferring the weapons.
That is a huge surprise, but perhaps Brown recognizes that California's strained budget doesn't need the lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteThat, or unlike the gun controllers here, he realized that this bill would have ignited huge amounts of political backlash by stirring up that faction of self- serving hunters who are fine with banning AR's so long as their rifles aren't touched.
DeleteOr, maybe there was no hidden motive. Maybe it was just what he said.
DeleteWhich would still make him wiser than y'all concerning this law.
DeleteMikeb, I explain inexplicable yearnings for gun control by calling the person evil. In this case, the snivelling coward didn't want to face the music.
DeleteHow do you feel about this veto, Mike? Do you agree with Brown that the ban was an overreach? I would assume so, since just yesterday you were arguing that semi-auto hunting rifles are ok because they are "designed to kill one animal at a time".
Delete. You call people evil and sniveling cowards because they disagree with you.
Delete"I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights," the Democratic governor wrote in his veto message."
ReplyDeleteThis sounds an awful lot like what Gov. Christie said when he vetoed the ban on .50BMG firearms. Perhaps someone actually looked at the states annual report on gun violence and saw that there were five instances of "assault weapons" as defined by California law were used in the commission of crimes in the state.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_11.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/a253445a-32f3-46f9-8261-dc31709fcc3a/4/hilite/
He must have read my letter.
ReplyDeleteMikeB (10/9/2013): “It's a ban on future purchases, but not on the existing owners.”
ReplyDeleteBy the way, a couple of days ago you said this. That’s not entirely true. If you owned the gun in question before 2001 you were not allowed to keep it according to the text of the bill:
30902.
(a) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2013, inclusive, lawfully acquired an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, and who, on or after January 1, 2014, lawfully possesses that firearm, shall register the firearm by July 1, 2015, with the department pursuant to procedures determined by the department.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB374
The registration was only open for guns acquired after the last “assault weapon” registration window closed. So if you bought a semi-auto hunting rifle in the 90’s- tough luck for you.