Donnelly was referencing SB374--a bill which broadens the definition of an "assault weapon" and then bans all such weapons within the state.
Donnelly talked to Breitbart News about the bill on October 7:
SB374 basically erases the Second Amendment. We have California-only fuel, California-only this and California-only that, and with SB374 we are pursuing a California-only version of the Constitution. It's a version that will not have a Second Amendment.This bill takes rifles that are semi-automatic with a detachable magazine--rifles that were lawfully purchased and are lawfully owned--and it bans them, period. If you own a gun that is on the ban list you will have to register it and it becomes non-transferrable. Therefore, although the government will allow you to keep the gun in your possession until you die, once you die it will be confiscated and taken out of circulation.This means if you own the M1 Carbine that helped us win in the Pacific during WWII--a gun that shoots a small .30 caliber bullet--if you own one, you would not be able to pass it on to your children.This is an illegal and egregious confiscation plan.
Donnelly says the bill's straightforward attack on the Second Amendment "deprives Californians of their basic civil rights to self-defense and to defend themselves from tyranny."
SB374 is sitting on Gov. Brown's desk. He has until October 13 to sign it into law.
The most pro-gun Supreme Court of all time even said that no Constitutional right is limitless. But, the gun-rights fanatics conveniently forget that when they get on their soap box.
I can't wait to see what Governor Brown does with this bill, and what happens to Donnelly in his bid to oust the Gov.
I tend to think Californians generally consider this guy a dangerous fanatic who belongs in Arkansas rather than The Land of El Dorado.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I think the United States should invade California and impose regime change on that failed state.
ReplyDeleteSee, another statement of lawlessness and promoting death from the lying fuck head hillbilly.
DeleteTS and others in Cali,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome in the free states.
Mike,
Is this your idea of a good assault weapons ban? Banning all semi-autos except a couple of flukes like the SKS and Garand which feed from fixed magazines (though they're probably banned in Cali under it's 1 feature test)?
This goes so far that it affects some of the gun owners who are on your side of the issue. Back in December when I was talking with one of Feinstein's aides about the AWB she was proposing, he talked about going deer hunting a few weeks beforehand--he'd used a gun that would be banned under this law because it fed from a small detachable magazine.
Good luck convincing hunters you're not after their guns after a bill like this.
Well, "ban" isn't exactly the right word. His weapon would have to be registered and then he could continue to use it. That's a bit different.
DeleteUntil he dies, then it goes to the state. Nobody else gets to use it from now on.
DeleteStop quibbling that it's not a ban since it isn't immediately confiscatory. That fools no one and is extremely dishonest.
Thanks, Tennessean.
DeleteBy the way, I'm thinking they should replace the AR-15 sillouette with that of a Browning High Power hunting rifle. That would better depict what is going on here.
It is a "ban", Mike. The word is even in the title of the law, for Pete's sake.
ReplyDeleteI predict Brown will veto this one. He probably owns a gun or two that will be banned. I wrote him a very convincing heart felt letter that is sure to bring a tear to his eye before he pulls out the veto stamp.
Mike, do you see any conflict in SB 374 with the national debate on "assault weapons"? Your movement has spent decades trying to convince the country that these "military features" make all the difference between a legitimate rifle for sport, and something designed to hunt humans in mass. This bill says those features don't matter. They actually even called it a "loophole" that rifles could be sold without these features.
It's a ban on future purchases, but not on the existing owners.
DeleteLike I said above, it's not immediately confiscatory, but it renders the gun non-transferable, even to descendants.
DeleteClaiming it's not a ban because you confiscate the guns through attrition is completely dishonest.
And let's not forget that in the same legislative session, these polititans proposed a confiscation ban of current legally registered "assault weapons" that were owned before the first layer of ban was passed. They all proposed a confiscation ban on current legal owners of 10+ round magazines that were owned before their sale was banned. They're trying, Mike. They're trying real hard, and they use tragedies in other states without CA's laws to push for more bans here. What do you say about that, Mike?
DeleteDo you think Feinstein supports this? She wrote a list of exempted firearms into her AWB of 2013- many of which would be banned in her home state. We need her to stand by her legislation and tell Govenor Brown, "no, no, these guns are ok to own, because I just said they were. I need to maintain my credibility as a firearms expert!"
ReplyDelete