Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
06-24-2016, 11:56 AM
#1502
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Reply
0
0
06-27-2016, 09:15 AM
#1505
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
I recently came across yet another New York Times article which lays out some good reasons why additional gun control laws will do little to curb firearm-related murders in the US, pointing to the knee-jerk reaction amongst the public to respond to mass shootings by crying out for more legislation.
What's interesting is that this article was written nearly 30 years ago, shortly after the Stockton massacre, in which 5 children at Cleveland Elementary School were killed.
It's interesting how little things have changed.
Why Gun Laws Won't Stop Shootings
By Don B. Kates Jr.; Don B. Kates Jr. is a constitutional lawyer and criminologist.
Published: February 4, 1989
SAN FRANCISCO— Humane people react to the lack of ready solutions for tragedies like the Stockton, Calif., school massacre by crying out for gun control. I do not believe that gun bans can overcome the basic socio-economic and cultural factors that produce violence in America.
Americans assume that such laws have produced Europe's low rates of violence. But criminological studies find that these low rates long preceded the gun bans that supposedly caused them. Indeed, such laws were pioneered, unsuccessfully, by high-crime American states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when most of Europe had no gun laws.
It was only in the 1920's, when severe American gun laws were generally being abandoned as unworkable, that Europe was adopting them. However, European laws were aimed not at crime but at the political unrest of the post-World War I era.
Banning guns has not prevented modern Europe from suffering rates of political assassination, terrorism, etc., far exceeding those in the United States. Moreover, over the past 25 years even apolitical violence has risen more steeply in Europe than in America (although since Europe's crime rates started out far lower, its absolute rates remain lower).
What's especially ironic is that Switzerland consistently has had low violence, political and apolitical. Yet any law-abiding Swiss may own guns, and every male of military age must keep at home an assault rifle more powerful than that used in the Stockton massacre.
The point is not that arming citizens will eliminate crime. What the European evidence shows is that crime, being caused by socio-economic and cultural factors, can be at most marginally affected by gun policies.
England's foremost gun control analyst, Colin Greenwood, scoffs at claims that the availability of guns is a major cause of crime and that banning guns would reduce it.
Claiming that in any society the number of guns will always suffice to arm the violent aberrant, Mr. Greenwood sees rates of violence as varying with the relative size of a group: perhaps one in 300 Americans are violent, while the comparable figure for Japanese and Europeans may be one in 30,000.
Antigun advocates deny that violence is limited to a relatively small minority of aberrants. They claim that murder is a crime primarily committed by good citizens who happen to have a loaded gun available in a moment of anger. But the only evidence they cite is that the victim is often the killer's relative or acquaintance. That is irrelevant unless we assume that criminal aberrants don't have relatives or acquaintances.
The term ''acquaintance homicide'' should not be misunderstood to imply that previously law-abiding people settle neighborhood arguments with guns. In fact, typical ''acquaintance homicides'' are these: a drug addict killing his dealer in the course of robbing him; a loan shark or bookie killing a nonpaying customer; gang members, drug dealers and members of organized crime ''families'' killing each other.
As for men who murder their wives and other family members, they too are longtime violent aberrants rather than ordinary citizens with no prior history of violence. The uniform evidence from national and local homicide studies is that almost all murderers have serious crime histories.
As Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, notes, ''People who are seriously violent in the present almost invariably have been seriously violent in the past.''
Obviously such violent people should be disarmed - to the extent that laws can accomplish that. But guns are already outlawed to felons, juveniles and lunatics. Preventing good citizens who are not going to misuse guns from having them is worse than useless. It would squander vast enforcement resources in trying to detect and coerce people who are not going to give up handguns, which they believe they have both a constitutional right and need to possess in order to protect their families.
Sadly, neither right- nor left-wing ideologues are willing to deal with the fact that reducing violence cannot be achieved by easy, mechanistic solutions: It cannot be done by banning guns nor by abrogating defendants' constitutional rights or by huge leaps in the numbers of informers and police officers.
Violence will be decreased only by painful, basic, long-term change in the socio-economic and cultural factors that produce such a high number of violence-prone individuals in our society.
Why Gun Laws Won't Stop Shootings - NYTimes.com
What's interesting is that this article was written nearly 30 years ago, shortly after the Stockton massacre, in which 5 children at Cleveland Elementary School were killed.
It's interesting how little things have changed.
Why Gun Laws Won't Stop Shootings
By Don B. Kates Jr.; Don B. Kates Jr. is a constitutional lawyer and criminologist.
Published: February 4, 1989
SAN FRANCISCO— Humane people react to the lack of ready solutions for tragedies like the Stockton, Calif., school massacre by crying out for gun control. I do not believe that gun bans can overcome the basic socio-economic and cultural factors that produce violence in America.
Americans assume that such laws have produced Europe's low rates of violence. But criminological studies find that these low rates long preceded the gun bans that supposedly caused them. Indeed, such laws were pioneered, unsuccessfully, by high-crime American states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when most of Europe had no gun laws.
It was only in the 1920's, when severe American gun laws were generally being abandoned as unworkable, that Europe was adopting them. However, European laws were aimed not at crime but at the political unrest of the post-World War I era.
Banning guns has not prevented modern Europe from suffering rates of political assassination, terrorism, etc., far exceeding those in the United States. Moreover, over the past 25 years even apolitical violence has risen more steeply in Europe than in America (although since Europe's crime rates started out far lower, its absolute rates remain lower).
What's especially ironic is that Switzerland consistently has had low violence, political and apolitical. Yet any law-abiding Swiss may own guns, and every male of military age must keep at home an assault rifle more powerful than that used in the Stockton massacre.
The point is not that arming citizens will eliminate crime. What the European evidence shows is that crime, being caused by socio-economic and cultural factors, can be at most marginally affected by gun policies.
England's foremost gun control analyst, Colin Greenwood, scoffs at claims that the availability of guns is a major cause of crime and that banning guns would reduce it.
Claiming that in any society the number of guns will always suffice to arm the violent aberrant, Mr. Greenwood sees rates of violence as varying with the relative size of a group: perhaps one in 300 Americans are violent, while the comparable figure for Japanese and Europeans may be one in 30,000.
Antigun advocates deny that violence is limited to a relatively small minority of aberrants. They claim that murder is a crime primarily committed by good citizens who happen to have a loaded gun available in a moment of anger. But the only evidence they cite is that the victim is often the killer's relative or acquaintance. That is irrelevant unless we assume that criminal aberrants don't have relatives or acquaintances.
The term ''acquaintance homicide'' should not be misunderstood to imply that previously law-abiding people settle neighborhood arguments with guns. In fact, typical ''acquaintance homicides'' are these: a drug addict killing his dealer in the course of robbing him; a loan shark or bookie killing a nonpaying customer; gang members, drug dealers and members of organized crime ''families'' killing each other.
As for men who murder their wives and other family members, they too are longtime violent aberrants rather than ordinary citizens with no prior history of violence. The uniform evidence from national and local homicide studies is that almost all murderers have serious crime histories.
As Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, notes, ''People who are seriously violent in the present almost invariably have been seriously violent in the past.''
Obviously such violent people should be disarmed - to the extent that laws can accomplish that. But guns are already outlawed to felons, juveniles and lunatics. Preventing good citizens who are not going to misuse guns from having them is worse than useless. It would squander vast enforcement resources in trying to detect and coerce people who are not going to give up handguns, which they believe they have both a constitutional right and need to possess in order to protect their families.
Sadly, neither right- nor left-wing ideologues are willing to deal with the fact that reducing violence cannot be achieved by easy, mechanistic solutions: It cannot be done by banning guns nor by abrogating defendants' constitutional rights or by huge leaps in the numbers of informers and police officers.
Violence will be decreased only by painful, basic, long-term change in the socio-economic and cultural factors that produce such a high number of violence-prone individuals in our society.
Why Gun Laws Won't Stop Shootings - NYTimes.com
Reply
0
0
06-30-2016, 10:03 AM
#1509
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
... during the period of time in which they serve as mandatory conscripts in the Swiss militia (age 20-30.)
Note the "while serving in the militia" part. And, since 2007, they are not permitted to keep the government-issued ammunition for their government-issued rifle at home; it's kept in an armory and checked out during training exercises.
Aside from possessing that one unloaded, government-issued rifle while serving in a well-regulated militia, Swiss folks are required to obtain a weapon acquisition permit and undergo a background check for each firearm purchase. They must also show that permit, as well as identification *and* a criminal record listing not older than three months every single time they purchase ammunition, and all ammunition purchases are reported to the government.
This tired old half-truth gets trotted out a lot. In reality, firearms regulations in Switzerland, as with all of Europe, are rather stricter in the US. When's the last time you had to show ID to buy ammo, much less have a permit and a background check?
Note the "while serving in the militia" part. And, since 2007, they are not permitted to keep the government-issued ammunition for their government-issued rifle at home; it's kept in an armory and checked out during training exercises.
Aside from possessing that one unloaded, government-issued rifle while serving in a well-regulated militia, Swiss folks are required to obtain a weapon acquisition permit and undergo a background check for each firearm purchase. They must also show that permit, as well as identification *and* a criminal record listing not older than three months every single time they purchase ammunition, and all ammunition purchases are reported to the government.
This tired old half-truth gets trotted out a lot. In reality, firearms regulations in Switzerland, as with all of Europe, are rather stricter in the US. When's the last time you had to show ID to buy ammo, much less have a permit and a background check?
Reply
0
0
06-30-2016, 11:19 AM
#1510
Exactly as we all feared -- a Rambo-wannabe decides to exchange fire with a gunman, failing to stop the attack and putting innocent bystanders in the middle of a shooting gallery.
Deputies: Man charged after opening fire, wounding several peopl - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina
Deputies: Man charged after opening fire, wounding several peopl - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina
Reply
0
0
06-30-2016, 11:38 AM
#1511
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
I wonder, and I ask this in all seriousness and objectivity, how often the "I will stop an attacker with my gun" scenario is successfully played out, relative to the number of instances of a handgun being used, either accidentally or purposefully, to harm a family member?
Eg: the situation a few days ago in Texas, where a lady with some mental health issues decided to murder here two daughters. (disclaimer: the following is written with an extremely anti-gun / liberal bias, and does not reflect my personal opinion):
Don’t Take My Guns, Christy Sheats Said. Then She Shot Her Daughters.
06.29.16 12:03 AM ET
Houston mom Christy Sheats was fond of sharing pro-gun memes on Facebook. Then she turned her gun on her own girls. And the GOP will say there’s nothing we can do.
“It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns.”
That trite nonsense—found in comment sections of right-wing blogs and across social media—was posted not too long ago on Facebook by Houston mom Christy Sheats. She’s the now infamous mother who tragically ended a family meeting in her living room by chasing her two daughters out the front door while shooting them to death, before she herself was shot and killed by police.
It’s the kind of thing that would lead to emergency hearings in Congress—if the GOP were not a corrupt, decaying edifice, only interested in political contributions and appeasing its most hardcore base.
Instead, we’ve had Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) spending $7 million and 800 pages to tell us what we already know about Benghazi.
Because a Democrat must be at fault when Americans are murdered in a war zone halfway around the world after being attacked by terrorists utilizing “small arms fire.” Something obviously could have been done immediately from 5,200 miles away to avert this tragedy.
When those small arms allow a mother to kill her daughters on an American street, on the other hand, there’s clearly nothing to be done. This one is intractable. Which is why it’s only been solved by every other First World democracy that has tried—everyone but us.
Gowdy also can’t form a coherent sentence when asked his “thoughts” on whether those on a terror watch list should be able to buy guns. Once again, it is the Democratic executive branch that failed to protect Americans in Benghazi. It is not, however, the Republican Congress that blocks gun-safety legislation, that isn’t protecting Americans on the suburban streets of Texas. Or dance clubs in Orlando. Or movie theaters in Lafayette, Louisiana. Or schools in Newtown, Connecticut.
If only all these rabid gun nuts who populate the online world with a mouse, a grudge, and not two IQ points to rub together were right. If only making bold, pompous pronouncements about how guns really make us safer and how statistics are questionable—you know like global warming, and gravity—made it so.
Then we wouldn’t have to read about a gun-toting soccer mom who sued to open-carry her Glock to her 5-year-old’s games and then was killed by her husband with, yes, a gun. Or a pro-gun activist not big on securing her guns shot in the back by her toddler while driving. I guess that’s why there are no recent posts on her Facebook page, “Jamie Gilt for gun sense,” where she is pictured happily holding a gun.
Or a 2-year-old reaching into his mom’s purse at the grocery store and shooting her to death. Or one organizer of a gun fetish march shooting his co-organizer to death during a drunken argument.
You do realize we could probably do this all day.
Here’s the thing. Families who don’t choose to live stupidly have rights. We don’t countenance blowing cigarette smoke into our kid’s face. Or feeding them sugar on top of lard. Or putting them on top of the car like they’re Mitt Romney’s dog. But somehow, easy access to guns by just anyone, no matter their history or background, that’s a cultural thing or something.
No, actually, it’s a death thing.
Sheats also was fond of sharing a meme on Facebook that went like this: “I have 10 guns. Obama wants eight of my guns. How many guns do I have? That’s right, I have 10 guns.”
Too bad she, like all these other silly gun obsessives, was wrong about President Obama. Too bad he didn’t actually protect her. By taking her guns.
Don?t Take My Guns, Christy Sheats Said. Then She Shot Her Daughters. - The Daily Beast
Eg: the situation a few days ago in Texas, where a lady with some mental health issues decided to murder here two daughters. (disclaimer: the following is written with an extremely anti-gun / liberal bias, and does not reflect my personal opinion):
Don’t Take My Guns, Christy Sheats Said. Then She Shot Her Daughters.
06.29.16 12:03 AM ET
Houston mom Christy Sheats was fond of sharing pro-gun memes on Facebook. Then she turned her gun on her own girls. And the GOP will say there’s nothing we can do.
“It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns.”
That trite nonsense—found in comment sections of right-wing blogs and across social media—was posted not too long ago on Facebook by Houston mom Christy Sheats. She’s the now infamous mother who tragically ended a family meeting in her living room by chasing her two daughters out the front door while shooting them to death, before she herself was shot and killed by police.
It’s the kind of thing that would lead to emergency hearings in Congress—if the GOP were not a corrupt, decaying edifice, only interested in political contributions and appeasing its most hardcore base.
Instead, we’ve had Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) spending $7 million and 800 pages to tell us what we already know about Benghazi.
Because a Democrat must be at fault when Americans are murdered in a war zone halfway around the world after being attacked by terrorists utilizing “small arms fire.” Something obviously could have been done immediately from 5,200 miles away to avert this tragedy.
When those small arms allow a mother to kill her daughters on an American street, on the other hand, there’s clearly nothing to be done. This one is intractable. Which is why it’s only been solved by every other First World democracy that has tried—everyone but us.
Gowdy also can’t form a coherent sentence when asked his “thoughts” on whether those on a terror watch list should be able to buy guns. Once again, it is the Democratic executive branch that failed to protect Americans in Benghazi. It is not, however, the Republican Congress that blocks gun-safety legislation, that isn’t protecting Americans on the suburban streets of Texas. Or dance clubs in Orlando. Or movie theaters in Lafayette, Louisiana. Or schools in Newtown, Connecticut.
If only all these rabid gun nuts who populate the online world with a mouse, a grudge, and not two IQ points to rub together were right. If only making bold, pompous pronouncements about how guns really make us safer and how statistics are questionable—you know like global warming, and gravity—made it so.
Then we wouldn’t have to read about a gun-toting soccer mom who sued to open-carry her Glock to her 5-year-old’s games and then was killed by her husband with, yes, a gun. Or a pro-gun activist not big on securing her guns shot in the back by her toddler while driving. I guess that’s why there are no recent posts on her Facebook page, “Jamie Gilt for gun sense,” where she is pictured happily holding a gun.
Or a 2-year-old reaching into his mom’s purse at the grocery store and shooting her to death. Or one organizer of a gun fetish march shooting his co-organizer to death during a drunken argument.
You do realize we could probably do this all day.
Here’s the thing. Families who don’t choose to live stupidly have rights. We don’t countenance blowing cigarette smoke into our kid’s face. Or feeding them sugar on top of lard. Or putting them on top of the car like they’re Mitt Romney’s dog. But somehow, easy access to guns by just anyone, no matter their history or background, that’s a cultural thing or something.
No, actually, it’s a death thing.
Sheats also was fond of sharing a meme on Facebook that went like this: “I have 10 guns. Obama wants eight of my guns. How many guns do I have? That’s right, I have 10 guns.”
Too bad she, like all these other silly gun obsessives, was wrong about President Obama. Too bad he didn’t actually protect her. By taking her guns.
Don?t Take My Guns, Christy Sheats Said. Then She Shot Her Daughters. - The Daily Beast
Reply
0
0
06-30-2016, 11:45 AM
#1512
I wonder, and I ask this in all seriousness and objectivity, how often the "I will stop an attacker with my gun" scenario is successfully played out, relative to the number of instances of a handgun being used, either accidentally or purposefully, to harm a family member?
EDIT: It's worth mentioning that the anti-gun side of the debate has framed this particular issue in such a way that it's impossible for the pro-gun side.
* If the armed bystander attempts to intervene and hits an innocent bystander, it's proof that armed citizens can't be trusted.
* If the armed bystander attempts to intervene but fails to stop the assailant, it's proof that armed citizens aren't effective at stopping public shootings.
* If the armed bystander decides not to engage the assailant, it's more proof that armed citizens aren't effective at stopping public shootings.
* If the armed bystander engages and stops the assailant after several people have already been injured or killed, it's proof that armed citizens aren't effective at stopping public shootings in time to prevent casualties.
* If the armed bystander engages and stops the assailant quickly, the story is ignored as it's not a "mass shooting."
At this point, I have difficulty imaging the scenario in which the anti-gun side would find it necessary to say, "Okay, it was probably good that there was an armed citizen present."
Reply
0
0
06-30-2016, 11:50 AM
#1513
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
When a CC individual does successfully engage and counter an assailant, that tends to generate news and get passed around a lot by the NRA types as an example of
See, I told you handguns were good!" And the relative rarity of such stories makes me curious.
It's obvious that the ratio of successful "CC thwarts villain" events to "person shot by relative / spouse / child" events has got to be less than parity, but how much less? Is it 1 : 10? 1 : 100? 1 : 1,000?
Reply
0
0
06-30-2016, 03:59 PM
#1516
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
This crap has been going on since I was a kid. Even 20-30 years ago, self defense would make the local evening news once in a while but you'd never hear of cases from other cities until after the internet became widespread and you happened to be part of a self defense mailing list. Self defense is boring because there isn't a pile of bleeding bodies and it presents a narrative that makes most media types uncomfortable. Even when they do report self defense, they usually go out of their way to say how the defender was a cop or something similar (even when it isn't true).
If a guard or a teacher at in CT had shot the shooter before he had shot a bunch of kids, it would have been in the news for like a day and then forgotten. Instead, it was the front page item nationally for months... and every time they mentioned it, it would be in the same breath as how important it is to pass gun control. Nevermind that CT has already had an assault weapons ban for 20 years and it did nothing.
If a guard or a teacher at in CT had shot the shooter before he had shot a bunch of kids, it would have been in the news for like a day and then forgotten. Instead, it was the front page item nationally for months... and every time they mentioned it, it would be in the same breath as how important it is to pass gun control. Nevermind that CT has already had an assault weapons ban for 20 years and it did nothing.
Reply
0
0
07-01-2016, 05:42 PM
#1517
Elite Member
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Very NorCal
Posts: 10,441
Total Cats: 1,899
Gov. Jerry Brown signs bulk of sweeping gun-control package into law, vetoes five bills - LA Times
Time to go sign up for my "Ammo Purchase Privilege Card" or whatever overly complicated and unmanageable system they plan to implement 
Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed six gun-control bills into law, including a requirement that ammunition purchasers undergo background checks. The governor vetoed five other measures, including an expansion of the use of restraining orders to take guns from people deemed to be dangerous.
“My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Brown wrote in a message.
Brown approved bills that would ban the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons allowing the ammunition magazines to be easily detached and replaced.
Vetoes included a bill that would have allowed co-workers, mental health workers and school officials to petition the court for a “gun violence restraining order” for people judged a danger to themselves and others. Such orders would allow guns to be confiscated for a year.
In vetoing the bill, Brown wrote that he had agreed last year to approve a law allowing family members and law enforcement to petition the courts for restraining orders. "That law took effect on Jan.1, 2016, so at this point it would be premature to enact a further expansion," he said.
The governor’s action comes one day after the Legislature approved 12 gun-control bills that were introduced in response to the December mass shooting in San Bernardino that killed 14 people. The bills gained legislative momentum after last month's massacre in Orlando that claimed 49 lives.
The National Rifle Assn. Institute for Legislative Action accused the governor of exploiting the terrorist attacks for political gain.
“Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a Draconian gun control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens,” said Amy Hunter, California spokesperson for the group. “ The governor and legislature exploited a terrorist attack to push these measures through even though the state’s already restrictive laws did nothing to stop the attack in San Bernadino.”
Bills the governor signed will:
— Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners
— Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.
— Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.
Bills the governor vetoed would have:
— Put an initiative on the November ballot to clarify that theft of a firearm is grand theft and is punishable as a felony.
— Require those who make guns at home to register them with the state and get a serial number so the weapons can be tracked.
— Required stolen or lost guns to be reported within five days.
— Limited Californians to the purchase of one rifle or shotgun per month
On the latter bill, Brown wrote: “While well-intentioned, I believe this bill would have the effect of burdening lawful citizens who wish to sell certain firearms that they no longer need,” Brown said.
Brown acted on the gun bills just before he left for a European vacation expected to last a few weeks.
“My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Brown wrote in a message.
Brown approved bills that would ban the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons allowing the ammunition magazines to be easily detached and replaced.
Vetoes included a bill that would have allowed co-workers, mental health workers and school officials to petition the court for a “gun violence restraining order” for people judged a danger to themselves and others. Such orders would allow guns to be confiscated for a year.
In vetoing the bill, Brown wrote that he had agreed last year to approve a law allowing family members and law enforcement to petition the courts for restraining orders. "That law took effect on Jan.1, 2016, so at this point it would be premature to enact a further expansion," he said.
The governor’s action comes one day after the Legislature approved 12 gun-control bills that were introduced in response to the December mass shooting in San Bernardino that killed 14 people. The bills gained legislative momentum after last month's massacre in Orlando that claimed 49 lives.
The National Rifle Assn. Institute for Legislative Action accused the governor of exploiting the terrorist attacks for political gain.
“Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a Draconian gun control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens,” said Amy Hunter, California spokesperson for the group. “ The governor and legislature exploited a terrorist attack to push these measures through even though the state’s already restrictive laws did nothing to stop the attack in San Bernadino.”
Bills the governor signed will:
— Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners
— Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.
— Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.
Bills the governor vetoed would have:
— Put an initiative on the November ballot to clarify that theft of a firearm is grand theft and is punishable as a felony.
— Require those who make guns at home to register them with the state and get a serial number so the weapons can be tracked.
— Required stolen or lost guns to be reported within five days.
— Limited Californians to the purchase of one rifle or shotgun per month
On the latter bill, Brown wrote: “While well-intentioned, I believe this bill would have the effect of burdening lawful citizens who wish to sell certain firearms that they no longer need,” Brown said.
Brown acted on the gun bills just before he left for a European vacation expected to last a few weeks.
Last edited by EO2K; 07-01-2016 at 05:54 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-01-2016, 09:27 PM
#1518
The lawsuits on most of that stuff will be brutal and last years... Cali taxpayers going to shell out how many more millions fighting Calguns and NRA for laws that do jack and **** to stop crime. So... go buy a few lowers and get them registered... and buy a few lowers and build them featureless... and buy a stack of 80% lowers and build them up (then bury them) for when the zombies come.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2016, 09:37 AM
#1520
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
Guess how much markup ammo sales get when they're the only game in town?
Reply
0
0
