.

California reality-check

WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hi folks, I'm relatively new to this forum, but I really find the political talk interesting. I'm a conservative gun-owner living in Northern California. I find it absolutely frustrating dealing with the new gun legislation imposed upon us each year here in California. I often wonder if the rest of the country really understands what it is like to be a gun-owner here. I'm curious if any of you have these inane restrictions in your states, please comment:

1. No magazines over 10 rounds (handgun or rifle) - can't be sold, traded, imported, or anything. For example, if you own a pre-ban magazine and you die, then that magazine must be DESTROYED. You can't pass it on to anyone.

2. Every gun sale must include a California DOJ certified lock. I bought a rifle recently and it came with a lock, but I bought a handgun when this law first came out and even though it came with a trigger lock I had to either buy a separate lock (so the dealer would have a receipt for proof of purchase), or I had to sign a legal affadavit certifying that I owned a DOJ approved gun safe.

3. California Handgun Safety Certificate required for all handgun purchases. They used to accept a California Hunter's Safety license (required for any hunting permit), or the Federal BFSC license, but now you are required to purchase a separate California-only license for purchasing handguns. And the class/test is EXACTLY the same!

4. Only 1 firearm may be purchased within a 30-day period (this may be for handguns only)

5. All handguns must be transported in a locked container separate from the ammunition (unless you have a CCW permit, which is IMPOSSIBLE to get).

These are just a few. Let me know if your state is just as screwed up!



"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Gandhi

Comments

  • us55840us55840 Member Posts: 31,188 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The ONLY problem those in Kalifornia has is you keep electing and re-electing firearm abolitionists that continue to take away your constitutional rights.[:(][:(]
    ONLY when the voting public wakes up and realizes they are destroying freedom from within, will it change.[^]
    Actually, I'm very surpised people in Kalifornia can still possess a firearm - but that may change unless you change your politicians. The choice is totally yours and that of other freedom loving voters.


    The government has no RIGHTs. ONLY the PEOPLE have RIGHTS which allows the government to function.
    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think it is a chicken and egg scenario, personally.

    To someone totally ignorant of firearms, the California laws may not seem harsh at all. In fact many of the laws probably aren't even understood by non-shooters, and they probably don't care much either.

    I didn't get into shooting until about 3 years ago, before that I didn't know a thing about firearms, and I didn't pay any attention to firearms legislation either. But I wasn't ever opposed to firearms, I always figured I could get one if I ever needed to. It wasn't until I actually got into shooting that I realized that the minority liberal population was trying to actually abolish the Second Amendment in this state. Nowadays when I try to tell non-shooters about how difficult it is to get a firearm in this state they kind of respond with a puzzled look. The poor suckers just have no idea.

    I think the liberal approach is to first take advantage of people's ignorance of firearms. Let's face it, the average Californian probably has never owned a firearm (simply because we don't need to hunt for our food or defend ourselves on a daily basis). By passing these gun laws the liberals insure that firearm ignorance will be perpetuated.

    Then the liberals try to replace that ignorance with fear (the media is their primary tool for this). All it takes is some lunatic with an AK to shoot up a bunch of school kids. Then they try to focus that fear into activism by mustering support for anti-gun legislation.

    I've talked to many wacko liberals (comes with the territory) and I always offer to take them to the gun range for a free education on firearms. I've never had a single taker. They usually say, "I would never touch a gun!" That is straight fear talking right there. They are so brainwashed. I almost feel sorry for these people.

    All I can say is teach your children about guns so that they don't grow up ignorant (and turn out to be the lunatic with an AK in the school yard). If you know some folks that are curious about guns, but might be a little intimidated, then help them out. Offer to take them to the range one day and teach them responsible gun safety, or point them to someone else who can. Otherwise, someday soon we will all be living in this California nightmare that I wake up to everyday.

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    WW, the founders gave us the remedy for "the california problem." It is widely known as the 2nd amendment. Use it or lose it. All that California "regulation" of firearms ownership is defined as "infrigement", therefore unconstitutional. Keep in mind, the law of the land IS the constitution. If a law is unconstitutional, it is not a law, merely a misidentified "suggestion".

    jpwolf.gifawcountdown_sm.gif
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Before they can convince you that rights emanate from them (the government), they must first eliminate God. They are working 24/7 to accomplish this.

    "If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine

    If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
  • IdahjoIdahjo Member Posts: 326 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    WoundedWolf; welcome.
    quote:These are just a few. Let me know if your state is just as screwed up!

    Good-Grief! You answered a LOT of things lurking around the 'cobwebs in my mind'... No wonder all the 'Kalifornians' are flooding into the other States. North Idaho is awash with 'em[;)]

    With any luck, maybe all you 'good guys' will leave and the St Andreas fault will break-off, allowing "The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia" to drift off into the Pacific (away from the USofA)where it belongs [:D][:D]

    PS; in Idaho you can actually obtain a permit, by State law, to own a full-automatic weapon [^]

    roach.gif Ya'll have a Nice Day Now.... Ya'hear
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    JPWolf: I wish you would tell your theory about the US Constitution being the "law of the land" to our KS state goverment and governor. Because if your theory is true for the federal constitution, then by extrapolation it should be equally true for each and every state constitution. As long as that state constitution does not violate the US constitution. But I composed a letter to the KS governor and state attorney general (copy of it some where on GB.com, if interested please ask) and had about 15 other people sign it along with me. Basically we asked about Sec. 4 of the KS state constitutional bill of rights where it cleary and with no doubt gives the KS citizens the right to carry firearms for security and safety. And to carry those firearms concealed (since it is not restricted, it must be permitted, unlike the MO state constitution).

    The assistant attorney general wrote back a friendly reply but stated his office was not allowed to answer such questions from citizens. Still no response from the governor's office even though she vetoed the KS concealed carry bill one week ago.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It is easy to say the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, therefore these inane state laws have no relevance. Meanwhile, they continue to legislate our guns away while the Feds stand by and watch.

    The 9th Circuit (yes, the "No God" court) has already ruled that the Second Amendment DOES NOT secure the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. That ruling stands to this day in most of the western states that are in this circuit's jurisdiciton, I believe including Idaho.

    Unfortunately, this is not just a California problem. The gun-grabbers have the Second Amendment straight in their sights. The 5th Circuit Court has already made a ruling directly contradicting the 9th Circuit, therefore the stage is set for the Supreme Court to have the big showdown on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA is waiting until another conservative judge is appointed to the court before they push the issue, just so they can guarantee a win. The NRA is even stifling other gun lawsuits so as not to force the issue prematurely (see Silveira v. Lockyer).

    All you folks that think your state would never become like California had better watch out, you might just get the rug pulled out from under you by the Feds!

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,341 ******
    edited November -1
    WoundedWolf,
    First off, welcome to the forum.

    I think your description of how the politicians in California are using peoples ignorance of firearm laws, then twisting it into a "fear" of firearms, is right on. This same procedure is also being used as, a blueprint, by a large part of the rest of this country. The fear that more of the country is becoming "Califoricated" is VERY real.

    Oh, and to answer your first question.
    None of the items you pointed out have hit here....yet. Except maybe #5 under certain conditions. (in certain cities and/or counties)

    To all.
    The ONLY (I do mean ONLY) reversal of this trend, that I have seen, is the fact that more and more states are "allowing" concealed carry laws. While (in my opinion) it is clearly gun registration, and I do NOT agree that we should have to ASK permission, to protect ourselves. Some of the "state" Constitutions do explicitly prohibit concealed carry, while other do not. Yet these same states that have no provision against it, will throw you in jail if you do it. Politicians should be required to actually READ the documents, that they are swearing to uphold, when they are being sworn into office.

    As far as laws being unconstitutional. Quite a few people have challenged these laws, in person, as well as in the court room. They are either dead, or sitting in the gray-bar hotel for their trouble. How can we win against an unconstitutional government? The voting booth is NOT going to do it, at least in my lifetime. Not that I have (or am I going to) give up my right to vote, but I am a realist. Been voting for more decades then I care to remember, and it has not gotten any better. Actually quite the opposite.


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    January 1st of 2005 you can no longer use a Curio and Relic Federal Firearms License in California.

    Go buy a 1919A4 or A6, keep 10 rounds linked. Not yet banned in Cali.

    There is no saving California. I personally suggest you move to Reno.

    kabalogoshadowed.gif3dflagsdotcom_us_pa_2fawl.gif
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Regardless of which national or even state political party anyone believes in or belongs to, that party knows you have no other place to turn if you become moderately dissatisfied with that parties performance. So why would anyone be surprised that we citiznes are constantly betrayed, cheated and lied to? The situation almost GUARANTEES that is what will happen. We need more choices such as a 3rd or 4th political party that actually has a chance at winning elections. If anyone is interested (I know you're not, and I'm not mad at ya) go to:

    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=100294

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • .222.222 Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    "Idahjo" WROTE:

    "in Idaho you can actually obtain a permit, by State law, to own a full-automatic weapon"



    GOOD MORNING ALL.
    im a gun dealer here in good old "KommieFornia", an active distict contact for the NRA, a member of the CRPA, and just about every other firearms related group in my area.i am actively working to get the "ASSault weapons" law repealed here also, and know the laws pretaining to this fron and back. i am in constant contact with he BATF and the California DOJ on a weekly basis, who by the way are more than willing to answer any and all "legallity" questions put o them (believe it or not, the california DOJ is actually "Pro"gun and "Pro "gun ownership!)
    believe it or not, you can obtain a permit from ANY state to apply for this ( possession of a fully automatic weapon), even Kommieforina, but getting issued one is an ENTIRELY diferent matter. see, way back when the feds enacted a law making owning/possessing a fully automatic "machine gun" illegal exept under specific circumstances. ANYONE who is a US citizen can apply for a permit to own one ( or several). the "catch" to this is that you have to have a GOOD reason to have it. the old "its my right to own it" will NOT work no matter were you live.hell the BATF wont even issue full auto permits to most police departments, do you really ruely think you would have a reason that would allow you, a lowly citizen to own one if the local sherrifs department cant? it isnt going to happen.

    believe me, i HATE california, and i know there gun laws here are totally bs ( this is exactly why im moving to oregon shortly!), but believe i or not, most of you have it all wrong when it comes to california law. as an example, lets take a quick look at the assault weapons ban here. now, most californian have are under the impression that assault weapons are illegal, period. this just isnt so. as far as california goes, if it isnt on there list, its perfectly legal. there are hundreds of assault type weapons that you can own here in california, its just that the most POPULAR ones are the ones banned ( like the ar-15, and ak-47)and this is something the personell at DOJ will tell you.if its not specifically listed in the law, its OK, (its just that unless you ask them this directly, they will not tell you!) lets go one step further. i came into possession of a pistol some time back named an "MPA-10" . all this pistol is is a clone of the good old drug dealer prefered (yea,right, maybe in the movies!)MAC series of weapons. now the california laws specifically name the mac-10 and its 'clones". thats a broad statement put in to cover guns that havent been made yet, but what they rely on is the firearms "caracteristics"! the MAC-10 and clones come with a THREADED barrel, the MPA series weapons can be specifically ordered WITHOUT this feature to comply with california laws. now, im not saying that if your our assing off with it, or teari ng stuff up at the range that the local yokal isnt going to harass you, but in the long run, you will get your gun back and you will win the case as even california law enforcment does NOT know the laws, how it works or the "loopholes" that california neglected to plug up in the law ( california DOJ is more than willing to point all of these holes , but the catch is they will not just tell you, you have to ask!)as far as new laws that are imposed every year here in california, mostly there put into place to keep people like fienstein from complaining all of the time. if you actually take the time to READ the laws, and not just go on what you have read or heard on the internet forums sites, you would know what i mean.so you cant own an AR-15 in califoria, BIG DEAL. you can own a Mini-14, which fires the same round, just as fast, high cap mags are abundant. it just doesnt look as scary.

    anyway, my whole point is, even though we have cruddy laws here in california, there not all as bad as you THINK they are.
  • Salvage33Salvage33 Member Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    You still need to clean house in Sacramento and get as many, if not all, the anti-gunners out of office as quickly as possible.

    John


    A friend will post your bail. A good friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying, "man that was fun!"
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "even though we have cruddy laws here in california, there not all as bad as you THINK they are" -.222

    Yes they are, in fact they are probably worse than most people realize. Now, I'm not a gun dealer, so I'm sure you are closer to these issues, .222. But beyond the specific list of banned "assault weapons" (Section 12276) there is also this blanket list of restrictions:

    ***CALIFORNIA DANGEROUS WEAPONS CONTROL LAWS***

    12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
    (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
    (B) A thumbhole stock.
    (C) A folding or telescoping stock.
    (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
    (E) A flash suppressor.
    (F) A forward pistol grip.
    (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
    (3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
    (4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
    (B) A second handgrip.
    (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
    (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
    (5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
    (6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
    (A) A folding or telescoping stock.
    (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
    (7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
    (8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

    ****

    So it is a fallacy to think that you can somehow find a manufacturer that the California DOJ hasn't quite caught wind of yet and still get yourself an "assault weapon". Yes, you can still get a Mini-14 for now, but if it is the exact same gun as an AR-15 then why is the AR-15 banned in the first place? It's because these laws have no basis in reality, it is all based upon perception.

    So, .222, if it isn't so bad here in Kalifornia, why are you rushing off to Oregon (which is heading in the same direction, BTW)? Don't make any mistake, the gun laws in this state are opressive, and they are only getting worse.

    -WW

    "History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
Sign In or Register to comment.