Other State California Gun Control Legislation Fails!

[Provincial]

The California Senate failed to pass legislation to replace the law overturned by the Supreme Court.

Fox News article:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ca...nenforceable-democrat-lawmakers-fail-key-vote

Apparently at least a few California legislators can understand the rule of law.

Read More

 

[nwslopoke]

A great day for California and most don't even know it. Amazing to see someone actually fought for people's rights.

As more and more police are less likely to help an individual in harms way, these rulings are more vital for Californians safety. Over time I hope they will realize this. Officers will not get involved while you get assaulted, all to often. They can now legally use the tools to defend themselves.

 

[bradsteen]

Good! That's one issue down (for now). What else is on the agenda?
- Magazine capacity restrictions
- Banning of firearms based on their features or aesthetics
- That ridiculous microstamping requirement
...
What else am I missing?

 

[Saladfarmer]

Good! That's one issue down (for now). What else is on the agenda?
- Magazine capacity restrictions
- Banning of firearms based on their features or aesthetics
- That ridiculous microstamping requirement
...
What else am I missing?

Gavin Nuisance is still governor

 

[Snip]

Here's a summary of the law that failed: Source

https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/wlzrj9/_/ijx0ni4

has a great quick summary.

In short, it's the results of the legislature saying "Ok, we had a detente for years where folks in red counties being able to get permits that were valid statewide (even if only a few ever took them to blue counties) relatively easily and statewide carry laws being pretty reasonable for permit holders, while folks in blue counties being almost completely prohibited from getting them due to arbitrary and subjective licensing requirements. The Supreme Court ruled those requirements aren't allowed anymore and that anyone who meets objective requirements must get permits. If we can't control who gets permits anymore, we'll make it so those permits are basically useless by making it impossible to legally carry virtually everywhere even if the Supreme Court warned against doing that very thing. We'll also add a bunch of new, costly 'objective' requirements to make it harder for people to get permits."

In addition, we'll limit the places that legal carry permits are allowed turning the state into a mostly 'no carry' state.

 

[Cavedweller]

What a horrible stunt by Fox - including 2 photos having nothing to do with the subject matter of the article and obviously intended to be inflammatory to opponents of firearms ownership. Shame on you Fox!

 

[dangerranger60]

So the big dilemma for CA legislators is can we propose this to look good to our base, and be sure it fails by only a slim margin.
Having it pass would mean all those legislators and their big donors would not be able to carry either!
The only way they could get around it would be to create an enhanced licensed for only the ruling class. But they are afraid that wouldn't be received well. DR

 

[Alexx1401]

My "take away" from this would be a few law makers are starting to think they may lose their job if they push right now. People seldom seem to remember that the most viral anti gun law makers only act like that because they can get away with it and keep their job. NONE of them are willing to lose their job supporting this stuff. If they think they will lose power they will suddenly become much more pro gun and pro freedom, at least long enough to win another election. If some of them are getting cold feet it must mean the internal polling they do not share with the public is telling them people have had enough. Look how many who were championing de fund Police are now openly pretending they never said that?

 

[Librarian]

The bill was declared to be an 'urgency measure'; urgency measures take effect immediately on signing, instead of the default January 1 of the following year.

An urgency measure requires 2/3 majority votes in both houses. Several (D) legislators, retiring Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell, Joaquin Arambula, James Cooper, James Ramos did not vote 'yes', so the vote was short of the 2/3.

And it was past the legislative rules date for amendments, so could not be made back into a 'regular' bill.

Another speculation is that this is what Gavin wanted; he's going to run for President and, according to the speculation, did not want to sign the bill so he'd look a bit more centrist in 2023-4, and did not want to veto it, so he would not infuriate the anti-gun crowd. Sounds like a stretch, but politicians often do weird things.

 

[Reperio]

The bill was declared to be an 'urgency measure'; urgency measures take effect immediately on signing, instead of the default January 1 of the following year.

An urgency measure requires 2/3 majority votes in both houses. Several (D) legislators, retiring Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell, Joaquin Arambula, James Cooper, James Ramos did not vote 'yes', so the vote was short of the 2/3.

And it was past the legislative rules date for amendments, so could not be made back into a 'regular' bill.

Another speculation is that this is what Gavin wanted; he's going to run for President and, according to the speculation, did not want to sign the bill so he'd look a bit more centrist in 2023-4, and did not want to veto it, so he would not infuriate the anti-gun crowd. Sounds like a stretch, but politicians often do weird things.

What? A nephew of one of the four major crime families in CA rigging the system? Nah.