This holiday season, Be thankful.... you don't live in California

[shibbershabber]

They are closing every loophole as it is discovered and love to prosecute gun related laws. Even some large venues like the LA county fair site in Pomona and the Cow Palace have outlawed (or attempted to) gun shows in the last years. It is a tough enviorment. I have to buy another large gunsafe to store guns once legally owned by my step sons. It is such a witch hunt they are afraid of loosing there contractors licenses if caught with an oversized magazine or an evil gun just in there house.

Well even that is illegal in OR and WA unless they have taken those guns in to have them 4473'd to ya.... cant you just taste the freedom

 

[FireArm]

California, its a crappy place to visit, let alone stay and follow the rules.

 

[11Charlie]

California, its a crappy place to visit, let alone stay and follow the rules.

Not sure I would visit the F'ing place. Spent time there in the Army that was good enough for me. Now if I had a rich relative that said he would buy me anything I wanted I would think about it

 

[The Heretic]

Well even that is illegal in OR and WA unless they have taken those guns in to have them 4473'd to ya.... cant you just taste the freedom

Step children are exempt from Oregon BGC

 

[nwslopoke]

Who will Californians take their grievances too? The California courts? California politicians? Unfortunate it's problem to only 5-7 million people there. The other 30 million don't care.

In California everyone is different exactly the same. Funny how one of the biggest populations is so easily controlled.

 

[3MTA3]

Who will Californians take their grievances too? The California courts? California politicians? Unfortunate it's problem to only 5-7 million people there. The other 30 million don't care.

In California everyone is different exactly the same. Funny how one of the biggest populations is so easily controlled.

They will need to take it to the Supreme Court after the 9th Circuit Court fails to support them. This is where our national and state organizations need to join forces to provide leadership and funding. I currently support the NRA, GOA, SAF, and OFF. I will increase funding to these and any other organization that stands up.

 

[Slobray]

They will need to take it to the Supreme Court after the 9th Circuit Court fails to support them. This is where our national and state organizations need to join forces to provide leadership and funding. I currently support the NRA, GOA, SAF, and OFF. I will increase funding to these and any other organization that stands up.

The problem is that we need a SCOTUS that will hear a 2A case, if not things will go the same way as Peruta and all the other unconstitutional laws that are allowed to stand.

Until that happens, the RKBA will be stolen from citizens by politicians and those partisan activists ruling from the bench, such as the 9th Circus.


Ray

 

[gozoner]

Republicans have been loosing in CA for a very long time at many levels of Gov't. Republicans are now loosing more consistently in OR and WA. What are Republicans willing to change in order to start winning again? Republicans could change either or both of a) message and b) delivery of message. But they need to change to something that will work. What might it be?

 

[nwslopoke]

Republicans need to work in their messaging. They say no because they don't know how it sounds to people who think differently. You don't have to lose the message in the messaging.

 

[RVTECH]

I was reading a little about the new California ammo laws and it may eventually have some real effect for some people specifically the rural hunters and shooters who may loose local outlets for ammo if the seller is not an FFL. Some people have stated on Cal Guns they may get out of recreational shooting altogeather which of itself is saddening - but I suspect some of these might not be as commmitted as others and find it too much of a hassle - which It could be depending on the calibers and amounts one shoots. I firmly believe reducing recreational shooting for some by the increased difficulty of getting ammo and potential price increases is an unspoken 'undertone' of the new laws.

 

[Slobray]

I was reading a little about the new California ammo laws and it may eventually have some real effect for some people specifically the rural hunters and shooters who may loose local outlets for ammo if the seller is not an FFL. Some people have stated on Cal Guns they may get out of recreational shooting altogeather which of itself is saddening - but I suspect some of these might not be as commmitted as others and find it too much of a hassle

I would venture that those who will be giving up recreational shooting are the same gun owners that keep voting for the anti-gun dems year after year and when you bring up their voting record, they blame all PDRK gun control on Reagan and Schwarzenegger.

- which It could be depending on the calibers and amounts one shoots. I firmly believe reducing recreational shooting for some by the increased difficulty of getting ammo and potential price increases is an unspoken 'undertone' of the new laws.

Yes, I believe that you are correct................. the whole point of this law was to burden law abiding gun owners as much as possible, while continuing to dismantle the Second Amendment.


Ray

 

[shibbershabber]

at least Oregon, Nevada and Arizona aren't too far away.

 

[etrain16]

Whatever happens in California, they are continuing to become a shining example, like Chicago/IL and MA of what a failure gun control laws really are. It's important to note how these laws continue to fail and shove that info in the face of every single person that will listen. Some folks are starting to recognize this, and maybe we can start to swing some folks in our direction, particularly their votes. The shooting at the Texas church was a colossal example of not only the failure of BGC's and the government in general, but also was a chance to show the benefit of armed citizens and NRA members/instructors.

I have no doubt OR and WA have their sights set on following behind CA. It will be up to us to try and stop it. Honestly, I'm shocked, given the majority that was given to anti-gun politicians here in OR in 2014, that we don't have more restrictive gun laws than we do at the moment. No mag restrictions. No bullet button BS. No restriction on purchase of certain types of guns. What is stopping them? They could easily have bulldozed us with those types of laws in 2015, they didn't. Same in 2017 - they passed one law that does impact some folks, but no big sweeping laws that hit us all. It makes me wonder, what held them back? They had the numbers and we couldn't have stopped them, so why?

I feel for the pro-gun folks in CA. The politicians there are some of the worst in the country. They have no chance, save for a challenge to the SCOTUS if CA goes too far. I just wish we could see the 9th circuit tip in favor of pro-gun justices as it could possibly help us and maybe even CA gun owners. For now, it's just a bad situation, getting worse.

Now, time to get an ammo store up and running in southern CA

 

[RVTECH]

The really dirty part of this is it's not gun control but Ammo control - and there is nothing about protecting ammo in the 2A. I wonder if those who initially proposed these laws were 'advised' of this so they would know there were virtually no obstructions to pushing it through.

 

[shibbershabber]

if not on 2A grounds, maybe it could be challenged on others?
Some sort of commerce rules?

maybe something on how Brady Bill didn't apply to ammunition?
are people prohibited from owning gins also expressly prohibited from owning ammo?

there's a catch somewhere.

 

[Argonaut]

We did have mandatory registration of handgun ammunition years ago. Somehow the law was overturned......I must have been out of the country. Was it with interstate commerce laws? I don't remember. The law included 22LR because it was commonly used in pistols. Retailers kept a log on who you were and what you bought.

 

[11Charlie]

IMHO its all a load of crap!!!! I don't think joe blow down the street needs to know what I own let alone the damn government!


I pay my taxes and those are a fricken rip off so leave me alone and go bother some other jack wagon that is breaking the law!!

 

[RVTECH]

Some sort of commerce rules?

According to what I read, no on the 'commerce' angle
Because ammo can still in effect be ordered online but has to be transferred through an FFL - but this has yet to reveal itself on exactly how this is going to take place since FFLs have a cap in what they can charge for the transfer - and will all FFLs even participate - lots of unknown questions still to be answered.

 

[Slobray]

The really dirty part of this is it's not gun control but Ammo control - and there is nothing about protecting ammo in the 2A. I wonder if those who initially proposed these laws were 'advised' of this so they would know there were virtually no obstructions to pushing it through.

If the PDRK anti's though that they could get away with it, they would have already passed a bill outlawing ammo ages ago, but the courts have been clear that the government may not impose a restriction that impairs the exercise of a right, even if it is not a restriction directly on the right itself; such as a poll tax, literacy test (for voting), a special use tax on the cost of paper and ink (1st Amendment) (Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)) and so on.

That won't stop the anti's from trying to push the boundaries of constitutionality. Hell, with the partisan activists still in control of the 9th Circus and SCOTUS refusing to hear anything even remotely 2A related, I won't be surprised if the anti's here on the "left" coast don't go for broke this coming year and do an out right ban on firearms. It would take years (if ever) for it to get overturned and do major damage.


Ray

 

[Argonaut]

If the PDRK anti's though that they could get away with it, they would have already passed a bill outlawing ammo ages ago, but the courts have been clear that the government may not impose a restriction that impairs the exercise of a right, even if it is not a restriction directly on the right itself; such as a poll tax, literacy test (for voting), a special use tax on the cost of paper and ink (1st Amendment) (Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)) and so on.

That won't stop the anti's from trying to push the boundaries of constitutionality. Hell, with the partisan activists still in control of the 9th Circus and SCOTUS refusing to hear anything even remotely 2A related, I won't be surprised if the anti's here on the "left" coast don't go for broke this coming year and do an out right ban on firearms. It would take years (if ever) for it to get overturned and do major damage.


Ray

I would predict there would be an immediate stay issued by the supremes pending there ruling that could take years. But they wouldn't allow it to stand until there final ruling