California Senate Approves Very Harsh Gun Legislation
135 replies, posted
[QUOTE]"These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."Republicans, who hold a minority in the state Senate, voted against the bills, arguing that they would make it harder for law-abiding citizens to access weapons, while doing little to combat crime. They said mass shootings are caused by mental illness, not a lack of gun regulations.
The seven gun bills the Senate approved today are:
SB 47 by Sen. [B]Leland Yee[/B], D-San Francisco: bans so-called "bullet buttons" used to get around existing laws banning detachable magazines
SB 53 by Sen. [B]Kevin de León[/B], D-Los Angeles: creates new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition
SB 374 by Sen. [B]Darrell Steinberg[/B], D-Sacramento: bans detachable magazines in rifles
SB 396 by Sen. [B]Loni Hancock[/B], D-Berkeley: prohibits possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition
SB 567 by Sen. [B]Hannah-Beth Jackson[/B], D-Santa Barbara: changes the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons
SB 683 by Sen. [B]Marty Block[/B], D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate
SB 755 by Sen. [B]Lois Wolk[/B], D-Davis: increases the number of crimes - including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others - that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun
The bills now move to the Assembly.
Read more here: [URL]http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/05/ca-senate-approves-8-bills-to-regulate-guns.html#storylink=cpy[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Source: [URL]http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/05/ca-senate-approves-8-bills-to-regulate-guns.html[/URL]
It's all up to the Assembly now to do away with this garbage. I cannot believe this. This is literally some of the most stupid and unnecessary legislation I have ever seen. California has way larger stuff to worry about than this shit.
Ok, well, I agree with these two, but the rest are batshit stupid. I'm sure everyone will roast me for agreeing with two parts of the ban, but really, these arent "bad" nor impede on your guns. Remember, the irresponsible gun owners ruin it for the rest of us.
[quote]SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate
SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: increases the number of crimes - including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others - that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun
The bills now move to the Assembly.[/quote]
[QUOTE]SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles: creates new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition
SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate[/QUOTE]
These are great news.
The rest varies from [I]"eh"[/I] to fully retarded
I hope military members are exempt.
[quote]SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate
SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: increases the number of crimes - including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others - that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun[/quote]
Alright, those two sound somewhat reasonable but the rest are just insane.
With how many violent gangs are in the LA area alone, I highly doubt these laws will effect them much, if at all.
Criminals will always find ways to get guns.
And watch as it succeeds absolutely nothing.
California allows guns?
It will have zero impact. Ridiculous.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;40834627]California allows guns?[/QUOTE]
From what I've heard, hardly. Their laws are already pretty strict over there.
Oh hey look at that, a series of laws that address long guns, which are involved in the vast [B]minority[/B] of firearm homicides; rather than targeting handguns which are used in over 95% of firearm homicides.
I guess mass shootings take precedence over regular shootings because they [I]shock[/I] people. I guess being [I]shocked and appalled[/I] is worse than being killed or having a loved one killed. :rolleye:
The background check stuff isn't the end of the world, but it's just absolutely ridiculous that long gun prohibitions take precedence over handguns.
[SUB]Man my avatar makes my posts seem incredibly ironic, thanks a lot Charlie Day[/SUB]
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40834548]I hope military members are exempt.[/QUOTE]
Considering how people in the military often suffers from PTSD, and as such can easily snap and go on a rampage, then absolutely [B]NO[/B].
And right next door to California is two incredibly pro-gun states known as Arizona and Nevada. In otherwords, these laws will not stop anything most likely.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40834658]Considering how people in the military often suffers from PTSD, and as such can easily snap and go on a rampage, then absolutely [B]NO[/B].[/QUOTE]
Wow. Just... wow. I cannot come up with any words to describe how asinine that statement is.
[editline]29th May 2013[/editline]
Seriously, what the fuck.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40834658]Considering how people in the military often suffers from PTSD, and as such can easily snap and go on a rampage, then absolutely [B]NO[/B].[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming you have a source and your not talking out of you're ass.
Because that statement was kinda fucking stupid.
Speaking of gun violence, released on May 7
On the national level
[url=http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616]BJS.gov Firearm Violence, 1993-2011[/url]
On the state level (sorry for wikipedia, but its from the census)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/url]
California #1 for gun murders, and with some of the highest control measures
[QUOTE=Van-man;40834658]Considering how people in the military often suffers from PTSD, and as such can easily snap and go on a rampage, then absolutely [B]NO[/B].[/QUOTE]
I have a brother suffering from PTSD and i can say that it's total [b]BULLSHIT[/b]. I don't consider him very mentally stable, but he was always kinda unstable, you know, the kinda person that'd snap and rip someone's head off for chewing too obnoxiously. But i don't see him going on a rage induced rampage any time soon.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40834666]And right next door to California is two incredibly pro-gun states known as Arizona and Nevada. In otherwords, these laws will not stop anything most likely.[/QUOTE]
Oregon has really lax gun regulations also.
[QUOTE=areolop;40834538]Ok, well, I agree with these two, but the rest are batshit stupid. I'm sure everyone will roast me for agreeing with two parts of the ban, but really, these arent "bad" nor impede on your guns. Remember, the irresponsible gun owners ruin it for the rest of us.[/QUOTE]
Actually, if it was just those two points, I'd applaud the anti-gun crowd for making sense for the first time ever. I'm pro-gun and I agree with safety courses, plus the broadening of the types of people who are prohibited [i]might[/i] actually help keep guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn't have them. Everything else in the bill is a mishmash of buzzwords and bullshit.
Also, how in the fuck would they plan to enforce the one banning detachable magazines on rifles? Technically, my Norinco SKS type rifle has a detachable magazine, yet, i can load it from the top with a clip without ever removing the mag. I also noticed that it bans possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammo capacity, effectively making all grandfathered magazines illegal. If i had a 20lb brick of weed from 1960, i'd probably still go to jail for having it, even though it was legal at the time.
[QUOTE=zombini;40834832]Also, how in the fuck would they plan to enforce the one banning detachable magazines on rifles? Technically, my Norinco SKS type rifle has a detachable magazine, yet, i can load it from the top with a clip without ever removing the mag. I also noticed that it bans possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammo capacity, effectively making all grandfathered magazines illegal. If i had a 20lb brick of weed from 1960, i'd probably still go to jail for having it, even though it was legal at the time.[/QUOTE]
If you didn't know, magazines were already limited to 10 rounds, so grandfathered mags would be a thing.
Anything above was legal to posess but illegal to: " give; lend; manufacture; import; or keep, offer, or expose for sale large capacity magazines in California (Cal. Penal Code § 32310)"
Although "Posession" (Somehow different than "keeping") a high capacity magazine is legal.
So I'm guess that if they find one you must get rid of it (eg not allowed to "keep" it)
[QUOTE=areolop;40834783]Speaking of gun violence, released on May 7
On the national level
[url=http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616]BJS.gov Firearm Violence, 1993-2011[/url]
On the state level (sorry for wikipedia, but its from the census)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/url]
California #1 for gun murders, and with some of the highest control measures[/QUOTE]
If that per capita or total?
Total gun murders is a useless statistic since California also has one of the largest state populations. California probably has the largest annual total average for people who die from cancer, doesn't mean California has more cancer.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;40834627]California allows guns?[/QUOTE]
It's difficult. I still have a better chance of acquiring one unlawfully, very easily.
"SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: increases the number of crimes - including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others - that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun"
lol that's utterly stupid.
[quote]SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara: changes the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons[/quote]
This is what our legal system has come to, instead of addressing issues we change the definition of something we don't like or understand to fit a blanket term and then ban it.
Shit like this is dangerous.
This is just ridiculous.
[QUOTE=MR-X;40834986]This is what our legal system has come to, instead of addressing issues we change the definition of something we don't like or understand to fit a blanket term and then ban it.
Shit like this is dangerous.
This is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
This is how the US goes at anything. Look at our public school system
Btw, has anyone noticed that even with Democrat majority, nothing actually changes, and now it's just the democrats making batshit insane legislation?
[QUOTE]"These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."[B]Republicans, who hold a minority in the state Senate, voted against the bills, arguing that they would make it harder for law-abiding citizens to access weapons, while doing little to combat crime.[/B] They said mass shootings are caused by mental illness, not a lack of gun regulations.
The seven gun bills the Senate approved today are:[/QUOTE]
Those bolded words sound familiar?
:v:
[QUOTE] SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley: prohibits possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition[/QUOTE]
Why 10?
"SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara: changes the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons"
Ok please show me an "assault" shotgun.
[QUOTE=MR-X;40834986]This is what our legal system has come to, instead of addressing issues we change the definition of something we don't like or understand to fit a blanket term and then ban it.
Shit like this is dangerous.
This is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of Rick Nolan's quote: "Everybody's campaigning and nobody's governing.". US Politics has hit an all-time low, it seems. Nobody in power cares about the issues, it doesn't affect them. They just put bandages over everything and wait for payday.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.