search
top

California Approaches the End Game

The anti-gun bill package advances in the California Assembly. The bill package would:

  • Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept any detachable magazine.
  • Ban possession of any magazine holding more than ten rounds. No grandfathering.
  • Create ammunition registration, and require background checks for ammunition purchases.
  • Create a roster of approved long guns in addition to handguns.

I expect this to pass. In truth, I’d feel a lot better going into court arguing against such a broad semi-auto rifle ban than I would even challenging the SAFE act. That’s no reason not to prevent this from passing, because I don’t have high expectations for what federal judges are willing to do, but I’m just saying.

Having lost on the handgun issue in court, those who disapprove of civilian gun possession now are trying to achieve their end game on the only thing they think they can; long guns. We really need the courts to rule you can’t ban semi-automatic rifles in common use any more than you can ban handguns in common use.

And does anyone argue this isn’t part and parcel of their plans for every other state, or federally, if we let them get away with it? I happen to believe Pennsylvania could topple sooner than many in the state today think.

39 Responses to “California Approaches the End Game”

  1. Keegan says:

    Congratulations, California! You are now Europe!

  2. Bubblehead Les says:

    Actually, I’m kinda hoping that this does get passed, then fought all the way to SCOTUS. I think we need to have a BIG Ruling from SCOTUS to shut down these Asshats. We need SOMETHING that would apply to every State in the Union.

    • Sebastian says:

      It would be a huge victory to get semi-auto rifles, as a generic category (not caring what they look like) covered. You will notice despite the fact that I don’t think any anti-gun advocates are happy with the Heller ruling, that for the most part, the politicians seem to be accepting that handguns are off the table. Have we even seen any new handgun proposals, short of proposals dealing with magazines (which affect both handguns and long guns)? Even the Chicago machine, when considering the recent preemption legislation, decided that they didn’t want handguns to be the hill they died on. They agree to handgun, but not long gun preemption.

      For people who started in this issue back when the chief target was handguns, this has to look like the world turned upside-down. Now handguns are largely safe, and it’s long guns we have to worry about. At least anything that’s not grandpa’s deer rifle or double barrel.

      • Jack says:

        Which is why they have to move to indirect things such as microstamping, carry restrictions, duty to retreat and the like.

        I will agree that a ban this broad would be easier to defend in court. Espeically since semi-auto handguns would still be legal in Cali.

        (That they aren’t outright banning handguns does show they have some, tactical, restraint at this point.)

      • Jim says:

        This would make a fantastic case. Having California go completely full-retard (we all know you should NEVER go full-retard) on all measly semi-automatic rifles, all the way down to the venerable Ruger 10/22, is a great way to get a smack down from the Supreme Court. If the Heller court had no problem with handguns, you think they’ll have a problem with the celebrated Remington 700? Funny how the antis’ efforts actually foster fantastically great case law for our cause. We want this package to pass in its entirety, especially the complete semi-auto ban.

        Heller engendered the five stages of grief for the Antis. They have now moved to the bargaining stage (well, if handguns are off limits, surely we can ban semi-automatic rifles?). Once they get smacked down for their audacity, they’ll have to move to depression. It is my firm belief that it is only with a firm ruling from the Supremes that rifles are also hands-off that we will finally get these derelict proles to respect the 2nd amendment (for a few months…).

        • Sebastian says:

          It would go a long way. The problem is, there’s still a lot of damage on the book beyond that.

        • The Jack says:

          Or hell, if they have no problem with handguns, is a handgun carbine that bad?

          Does adding a fixed stock and a dozen inches of barrel really make it that much more evil?

          I guess we’ll find out.

        • Nick says:

          Don’t assume the Supreme Court will back 2nd amendment rights. I think at least one or two has publicly stated they intend to retire within the next few years. If we lose a conservative justice that is replaced by a liberal, which is likely under Obama, we’re going to be in trouble. We’ll still have 5-4 rulings but they’ll be liberal instead of conservative. Not good for gun legislation.

          • HSR47 says:

            Leftist.

            Liberals truly believe in individual rights, whereas leftists believe in the power of the state. The former shares the same root as Liberty, whereas the latter describes a set of political beliefs/theories that are in complete opposition to maximized individual liberty.

        • Perhaps the anti’s know they might be over-reaching. The rimfire prohibition was removed from the bill a couple of weeks ago.

      • Brad says:

        California Democrats are seeing how far they can push bans on handguns, despite McDonald v Chicago. The primary instrument of banning handguns is the so-called “safe handgun” law. [Which is the current lib-speak for banning “saturday night specials”]

        It’s truly amazing to see which nationally popular handgun models are no longer (or never were) legal for sale in California from a licensed dealer. Popular handguns such as the Ruger SR-22, or the Taurus 66, or the Bersa Thunder, or ANY Kel-tec. Naturally California police are exempt from the stupid law.

        • They have pushed it so far that, with the micro-stamping ruling, that no new pistols may be sold in California. I do not believe that revolvers are included, but I might be incorrect.

          • Brad says:

            Pretty sure the microstamping law only applies to semi-auto handguns. That’s one reason why only 3rd generation Glocks are for sale in California. There never will be a 4th generation Glock for sale because it would have to use the microstamping feature for approval.

            Check out the list of ‘de-certified’ guns. These are models that used to have approval, but no longer do and so can not be sold anymore in California.

            http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf

            I don’t understand why Turners still advertises a sale on SR-22 since they were de-certified in July.

  3. DevsAdvocate says:

    Pennsylvania’s days are numbered… the Gun Control folks who ravaged NJ like the vermin they are made the short swim across the Delaware…

    • Sebastian says:

      It’s not just NJ, a lot of NY folks are buying up property in Eastern, PA, where it’s possible to make a commute into Manhattan.

      • j.biros says:

        People hate the laws and rules in NJ, and NY…and move here….then bring the policies they hated with them…….ridiculous.

        • Alpheus says:

          It is in this sense that I consider Statism to be a cancer–and it’s the biggest reason I’m concerned about illegal immigration. (I’d be less concerned if our own government wasn’t advertising food stamps south of the border! Our gov is really seeking to cement the mindset of the welfare state…)

          I have thought about how a campaign for liberty might be developed, to inoculate free (or at least more-free) States from the sick ones; it would essentially be a pamphlet for newcomers that basically says “look, you had to flee your old State, because they were taxing and spending and grafting their way to oblivion; this is the result of feel-good policies that hurt more than help; the State you now live in *doesn’t* have those policies; thus, if you want to be free, you need to abandon the reflex you have, to advocate for those policies!”

          The pamphlet should also describe how accepting money from the government will only destroy your life, and so we need to seek ways to decrease how much money we accept from government, and feel ill when we accept it (whether we have to or not).

          Naturally, the pamphlet should also be translated in as many languages as possible, starting with Spanish!

  4. HappyWarrior6 says:

    And who will let that happen in PA?

  5. Jack says:

    So the anti’s response to “Isn’t it silly to blame a rifle based on cosmetic features?” Is… “Ban all rifles!”

    Gee, tell me again about how they’re only after those “weapons of war”.

    • TS says:

      It undermines the entire “assault weapon” argument, and they don’t care. It’s not like factions of their movement believe assaulty features matter, and others don’t- these are the same people.

    • Well, us gun guys have been saying for years in CA that the assault weapon law made no sense because it outlawed rifles that were no more lethal than ordinary semi-automatic rifles. So it is actually logical, from a perverted point of view, to attempt to outlaw ALL semiautomatic rifles.

      It is my hope that this overreach brings down the entire assault weapon law.

  6. Jacob says:

    Endgame indeed.

  7. Even if we got a slam dunk 9-0 SCOTUS decision (which I doubt; even with the court’s current makeup it is no sure thing), how exactly will it be enforced? To paraphrase someone who understood real-politick, how many divisions does the SCOTUS have?

    I mean, really… how many of us, right now, today, could legally march down the streets of Chicago or New York or DC or LA with a holstered sidearm? Even under Heller and McDonald, only wealthy educated people can exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the Tory-dominated jurisdictions.

    It is going to take concerted effort from all three branches of federal government to roll back this stuff. Does anyone think Eric Holder’s justice department will be involved with the 2A in Cali, except perhaps to arm the criminal gangs and drug cartels in CA or to prosecute people who legitimately defend themselves? Does anyone think the Congress can muster up votes for serious pro-gun measures like pre-emption of AWBs for any arms appropriate for militia usage (like ARs or Beretta 92s…)?

    I hate to be pessimistic but I just haven’t heard anyone other than perhaps politicians like Ted Cruz advocate such measures… getting from here to there is very daunting.

    • Sebastian says:

      The root of the problem is that the Supreme Court hasn’t issued very strong rulings on the issue. It’s given the lower courts a lot of room to allow whatever their policy preferences suggest is the correct thing, which is most gun control.

      But ultimately court edicts on this matter are enforced under the Civil Rights Acts, almost always under the civil provisions, which provide judgements against people who violate those rights. This is not a fast thing. If the Supreme Court had been willing to provide more guidance out of the gate, things might be better, but it’s a 5-4 ruling, and there’s likely a weak member of that 5 coalition (probably Roberts, in my opinion) who doesn’t really want to spell it out.

      • Ian Argent says:

        Roberts is on record saying that SCOTUS decisions should be narrowly targeted to the issue in question; from prior to the Heller & McDonald decisions.

        • Sebastian says:

          I think Roberts is our weak link. That’s my opinion, but I do believe he’s a judicial minimalist at heart. Judicial minimalism is not a philosophy I remotely agree with. I think Bush did, because Bush was an asshole… which is why he picked Roberts. He didn’t want to put anyone on the Court who would overturn his broad interpretations of executive power. Good to see that working out so well under this Administration.

      • Patrick H says:

        Yeah the SC really didn’t give any guidance on the level of scrutiny on how to decide 2A cases. It really should be strict scrutiny.

        • Sebastian says:

          Strict scrutiny is the best way to deal with it, yes. I can agree that perhaps the whole “levels of scrutiny” schtick is a piss poor way to address the topic of rights, but that begs the question what it should be replaced with.

      • And who is in charge of bringing civil rights cases…? The Justice Department, no?

        I’m sure Eric Holder would be all over that.

        • Sebastian says:

          They are in charge of bringing criminal civil rights charges, which is why it’s rare, even when it hasn’t been Holder. Civil complains are filed through the courts. All the post-McDonald complains are filed under the civil rights acts.

  8. Jim says:

    When I was young people would say that the big one would make california fall into the sea. I thought how terrible that would be, now well……………

  9. HSR47 says:

    “I happen to believe Pennsylvania could topple sooner than many in the state today think.”

    Anyone who doesn’t believe this need only look to Colorado.

  10. Chris W. says:

    Well, we could always do as the illegals and go and vote 5 or 10 times regarding any issue and no need for identification, right? How about we do like the illegals who have been seen voting, then going to the parking lot, changing their clothes, then go right back in and vote. Now of course I’m being sarcastic, but that’s about the level of accurate voting results we can expect. I’m done with the voting thing, soon enough we’ll be voting with our “illegal” weapons. Hate me or love me, the only other alternative I see is moving from the USA – and I’m not going to do that – I’ll stand my ground and defend the country I served in the military for!

top