search
top

California Update

I just noticed that VSSA is reporting a live update from California that the effective overall semi-auto ban in California was vetoed. On the other hand, their lead ammunition bill was signed.

I would say more on this, but my brain is currently decompressing from trying to better understand the role of the X-chromosome in genetic genealogy. Have I ever mentioned that science was one of my worst subjects in high school? Ouch.

UPDATE: Wow, I’m kind of surprised by some of the language Gov. Brown used in saying the semi-auto ban went too far. Here is a key quote from the LA Times: “I don’t believe that this bill’s blanket ban on semiautomatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights.”

It’s not exactly a rousing endorsement of the Second Amendment, but it’s more acknowledgement than most Democratic leaders in these solid blue states give us.

I wonder if Gov. Cuomo in New York is starting to wonder if his gun control push was a bad idea now that there’s another big gun control state governor backing off of the most extreme bills.

32 Responses to “California Update”

  1. Andy B. says:

    I’m just thinking out loud here, and I wouldn’t bet the farm on anything I’m about to say, but with the Republican Party apparently hell-bent on committing suicide and presently pretty far along with that project, maybe some cagey Democrats like Brown know not to press the gun issue — possibly the Republicans’ last remaining foothold with many voters — and instead back off, at least until after the funeral. With the Democrats looking moderate for a change, to many RKBA types, it could help the GOP drive the final blade into themselves.

    • Joe says:

      The Repubs shouldn’t be moderating towards the communist democrats. They should be embracing libertarian constitutionalism and a pro- bill of rights message. Libertarians like me have finally said, FUCK THE REPUbLICANS!! They have just agreed to play patty-cake, and capitulate on Obamacare with this government shutdown on the verge of ending. If the American people are so afraid of a government that is shut down, then they deserve to live in a nation like…. Joseph Stalin’s Russia or Mao Zedong’s China. Cancer patients in this country can look forward to death by waiting list.

  2. Reputo says:

    X-chromosome for genetic genealogy? Pretty much no different than any other chromosome (except for fathers with daughters – then the daughter has one X-chromosome that is identical to the father’s). It is the Y-chromosome and the Mitochondrial DNA where genetic genealogy is as. Email me if you want to talk more about it.

  3. Ursa Ele says:

    If I were Jerry Brown, and I’m not, but if I were him, I’d be running for President in 2016 because, well, why the hell not? He’d be running against Joe Biden, a slam dunk, and maybe Hilary. I do think Brown could smoke Hilary on the experience issue alone, plus he is on the right side of enough core Democrat issues to placate enough Democrats who think Biden’s laughable but who would like very much to finally send the Clintons packing.

    Then, if the Republicans nominate another insane person like McCain, or a rich, out of touch guy like Romney, Jerry Brown finally gets to live the dream.

    • The Jack says:

      If Hillary were inevitable she’d be in her 2nd term now.

      Instead she lost to a Freshman Senator with less experience (both in and out of government) than Elizabeth Warren.

      So yeah, why wouldn’t he at least put his toe in the water.

      • Andy B. says:

        When that freshman senator was first placed on the national TV stage (what was that, DNC ’04, ’06?) and I heard the gushing I knew he was Chosen, and that Hillary had been passed over. We can apply all the rational reasoning we care to about “experience,” etc., and it mainly reduced to that.

        My causal observation, and I don’t know whether it was supported by any polls, was that women in my acquaintance started off supporting Hillary because she was a woman, and slowly shifted to BHO because he was sort of the cool high school personality; that is what he was turned into by the media and/or his campaign.

        These sorts of processes are usually based on things quite superficial, after the power elite have made their own choices, for whatever their reasons are.

        • The Jack says:

          That is my point.

          Amusing that the whole “super delegate” thing was supposed to prevent this kind of fanboyism. And how’s that for the party of the people? Having special party members with votes orders of magnitudes more powerful than the regular party members.

    • Nate says:

      Too old. He’s 75!

    • Andy says:

      California! Über alles!
      Über alles! California!

      Every time I read about Jerry, that gets stuck in my head.

      Anyway, I recall that Jerry is indeed a pistol owner at least. Perhaps politically pragmatic enough to court a little of the other side.

  4. S.Lynn says:

    So no lead for hunting? Wouldn’t full metal jacket ammo just go through the hunted without killing them quickly leaving them to die a slow painful death of blood loss or infection? Isn’t that cruelty to animals? Couldn’t someone (hello-ASPCA) file a suit about that?

    • Andy says:

      There is sold copper and sintered metal mixes available in hunting loads. Or as components for self loading. They aren’t super cheap, though my little reading on them I recall them effective for hunts.

      • Arizona Rifleman says:

        Indeed. Also, the hunters I know don’t shoot much (less than a box of rifle ammo per season, often including sight-in shots) with their hunting guns, so the ban on lead ammo for hunting shouldn’t have a major effect on costs for hunting.

        My understanding is that the bill only restricts lead ammo for hunting, but does not restrict lead ammo on ranges.

        • Patrick H says:

          Ah see that’s what I was confused about. I’m sure they’ll get there eventually, but for not its not terrible.

        • Brad says:

          The Devil is always in the details. It remains to be seen how broadly this lead ban will be enforced, let alone how broadly it is written. It would not surprise me at all to see plinkers with .22 rifles ticketed in rural areas, with the excuse being that ‘they were really hunting’.

  5. TS says:

    My hypothesis: he owns one or more guns that would have been banned.

  6. Shawn says:

    It’ll still probably go through. I wouldn’t be surprised the House AND senate will override his veto.

  7. Justin says:

    I would be unsurprised if this is political gamesmanship. It’s very possible they looked at the semi auto ban, realized they’d get dragged to court by SAF, and very likely beaten, in light of Heller, so he opted to sign the other proposals into law under the assumption they’re less likely to be dragged into court.

    • Arizona Rifleman says:

      Same. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were concerned about the AWB expansion being challenged in court and then used as leverage to overturn the AWB itself.

      Either way, the Brady Bunch are not happy: they’re saying he vetoed an important bill that would close “loopholes” in the state’s AWB. It’s quite telling that they think that the existence of semi-auto guns with detachable mags is a “loophole” that should be eliminated.

      • Brad says:

        Not mouthing off about the craziness of SB374 of was being called the B’rer Rabbit Briar Patch strategy. Oh yes SB374 would have been challenged in Federal Court.

  8. Jacob says:

    Cuomo’s down 25 points in the polls since going full retard with SAFE. He knows he screwed up but will never admit it.

  9. Kevin S says:

    I doubt there will be a veto override on this. Several democrats voted against it – indeed Wright, a senator from LA, gave the most impassioned argument against the ban on the senate floor. This bill passed the senate by a 21 out of 40 vote – the bare minimum majority vote. They’re done, for this year at least.

  10. On one hand, I’m glad Gov Moonbeam vetoed this.

    On the other hand, it was refreshingly honest to face an AWB based on function, not cosmetics. Let’s stop talking about pistol grips and muzzle devices and adjustable stocks. Those are all cosmetic features. Let’s have it out with a serious discussion about semiautomatic magazine fed rifles. That’s what this is really about.

    It would have also forced a court case. If we couldn’t use Heller to overturn this sort of broad ban I’d be shocked. A court ruling would take this nonsense off the table faster than almost anything else. The SCOTUS never ruled on the 1994 AWB but I don’t know how they could avoid touching something this broad.

    • Brad says:

      The California DOJ has been known to take a bill and run with it as far as possible when it comes to regulations and enforcement.

      By my reading of SB374, it not only banned all centerfire detachable magazine rifles, it also arguably banned M-1 rifles and SKS carbines. It all comes down to the bill language which defines “detachable magazine” as any “removable feeding device”. What the hell is a “feeding device”? An M-1 en-bloc clip? An SKS charger? Who knows?

      Even better, there seemed to be a glaring loophole regarding which newly defined “assault weapons” could be grandfathered into legal possession by means of “assault weapon” registration. According to the bill language, only those “assault weapons” which were “acquired” between 2001 and 2013 could be registered!

      Can you imagine all the people in California who own M-1 carbines or Mini-14 rifles who bought them before 2001, all of a sudden being informed in 2014 that they would have to get rid of those newly defined “assault weapons” or risk jail?

      • TS says:

        They wouldn’t be informed of it. People will just get arrested when caught with an unregistered “assault weapon” because they didn’t think their Ruger 10/22 was one of those “weapons of war” they were talking about.

        I asked some of my more causal gun owning friends- they didn’t know their gun was being banned.

      • TS says:

        According to the bill language, only those “assault weapons” which were “acquired” between 2001 and 2013 could be registered!

        Holy crap! I never noticed that before, but it’s there, plain as day. This bill was a confiscation order if you owned it since 2000 or sooner.

        See, they gave you your chance to register your “assault weapon” then. Even though they weren’t calling your Remington 750 an “assault weapon” (in fact specifically saying your gun is not what they were after), you should have known that they would ban it in the future and not let you register it.

      • That’s exactly my point, about “ordinary” people facing SWAT teams, MRAPs in their driveway, cops shooting their dogs, and long prison sentences.

        If the antis want to push it this far, fine, let’s see what happens when the Supreme Court takes up the issue.

        If the SCOTUS says, “No, Heller was clear, you may not ban M1 Carbines and other similar firearms within an entire class” then it takes the issue off the table and deflates the antis even further. We saw what taking complete handgun bans off the table did to their “membership” and fundraising. Imagine the impact of taking substantive AWBs off the table?

        If the SCOTUS says, “Sure, ban away!” then the people will decide what to do. They might choose the Moving Box and GTFO. They might choose to submit and comply. They might choose something else. Who knows.

        At least the California legislature was ready to get it on a la General Gage, in a somewhat intellectually honest manner. Let’s have the debate about the validity of civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. I think it is one we are prepared to engage in and win, from any of our Liberty Boxes (with the possible exception of the voting box, in some blue states).

  11. Wade says:

    My understanding is that this California bill went beyond a semi-auto ban and banned any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. This would include such traditional hunting rifles as the pump action Remington 7600. Don’t know if that’s what got Moonbeam’s nay but glad to see they pushed for too much.

    That lead bill is just as ridiculous.

  12. Richard says:

    Vetoing the AWB ban and signing the lead ban should be kind of a wake up call for those hunters who don’t think the left is after their guns. Hang together or hang separately.

  13. Braden Lynch says:

    I called, faxed, and wrote letters to the effect that we had recalled Gray Davis and could do the same thing as Colorado on him. Wonder if that got his attention. I suspect though that the over-reach would have been a huge SCOTUS win for us if he signed it.

top