Big Gay Al
Member
Don't blame me, I voted straight republican. At least my congressman (Mike Rogers) stayed in office!
California ALERT! Semi-autos in danger!
- Thread starter Jim Diver
- Start date
- Status
johnsonrlp
Member
Actually California's representatives are nearly evenly divided. A better solution would be to split the state three ways. That would pretty much guaranty 4 new good Senators.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Assault Weapons?
I don't suppose it has ever occurred to them to ban assault criminals?
Since inanimate objects have no volition, they can't plan a crime.
People plan crimes.
We need to ban assault people.
I don't suppose it has ever occurred to them to ban assault criminals?
Since inanimate objects have no volition, they can't plan a crime.
People plan crimes.
We need to ban assault people.
Big Gay Al
Member
How about we break it up into 3 separate states? That would give us 52 states in the union (I prefer even numbers), and would ADD 4 senators to the current number.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
Or better yet divide Cali's senators equally among the 3 bite-size Calis (the state has too many anyway) and have the residents of the respective new states hold a new election with candidates sypmathetic to their region. I have a feeling N. Cali is a lot more Pro-Gun than the south.
The_Antibubba
Member
This is a Nanny State-and that might put your eye out!
And so we continue to soldier on, which is good news for the rest of the country.
There are many here who would like to help foment entire sections of the state into secession-run a search on "The State of Jefferson". Most of the Sierras and eastward would go too, I think.
kungfuhippie
Member
Nope, wrong, sorry to say.
It's all a city/rural thing. Big cities like LA, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and San Diego are full of leftist anti gunners. The outskirts are more often pro RKBA but were out numbered by the huge cities. And we must take into account the old hippies, make love not war
Spliting California up wouldn't help since there are big cities north and south. The only solution I see is educating the people.
It helps to take your foil hat off while talking to them about RKBA, and please don't mention the black helicopters either
DoubleTapDrew
Member
There are a few people I know in No. Cal. but they are in rural areas so you may be right. I feel sorry for the pro-RKBA people down there.
At least the residents of California can sleep soundly in their beds, knowing there aren't any law-abiding people that own .50 cal rifles bringing down airplanes, knocking trains off their tracks, blowing up tanks, or vaporizing deer. Wait...what was that noise downstairs?
Anti-gun people are immune to logic. If it were that easy we could just produce pamphlets and carpet bomb cali with them.
At least the residents of California can sleep soundly in their beds, knowing there aren't any law-abiding people that own .50 cal rifles bringing down airplanes, knocking trains off their tracks, blowing up tanks, or vaporizing deer. Wait...what was that noise downstairs?
wacki
Member
PRK???
kungfuhippie
Member
PRK = People's Republic of California
which is short for
DPRK = Democratic People's Republic of California
which is in reference to the real DPRK = Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
People using this acronym on THR are refering to the socialist atmosphere of California Politics. The People for a Perfect World movement types.
which is short for
DPRK = Democratic People's Republic of California
which is in reference to the real DPRK = Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
People using this acronym on THR are refering to the socialist atmosphere of California Politics. The People for a Perfect World movement types.
kungfuhippie
Member
I like the idea of east/west california. Of course then east california would not have any ports. Maybe the dividing line could be interstate 5 all the way south until it hits the orange county line (that's a red county) and then it would vere west along the county line to the ocean.
Then we've got San Diego Port and all the hippie types would be out of my state
We could just split Sacramento into two parts and keep it as both capitols.
OF course we'd have to get a new governator.
Then we'd get or AW's, 50 cals, hi cap mags back
Then we've got San Diego Port and all the hippie types would be out of my state
We could just split Sacramento into two parts and keep it as both capitols.
OF course we'd have to get a new governator.
Then we'd get or AW's, 50 cals, hi cap mags back
bg
Member
How many ports are in Iowa, Ok, Nv, Co, etc ?
kungfuhippie
Member
How much of the GDP comes from Iowa, Oklahoma, Nevada, Colorado, etc???
Just saying that ports are a big part of California's commerce that and agriculture. Without ports California Este would be very crippled and the the mercy of California Oeste (And I like San Diego)
I guess that state to state import duties are constitutionally banned so it wouldn't matter, unless Pelosi decides that other parts are "living" too, not just the 2nd. MAybe the 14th could be living for a while.
Just saying that ports are a big part of California's commerce that and agriculture. Without ports California Este would be very crippled and the the mercy of California Oeste (And I like San Diego)
I guess that state to state import duties are constitutionally banned so it wouldn't matter, unless Pelosi decides that other parts are "living" too, not just the 2nd. MAybe the 14th could be living for a while.
spencerhut
Member
My letter to the Gov and Mr. Amador
Mr. Amador,
At age 8 I fired my first firearm. I hunted (nothing bigger than a squirrel) and participated in shooting competitions until the age of 18. At the age of 18 I joined the Marine Corps, as a turboprop engine mechanic (MOS 6016). I thought the M-16A2 we were trained on was kind of a hunk of junk. Yes, it worked just fine in its designed purpose, but crude. When I was discharged in 1991 I stayed away from firearms for many years. I just wasn’t interested in them. Not sure why, guess other things in my young life kept me too busy.
Well it’s 2006 now and after a chance encounter with competitive shooting my wife and I have been bitten by the competitive shooting bug. But after spending many years away from any type of firearm, I have been rather rudely awakened to find the rather oppressive firearms laws of our once fine state. To see how our state has incrementally changed the laws so far against the clear intentions of the founding fathers of our country over the years leaves me feeling as though I’ve awoken in some sort of Orwellian future. I find it hard to believe some of the laws we currently have in this state. Did you know people in other states are referring to our state as “The People Republic of California” It makes me sad. How is it that certain features or characteristics can make a firearm “evil”? People are evil, not things. Anyone caring to argue that point might want to do a little reading on the subject.
Banning such things as pistol grips or thumb holes on a firearm seems a little silly and worthless. I would hate to be the first to point out that two of our nations most destructive and deadly battle weapons, the M1 Garand and the M-14 (available in our state as the M1A) have neither. Yet I would be far more fearful of any criminal intent on harming me that possessed either of these weapons than the M-16/AR-15 or AK/SKS series of weapons, neither of which have the accuracy or power of the M1 or M-14. By the way, I’ve learned recently that many people in the shooting community refer to the M-16/AR-15 jokingly as a “Poodle Shooter”. I recall a story in the news not long ago where a judge in Nevada was shot by AR-15 type weapon, in the throat of all places, and lived. The same shot by just about any commonly available deer rifle would have been fatal.
Why is our state wasting tax dollars trying to keep these so called “evil feature” weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens? If a person can pass a background check they should be able to own any firearm their heart desires. Our founding fathers clearly used the term “arms” in the second amendment for a reason. Not knife, musket, rapier or cannon, “arms”. Law abiding citizens should not be restrained from possessing arms in this country. Anyone harming another citizen or committing a crime should be dealt with appropriately within our laws. What particular weapon a criminal may choose matters little, the motivation of the criminal usually provides the real destructive energy. Look what some rather evil criminals did with simple box cutters. Just imagine what the outcome would have been on that day if just one person on each of those plans was able to exercise his or her constitutional right to bear arms.
A rather intelligent and well meaning fellow over at the NRA Members Council put this little list of problems with the new proposed rules together. I agree with everything he say here completely and feel the rules change should not take place. I'm not a member of the NRA, but I've been considering it the last six months or so.
·Over one-hundred thousand firearm owners have relied, to their detriment if this regulation passes, on the historical interpretation, actions, and application of the "assault weapon" statutes and existing regulations defining "detachable magazine," which focuses on the interface between the magazine and the rifle.
·Fixed magazine guns, like the Barrett 82A1/CA and DSArms, can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.
·The DOJ historically emphasized that the focus on modifications of firearms was whether the firearm was a "fixed magazine" or a "detachable magazine," not the reversibility of the modification. For example, Director of the Firearms Division, Randy Rossi stated in a letter as far back as August 13, 2002 that a Barrett 82A1/CA, which was approved by the DOJ, was a "fixed magazine" – despite the fact that the same firearm would not meet the newly proposed regulation by the DOJ.
·A DOJ lawyer for the Firearms Division has previously stated in writing that "a receiver with a magazine that is not ‘readily detachable’ is not subject to the ban on generic characteristic [sic] set forth in section 12276.1(a)(1)."
·This regulation would invalidate all ".50 BMG Rifle" registrations for the Barrett 82A1 made by owners pursuant to AB50, because an "assault weapon" cannot be registered ".50 BMG Rifle."
·"Reversed" should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever "irreversible" to only accept a fixed magazine. And, the DOJ has admitted that a firearm cannot be permanently altered to not accept a detachable magazine.
·The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon." There are many of these rifles in California. These could include SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market "detachable magazine" retrofit kit is available.
· People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.
· People were not told they needed to register these guns as "assault weapons" and the registration period has now expired.
·It is unclear what the term "action" means. Is it the receiver, the trigger group, or what?
· The DOJ has already stated that the phrase "capacity to accept" is clear.
· The DOJ has already stated that the courts should decide what "capacity to accept" means.
·The proposed amendment affects small businesses by making criminals out of law abiding purchasers of firearms who relied upon the DOJ’s previous interpretations and their dealer’s assurances that firearms purchased by the public were lawful.
·It is unclear what the term "device" means, because it has not been defined.
·It is unclear what the term "irreversible" means since anything can be reversed with time and tools, even the approved methods of modification.
·The inclusion of the phrase "removed, reversed, or disengaged, without alteration to the magazine well" limits the allowable modifications to the four modifications listed in subdivision (3) despite the inclusion of the unrestricted language "for example" used in subdivision (3). This is also true despite the fact that the four proposed approved "examples" are reversible and conflicts with the alleged intent of the newly proposed regulation.
·The proposed amendment exceeds the scope of the stated purposes of the regulation, which was to "define a sixth term, ‘capacity to accept a detachable magazine’, as meaning ‘capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.’”
Mr. Amador,
At age 8 I fired my first firearm. I hunted (nothing bigger than a squirrel) and participated in shooting competitions until the age of 18. At the age of 18 I joined the Marine Corps, as a turboprop engine mechanic (MOS 6016). I thought the M-16A2 we were trained on was kind of a hunk of junk. Yes, it worked just fine in its designed purpose, but crude. When I was discharged in 1991 I stayed away from firearms for many years. I just wasn’t interested in them. Not sure why, guess other things in my young life kept me too busy.
Well it’s 2006 now and after a chance encounter with competitive shooting my wife and I have been bitten by the competitive shooting bug. But after spending many years away from any type of firearm, I have been rather rudely awakened to find the rather oppressive firearms laws of our once fine state. To see how our state has incrementally changed the laws so far against the clear intentions of the founding fathers of our country over the years leaves me feeling as though I’ve awoken in some sort of Orwellian future. I find it hard to believe some of the laws we currently have in this state. Did you know people in other states are referring to our state as “The People Republic of California” It makes me sad. How is it that certain features or characteristics can make a firearm “evil”? People are evil, not things. Anyone caring to argue that point might want to do a little reading on the subject.
Banning such things as pistol grips or thumb holes on a firearm seems a little silly and worthless. I would hate to be the first to point out that two of our nations most destructive and deadly battle weapons, the M1 Garand and the M-14 (available in our state as the M1A) have neither. Yet I would be far more fearful of any criminal intent on harming me that possessed either of these weapons than the M-16/AR-15 or AK/SKS series of weapons, neither of which have the accuracy or power of the M1 or M-14. By the way, I’ve learned recently that many people in the shooting community refer to the M-16/AR-15 jokingly as a “Poodle Shooter”. I recall a story in the news not long ago where a judge in Nevada was shot by AR-15 type weapon, in the throat of all places, and lived. The same shot by just about any commonly available deer rifle would have been fatal.
Why is our state wasting tax dollars trying to keep these so called “evil feature” weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens? If a person can pass a background check they should be able to own any firearm their heart desires. Our founding fathers clearly used the term “arms” in the second amendment for a reason. Not knife, musket, rapier or cannon, “arms”. Law abiding citizens should not be restrained from possessing arms in this country. Anyone harming another citizen or committing a crime should be dealt with appropriately within our laws. What particular weapon a criminal may choose matters little, the motivation of the criminal usually provides the real destructive energy. Look what some rather evil criminals did with simple box cutters. Just imagine what the outcome would have been on that day if just one person on each of those plans was able to exercise his or her constitutional right to bear arms.
A rather intelligent and well meaning fellow over at the NRA Members Council put this little list of problems with the new proposed rules together. I agree with everything he say here completely and feel the rules change should not take place. I'm not a member of the NRA, but I've been considering it the last six months or so.
·Over one-hundred thousand firearm owners have relied, to their detriment if this regulation passes, on the historical interpretation, actions, and application of the "assault weapon" statutes and existing regulations defining "detachable magazine," which focuses on the interface between the magazine and the rifle.
·Fixed magazine guns, like the Barrett 82A1/CA and DSArms, can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.
·The DOJ historically emphasized that the focus on modifications of firearms was whether the firearm was a "fixed magazine" or a "detachable magazine," not the reversibility of the modification. For example, Director of the Firearms Division, Randy Rossi stated in a letter as far back as August 13, 2002 that a Barrett 82A1/CA, which was approved by the DOJ, was a "fixed magazine" – despite the fact that the same firearm would not meet the newly proposed regulation by the DOJ.
·A DOJ lawyer for the Firearms Division has previously stated in writing that "a receiver with a magazine that is not ‘readily detachable’ is not subject to the ban on generic characteristic [sic] set forth in section 12276.1(a)(1)."
·This regulation would invalidate all ".50 BMG Rifle" registrations for the Barrett 82A1 made by owners pursuant to AB50, because an "assault weapon" cannot be registered ".50 BMG Rifle."
·"Reversed" should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever "irreversible" to only accept a fixed magazine. And, the DOJ has admitted that a firearm cannot be permanently altered to not accept a detachable magazine.
·The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon." There are many of these rifles in California. These could include SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market "detachable magazine" retrofit kit is available.
· People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.
· People were not told they needed to register these guns as "assault weapons" and the registration period has now expired.
·It is unclear what the term "action" means. Is it the receiver, the trigger group, or what?
· The DOJ has already stated that the phrase "capacity to accept" is clear.
· The DOJ has already stated that the courts should decide what "capacity to accept" means.
·The proposed amendment affects small businesses by making criminals out of law abiding purchasers of firearms who relied upon the DOJ’s previous interpretations and their dealer’s assurances that firearms purchased by the public were lawful.
·It is unclear what the term "device" means, because it has not been defined.
·It is unclear what the term "irreversible" means since anything can be reversed with time and tools, even the approved methods of modification.
·The inclusion of the phrase "removed, reversed, or disengaged, without alteration to the magazine well" limits the allowable modifications to the four modifications listed in subdivision (3) despite the inclusion of the unrestricted language "for example" used in subdivision (3). This is also true despite the fact that the four proposed approved "examples" are reversible and conflicts with the alleged intent of the newly proposed regulation.
·The proposed amendment exceeds the scope of the stated purposes of the regulation, which was to "define a sixth term, ‘capacity to accept a detachable magazine’, as meaning ‘capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.’”
SoCalShooter
Member
I am not very good at letter writing but I will send something also. I too have two lowers that I was hoping to get in in the registration period. We actually have a LOT of gun owners in this state the problem is that they are older and not so many young owners anymore.
No, it hasn't yet - remember, the AWB sunset in 2004 for the Free States.
Except in the PRK.
I call Hollywood-inspired delusional BS. Try to pass those draconian California-DOJ style laws in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. - there'd be a lynching. Even Wisconsin, where the state gets a blue rating from the leftist cities of Madison and Milwaukee, would vote down such silliness.
The PRK is unique in that their DOJ runs slipshod over the population, when even the Federal BATFE doesn't push such restrictive stuff.
Somebody voted the California DOJ into existence and vested them, but it wasn't the voters from Texas and Vermont. The PRK made their bed, the PRK can sleep in it, and the PRK can fix it if they feel so put out.
How dare I slam the PRK? Quite easily, actually. I was a resident there until August 1999, when I packed up all my AKs, ARs, M14NM, BM-59, Galil, FN-FAL, and about 400 of those "evil" hicap magazines and sidestepped Lockyer's SB-23 to Florida. When the DOJ sent me a notice to register items before the end of the grace period, I sent them a descriptive note where they could attempt (outside their jurisdiction) to retrieve them, and that as an ex-resident, I would sue if they didn't remove me from their database. Having lived in the PRK so long, Florida came as a complete surprise to me. I promptly received a CCW license, a C&R FFL, and completed paperwork on my NFA Krinkov without hassle - in fact, the judge was a gun collector with a gorgeous display of NFA items in a glass display case behind his office desk. Ask a Florida gun owner if California-style gun laws have a chance of passing there and you'll get laughed at.
So, no, Kalifornians may think that whatever starts in California invades the Union, but as stated before, that's just wishful thinking, along the lines of a "good" Keanu Reaves movie ever making it out of Hollywood, itself a fantasy world creation of the PRK. AWB-II isn't going to happen for quite some time, since the Dems are still smarting from their last firearms faux pas, when they lost a lot of seats due to picking the wrong election issues.
Except in the PRK.
I call Hollywood-inspired delusional BS. Try to pass those draconian California-DOJ style laws in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. - there'd be a lynching. Even Wisconsin, where the state gets a blue rating from the leftist cities of Madison and Milwaukee, would vote down such silliness.
The PRK is unique in that their DOJ runs slipshod over the population, when even the Federal BATFE doesn't push such restrictive stuff.
Somebody voted the California DOJ into existence and vested them, but it wasn't the voters from Texas and Vermont. The PRK made their bed, the PRK can sleep in it, and the PRK can fix it if they feel so put out.
How dare I slam the PRK? Quite easily, actually. I was a resident there until August 1999, when I packed up all my AKs, ARs, M14NM, BM-59, Galil, FN-FAL, and about 400 of those "evil" hicap magazines and sidestepped Lockyer's SB-23 to Florida. When the DOJ sent me a notice to register items before the end of the grace period, I sent them a descriptive note where they could attempt (outside their jurisdiction) to retrieve them, and that as an ex-resident, I would sue if they didn't remove me from their database. Having lived in the PRK so long, Florida came as a complete surprise to me. I promptly received a CCW license, a C&R FFL, and completed paperwork on my NFA Krinkov without hassle - in fact, the judge was a gun collector with a gorgeous display of NFA items in a glass display case behind his office desk. Ask a Florida gun owner if California-style gun laws have a chance of passing there and you'll get laughed at.
So, no, Kalifornians may think that whatever starts in California invades the Union, but as stated before, that's just wishful thinking, along the lines of a "good" Keanu Reaves movie ever making it out of Hollywood, itself a fantasy world creation of the PRK. AWB-II isn't going to happen for quite some time, since the Dems are still smarting from their last firearms faux pas, when they lost a lot of seats due to picking the wrong election issues.
California has been a trendsetter for years. That's been established in nearly every element of culture, because what happens there becomes part of the media, and what the media depicts, the rest of the nation begins, almost instinctively, to mimic over time.
Really? Could those states overrule federal laws? California has been used as the model for various laws, including the original AWB. I don't recall any lynchings from those states. A lot of moaning and why me, but they continued on, even putting the party who passed "draconian California-DOJ style laws" back into power this last time around.
Really? Could those states overrule federal laws? California has been used as the model for various laws, including the original AWB. I don't recall any lynchings from those states. A lot of moaning and why me, but they continued on, even putting the party who passed "draconian California-DOJ style laws" back into power this last time around.
BUzz, I reiterate.
AWB-II isn't going to happen for quite some time. The Dems won the House and Senate on the Iraqi War ticket. Gun control was conspicuously absent this last go-around, because it's a genuine hot potato for the Dems.
The California DOJ is a unique entity to that state, and it usurps Federal law by being more restrictive. The model for the now-defunct AWB was not just a California thing, if memory serves me correctly - While Dianne Feinstein was considered the author, there was at least a little help from elected people in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii, as well as the Brady Bunch. I've even got some dialogue between Ted Kennedy and William Bennett in the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1989 where Kennedy was pushing a ban. New Jersey pushed their ban in 1989. Coincidentally, California did the Roberti-Roos thing in 1989, but to claim that was the model for the national ban of '94 is disingenuous at best.
Of course, the effectiveness of California's series of bans remains to be seen. While I was busy moving my stuff to Florida, I knew many of my fellow PRK gun owners simply refused to register their firearms. One can only imagine what the numbers are like there after SB-23 went into effect, based on what happened after Roberti-Roos:
AWB-II isn't going to happen for quite some time. The Dems won the House and Senate on the Iraqi War ticket. Gun control was conspicuously absent this last go-around, because it's a genuine hot potato for the Dems.
The California DOJ is a unique entity to that state, and it usurps Federal law by being more restrictive. The model for the now-defunct AWB was not just a California thing, if memory serves me correctly - While Dianne Feinstein was considered the author, there was at least a little help from elected people in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii, as well as the Brady Bunch. I've even got some dialogue between Ted Kennedy and William Bennett in the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1989 where Kennedy was pushing a ban. New Jersey pushed their ban in 1989. Coincidentally, California did the Roberti-Roos thing in 1989, but to claim that was the model for the national ban of '94 is disingenuous at best.
Of course, the effectiveness of California's series of bans remains to be seen. While I was busy moving my stuff to Florida, I knew many of my fellow PRK gun owners simply refused to register their firearms. One can only imagine what the numbers are like there after SB-23 went into effect, based on what happened after Roberti-Roos:
The California ban was cited quite often as the model, and the differences can be attributed to the need to get it through Congress at the federal level.
Sort of like claiming that the populations of certain states will rise up and kill, in the absolute and total absence of evidence in support of that claim, and in the face of rather considerable evidence to the contrary, no?
Matter of fact, you've sort of put the lie to your comments by stating that the response to a ban would be noncompliance, not revolution.
Sort of like claiming that the populations of certain states will rise up and kill, in the absolute and total absence of evidence in support of that claim, and in the face of rather considerable evidence to the contrary, no?
Matter of fact, you've sort of put the lie to your comments by stating that the response to a ban would be noncompliance, not revolution.
Huh?
Ok, I'm just a dumb, retired USAF flyboy. Can you go through that bit slowly for me, especially the part about people rising up and killing. I suspect it's you playing devil's advocate yet again, but if it's personal, by all means either PM me or take it to "that other" place.
The heavy non-compliance with the PRK series of bans is by no means anecdotal. It was simply another, albeit non-legal, option for those who didn't see fit to abide by Roberti-Roos or SB-23, and reflects the naievety of the California DOJ in pursuance of their own legislation. I doubt that lesson will be lost on the Free States were a California-style AWB bill to hit the Senate and House in the near future.
Here's how I see it playing out, somewhere on the Senate floor as AWB-II is being debated:
Voila'! The NRA gets another good sound bite for use in 2008, the senators from Florida, Texas, and several other gun states roll their eyes and look at their upcoming golf schedules on their Blackberries, and AWB-II dies a slow death on the floor.
Ok, I'm just a dumb, retired USAF flyboy. Can you go through that bit slowly for me, especially the part about people rising up and killing. I suspect it's you playing devil's advocate yet again, but if it's personal, by all means either PM me or take it to "that other" place.
The heavy non-compliance with the PRK series of bans is by no means anecdotal. It was simply another, albeit non-legal, option for those who didn't see fit to abide by Roberti-Roos or SB-23, and reflects the naievety of the California DOJ in pursuance of their own legislation. I doubt that lesson will be lost on the Free States were a California-style AWB bill to hit the Senate and House in the near future.
Here's how I see it playing out, somewhere on the Senate floor as AWB-II is being debated:
Voila'! The NRA gets another good sound bite for use in 2008, the senators from Florida, Texas, and several other gun states roll their eyes and look at their upcoming golf schedules on their Blackberries, and AWB-II dies a slow death on the floor.
Last edited:
This is why I left California
I loved California when I first moved there but when the liberals took over the State and the government became as intrusive as New York I decided it was time to take my guns and my tax dollars by moving to another state.
The sad fact is: cities within California as well as the State can't protect its citizens (it has one of the worst police response time average in the Country) yet they focus their energies on taking guns away from legal gun owners.
I loved California when I first moved there but when the liberals took over the State and the government became as intrusive as New York I decided it was time to take my guns and my tax dollars by moving to another state.
The sad fact is: cities within California as well as the State can't protect its citizens (it has one of the worst police response time average in the Country) yet they focus their energies on taking guns away from legal gun owners.
silverlance
Member
ok
sks: check
fal: check
su16: check
no safeties handguns (sigs): check check check
darn it, I sitll need an ar15.
sks: check
fal: check
su16: check
no safeties handguns (sigs): check check check
darn it, I sitll need an ar15.
- Status
