I wonder if California's ammo background check might have a silver lining

[cdk8]

It might. One tactic often used is the, "we aren't going after hunters". I think many gun control agendas intentionally target individual segments, because the backlash is more manageable and support from people on the fence is easier to muster. This also might show those people on the fence that this initiative is likely driven by 10% safety initiatives and 90% social control initiatives.

However, even if united, it can be hard to make an impact when a huge portion of those in leadership positions are not only anti-gun themselves, but are in office partly because of money coming from the gun control agenda, leaving obligations that may even override the will of a united front of citizens. It's the only explanation I have for the ongoing atrocities happening in Chicago, where people are being slaughtered like hogs, and yet a huge portion of leadership tries to blame other States & then double down on the gun control initiatives.

I agree with others that this type of bill is a long-term investment strategy. Those pushing it know that interrupting one aspect of an entire system can result in a changed outcome. This type of bill can, over years or decades, reduce the number of new shooters, and over time reduce support for the 2A itself if fewer people are exercising such right.

 

[230RN]

I agree with others that this type of bill is a long-term investment strategy. Those pushing it know that interrupting one aspect of an entire system can result in a changed outcome. This type of bill can, over years or decades, reduce the number of new shooters, and over time reduce support for the 2A itself if fewer people are exercising such right.

You mean, in short, a "choke point," and they are very adept at finding them.

Like setting aside wide swaths of huntable multi-use land as "Monuments" and "Primitive Areas" and "National Parks" and "Wildlife Refuges" and the like, where firearms would then be prohibited under other laws. Who could possibly be against "preserving" our natural heritage, right?

More choke points, as I see it. But then again, I'm admittedly more "paranoid" than most of us.

Nibble, nibble, nibble. Like rats chewing through a wall.

Terry, 230RN

 

[LiveLife]

One tactic often used is the, "we aren't going after hunters".

First there was lead bullet ban on small hunting areas to save the CA Condors ... then came all out ban on the entire state for hunting! How long do you think it will take for them to go after lead pistol bullets next?

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition

Yes, don't believe for a minute the supporting arguments for "reasonable" gun control by the antis ... their ultimate agenda is to take all the guns away from us ... open your eyes and just look back what happened in California last several decades ... it is painfully obvious what their "agenda" was.

 

[cdk8]

You mean, in short, a "choke point," and they are very adept at finding them.

Like setting aside wide swaths of huntable multi-use land as "Monuments" and "Primitive Areas" and "National Parks" and "Wildlife Refuges" and the like, where firearms would then be prohibited under other laws. Who could possibly be against "preserving" our natural heritage, right?

More choke points, as I see it. But then again, I'm admittedly more "paranoid" than most of us.

Nibble, nibble, nibble. Like rats chewing through a wall.

Terry, 230RN

Agreed. They want to avoid pissing off the entire 2A community at once, because they know that 10,000 minor (and often indirect) anti-gun laws are more feasible to get by than one big anti-gun law that does the same thing. If they can only piss off say 10% of the 2A community over a smaller initiative, their gun control battle is much easier because of how many people buy into the "it's not infringing because _______" or "it's only a minor inconvenience for [insert name of small obscure group here]" or "support this patriotic initiative if you love America {which contains some rider clause limiting the right to own or carry}." They are also playing the long game, undertaking initiatives that can ultimately reduce the number of new shooters exercising their 2A rights, such as making ammo more of a pain to purchase or driving the price of it up for "safety reasons". Create enough of those "wildlife refuges" and "heritage sites" and people will start running out of places to hunt, eventually reducing the number of new persons getting into hunting.

But I admit that I am paranoid too.

 

[cdk8]

First there was lead bullet ban on small hunting areas to save the CA Condors ... then came all out ban on the entire state for hunting! How long do you think it will take for them to go after lead pistol bullets next?

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition

Yes, don't believe for a minute the supporting arguments for "reasonable" gun control by the antis ... their ultimate agenda is to take all the guns away from us ... open your eyes and just look back what happened in California last several decades ... it is painfully obvious what their "agenda" was.

Like Francis Underwood in House of Cards, the tactics are as ingenious as they are misleadingly crooked. My guess is that they will first make lead into a bigger public health issue, engage in community outreach efforts to convince those who do not own guns that gun owners shooting lead bullets pose a significant health risk to them and their families, and then move to ban lead bullets 'not because they are anti-gun, but on the basis of "public health & safety"' (all while they ignore much more significant sources of lead intake, such as our decaying infrastructure.)

 

[230RN]

Like Francis Underwood in House of Cards, the tactics are as ingenious as they are misleadingly crooked. My guess is that they will first make lead into a bigger public health issue, engage in community outreach efforts to convince those who do not own guns that gun owners shooting lead bullets pose a significant health risk to them and their families, and then move to ban lead bullets 'not because they are anti-gun, but on the basis of "public health & safety"' (all while they ignore much more significant sources of lead intake, such as our decaying infrastructure.)

Well-put analysis of their tactics, using a practical actual example and taking it to the inevitable conclusion.

Thank you !

Terry

 

[crazymike77]

First there was lead bullet ban on small hunting areas to save the CA Condors ... then came all out ban on the entire state for hunting! How long do you think it will take for them to go after lead pistol bullets next?

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition

Yes, don't believe for a minute the supporting arguments for "reasonable" gun control by the antis ... their ultimate agenda is to take all the guns away from us ... open your eyes and just look back what happened in California last several decades ... it is painfully obvious what their "agenda" was.

Sadly I think that day may be closer then we all think. About 6 months ago I was buying some ammo at a Big 5 Sporting goods and some guy who was hovering around the ammo/gun area asked me if I was hunting out of state, when i asked why he said he noticed I was buying lead bullets, I replayed no just going to the range to teach someone who to shoot, and I don't need lead free at the range. He went on a rant about how I was exploiting a loophole in the law and how they would be changing that. The store manager kicked him out and I just rolled my eyes, but it goes to show how some of these anti-gun people think. And what there long term agenda is.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

The law makers here in CA are trying their hardest to kill the sport and joy of shooting.

If the sport of shooting is gone, so will be the interest in shooting, therefore indirect gun control and the easier it is to pass more gun control laws.

Those actively involved in the shooting sports are the smallest demographic and the most affected by these new laws. USPSA and 3 Gun are already taking a hit with the ban on over 10rnd magazines.

Many of the gun owners in CA have no idea what is going on. I teach shooting classes a few times a week and I get questions about the new gun laws every class. Many in the class had no idea that these new laws existed and that they were effected by them.
"you can't buy ammo online anymore?!"
"Not really. Ammo has to come from a gun shop and you have to undergo a background check and get a little card."
"Well I will just go to Nevada, then."
"Well... you can't do that legally either."
"What!?"

What amazes me the most is when people ask what they are allowed to do in this state.
Many people are worried.
That's when I remind them that when good law abiding citizens who have committed no crime are afraid of what will happen to them, we have a problem Govt and its laws.

I get asked about these things all the time and get to explain to co-workers the new bullet button ban.
I explain that the Mini-14 is unaffected even though it is semi auto and shoots the same bullet with a removable mag.

Most of the time, they reach the conclusion that it doesn't make sense.
The next thing out of their mouth is almost always "Well that doesn't make sense. why would they do that, then?"
Now they are asking the right questions.

 

[Jason_W]

Count yourself lucky then, to have never been yelled at by one. Or, for that matter, a clutch of them.
I have.
It's under-pleasant.
Being at a public forum with your Congressman and there are folk in the audience who believe their fellow citizens ought to be restricted to owning only one gun, a .30-30 or a shotgun, and only used for hunting.

Or, being at a range and being yelled at for "[expletive] flagrantly [expletive] shooting a [expletive] military [expletive] weapon!!!" Arm in question was y Smith-Corona 03A3. Said worthy was not happy that I was attempting to ignore his diatribe. Or, that I was trying to not laugh at him, since he was shooting a .30-40 Krag.

Some of the enemy are in fact us.

It's never fun to encounter someone who has a smoldering dumpster fire of a personality. Unfortunately, there are at least a few in every demographic.

I've been on the other end of it. As someone who prefers walnut and blued steel, I've had members of the black rifle fan club accuse me of not being pro-2A enough because I have little interest in owning an AR or polymer pistol. As though I was a traitor for not going blacktical.

I have no problem with people owning and shooting their ARs and Glocks, they just personally bore me as all.

 

[Browning]

It's never fun to encounter someone who has a smoldering dumpster fire of a personality. Unfortunately, there are at least a few in every demographic.

I've been on the other end of it. As someone who prefers walnut and blued steel, I've had members of the black rifle fan club accuse me of not being pro-2A enough because I have little interest in owning an AR or polymer pistol. As though I was a traitor for not going blacktical.

I have no problem with people owning and shooting their ARs and Glocks, they just personally bore me as all.

The thing is I've never met a single person who liked semi-autos who told me that they believed that traditionally blued guns with walnut stocks or that manually operated hunting guns should be illegal to own or at least banned from shooting at ranges.

I've had several Fudds on here say that sort of thing to me about M1A's, AR's, AK's and Glock's.

Here's part of a PM that I got from a Fudd several years ago who was frothing at the mouth and who wouldn't leave me alone until I blocked him (girl, don't go away mad ... just go away).

O.K. I hate the semi-auto Keyboard Kommando, I Wanna Be a Mercinary, Mall Ninja rifles carried by idiots wearing jack-boots and digital camo. O.K., not so much the rifles as most of the people who use them. Why? Because morons like you use their high rate of fire and their high capacity magazines to make up for not getting off their lazy asses and learning how to shoot accurately. Why else would you want to hunt with something like this? Because youKNOW you're probably going to miss and will need to shoot again. When I used to have to shoot at public ranges, I saw them day after day. Blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam,blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam (reload) blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam,blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam,blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam. then walk away and leave a pile ofsteel cases for someone else to clean up.

I'm not interested in banning his 35 Whelen from the range. Like most of his type this guy assumed a lot about me based on very little information.

Thankfully those sort of attitudes are dying out.

So say what you like, but the hate is usually all going one way.

 

[benEzra]

What laws did Canada import from America?

I may be wrong, but I think Canada's ban on Title II items (to use the U.S. nomenclature) was based on ours and passed the same year (1934), although there are some differences.

Canada's magazine limits were copied from the U.S. gun control lobby talking points, and there were attempts to pass an AWB there based on U.S. gun-control propaganda also, but that mostly failed (AR's are legal there, but subject to additional red tape; most other modern-looking semiautos are not so restricted). Canadians can own a whole lot of rifles that will get you prison time in California and NY, as can a lot of Europeans.

Canadian gun owners labor under an immense amount of red tape, and there is little recognized right of self-defense, but at least their rifle regulations are actually less ridiculous than CA's and NY's (though not as good as most of Actual America).

 

[John Joseph]

I'm in California and I reload. I also added a pellet rifle to minimize using .22s----it's my understanding that you can still legally hunt small game with pellet guns in CA.

 

[Mauserguy]

As a native Californian I have to say it's our only hope is the courts. Frankly, we are awash with non-Americans who only value America for its economics. They don't love liberty. Maybe I'm getting all trumpy here but California is not American any longer. We have a lot to fix and a fence is the first step.
Mauserguy

 

[Crawdad1]

There are many Federal justices that need to be appointed and its the lower courts that normally handle the vast majority of 2A cases. President Trump has an opportunity to correct this and it looks promising even for California.

 

[hdwhit]

Browning wrote:
Or they might leave California for a more gun and tax friendly state that has more jobs in droves the way I did further reducing the number of people who actually work and pay into the system.

I think the people who leave California because of the gun laws will find themselves rapidly replaced by people who care less about the second amendment than having a job.

 

[Browning]

I think the people who leave California because of the gun laws will find themselves rapidly replaced by people who care less about the second amendment than having a job.

That's exactly what happened. New voters are pouring over the border daily. Yet another reason why Cali went downhill.

They're just happy to have running water in their house vs having one tap for the whole village.

Besides ... that's not to say concerns over the trashing of the 2A in California will be 100% of the motivation in leaving, but it'll sure help.

 

[HankR]

People don't move because of gun laws. Even when moving to another state, most people don't have much choice since they're moving for work or family reasons and those control the decision. A very few have the luxury to select states with friendly to gun owners if they're going to make a move.

News to me. I moved, and used gun laws as a major indicator of whether people in the new state shared my values. It took me a long time to finally make the jump, but have been happy with the choice ever since. I've had a couple of chances to move since, and may move again when I retire. Gun laws will again be a major indicator.

 

[larryh1108]

I moved, and used gun laws as a major indicator of whether people in the new state shared my values. It took me a long time to finally make the jump,,,,

Same here. I left IL for CT before Sandy Hook. I left CT for NC after Sandy Hook and the midnight BS gun control laws that were passed. Were the guns laws the only reason I moved? No, but they were a huge consideration. The way it seemed to work out is that the way a state treated the guns laws indicated how they treated the citizens in general. NYS is a fine example of how that plays out.