New California Law Requires Annual Government Inspection of Weapons?

[1911 guy]

I find it darkly amusing that so many people are still operating under the assumption that the Republic is in any way continuing in the way our founders imagined.

Keeping this strictly gun related, but the principles and beliefs of some politicians extend to all areas, Hillary Clinton has been a vocal opponent of gun rights. She has stated several times that she would, if in a position of power, seek to curtail or outlaw the private use and ownership of all firearms. She now seeks that position of power.

The last several presidencies, not just the last eight years, have seen a blatant disregard for the protections and rights we have enumerated in our Constitution and written into our laws. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "judicial activism" or the "living document" idea. These, among others, are tools used to whittle away what you have taken for granted, while not actually amending or striking any law or text of the Constitution.

The end goal is to have the Second Amendment securely ensconced in the Constitution, but in daily life it will have no meaning, as private ownership is to be banned under leftist leadership and the meaning of the words (remember that common catch-phrase "words mean things"?) perverted so as to be unrelated and not applicable to the citizen.

 

[ATN082268]

Regardless the topic is inspections of firearms owned by CA citizens and their frequency. What does the law require and who's going to do it? Most enforcement agencies are on a budget and they cannot and largely will not have the time in manpower to handle the work load.

EX: my metro has 25,000 households, if 50% of Americans own guns, then 12,500 of them need inspections. On an annual basis, given a 40 hour work week, or 2,080 hours a year, about 6 households an hour worth of guns need to be inspected.

Its always fun to do the math and break down just how unrealistic and stupid political concepts become in reality.

That's why these measures are largely ineffective and a joke.

Do the math.

If I had to guess I'd say California would end up requiring gun owners sign a statement about what guns they own and perform random checks to verify. If you own guns and make a false statement or no statement at all, heavy fines and/or jail time.

 

[danez71]

In three last debate she said SCOTUS has been going in the wrong direction.

She has been vocally against Heller and McDonald.

Earlier this year in WI, she said:

"This election is about more than just one seat on the court," Clinton said at the University of Wisconsin. "The next president could end up nominating multiple justices. That means the president elected this fall could determine the future of the court for decades to come."

The former secretary of state called on Senator Chuck Grassley "to step up and do his job" by holding a hearing for Obama nominee Merrick Garland. She praised Garland as a moderate.

"For a long time now the ideological bend of the court has led the country in the wrong direction," Clinton said. "If we're serious about progressive causes we need to focus on who is sitting on the court."

While that's her goal, shes calculated and knows there more than one way to skin a catfish.

As noted earlier, reinterpretation of existing laws like steel core, bullet diameter, ITAR definitions, MA's AW snafu, to name a few, are another avenue to take.



Tirod, do you have anything to support your claim in regards to MA of:

sales are still ongoing, and nothing has resulted of it.

In regards to NY Safe act, the law is still on the books. LE can enforce any time they want.

 

[Tcruse]

If a President can do that, why haven't they already? It's part of the Obama legacy that he not only couldn't but didn't, yet he was as motivated as any other.

In fact Obama has made several changes that affect 2A issues. Some of them have been noticed by Congress and stopped but many of the less visible ones continue. He has added thousands of vets to the list of prohibited processors without any law change or due process. He has also reclassified some ammo as not eligible to be imported, thus making the AK-74 more expensive to own/shoot. He has instructed the ATF to not process any appeals for NICS denials. He has made it more difficult for small "kitchen table" dealers to get FFL. He as also made some changes in what the ATF considers as a gun dealer by "agency policy". I am sure that there are many other subtle changes in "agency policy" that effect the citizen as a law change.

 

[El Viajero]

I think there is much ado about nothing to be honest.

 

[HexHead]

Executive Orders only apply to Federal agencies.

 

[danez71]

Executive Orders only apply to Federal agencies.

That includes the Federal agencies that arrest and prosecute.

 

[phil dirt]

I have no fondness for HRC but stating she will bring even more laws like that doesn't stand up with her predecessors legacy. If anti gun measures are counted up against advances, there is at best a stalemate - some states went full retard with gun laws, but a lot more states went Shall Issue and the move to Constitutional Carry pressed forward.

I've yet to have anyone explain how a sitting President creates law unilaterally against the people's will. It's arguable but basically Congress has to go along with it, then enforcement becomes an issue. At present the enforcement issue is rife with outright opposition with statements of support for the 2A - take the SAFE act in NY as an example.

Regardless the topic is inspections of firearms owned by CA citizens and their frequency. What does the law require and who's going to do it? Most enforcement agencies are on a budget and they cannot and largely will not have the time in manpower to handle the work load.

EX: my metro has 25,000 households, if 50% of Americans own guns, then 12,500 of them need inspections. On an annual basis, given a 40 hour work week, or 2,080 hours a year, about 6 households an hour worth of guns need to be inspected.

Its always fun to do the math and break down just how unrealistic and stupid political concepts become in reality.

Since the average owner of firearms has 3 guns, with the 6th owning the balance of about 14 - referring to "super owners" who apparently possess the remaining guns known to be in America - thats over 30 guns to be "inspected."

What are they inspecting for, and why would someone bring in a gun that wouldn't comply with whatever standards exist in law? What are the penalties - seizure and arrest. People won't generally risk it.

So either the inspections are a farce, or have to occur IN THE HOME to accomplish it. That's 6 homes worth of guns EVERY HOUR just to keep up. Add transit time to get to the next home, administrative time out of the day, etc. If it's randomized to prevent your neighbor hiding his guns because he's next in line, you lose time in the day driving to the next address.

As for the inspection itself - CA already does that with motor vehicles, and it's a ripe subject on auto forums about owners swapping complete intake systems and cams for street use, then changing them back to OEM for the periodic inspection. It would be the same as owning a CA compliant AR and then installing all the "illegal" parts for private range use or HD.

It's High Road, so nobody here will state that is happening - but then again the ratio of known "assault rifles" registered under CA law is less than 25% by estimates. There is a huge amount of non compliance, and the same thing going on in NY, too.

Inspections will be a useless waste of time, and when the first ones conducted at homes start up - after the extra manpower is hired, trained, and then tasked to do it - there will be a serious interest in local politics about it.

That's why these measures are largely ineffective and a joke.

Do the math.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think HRC will appoint the required number of Supreme Court Justices and then, once there is a majority of Justices who decide in her favor, we will all be criminals if we don't abide by her executive orders. Then, things could get ugly. Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[danez71]

Posts 10, 13, and 14 have answered the OP question ...

CA doesn't have a requirement of inspection for general firearm owners. Those posts explain when/if an inspection is ever needed, which is narrowly defined

 

[9mmepiphany]

Posts 10, 13, and 14 have answered the OP question ...

CA doesn't have a requirement of inspection for general firearm owners. Those posts explain when/if an inspection is ever needed, which is narrowly defined

This sounds pretty much the case