California gun sales skyrocket after school shooting

December 20, 2012

In the aftermath of an election and another school shooting, firearm sales in California are at an all-time high. [PressEnterprise]

Friday’s shooting at a Connecticut school in which a gunman shot and killed 20 children and six adults with a .223-caliber Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle has reignited calls for gun control legislation.

In October, with pre-election debates including arguments for and against stricter gun control laws, gun enthusiasts began scrambling to pick up weapons that could be banned.

According to the FBI, during the month of October, background checks required for gun purchases in California jumped 27 percent, from 89,164 to 113,832.

Following the November election, gun sales increased 49 percent compared to the same time last year, according to the California Department of Justice.

California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The state bans assault weapons, requires background checks on all gun buyers, requires that all gun sales be processed through a licensed dealer, bans the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and has a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Montana Governor Steve Bullock vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the state from enforcing any federal bans on semiautomatic weapons or large capacity magazines.

[He claimed that Montana is required to enforce all federal laws, but that is not true. The 10th Amendment recognizes that the federal government was created by the states and that powers not given to the fed by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people themselves. The Constitution does not give the fed the power to tell the citizens of Montana what kinds of guns they may own.]

TAC 2013 Mar 29

The New York Journal News, the paper that that recently published the names and addresses of legal gun owners in 2 counties, has hired armed guards in response to a flood of negative public response. [Is this hypocrisy or what? Judge Napolitano responds but, unfortunately, fails to point out that the paper was attempting to bring scorn to bear on citizens who merely are doing what the paper, itself, has done – which is to protect themselves. If not OK for the people, why is it OK for the newspaper?] Fox Insider 2013 Jan 2

The way it really is:

Switzerland: A man with psychiatric problems shot and killed three women while on a drunken rampage. [Over a third of Swiss citizens own guns, yet, such cases are extremely rare. In this case, the man’s weapons had been confiscated by police in 2005 because of his psychiatric condition but, as we have seen over and over, criminals and psychos are always able to obtain guns illegally. Gun bans only succeed in disarming their victims.]

NBC News 2013 Jan 3

San Antonio Theater Shooting

Posted on December 29, 2012 by # 1 NWO Hatr

Nox and Friends – by Hardnox

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it as if it had never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.

Read more:

(Hat-tip Skip)

I remain disgusted with the media’s deliberate attempt to whitewash news while at the same time creating their own narrative for whatever sinister reasons.

This story along with many others about civies stoppng mentaly deranged people, will never see the light of day in the mainscream media. here is anothe r:

“Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

United States Marine Corps

2004-2012 ”

Not to mention dianne feinstein has a seperate agenda for herself: She thinks it is OK for her to have a gung but no one else…

Only an evil and deceptive fool believes gun control is about anything other than control.

What we really need to do is ban ALL POOLS in this country to really make and impact and save some children!

CA Lawmakers Take Aim at Gun Rights


It took only days before California’s legislators reacted to the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy with a fusillade of bills designed to take California closer to Democratic leaders’ unstated but obvious goal: making it essentially illegal for Californians to own firearms.

I write “essentially” because the strategy isn’t to ban guns outright, but to mire ownership in so many layers of regulation that owning a gun becomes even more frustrating and costly than operating a business in this state. Legislators aren’t stupid. Direct assaults on gun ownership generate pushback, but killing this constitutional right through a thousand cuts is less confrontational.

California already has the toughest gun regulations of any state, yet legislators (including a Republican) have introduced a long list of new proposals at news conferences where they used the Connecticut tragedy to grandstand.


Trying to prevent another slaughter of children is “grandstanding?” Give your head a shake, instead of your gun.

Would it make you happier if they had been shot with a .357 Magnum or a .22?

How about getting slashed to death with a Bowie knife?

Or getting thrown out of windows?

Enough already.


Perhaps but enough already.

Two firemen dead, shot to death by a (FELON) man with a Bushmaster. The very same model gun used to slaughter 20 children and six teachers last week. In Aurora, Colorado the Colt version was used, killing 12 and injuring 59. And in Oregon, at a mall, the Bushmaster once again does it’s intended job, killing two Christmas shoppers.

Why it was only ten years ago when the the DC snipers used their Bushmaster to kill 10 innocent Americans. America’s premier choice of killing platforms.

I have a couple of questions. First, why was there such a rise in the sale of guns after the shooting? 49% rise in gun sales as compared to the same time last year. I find this rise very curious and would like to know why people purchased. I somehow think it was more of a need of people with good intentions and wanting to somehow protect themselves and families in a society that offers little guarantees or protection against the defenseless. I don’t think that such a rise would be coming from the criminal element whose intent was to cause harm and havoc and seeing this as an opportunity to purchase a gun. Since purchase was always an option for criminals as well as law abiding citizens just wondering which of these two elements was making the purchase.

Second, I am not sure the numbers reflect so much the reality of the situation. The Connecticut shooting was on December 14 and stats are from Nov to Nov and do not include the sale of guns after the shooting. I think to be accurate in claiming there is a connection between shootings and purchase of arms the correct time frame would be helpful.

And lastly, if it is the desire of a nation to control the level of violence would it not be more conducive to that end to understanding first the cause that made it necessary? Unless we are able to discern the real cause I am having difficulty understanding how we can come up with an effective and meaningful solution.

On the morning of April 19th, 1775, the British left their garrison and marched on Lexington & Concord to seize arms. In other words, they were enforcing gun control by the world’s super power.

Fast forward to today. The president has stated that “…I asked Joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 crime bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in this country. That plan — that bill also included the assault weapons ban…”.

This is taken to mean that an assault weapons ban is in the works. People are taking steps now to secure their civil rights and have been spurred into visiting their local gun shop. The demand has far out stripped the supply. Weapons’ values have doubled in the last 10 day. Standard capacity magazines have gone from $12 apiece 2 weeks ago to $70 apiece now (if you can even find any). Ammunition is rapidly drying up also.

What does this all mean? To begin with, the $2,500 that a person spent on a rifle, magazines, and ammunition are NOT being spent for Christmas shopping. Retailers are going to suffer as a result. Another effect is hundreds of thousands of rifles in new owners hands. Lastly, manufacturers throughout the industry and suppliers are working beyond capacity.

Like 237 years ago, citizens are taking steps to protect their means by which to resist tyranny. Whether that tyranny comes at the hands of a home invasion, an assault, or a national invasion; law abiding citizens must have the means to resist that tyranny.