Gun group sets sights on ‘restrictive’ bills

September 20, 2013

Guns_1000California’s most expansive gun-owners’ website, Calguns.net, has launched a campaign to encourage Gov. Jerry Brown’s veto of a bundle of legislation viewed as “the most restrictive collection of anti-gun laws in decades.”

Setting cross-hairs on 11 specific bills, Calguns.net sponsors are asking their 90,000 members to make their views known to the state’s chief executive.

In a release with accompanying suggestions for member lobbying, the organization noted, “Governor Brown needs to be reminded that he has millions of constituents that are law-abiding gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters…. If we do not stop these bills now our children will never know the fundamental rights of self defense, hunting, self reliance and private ownership of firearms.”

The bills targeted by Calguns.net:

SB374 – Bans the future sale or transfer of and classifies all semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as “assault weapons.” Continued legal possession requires registration and payment of a fee on all semi-autos newly classified as “assault weapons.”

AB711 – Makes California the first state to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.

AB48 – Bans the sale of parts and repair kits capable of creating or converting a magazine to a capacity to hold greater than ten rounds.

AB169 – Limits the sale/transfer of all lawfully firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns to two a year, and redefines the technical provisions of single shot pistols.

AB231 – Expands laws relating to firearms storage.

SB299 – Makes it a crime if a person does not report a lost/stolen firearm within seven days.

SB475 – Would effectively ban the gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring the approval of San Francisco and San Mateo county officials.

AB180 – Repeals state firearms preemption by allowing the city of Oakland to enact gun ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws concerning the registration or licensing of firearms.

SB567 – Redefines shotguns to include any long gun with a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder and bans the sale of shotguns with the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.

SB683 – Expands California’s Handgun Safety Certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

SB755 – Expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while impaired (DUI).


Loading...

15 Comments

  1. choprzrul says:

    Let’s keep this in proper perspective. We are all created with a complete set of natural rights. Wikipedia helps us with a definition:

    “…natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable…” i.e. these are your civil rights. Contrary to most people’s beliefs, the Constitution and/or government does NOT give you any rights, natural or civil. As matter of fact, our Constitution tells our government how far it can intrude into our civil rights.

    Back to this story. Sacramento legislators’ new bills are merely new and additional intrusions into our civil rights. Said another way, Sacramento has voted to further oppress the civil rights of law abiding citizens in this state.

    Those who would support these bills are supporting the oppression of civil rights. Nothing more.

    You can be anti civil rights if you like, but not me.

    .

    (22) 26 Total Votes - 24 up - 2 down
  2. Myself says:

    What I have a problem with is why can’t the anti gun nuts get the fact in their heads that only law abiding people get caught up in this not criminals, they will still get their hands on guns but we will be left defenseless, now does that make any sense.

    (19) 27 Total Votes - 23 up - 4 down
  3. easymoney says:

    ANTI “Gun group sets sights on ‘restrictive’ bills”
    Small correction…

    (5) 5 Total Votes - 5 up - 0 down
  4. Pelican1 says:

    We need more guns! Three hundred million+, is simply is NOT enough. How can we be expected to continue the daily genocide and carnage related to gun use with this few guns in circulation?
    Only 20 mass killings have occurred so far during Obama’s presidency…surely we can do better than that!

    (-48) 62 Total Votes - 7 up - 55 down
    • SamLouis says:

      So when the hard facts don’t support your personal beliefs your turn to emotion driven by ignorance and/or stupidity, aye?

      Trying to reduce “mass killings” through “gun control” is akin to attempting to reduce speeding by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy new vehicles and fuel.

      Thank goodness people are slowly making up and rejecting the crap you and others spew on this important subject.

      (26) 36 Total Votes - 31 up - 5 down
    • r0y says:

      Ever thought to do your own research into the matter?

      Are you afraid of what you might find?

      (5) 5 Total Votes - 5 up - 0 down
  5. Rambunctious says:

    Just sent my check to the NRA today….

    (37) 49 Total Votes - 43 up - 6 down
  6. SamLouis says:

    * Attempts at “gun control” DO NOT WORK. It’s a proven fact. There is hard data available on the subject. Here is the latest study (about a month ago) from Harvard on the topic: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    * Gun crimes/violence have already dropped sharply for the last 20 years in the USA (no thanks to “gun control.”) http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html

    * Colorado just recalled two state congresspersons that thumbed their noses at their constituents in order to follow the directives of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his $$$. People are getting tired of the worthless, costly and potentially dangerous “gun control” laws.

    Do the right thing, Gov. Brown and veto all this crap. Much of it will go to court anyway if you don’t veto and they will be judged to be unconstitutional.

    (43) 51 Total Votes - 47 up - 4 down
  7. Jorge Estrada says:

    While we go to work, take a needed vacation, go to a fund raiser or help a neighbor, some of our elected officials are working hard to pass more laws that will be broken. Isn’t there a road to fix, a school to build or something productive to spend tax dollars on? Personally I am sick and tired enabling crime, building prisons and the social theropy BS that plagues our California budget.

    (47) 55 Total Votes - 51 up - 4 down
  8. info says:

    Thank you for a neutral write up CCN. I do appreciate it. However, to be completely neutral you may consider modification of the photo to show the guns referenced in the bills. Most of the guns you show besides the auto’s are already banned in the state. Showing a ruger 10-22, mini-14 and other small caliber rifles would be more appropriate so everyone can get a clear picture of what really is getting taken away. Uniformed individuals may believe these scary looking guns shown in your picture are the ones being banned. Not the case.

    Never thought I’d see the day when my first 22 rifle as a kid would be considered an assault rifle. Very disappointing.

    (53) 61 Total Votes - 57 up - 4 down
    • SamLouis says:

      SB 374 applies only to centerfire rifles so your .22LR is safe — for now. It’s still an absolute garbage bill that will be overturned in court should Brown not veto it — but not after wasting millions of $$$.

      (31) 31 Total Votes - 31 up - 0 down
    • r0y says:

      I am not sure any media outlet can run a firearm story without the “scary black guns” – even if they do not intend to be anti-gun (or pro-gun). It’s just most everything “gun” related is a media-generated, self-feeding issue. The actual statistics of “assault weapon” crimes are so small and insignificant that if logic and thought were applied, the hollowness of the issue would be quite apparent.

      I sure wish that, instead of running with stories like this, there would be a decent in-depth study done. This guy did that. I’ve done it. It’s so obvious that anyone who DOES NOT HAVE AN AGENDA, and respects honesty can see that we’re putting WAY too much resources into “anti-gun” crap that limits law-abiding long rifle owners.

      (24) 28 Total Votes - 26 up - 2 down
  9. kayaknut says:

    “SB755 – Expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while impaired (DUI).”

    Will this include police officers?? but wait a minute they actually are never “officially” charged thanks to their fellow officers

    (31) 45 Total Votes - 38 up - 7 down
    • r0y says:

      To quote The Clash (Joe Strummer), KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:
      This is a public service announcement
      With guitar
      Know your rights all three of them:

      Number 1
      You have the right not to be killed
      Murder is a CRIME!
      Unless it was done by a
      Policeman or aristocrat

      Know your rights

      And Number 2
      You have the right to food money
      Providing of course you
      Don’t mind a little
      Investigation, humiliation
      And if you cross your fingers
      Rehabilitation

      Number 3
      You have the right to free
      Speech as long as you’re not
      Dumb enough to actually try it.

      (9) 17 Total Votes - 13 up - 4 down

Comments are closed.