California gun measure pitting politicians against law enforcement

October 31, 2016

gunsProposition 63, a gun control initiative developed by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newson, is pitting California’s political establishment against numerous law enforcement groups. Polls indicate the politicians have the better hand. [Daily Signal]

The ballot measure calls for regulating ammunition sales, banning large-capacity magazines and making it a crime to not report a stolen gun or stolen ammunition. If passed, the initiative would require individuals and businesses to obtain a license in order to sell ammunition. It would also mandate background checks in order to purchase ammunition.

Newsom, a candidate for governor, is joined by numerous top California Democrats in supporting the initiative. Prop. 63 supporters include both of California’s sitting U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer; Secretary of State Alex Padilla; state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon and numerous mayors

The lieutenant governor recently penned an op-ed in the Orange County Register stating his case for the initiative.

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom

“Since we announced Prop. 63, over 10 mass shootings have occurred, along with so many other deaths that never made the headlines,” Newsom wrote. “Ammunition is the most lethal part of a gun, yet there is no regulation surrounding its sale. Currently, under state law, you can sell ammunition anywhere: a hospital, day care center, restaurant, school or church. Prop. 63 will change that by treating ammo the way we treat guns.”

Opponents of Prop. 63 include Republican California Congressmen Tom McClintock and Paul Cook and a host of Republican California legislators. Additionally, numerous law enforcement groups oppose the measure. They include: the California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Fish & Game Wardens Association and California Reserve Peace Officers Association.

Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, the president of the State Sheriffs’ Association, said Prop. 63 is seen by California sheriffs as a continued erosion of Second Amendment rights.

“California has the strictest gun laws now, and they have no impact on crime because senators aren’t going to follow the law,” Youngblood said.

Opponents also say that, when buying ammunition, criminals and terrorists are not going to jump through the hoops set up by the initiative.

Polls indicate Prop. 63 will pass. Thus far, about two thirds of California voters polled have said they support the initiative.







Loading...

13 Comments

  1. InTheKnowing says:

    As for Newson he just wants to get recognized as the new boy on the political block at the expense of the 2nd amendment.

    The majority of the comments are accurate in that it simply will not affect what is disturbing people to cause violence. We have an innate problem as a society that Prop. 63 will not resolve or affect future conduct. It’s only popular because for the most part people believe that from their TV armchair it can be fixed with a vote.

    Giving up personal rights and/or chipping away at the 2nd amendment statistically does not increase personal or social security. What it does do however, it weakens the amendment that is there for a reason. For those people out there who don’t understand what I am saying just go travel the world and see for yourself what giving up the 2nd would do to your life.

    Many in these comments column have been on the front line in this country and abroad and understand the issue. For those of you simply voting without understanding, and believe it will fix what is occurring in this great country then maybe you need to get out there, and see for yourself to discover the reality of our problem. Denuding the 2nd amendment is not the answer.

    (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
  2. pasowino says:

    Being required to purchase an ammunition permit and buy ammo at a brick and mortar store in California will have a negative impact on gun safety. While I like supporting local gun stores by purchasing firearms and accessories, for those of us that shoot a lot, it becomes cost prohibitive to walk into a local shop and buy 1,000 rounds. As a result of having to purchase a permit and then purchase expensive ammo locally, the average shooter is going to shoot fewer rounds per year and as such will be less proficient with their firearm and this will result in reduced safety not better safety.

    I’m willing to bet a paycheck that this this ammunition registration scheme will have zero positive impact on safety and violence in California. The only thing it will do is reduce participation in shooting sports, reduce training, and create a whole new set of criminals that are straw purchasing ammunition for their felon or gang member friends.

    (19) 23 Total Votes - 21 up - 2 down
  3. kayaknut says:

    Because we all know criminals will obey any new guns laws?, because they obey the current ones?, exactly who are Newson and the democrats going after with new gun laws?

    (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
  4. Jorge Estrada says:

    I believe we have a constitution that is our foundational governing document and we have existing laws that protect the innocent. For me a NO vote is my best line of defense from the creation of new laws that are intended to undermine existing laws that the trendy government may not like.

    (25) 33 Total Votes - 29 up - 4 down
  5. Gordo says:

    Law enforcement is against Prop. 63 because they see it as another useless gun law that will not be enforced.

    Prop. 63 bans ownership of a pistol or rifle magazine that holds over 10 rounds.
    Now that is in fact current law in California, but what 63 does is strip people who owned a high capacity magazine prior to the ban from the right to continue to possess the high capacity magazine. The penalty for having a hi-cap magazine? An infraction! Whoa! That’s some heavy shit, Gavin Newsom.

    Prop. 63 requires buyers of ammunition to require a 4 year permit and register their purchases for tracking purposes.

    Gee, Gavin Newson, how on Earth could any criminal get around that requirement? Oh I know… go to Arizona, Nevada or Oregon for a box of shells, just like everybody else, including the cops, is going to do (I wonder if Newsom was celebrating the passage of marijuana legalization early when he thought this law up).

    Prop. 63 requires business obtain special licenses to sell ammunition. Because, you know they are businesses and we all know business is totally unregulated in California..

    Prop 63 will attempt to ensure people who are prohibited from owning a gun relinquish their guns by enacting a court process where the person is notified they must surrender their guns to a firearms dealer or to law enforcement. Guess what? THAT IS CURRENT LAW IN CALIFORNIA… What is Gavin Newsom doing, taking a lesson from Hollywood? If there are no new good ideas, just do a remake?

    The initiative is another example of an ambitious politician saying, “look at me, look at me!”

    Polls say 68% of voters support Prop 63; no doubt these are the same “well informed” voters who passed Prop. 47 which significantly lowered penalties for property crimes like theft and burglary. Prop. 47 raised the dollar amount to $950.00 before a theft became a felony AND then forgot to include an exception for firearms. So if you steal hey gun worth less than $950 it is a misdemeanor and you receive a ticket if you are caught instead of being taken to jail. In fact about the only redeeming feature to Proposition 63 is that it corrects this grievous error that California voters made in the last election.

    (19) 25 Total Votes - 22 up - 3 down
  6. San Louie says:

    This Newsom is a vermin. He’s not trying to make things safer. He’s simply trying to further his political career. I’m sure Prop 63 will pass. All this will do is create a black market for ammo. It will also encourage marksmen to reload their own ammo. It will also trigger a legal challenge and eventually it will be overturned.

    (22) 28 Total Votes - 25 up - 3 down
  7. slojustice says:

    Every amendment of the Constitution matters. Now millions of formerly law abiding citizens will become criminals. What does “shall not be infringed” mean to the new brown shirts posing as democrats.

    (29) 43 Total Votes - 36 up - 7 down
    • sloslo says:

      “Now millions of formerly law abiding citizens will become criminals.”

      Really? Please tell us exactly what these millions of law abiding citizens will be doing to make themselves criminals? Selling ammunition without a license? Not getting a background check? Not reported their gun stolen? Unless you can explain why millions of citizens would be doing any of those things, it sounds like you are doing some good old fashioned fear mongering.

      (-23) 29 Total Votes - 3 up - 26 down
      • pasowino says:

        For those of us that have been shooting for a long time, the mere possession of a rifle or pistol magazine that can hold more than 10-rounds would be deemed illegal. We would be required to destroy our own personal property, turn in our personal property to the state without compensation, or move our personal property out of state. If you’re not paying attention to these laws, it could be very easy to not know or to forget that there is a 13-round magazine laying in the bottom of the gun safe. We, with the passage of this ridiculous proposition would instantly become criminals for possessing old “pre-ban” magazines.

        With that said, I’m sure that all the gangs in Oakland, Compton, Stockton, etc will be lining up to turn their illegal magazines in. What a joke.

        (20) 22 Total Votes - 21 up - 1 down
      • San Louie says:

        Simple. Many have firearms that are 100% legal today and they have been ever since they bought or inherited them. Then a ridiculous piece of legislation (like Proposition 63) passes which requires them to register these firearms.

        In a great many cases these people will never realize that Proposition 63 applies to their Remington Model 81 made in 1936 which was originally purchased by their great-great uncle and won’t register them. This very thing happened in huge numbers when the federal Gun Control Act was passed in 1968.

        Others will balk at carving a serial number into a priceless family heirloom into a firearm build before 1968 when serial numbers were optional.

        It sounds to me like you’re either ignorant, obtuse or you’re knowingly lying.

        (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
  8. Indy thinker says:

    California gun laws are not working. Since we have the strictest gun laws we should have the lowest crime rate (we don’t). Gov. Moonbeam and his cohorts feel they can fix this sinking ship by placing more laws on law-abiding citizens. I’m sure the criminals will honor these new laws just like the other ones which they are breaking.

    (35) 45 Total Votes - 40 up - 5 down
  9. non_sequitur says:

    Under Proposition 63, law enforcement will have to report their lost firearms just like everyone else. That is why they are against it.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/24/california-police-might-not-know-where-their-guns-are-and-the-law-says-thats-ok/

    (-21) 43 Total Votes - 11 up - 32 down
    • San Louie says:

      Bull manure. Law enforcement is against it because they don’t want to be part of abusing law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding that is until some ridiculous legislation was passed.

      (17) 23 Total Votes - 20 up - 3 down

Comments are closed.