Why California’s new gun laws deserve contempt

Sacramento Bee ^ | 31 dec 2016 | Ben Boychuk

[rellimpank]

The arrival in 2017 of a raft of new gun control laws in California won’t amount to much, except more hassles for gun dealers and the law-abiding few. Randy Pench rpench@sacbee.com

Yes, “few.” When buying a handgun, rifle or shotgun, the vast majority of people naturally will follow the law. The cost of noncompliance is too high, and the inconvenience is too great. Unless your next-door neighbor happens to traffic in illegal weapons, odds are you will go to the gun store, fill out the paperwork, endure the waiting period and get on with your life.

But many otherwise law-abiding gun owners simply will not comply with the new rules on ammunition purchases and the ban on high-capacity magazines.

And why should they? The state lacks effective means of enforcing the new laws, which now ban the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/ben-boychuk/article123594949.html#storylink=cpy

[BenLurkin]

They are contemptible because they are Draconian.

Not because they will be rarely enforced.

[HarleyLady27]

What about California's other new law that takes affect tomorrow... you can molesters anyone of any age and get away with it...

[rktman]

Someone told me last night that was “fake news”. In addition, calibfornia deserves contempt. Sorry caliconservatives. We know you’re out there. Jim? Is that you Jim? ;-)

[arthurus]

What do contemptible laws teach if not contempt for the law? This should be the opening line for Armed American Radio for every show for a while.

[umgud]

This is the tip of the iceberg. Guv Moonbeam has actually not signed all gun laws that hit is desk, but now, the dems have veto proof majorities and can advance their heart’s desire. The only possible relief would be SCOTUS.

[TheDon]

We need sanctuary cities for firearm owners. Any takers?

[factoryrat]

AKA: Disarm the gringos for la raza MS13 gangbangers safety act.

[Blood of Tyrants]

When these new “safety” laws fail to reduce violent crime, will they repeal them? Not a chance.

[Cobra64]

First a of all, dumb-ass politicians should understand that magazine capacity has nothing to do with murder. Furthermore, if these same assholes had a clue about semi-automatic weapons they would understand that magazine capacity has nothing to do with the ability to fire more than X rounds since it takes less than 2 seconds to load a new mag into a weapon's mag well.

https://youtu.be/Ls4Uq1aCiTA

[DaveA37]

Why would any prospective gun owner want to live in that ass backword liberal conclave?

[Cobra64]

I live in CA six months out of the year and miss my freedoms of the other 6 months in NC.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The state lacks effective means of enforcing the new laws

Unless you are forced to use the guns to defend yourself, in which case the prosecutor will make sure the fact that you aren't in compliance with California's thousands of gun laws is used against you. It's just not worth the risk - I just go along with whatever crazy gun laws California comes up with until I can leave the state permanently in my rear-view mirror.

[sargon]

It's just not worth the risk - I just go along with whatever crazy gun laws California comes up with until I can leave the state permanently in my rear-view mirror.

Freedom isn't worth the risk?

[DaveA37]

Can’t you find a reason to move? Six months in Kalifornica would be a lifetime sentence for any conservative.

[Big Red Badger]

California passed more Restrictive Laws??

Imagine That.

Do you hear that sucking sound ???
Uhaul’s heading to Texas!

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Freedom isn't worth the risk?

Our own personal freedom is exactly what we risk losing if we don't go along with the gun laws and if we ever are forced to use our guns in home defense - California prosecutors can and will pursue cases against people who have modified guns or are otherwise non-compliant. I stick to the 10-round magazines, my pistol is California-compliant and won't fire without a magazine, all the rest of it. The gun laws here are ridiculous, but if I ever have to use my gun, I want to be certain I'm in 100% compliance with those laws. Otherwise, I might end up doing more jail time than the criminal I used the gun to defend myself from. As the article says, the gun laws only affect the law-abiding.

[drypowder]

Trump needs to push to reinstate in its entirety and equally in ALL STATES the Bill of Rights. State’s rights are one thing but no state should have it’s own laws that circumvent either in part or in whole any of the 10 Amendments to our Constitution.

[Billthedrill]

I think it's a little naive to assume that the state has any intention of widespread enforcement. This is a law that is intended to be selectively enforced, and the only target for such enforcement is that part of the population that is presently law-abiding. Ayn Rand knew the game:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... "

[tumblindice]

Most Americans will not obey an unconstitutional law.
These magazines were legal when purchased. Then CA passed an ex post facto law:
ex post facto law definition. A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law.