Posted on 07/08/2009 5:09:36 AM PDT by marktwain
One might think that the forcible citizen disarmament lobby in California (ranked by the Brady Campaign as the number one, most tyrannical) would consider their work there to be just about finished, and move on to disarm some other state. This, after all, is a state that bans certain guns because of their color, bans faux "assault weapons" from a list so expansive (far more so than the expired federal AWB) it includes even some single-shot rifles (because they're .50 caliber), is the only state so far to have mandated "microstamping," etc.
Unfortunately, though, to believe that the California gun haters are finished is to dangerously underestimate the depth of their hostility to private gun ownership (did I mention an attempt to pass a law to require registration of a gun's magazines?). The latest case in point is this contention that California's ban of faux "assault weapons" is not quite draconian enough.
If you can't tell the difference between an AK-47, explicitly banned as an assault weapon in California since 1989, and the Russian American Armory Co.'s Saiga, available for purchase at several gun stores locally, you'd be in good company.
Neither can Sgt. Steve Harding, the Sacramento County Sheriff Department's rangemaster and in-house firearms expert.
"The round (it fires) is the same and the mechanism is the same," he said. "It's basically the same thing."
I especially like the last sentence--let's look at it again: "The round (it fires) is the same and the mechanism is the same," he said. "It's basically the same thing." That's exactly what we have been saying all along about faux "assault weapons"--they're functionally no different from guns that (supposedly) no one is trying to ban. Now the other side is saying it, and it's not hard to see where they're going with that--banning the heretofore legal guns, as well.
In California, assault weapons are either defined by manufacturer and model or by a set of defining characteristics, such as a pistol grip, a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds or a flash suppressor, among others.
Assault weapons, as defined by California law, refer to semi-automatic guns – ones that fire one round per trigger pull. Fully automatic ones fire multiple rounds per trigger pull, and are banned by federal law except for those holding special permits.
Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and violence expert at UC Davis, said this practice created a massive loophole for gun manufacturers.
Ah--Garen Wintemute--one of the anti-defense crowd's leading cheerleaders. On one thing, though, I do actually agree with him, California's "assault weapons" law does indeed create a massive loophole. Where we differ is in the fact that I contend that the loophole is one that can be exploited by the gun haters, who simply change definitions when moving the goal posts suits them.
Dr. Wintemute's "loophole" argument is based on the fact that AR-15 (for example) variants are legal in California, if the magazine is not detachable, so the gun has to be partially disassembled to reload (or if the magazine is removable, a tool must be used to do so).
Oh--almost forgot this part:
For example, the Colt AR-15, which the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department carries a variant of, is illegal for the public to purchase under California law.
The "weapons of war" that "belong only on battlefields--not our streets," because they are "only useful for killing the greatest number of people in the shortest length of time," are carried by the Sheriff's Department. Does the department moonlight as a hit squad, then?
If any of you Californians need a good home for your “assault” wepons, there are plenty of folks here in Arizona who would be glad to adopt them.
Same goes for here in Texas...
Seems like an “Assault Weapons Rescue” organization is needed, especially for those poor ARs with the grotesque “non-pistol grips” and the permanently affixed magazines. Such cruelty!!
Bolt gunners, don't think you're off the hook. All those mil-surplus "weapons of [past] wars" could be targeted (K98, M48, M44, M91/30, ...). Modern bolt guns with mounted optics--they're functionally equivalent to "sniper rifles", more weapons of war.
The anti-gunners are just "getting started" in California.
I don’t believe in any restritions on the purchase, carrying or ownership of any type of firearm, but I have trouble feeling sorry for people in CA. They sat back and allowed their legislature to take away their guns one type at a time, then remained in the state after it happened.
Too many people thought that it wouldn’t matter because their particular gun of interest wasn’t affected. There are far too many fudds that will willingly support gun control as long as their guns aren’t affected.
****All those mil-surplus “weapons of [past] wars” could be targeted (K98, M48, M44, M91/30, ...). ****
Let’s not forget that the 1968 Gun Control Law was passed to stop the flow of 5 shot bolt action army surplus weapons into the US because they were E-e-vil, “the weapon of choice for criminals!”
Actually, I don't think that is true.
The Heller decision along with the Ninth Circuit's Nordyke decision (incorporating the Second Amendment against the states) will put many of Kalifornia's ridiculous laws in jeopardy.
We would not permit the state of Kalifornia to register Bibles. The legal standing of the right to keep and bear arms is quickly approaching that of other fundamental rights.
Kalifornia will not be successful at showing that there is a compelling government interest in outlawing some handguns simply because of their color. Washington DC, which adopted Kalifornia's list and was sued, has already blinked and changed that regulation. Most of Kalifornia's laws are just as weak and several are under legal attack already.
I would hope it's not true, but California just seems to be hell bent on getting worse. I haven't seen California's existing Roberti-Roos ban overturned yet nor am I confident that it will be anytime soon.
Heller was a very close decision: 5-4. If any of the judges who voted in favor of Heller retire, Obama will not replace with a judge sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment--or at least that's how I see it. Our window for overturning State Laws using the Heller precendent is closing.
I sense that there are a lot of Democrats who have been reluctant to be "pro-gun" because their constituencies bought into the "collective rights" nonsense. Now that the Court has made its ruling, I don't really see a lot of opposition to the recognition of a fundamental, individual right to self-defense.
There will certainly be arguments regarding "sensitive places" and registration. But in those forty or so states which have adopted concealed-carry laws, I think that the average person, including those who think guns are "icky", is that there is a right to have them and that no great harm comes from that.
Many of the remaining laws were adopted through the use of ignorance on the part of the unarmed. The more such people learn of how ridiculous these laws are, the harder it will be to pass or maintain them.
One example is the recent decision in DC to drop the Kalifornia handgun list. Even DC knew it would be indefensible to outlaw a handgun because of its color. But they were able to pass the regulation initially because of ignorance of their populace.
In Kalifornia, there is a challenge to the discretionary granting of concealed-carry permits. Given the Heller and Nordyke decisions, there is no legal justification for allowing a chief law-enforcement officer to decide who has or does not have "good cause" to be granted a permit.
Anti-gunners tried to put on a brave face after the Heller decision, and to make the most of "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on", but the fact is that the pro-gun side has been greatly advanced. The burden of proof regarding justification for gun laws has been passed to the anti-gunners. They cannot meet the challenge.
I am a Californian who can understand your lack of empathy for our troubled and liberal-infested state. We are not all liberals here though and if not for LA and SF we are pretty Conservative. My Consevative friends and I have participated faithfully in elections, but admitedly it just has not been enough.
As far as leaving the state is concerned, it is not always that easy to pick up and leave. And why should I have to be the one to leave? My family has been here since the 1840’s prior to California even being a state.
I don’t know that leaving is the answer. The parasites will just follow. What will you do when the libs come for your state? It feels like there is no place left to go.
Ditto for NM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.