State lawmakers propose tough gun laws - Gun advocates pledge fight over California proposals (CA)

California would significantly restrict gun use and ownership, including major new bans on ammunition magazines, under dozens of new proposed regulations that would cement the state's status of having the strictest gun-control laws in the United States.

The magnitude of restrictions introduced by Democrats is greater than gun-rights advocates say they have ever seen at one time and puts the debate in California in the forefront, even as Congress considers a number of gun laws. The drive for tougher regulations in California also highlights the relative weakness of the gun lobby and gun manufacturers in the state.

Restrictions would include a ban on possession of all high-capacity magazines. Such magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and that were purchased before the state banned them in 2000 are currently legal. Also, lawmakers proposed a ban on the sale of any long gun with a detachable magazine, classifying such guns as assault weapons.

State lawmakers announced those proposals at a news conference Thursday, along with plans to impose stricter certification requirements for handgun ownership and a requirement that all guns in the state be registered, not just handguns as is required now. Other recent proposals include a tax on ammunition and requiring that gun owners acquire liability insurance.

The gun industry "is very adept at exploiting the fine print and finding ways to get around the letter of the law," said state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento...

"Nothing has gone to unify the pro-gun community, the pro-Second Amendment community more than the attacks that we are facing," he said, adding that they were the most "in the history of California and maybe the history of the United States."...

Passed unanimously today:

RESOLUTION NO.

OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SISKIYOU
IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
‘””
WHEREAS, the American people have retained to themselves the right to “keep and bear arms” – a right not subject to infringement by Congress as is memorialized in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as part of United States Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791; and,

WHEREAS, Cooper v. Aaron held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land and is therefore binding on all the states, regardless of any state laws contradicting it; and,

WHEREAS, a landmark decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm from federal infringement unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that Arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as, but not limited to, self-defense within the home; and,

WHEREAS, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago established that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extended protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms to the several States under due process provisions of that Amendment; and,

WHEREAS, the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government; and,

WHEREAS, the government of California has repeatedly released violent criminals back into its’ lawfull society; and,

WHEREAS, according to Merriam Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the word “infringement” means “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege” – in other words a violation or constraint upon a right; and,

WHEREAS, sadly, recent high profile events within our country have sparked discussions of gun-control at the local, state and federal levels, which have advanced proposed legislation which professes to address gun violence, while, in fact, infringes upon Second Amendment rights - (this has included numerous gun and ammunition control proposals, outright gun bans as well as registration schemes that would convert the right into a revocable privilege); and,

WHEREAS, the County of Siskiyou’s economy is supported by family ranching, farming and natural resource businesses, and that the right to keep and bear Arms is fundamental to our right to protect our families, our property, our livestock, and our livelihood; and,

WHEREAS, as a “frontier county,” hunting for food is a practice among many residents and, as a sport, hunting makes an important contribution to the local economy; and,

WHEREAS, the residents of this County respect the rights protected by the Second Amendment through the recognition and support of responsible firearm ownership, training and awareness; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou supports all discussions seeking new ideas to protect our citizens from violence but cannot abide by any order, provision, law or agency initiative that violates the protections of the Second Amendment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou County at a regular meeting of said Board, held the 12th day of February, 2013, by the following vote of said Board:

[unanimous] ayes: Armstrong, Kobseff, Bennett, Criss, Valenzuela

noes: none

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.