Skip to comments.
BREAKING: CA Senate Votes to Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles With Detachable Magazines
The Truth About Guns.com
| 29 May 2013
| Robert Farago
Posted on 05/30/2013 3:51:28 PM PDT by Windflier
After Connecticut upped the anti ante, The Golden State Senate is doing its level best to reclaim its title as Americas number one slave state. To that end, The California Senate on Wednesday approved a package of seven gun control bills, including background checks for people who buy ammunition, introduced in response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Well, the latimes.com would say that wouldnt they? Not to mention burying the big kahuna in the tenth paragraph. The Senate also approved a bill that would outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture in California of semiautomatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines. SB 374 also would require those who own such weapons to register them with the state. Welcome back my friends to the nightmare that never ends. More details in the morning.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; california; guncontrol; gungrabbers; secondamendment; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 last
To: fr_freak
If Cancer were contagious they would call it Liberalism.
81
posted on
05/30/2013 10:18:46 PM PDT
by
Kickass Conservative
(America has a two Party system, the Tea Party and the Communist Party.)
To: central_va
time to switch to belt fed ammoheheh, I'll go for that.
If the state chooses to adopt laws intended to criminalize freedom and convert the law-abiding into felons, all of the law in the state is on thin ice. We've reached the Rubicon.
82
posted on
05/30/2013 10:24:59 PM PDT
by
no-s
(when democracy is displaced by tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote)
To: PA Engineer
The ban is on semi-auto rifles with detachable mags. A sh**ty law but one that will not affect(at the time it becomes law, if it does)bolt action rifles. My .22 semi-auto is a Winchester model 74 with a tube magazine.
83
posted on
05/31/2013 1:38:34 AM PDT
by
calex59
To: Born to Conserve
Nylon 66, what a wonderful rifle, works in all climates, deserts, tropics or arctic, what a great rifle.
84
posted on
05/31/2013 5:14:50 AM PDT
by
2001convSVT
(Going Galt as fast as I can.)
To: fr_freak
I am fairly sure the founding fathers did not got to all the trouble of creating the Bill of Rights just to have them negated by a bunch of nattering nay-bobs in a State Assembly.
85
posted on
05/31/2013 7:22:19 AM PDT
by
Mad Dawgg
(If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
To: PA Engineer
“The Remington 700 has a detachable magazine. The standard holds four, but is easily modified. The legislation is broad and would include the 30-06, 308, many other rifles and some shotguns. This is a very broad registration and confiscation Bill.”
Yes but according to the title of the article it applies to semi-auto rifles. Does it also apply to bolt actions?
86
posted on
05/31/2013 7:44:07 AM PDT
by
Brooklyn Attitude
(Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
To: Rusty0604
I’m not sure about that...I can’t find any details.
See ya’,
Ed
87
posted on
05/31/2013 1:10:00 PM PDT
by
Sir_Ed
To: All
88
posted on
05/31/2013 1:11:11 PM PDT
by
musicman
(Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
To: Mad Dawgg
I am fairly sure the founding fathers did not got to all the trouble of creating the Bill of Rights just to have them negated by a bunch of nattering nay-bobs in a State Assembly.
Once, again, the Bill of Rights, as well as the rest of the federal Constitution, existed as restrictions on the federal government. How could the States negate something that didn't apply to them? If you don't know that the original arrangement was one where each state was sovereign, as if it were its own country, then you aren't familiar with that part of history. The federal government only had power over the States where the federal Constitution specifically gave it to them (i.e. interstate commerce). Otherwise, fedgov had NO say in how the States conducted their affairs.
89
posted on
05/31/2013 2:27:44 PM PDT
by
fr_freak
To: fr_freak
"How could the States negate something that didn't apply to them?" Do the words "Shall Not be infringed" ring a bell?
Tell you what drive up and down New York Highways with an Unloaded AR-15 and then get back to me.
(I am guessing you will need to do so by snail mail since your "one phone call" would logically be to a lawyer or someone who can post your bail...)
90
posted on
05/31/2013 3:22:50 PM PDT
by
Mad Dawgg
(If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
To: Mad Dawgg
I didn’t say that was the current interpretation. I said that’s the way the system was designed. Our fedgov has become overbearing since that interpretation was changed. I really can’t be clearer than that.
91
posted on
05/31/2013 7:58:49 PM PDT
by
fr_freak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson