California Dems Push Bill Requiring Guns to Be Registered Annually, with a Fee

Breitbart ^ | 03/20/2024 | AWR HAWKINS

[ChicagoConservative27]

California Democrats are pushing to replace the current one-time gun registration system with a once-a-year registration requirement, coupled with a fee to the state.

In the bill, SB 1160, Democrats pledge to use the fee to fund the state’s gun registration system: “The bill would require the registrant to annually pay a fee, as specified, to be deposited into a special fund that is continuously appropriated to the department for the express purpose of carrying out the administration and enforcement of the firearm registry.”

SB 1160 will also be used to create a new “program” focused on unregistered guns: “This bill would prohibit possession of an unregistered firearm, a violation of which would be punishable as an infraction. By creating a new infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Major stuck on stupid EVIL.

Fixed it

[Pajamajan]

bttt

[Eleutheria5]

Nah.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article ChicagoConservative27.

"California Dems Push Bill Requiring Guns to Be Registered Annually, with a Fee"

---

All patriots in the nation need to come to the rescue of pro-2nd Amendment (2A) Californians being oppressed under the boots of their renegade state government. Patriots need to do this by electing a new patriot Congress in November that will not only support hopeful Trump 47 to finish draining the swamp, but will actually do its constitutionally enumerated duties to protect citizens from bad state governments.

More specifically, the likewise corrupt Congress is not only stubbornly refusing to do its constitutional duty to guarantee each state a republican form of government, but is also not impeaching and removing from office executive branch leaders who are not enforcing 14th Amendment (14A) guarantees, including policing states for ballot box fraud.

• "Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [emphasis added], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

• Excerpted from 14th Amendment:

  • "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  • Note the zero tolerance "hair triggers" of Section 2 voter protections shown below which Pence and J6 Congress wrongly ignored imo.

    • "is denied to any"

    • "or in any way abridged,"

    • "Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced [emphases added] in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]

• "Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Regarding Section 1 of 14A above which applies constitutionally enumerated personal protections to the states, note that the congressional record contains a reference applicable to the proposed anti-2A California law. Rep. John Bingham, the main author of that section, had included 2A when he read the Bill of Rights as main examples of privileges and immunities that 14A applies to the states.

“See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about middle of 2nd column.” — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe

So Congress is supposed to be making laws that discourage corrupt state leaders from abridging BoR protections, 2A in this example, which post-17th Amendment ratification Congress is not doing imo, which is why we need to send Congress home in November.

Congress is not your friend.

[HKMk23]

Either of these overturned by subsequent rulings??

[Mariner]

Yes! Let’s have a Poll Tax too!

[Sgt_Schultze]

I don't know. Here is further commentary.

[DPMD]

It’s more about the money than anything else, and it will go up in smoke like the rest of the CA revenue.

[atomic_dog]

I have one revolver on the desk to my left under some papers. Another revolver under a shelf to my right. A shotgun behind a bookshelf behind me. And a rifle in a case in my closet. In Cali.

F*** you and your lock requirements
F*** you and your insurance requirements

Come and take them.

[DoughtyOne]

Nice…

[Elsie]

It’s just a property tax assessed yearly.

[Elsie]

Alabama

Pfft!

[Libloather]

...to be deposited into a special fund...

Call it Sosha Security and save on paperwork.

[Elsie]

You, asking the AI thingy...

Would california be within it's right to Require Guns to Be Registered Annually, with a Fee?

Copilot

Certainly! California has introduced Senate Bill 1160 (SB 1160), which proposes annual registration of firearms within the state. Here are the key points:

1. Registration Requirement: SB 1160 would mandate that every firearm in California be annually registered with the Department of Justice¹. This means gun owners would need to provide updated information about their firearms each year.

2. Annual Fee: As part of the registration process, gun owners would be required to pay an annual fee. The collected fees would be deposited into a special fund specifically for administering and enforcing the firearm registry¹.

3. Data Collection and Accountability: The primary goal of SB 1160 is to improve data accuracy regarding the number of firearms in private hands and their ownership. Currently, estimates exist, but this measure aims to provide more precise information. By requiring annual registration, the state can better track firearms and enhance public safety¹.

4. Notification and Enforcement: The bill also requires reasonable efforts to notify firearms dealers, owners, and the public about registration requirements. However, it’s essential to note that registration itself does not serve as evidence that a firearm is lawfully permitted or that the registrant is the lawful owner. Possession of an unregistered firearm would be considered an infraction¹.

5. Historical Context: The concept of annual firearm registration has historical roots tracing back to colonial America. It emphasizes the civic responsibility that comes with owning a firearm¹.

6. Senator Portantino’s Advocacy: Senator Anthony J. Portantino, who introduced SB 1160, has been a proponent of common-sense gun reform policies. His previous legislative efforts include authorizing local governments to restrict open carry and raising the firearm purchase age to twenty-one in California¹.

7. Fee Amount: While the exact fee amount is not specified in the bill, other sources indicate that the fee for firearm registration in California is $19 per firearm².

In summary, California’s proposed annual firearm registration aligns with the state’s efforts to enhance accountability, data accuracy, and responsible gun ownership. However, it remains a topic of debate, and opinions may vary on whether such requirements are within the state’s rights.

 Bottom line: Even though I was enthusiastic about it with my first word, I've thought it over while generating my responce and ...Damned if I know.

[SheepWhisperer]

Doesn’t the FOID system do this very same scheme through registration, with a periodic processing “fee” (tax)?

[exnavy]

Good for you. I remind everyone i know, the constitution restricts gubmint, not we the people.

[exnavy]

I was looking at your home page pictures, we were in Naples together in 1977. I was on the South Carolina, CGN 37. Small world.