Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Massachusetts' latest | Main | Lord Byron comes to mind... »

California's latest

Posted by David Hardy · 19 July 2014 02:13 PM

Video here. California already had, if I recall correctly, handgun registration (in effect), State as well as Federal background checks, a 15-day waiting period, one gun a month rationing, no carry (open or concealed) without a "may issue" permit, and an "assault weapon ban." Not to mention expensive "safety tests" that have nothing to do with safety (witness the fact that police and prosecutors' guns are exempt from them).

But the low-info people interviewed want "stricter" controls without apparently having any idea what those might be. Presumably, the fact that crime continues proves that the gun laws aren't strict enough.

The legislature responds by making the "safety" requirements applicable to single-shot handguns, claiming that people are buying single shots and making them into repeaters.

· State legislation

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Brandon Combs | July 19, 2014 5:56 PM | Reply

See http://www.calffl.org/2014/07/gov-jerry-brown-signs-new-handgun-ban-ab-1964/

fwb | July 19, 2014 7:46 PM | Reply

And of course the supreme court is to blame for all this. Barron v Baltimore screwed things up and it has never recovered. The BS doctrine of incorporation is easily proven to be bogus. The 14th didn't even cover voting for all races or women. Those needed later amendments. Privileges and immunities are NOT the same as Rights regardless of what some folks think. Rights come from God and are inalienable. Privileges and immunities come from the government/people are can always be changed.

In 1829, the 2nd amendment bound both the states and the feds, at least according to the legal texts of the time (See Rawle). Then in 1833, Marshall, the great Ejit, and the other ignorant folks gave us Barron and the tide was forever turned. The corrections under incorporation doctrine have never be correct or even close to proper. And so it is we have this crap in California. May God pop that great fault and drop that bugger into the sea.

Ward Gerlach | July 19, 2014 9:17 PM | Reply

Just one of the many reasons that I'm very glad that I left San Jose, California more than ten years ago.

At least here (Georgia), I can defend my family and myself with whatever comes to hand, whether it's my Mossberg 12-gauge, my Browning .380 BDA, my heirloom Walther P-38, or a Louisville Slugger (and what do you want to bet at least one idiot will get at least one of the above wrong?)

Just to be thinking on... when California enters bankruptcy, can it's status as a Sovereign State be revoked, and can it then be reverted to the status of Territory?

JohnS | July 19, 2014 10:25 PM | Reply

In fact, "people are buying single shots and making them into repeaters" is exactly right, though why that might be a problem is obscure.

The 'The California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale' had an exemption for guns sold as single-shot. To get around the Roster and purchase guns not on it, inventive folks were having their FFLs install a long-enough barrel, and a 'sled' to prevent multiple shots, and transferring them in that state. After the 10-day wait, they would accept delivery of the gun, walk out of the store, walk back in and ask for gunsmithing service - to replace the barrel with the one from the factory, and to replace the 'sled' with the normal magazine.

Legal, if not in the 'spirit' of the way the Legislature wanted the law to be interpreted.

wrangler5 | July 20, 2014 11:26 AM | Reply

I've read that left handed Glock shooters have had to do this for years if they wanted a left-handed magazine release. It was illegal to sell one directly because that version of Glock wasn't on the safe gun list. But there was nothing illegal about switching the button around once you bought a "normal" gun set up for right handers.

I wonder if California crime statistics show that Glocks used in crimes are more likely to have left handed magazine releases?

Windy Wilson | July 29, 2014 1:38 PM | Reply

JohnS, :Legal, if not in the 'spirit' of the way the Legislature wanted the law to be interpreted."

I've always said that a loophole in the law means that someone has better reading comprehension than the legislators do. And for someone with the ego of a politician, that is unforgivable.

Leave a comment