California Democrats Prefer Criminals Over Legal Gun Owners…

In a move that absolutely defies the slightest semblance of logic, the Democrat controlled California State Senate passed a measure that will lower the sentences for felons who used a gun in the commission of their crimes.  Yes, you read that right.  They are reducing sentences for criminals using guns.  These are the very same Democrats that constantly create and pass stricter and stricter gun control laws, and who constantly scream, cry and whine about how guns are bad.

Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) said he introduced the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison even though he denied shooting the gun.

A criminal denied committing the crime for which they are in prison?  Is this moron serious?  Prisons are filled with people who “didn’t do it.” The bill, SB 620, passed based solely on Democrat votes.  Not a single Republican voted for it, and even some Democrats were not stupid enough to pass this ridiculous bill.  This bill just furthers California’s continued (idiotic) approach of going soft on crime, which started with AB 109, followed by Prop 47, and most recently topped off with Prop 57.

SOURCE – DailyCaller.com

5 Gun Controls that don’t work, just infringe rights…

gun_controlFriends, we all know our elected leaders are (for the most part), a special kind of stupid.  We regularly see them in action in all facets of government bureaucracy.  The tell us how this piece of legislature and that new law will keep us all safe from the bogeyman (foreign and domestic varieties).  The issue which seems to demand the attention of our most idiotic (talking to you, Senator Feinstein) among others is gun control.  The problem is, they never get it right…

As reported by Breitbart News, here are five of the worst gun control proposals regularly recycled and put forward at the state and/or federal level:

  • Hollow-Point Ammunition Ban — Democrats in San Francisco have banned hollow-point ammunition in the city. The argument is that hollow-point ammunition is more dangerous — due to its expansion on impact — and therefore using full metal jacket bullets is safer. But reality teaches a completely different lesson. The NYPD used to mandate full metal jacket bullets for their officers, but reversed course when they realized the lack of expansion in a full metal jacket bullet tends to allow the bullet to pass through the perpetrator’s body and strike innocents behind him or her. In other words, the absence of hollow-point ammunition actually contributes to a higher rate of collateral damage. In July 1998, when the New York Times reported the NYPD’s switch from full metal jacket bullets to hollow points, they quoted NYPD police commissioner Howard Safir, saying: “We are, in fact, going to switch to hollow-point ammunition as soon as we receive it. They are much safer than fully jacketed bullets, which will go through a person or tumble through a person’s organs and then continue on and hit innocent victims.”
  • “Assault Weapons” Ban — Democrats pushed through a federal assaults weapons ban under Bill Clinton that lasted from 1994 to 2004. The impact of the ban was negligible at best, and some studies — like that contained in Applied Economic Letters — show an significant increase in gun-related murder rates while the “assault weapons” ban was in place. For example, the study in the November 2013 issue of Applied Economic Letters showed the gun-related “murder rates were 19.3 percent higher when the Federal [‘assault weapons’] ban (AWB) was in effect.” We currently see this same truism playing out at the city level — in places like Chicago — where an “assault weapons” ban is simply correlating with a higher rate of shootings and murder, rather than a reduced rate of either.
  • “High-Capacity” Magazine Ban — Like the “assault weapons” ban, a ban on “high capacity” magazines is a favorite gun control push for Democrats following nearly every high-profile shooting or mass public attack. Yet “high-capacity” magazine bans are demonstrable failures and, as with all gun controls, give the criminal who continues to use “high-cap” mags an advantage over the law-abiding citizen who turns his or hers into the police or governing authority. For example, during the May 2014 Santa Barbara attack in which Elliot Rodger shot and killed three innocents, all his magazines had a capacity of 10 rounds or less. Rodger made up for the smaller magazine capacity by simple carrying more magazines with him. And following the heinous April 16, 2007, attack on innocents at Virginia Tech — where Seung-Hui Cho used 15-round magazines in carrying out a murder spree that killed 32 — a Virginia Tech review board found that limiting him to 10-round magazines “would have not made that much difference in the incident.” Why would smaller magazines have made little difference? Because the overarching problem was a gun-free zone that dictated all law-abiding citizens be disarmed. Therefore, the gunman had all the time in the world to shoot, reload, shoot, reload, shoot, ad nauseam.
  • Universal Background Checks — Universal background checks have been the preferred control option for Democrats and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) ever since the heinous December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. Such checks would require all gun sales — retail and private — to be conducted under the purview of a Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder, who would run the buyer’s personal information through an FBI database to check for criminal background, etc.
    • Problem #1: Such a check would not have stopped or even hindered the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting because the gunman, Adam Lanza, did not buy his guns. Rather, he stole them.
    • Problem #2: The criminals on the streets of Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, NYC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, etc., are not of a mind to stand in line and let an FFL run their black market gun sales through a FBI database.
    • Problem #3: Such a check already exists in retail stores — Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, Academy, Gander Mountain, mom & pop gun stores, etc. — and it has offered no impediment to determined attackers who wish to acquire a gun for criminal use. For example, one of the strongest proponents of background checks is former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011, yet Loughner acquired his gun by passing a background check.  And it is not just Loughner. In October 2015, the New York Times did a story on mass shooters and revealed that the vast majority of them acquire their guns by passing background checks. The exceptions to this pattern are those who steal their guns — think Adam Lanza — and the small fraction of high-profile gunman who get someone to purchase the gun for them.
  • Gun-Free Zones — The common thread running through high-profile shootings and mass public attacks in America is not the type of gun used or the color of the attacker’s skin. Rather, it is the unnatural condition law-abiding citizens endure when they find themselves disarmed in a “gun-free zone” by a local, state, or federal government mandate. To be fair, in some cases the “gun-free zone” is the result of a business owner’s decision. We saw this with the Aurora movie theater in July 2012 and the Lafayette movie theater in July 2015.

Breitbart News previously reported that in an 8-year time period ending August 2, 2015, “gun-free zones” cost 105 innocent lives taken by gun fire and more than 150 others injured. Think about it — 105 persons unable to defend their lives because their Second Amendment rights were curtailed. Does this mean all 105 of those persons would have carried a gun for self-defense if the “gun-free zones” had been abolished? No. But it does mean that they could have. And it means removing the impediment to their doing so would have at least given them a fighting chance instead of leaving them trapped in a defenseless posture when yet another criminal ignored the signs that said “no guns allowed.”

SOURCE – Breitbart.com

California gun owners brace for more bull$hit…

Obama-Gun-ConfiscationBOHICA…

California Senators have introduced anti-gun bills, Assembly Bill 1663 and Assembly Bill 1664 in the state Assembly.  Not to be outdone, Senators Isadore Hall and Steve Glazer introduced a similar bill, Senate Bill 880 which does roughly the same thing as AB 1663 and AB 1664, by redefining the current definition of “assault weapon” to include firearms that are affixed with a “bullet button.”  By redefining and expanding the meaning of the legal term “assault weapon,” these bills would dramatically expand the already byzantine legal definition of “assault weapon” and would ban millions of conventional firearms used  by hunters, target shooters, boy and girl scouts, and men and women who choose to own a firearm to defend themselves and their families.

In almost all instances, any one of these bills would require those who possess firearms equipped with a “bullet button” to register the firearm as an “assault weapons” or face confiscation, arrest, prosecution, and jail.  In almost all situations, gun owners would never be able to sell their firearms or pass them on as an inheritance. 

Under each of these bills, the process of registering the firearm will require the owner to pay a fee and provide the following information to the state:

  • A description of the firearm and unique identifiers;
  • The date the firearm was acquired;
  • The name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which the firearm was acquired;
  • The registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and;
  • California driver’s license number or California identification card number

Friends, if you’re reading this, own guns and live in Kalifornia (People’s Republic Of), take a couple minutes out of your day and let your representatives know how you feel.  This is the registration part; next comes the confiscation part…

Assemblymember David Chiu (D-17)
(916) 319-2017
Contact page
assemblymember.chiu@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Marc Levine (D-10)
(916) 319-2010
Contact page
levineforassembly@gmail.com

Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Contact page
phil@philting.com

Senator Isadore Hall, III (D-35)
(916) 651-4035
Contact Page
senator.hall@senate.ca.gov

Senator Steve Glazer (D-7)
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Contact page
senator.glazer@senate.ca.gov

California Concealed Carry – Light at the end of the Tunnel?

gun-control-cartoonThe United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled in favor of the right of law-abiding citizens in California (Peoples Republic of) to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense. California law allows local governments to issue concealed and open carry permits, but generally prohibits the carriage of handguns in public places. The San Diego County Sheriff’s office further restricts gun permits only to law-abiding citizens who can prove “good cause,” meaning they have to show they faced a specific threat to their safety above what the general public faces.  Basically you have to have already been assaulted before San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore will see you.

The court ruled San Diego County’s gun regulation scheme unconstitutional. Under the ruling, law-abiding citizens in California would be allowed to carry a handgun for self-defense in public places, not just in their homes.

In addition to supporting the case financially from the beginning, the National Rifle Association filed a friend of the court brief in support of the plaintiffs.

“No one should have to wait until they are assaulted before they are allowed to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed our Constitutional right to Keep Arms, and today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the right to Bear Arms.  Our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to the home,” concluded Cox.  Damn Skippy…

From the Court Ruling:

Because the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of his constitutional rights. Heller, 554 U.S. at 595. Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”

A great victory.  Now we just need to convince Jerry Brown how utterly stupid microstamping is…

SOURCE – nraila.org

UPDATE – 02/21/14 – San Diego sheriff won’t appeal 9th Circuit ruling on concealed guns

UPDATE – 02/27/14 – California’s attorney general takes up court fight over gun laws

UPDATE – 03/17/14 – Parties ordered to respond in Peruta case about California concealed carry

UPDATE – 05/19/14 – San Diego County Sheriff bows out of Peruta, asks Attorney General to step in

UPDATE – 03/26/15 – Peruta case to be reconsidered. Here we go again…

  • Ads