Category: Legislation

If Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) has her way, shall issue CCW will be coming to California. Melendez has introduced AB 757 to put an end to California’s may issue system; a system that is rife with corruption. Under current California practice, CCW permits are issued at the discretion of local law enforcement. Many authorities who do issue these permits do so only to their more prominent campaign donors or close friends. Others do not issue permits at all by setting requirements that are impossible to meet.

Melendez said of her bill:

“It is our Constitutional right to defend ourselves… Californians should not be subjugated to the personal beliefs of one individual who doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment. If a citizen passes the background check and completes the necessary safety training requirements, there should be no reason to deny them a CCW.”

Of course, there’s little chance that her bill will make it out of whatever committee is assigned to kill it. But Democrat lawmakers really ought to consider it. The alternative is CCW in California where the issuing authority is another State such as Utah. As we’ve mentioned before, nationwide CCW reciprocity is on its way. California can either get out in front of Washington D.C. or get steamrollered.

AB 757 Legislation News Pro-gun Self-defense State

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 will indeed apply to non-resident permits. The bill’s author, Rep. Richard Hudson (R., N.C.), stated that this is his legislative intent. “My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff,” Hudson told the Washington Free Beacon.

Thus, residents of Los Angeles and other parts of California will enjoy the same liberties as those living in Free America. A Utah non-resident permit, for example, would be valid here in LaLaLand where no permits are issued. Ever!

Federal H.R.38 Legislation News Pro-gun Self-defense

Happy New Year ya anti-gun freakazoids!


NRA Backs Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill in U.S. House

Bill Would Eliminate Confusing Patchwork of State Laws

Fairfax, Va. – On behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded the introduction of H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, authored by Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-8). This legislation would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

“The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA. “Congressman Hudson’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners.”

This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. If under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.

“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines,” continued Cox. “This is an extremely important issue to our members and we thank Congressman Hudson for leading the fight to protect our rights,” concluded Cox.

Federal H.R.38 Legislation News Pro-gun Self-defense

Like Ned Stark memes appearing around the winter solstice, there are some things that just aren’t surprising. They appear like clockwork; as predictable as the tides. One of these regular, cyclical events is the run on firearms that precedes a new gun law taking effect. And yet, there are some people who are shocked and amazed every time it happens again.

The last 8 years of the Obama regime have seen otherworldly increases in firearms sales. The Bamster’s every anti-gun utterance, no matter how vaguely worded, saw a fresh run on gun stores. Ultimately, the man’s term in office was an unqualified failure. Other than a few executive orders that were intended to harass law abiding gun owners, he was unable to pass a single piece of anti-gun legislation. He swung for the fences with his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, but struck out. Now President Donald Trump will appoint the successor to Antonin Scalia.

Which brings us to Neverland-by-the-Sea.

The California Democrat Party, for reasons that I actually can’t guess, passed a wagon load of new gun regulations this year. I say that I cannot understand their reasoning because it wasn’t necessary as a political device. The extreme, anti-gun left wasn’t threatening to bolt for another party, nor was there any other reason to placate this one, small wing of their coalition. A bunch of us, myself included, expected Governor Pan to be the adult in the room and say no. But alas, he got into the pixie dust and flew off with the rest of his Party to chase pirates while Californians flew off to their local gun stores.

In light of the election of President Trump, one might think that a temper tantrum was involved, but that forgets recent history. The Lost Boys and Lost Girls in Sacramento passed their laws when it looked to everyone like Hillary Clinton would be appointing Scalia’s replacement. They quite unnecessarily blew off a very large bomb from their political arsenal. Even if they somehow knew that Hillary was toast, they’d also have to have known that President Trump will be in a position to bring California back into line with the US Constitution. Which would mean…

OK…

And with that, I’m gonna stop writing. I just realized that I’m shocked and amazed that the anti-gun left did something balmy for no apparent reason. I shoulda seen that coming.

Anti-gun Legislation News State

Coders are quite familiar with the concept of choices. These take the general form:

if (condition1) {
     action(1);
}
elseif (condition2) {
     action(2);
}
elseif (condition3) {
     action(3);
}
         .
         .
         .
else {
     action(n);
}

The program runs through each condition checking to see if it’s true. Once it finds a matching condition, it executes the appropriate code.  Something similar happens with gun laws. In this case, let’s look at how law abiding citizens are reacting to the “bullet button” ban, SB 880.

The options are:

  1. Ignore the law and do nothing.
  2. Rush out and buy a new modern sporting rifle with a bullet button release.

Californians aren’t picking option 1. These rifles are flying off the shelves at gun stores around the State. If the intent of SB 880 was to reduce the number of modern sporting rifles in California, it’s already failed miserably.

This leads us to a variation on our pseudocode: The nested if/elseif statement. The general form is:

if (condition1) {
     if (condition1A) {
         action(1A);
       }
     elseif (condition1B) {
         action(1B);
       }
          .
          .
          .
     else {
         action(1n);
       }
}
elseif (condition2) {
     if (condition2A) {
         action(2A);
       }
     elseif (condition2B) {
         action(2B);
       }
         . 
         . 
         .

And you can see how these can go on and on; nest after nest after nest or nest within nest within nest. In this case, we’ve already entered the next layer. Since “Do nothing” has been rejected, that leads to more choices:

  1. Register your bullet button guns as “assault weapons”.
  2. Modify them to make them “featureless”.
  3. Ignore the law.

Some people will take option 1. Most will likely reject it since history teaches that registration leads to confiscation. To make a modern sporting rifle “featureless”, new magazine releases like “BB Reloaded” will likely suffice. There are also wraps for the pistol grip that may be legal too. (These prevent the thumb from reaching around the grip.) Other designers propose stocks that look more like a classic Monte Carlo stock. We’re awaiting legal guidance on all of these. By making the affected arms “featureless”, these modifications avoid the law’s mechanism to require registration.

That leads us to option 3. This isn’t legal advice, but there’s no way to tell just by looking at a rifle sitting on a shooting bench whether it’s been properly registered or not. “Papered” guns look just like outlawed guns.

So what were the geniuses in Sacramento thinking of when they passed Sb 880? They only imagined “option 1”. They expected all California gun owners to line up like sheep at an abattoir and register their rifles for convenient confiscation at a later date. Since the bullet button was an engineering response to a prior law, some might have guessed that the same engineers could come up with an “option 2”. But, none of them envisioned “option 3” as a choice. It never occurred to them that we might just ignore them, despite history to the contrary.

Now there’s yet another nested if/elseif layer and this is a choice for our betters in Sacramento to make: So whacha gonna do about it?

Or put another way: Μολών λαβέ.

Anti-gun Legislation News SB 880 State

The California Secretary of State has approved 6 petitions for circulation to repeal the “Gunmageddon” bills just signed into law by Gov. Brown. A 7th application to overturn AB 857 is supposedly in the works.

Supporters have a long row to hoe. The process is already rigged to go against them. Sec. Alex Padilla approved the petition applications but with the same inflammatory terms, such as “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines”, that the laws use. He’s legally obligated to do so since the initiatives must characterize the laws in the same way that the legislature did. If the Legislature referred to standard capacity magazines as “high capacity”, then the initiative to overturn the law in question must do so as well. The initiatives’ supporters will have a hard time convincing gun muggles to support their efforts; first to put the initiatives on the ballot and then to approve them. How many soccermoms do you imagine will support protecting “assault weapons”?

Anti-gun Legislation News State

Stephen Frank writes at California Political Review:

Seriously, if you are in your garage, manufacturing a gun, would you tell government?  If you were in your computer room using a 3-D printer to create a gun, why would you tell government?  The reason you are doing it yourself is that you do not trust government.  For instance, if you are in a messy divorce and your spouse claims abuse, government can take your weapons without any proof of a crime.  None.  We no longer live in a constitutionally protected nation—think about the illegal aliens allowed to break the law, with the protection of government.

We’ve mentioned this before. If you hate guns, but love the rule of law, then you should hate gun laws. They do not actually control guns or gun ownership. Instead, they encourage lawlessness and make the legal system contemptible. If your desire is a peaceful society with less violence, then the very last thing you ought to be doing is causing the People themselves to hate and despise the laws that are supposed to govern them. This is what gun laws like AB 857 do. They make criminals out of the law abiding and do nothing to stop actual criminals.

AB 857 Anti-gun Legislation News State

A San Diego businessman, Barry Bahrami, has filed with the California Secretary of State to start six petitions to repeal the six “Gunmageddon” bills. The bills, AB 1135, AB 1511, AB 1695, SB 880, SB 1235, and SB 1446, were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown after rocketing out of the Legislature faster than a bad burrito through a drunken sorority girl on spring break. The Veto Gunmageddon campaign is attempting to place the measures on the fall ballot opposite Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” initiative, Prop. 63.

While I don’t claim to be an expert on California election law, my understanding is that initiatives of this type cause the affected laws to be held in abeyance until the matter is decided by the People. And given that the Fall ballot is already crowded with upwards of 21 measures, missing the deadline for the November ballot might not be a bad thing. Past elections have shown that voters tend to vote “no, no, no, no, no, no… NO!” when confronted by voter guides the size of a small encyclopedia. It may be better for these initiatives to appear on a later, less crowded ballot rather than joining the electoral flash mob on the Fall 2016 ballot.

Anti-gun Legislation News Politics State

There are some things in life that are truly mysterious. Who first realized that grinding up the extremely bitter seeds of a particular tree and brewing the grounds in hot water would produce something like coffee? Why do Prius owners all seem to be such horrible drivers? How is a law enforcement officer supposed to recognize a legit serial number on a home-built firearm?

It’s that last one that we’ll talk about here. California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 857 this week that requires anyone building a firearm to first obtain a serial number from the State. So what I’m wondering, and I’m probably not alone here, is how law enforcement is supposed to recognize a legitimately serialized firearm versus one with a few random characters stamped into it?

Imagine the following situation: You’re a member of the CA-DOJ gun detail. You’re at a shooting range. You look at three people at the bench and they’re all shooting AR-style rifles. One was purchased from a gun store as a complete rifle. One was purchased as separate upper and lower receivers and then assembled into a complete rifle. The third was home built from an “80%” lower receiver and then assembled to a purchased upper receiver. So riddle me this, Batman, how can you tell at a glance which is which?

Now let’s say that, somehow, you can tell at a glance which is which. You’ve magically identified the 80% lower. You look at it and it’s serialized. Unless the number is “12345”, how do you know that it’s actually a Callee-for-nai-aye issued number?

Of course, the answer is that you can’t; anymore than you could actually tell, at a glance, that this rifle was store-bought and that one was homemade. You could check the State’s database, but what’s your probable cause for doing so?

So the real mystery is: What’s the point of this law?

AB 857 Anti-gun Legislation State

That question isn’t directed at California gun owners; it’s directed at California’s political masters.

Gov. Brown signed a number of really stupid gun laws this week. The intent of these laws is to cow the people of California into surrendering their arms. The principle problem with such laws is that they require the cooperation of those who are the target of said laws and that’s more than a little bit of a problem. Americans are known for not cooperating with laws intended to disarm them. We could begin a look at this uniquely American behavior starting on April 19, 1775, but let’s talk about more recent times.

  • In the 1970s, Illinois passed a handgun registration law. The estimated compliance rate was 25%.
  • Only about 10% of the “assault weapons” estimated to be in the State were registered after California’s Roberti-Roos Act in 1989. (The NY Times estimated that the rate was only about 2%.)
  • In 1990, New Jersey passed an “assault weapon” ban. The compliance rate was, at best, 1%.
  • The AB-23 registration period in California expired on December 31, 2000. Only 27,000 of the State’s estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 affected “assault weapons” were registered by the deadline. That’s a compliance rate of 2.5-5%.
  • In 2011, Connecticut passed an “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine ban. At the time, the State estimated that there were nearly 400,000 affected arms and roughly 2,000,000 affected magazines. Only about 50,000 rifles were registered and only about 38,000 magazines were registered; 12.5% and 2% respectively.
  • The New York SAFE Act of 2013 saw only about 45,000 of the Empire State’s estimated 1,000,000 “assault weapons” registered. 4.5%.
  • In 2013, Sunnyvale, CA, banned “high capacity” magazines. None have been surrendered to the police.
  • In 2013, San Francisco, CA, banned “high capacity” magazines. None have been surrendered to the police.
  • In 2015, Los Angeles, CA, banned “high capacity” magazines. None have been surrendered to the police.

All of these failed laws have a few things in common. They were all passed in “blue” states. One would think that residents of these states would be the most likely to comply with such laws. All have proven to be unenforceable. All have thus degraded respect for the rule of law. All are directed at innocent citizens who haven’t actually committed any crimes. But, for the most part, they’ve avoided poking the bear. With the exception of the magazine bans, they’ve studiously avoided confiscation.

As ill advised as previous bans were, their authors understood the meaning of the legal term of art “taking”. Our current government in Sacramento doesn’t seem to understand what their elders understood: A taking risked opening a can of legal worms that best remained in the can. The intent of the laws was to appear to be banning this or that; not actually doing anything. It’s a scam directed at the anti-gun, moonbat left. These new laws, however, do far worse than expose the State to the legal consequences of a taking. They’ve up and poked the bear. The best the ruling elites can now hope for is quiet political change come November.

If we’re all really lucky, votes will decide what happens next. If we’re not so lucky, the idiots in Sacramento will take their lead from their colleagues in Connecticut and resort to threats of violence against the People. The problem with making threats is that someone, someday, may call your bluff.

So now what?

Anti-gun Legislation News State