Category: Privacy

No, this isn’t the same sort of paradox as the bootstrap paradox. I’m talking about the weird, nearly simultaneous arguments that anti-gun types make claiming that we pro-gun types are either stuck in the past or not stuck in the past.

We’re told, on the one hand, that the 2nd Amendment is an outmoded document. We’re told that it’s a relic of a bygone era when most of the country was lawless frontier. We’re told that we need to get with the times, be like Europe, and all but ban firearms from civilian ownership. If there’s trouble, the argument goes, just call 911.

And in the next breath, we’re told that our view of the 2nd Amendment is far too modern. “The Founders could never imagined fearsome weapons of war like the AR-15!” And then, after stating that the 2nd Amendment only protects Brown Bess muskets, these same anti-gun leftists will hop back into their TARDIS and proclaim that the Constitution is a “living document” that evolves with the times.

…but not when we’re talking about guns.

Both arguments are ridiculous. The 2nd Amendment did not create a new right out of thin air. It recognized a preexisting freedom that flows from a right that all Humans have: The right to self defense. If one has the right to self defense, then one has a right to the means of self defense. It doesn’t matter whether that means is a sharp stick or a semiautomatic rifle. Not one of the Founders would have argued that a version of the 2nd Amendment written in the Bronze age wouldn’t have applied to steel weapons. And not one of these anti-gun leftists would argue that the 4th Amendment applies only to documents written on parchment. (Unless, of course, if that level of doublethink were necessary to argue against private gun ownership!) Just as the 4th Amendment applies to electronic files on your computer, so too the 2nd Amendment applies to the modern firearms in your gun safe.

As to their first claim that firearms are now “unneeded” in a modern, civil society, I suggest that they skim a few headlines from media outlets in Chicago. The Wild West was far more peaceful than is “civilized” Chicago.

News Privacy Self-defense


MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016

NINE Anti-Gun Bills Heading to the Senate Floor

On Monday, May 16, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed and sent nine anti-gun bills straight to the Senate floor.  This move is of great concern not only for the egregious subject matter of the bills but because of the speed the bills are moving. Generally bills with a fiscal note that exceeds $150,000 are sent to the Suspense file for later consideration.  These bills meet that criteria but were still granted a pass to proceed.  Further, four of the bills covered a completely separate subject matter just two weeks ago and were only given policy consideration in a single chamber having passed the previous chamber under the original subject matter.  With this clearly expedited urgency, the bills could be considered on the floor and sent to the Governor within a matter of weeks if not days.


WE MUST send a clear message to the State Senate that regulating and restricting our constitutional freedoms will no longer be tolerated.

It’s CRUCIAL that EVERY law-abiding gun owner, sportsmen, and Second Amendment supporter contact their state Senator strenuously and respectfully urging him/her to OPPOSE SB 1235, AB 156, SB 1407, AB 857, SB 880, AB 1135, AB 1511, SB 894, and SB 1006.  Contact information can be found here or by clicking on the TAKE ACTION button below.

Senate Bill 1235 and Assembly Bill 156 would place unjustified and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases.  This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a licensed vendor.  First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried — and failed — at the federal level.  Throughout the 1980s, Congress considered repeal of a federal ammunition regulation package that required, among other things, reporting of ammunition sales.  In 1986, the director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the reporting requirement, stating: “The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current record keeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value.”  As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition to the removal of that requirement.  SB 1235 and AB 156 will similarly fail to reduce violent crime, as a law requiring honest citizens to register each and every ammunition purchase plainly will not deter criminals.   One last note, Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.

Senate Bill 1407 and Assembly Bill 857 would require an individual to request a serial number from DOJ for home-built firearms.  Anti-gun advocates are under the impression that criminals will apply for a serial number issued from DOJ prior to use.  This bill would do nothing but entrap law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.  Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2014.

Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135 would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.”    These are constitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime.  These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and no public notice.  Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.

Assembly Bill 1511 would effectively end the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes. Under this legislation the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member or a person who is in the field hunting would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer.  The result of the misguided legislation would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for borrowing or storing a firearm.

Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours.  Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.”

Senate Bill 1006 would enact a California Firearm Violence Research Act at the University of California and would declare legislative intent regarding the principles by which the university would administer the center and would appropriate taxpayer money to the Firearm Research Center Account.  Anti-gun lawmakers are attempting to fund potentially biased research with tax dollars.  Research that can later be used as a further assault on our Second Amendment rights.  Senator Huff called the bill a “sole source contract” for a constituent in senator Wolk’s district,   a researcher with a record of biased anti-gun research.   It is obvious that the research conducted under SB 1006 will not be favorable to law-abiding gun owners.


Don’t forget to forward this alert to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners urging them to contact their state Senator and asking them OPPOSE the above reprehensible bills.

If you are not registered to vote, now is the time to do so!  Click here to register to vote, so you can support candidates who believe in your right to keep and bear arms.

AB 1135 AB 1511 AB 857 Anti-gun Legislation News Privacy SB 1006 SB 1407 SB 880 SB 894 State

From America’s 1st Freedom:

by A1F Daily Staff – Friday, May 13, 2016

Obama Seeks To Ban Gun Ownership For Millions Of Social Security Recipients

Photo credit: Dimitri Otis and Jrroman

It’s now in black and white in the Federal Register: President Barack Obama wants to ban firearm ownership for millions of Americans who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments or Disability Insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.

In the biggest gun grab in American history, the Obama White House wants to retroactively nullify the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans who receive Social Security benefits, who get those payments through “representative payees.”

As the Los Angeles Times reported in July, this new proposed gun ban tracks with what the Obama administration has already done to disarm American veterans through the Veterans Administration: If you receive benefits, and if for whatever reason, you have been assigned a “fiduciary”—in other words, someone who helps you manage your financial affairs, whether it’s balancing your checkbook or depositing checks in your account—then your gun rights are gone.

Under the Social Security Administration’s proposed implementation of the same scheme, if such a beneficiary has a “representative payee,” then their right to keep and bear arms would be nullified, as well.Proposed rule could ban gun ownership by millions through executive fiat.

As the L.A. Times pointed out, this wholesale revocation of the right to keep and bear arms for an entire class of people casts an extraordinarily wide net. Yale psychiatrist Dr. Marc Rosen told the Times, “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.”

Under the proposed rule published May 5 in the Federal Register:

“… we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits … or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments … and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee.”

Once those individuals were identified, they would be reported to the National Instant Check System (NICS) “on not less than a quarterly basis” as prohibited persons barred from purchasing, owning or even using firearms, and:

 “We would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, [and] the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act …”

As the Times pointed out, 2.7 million Americans currently receive Social Security disability payments for so-called “mental impairment,” and 1.5 million have assistance with their financial affairs through “representative payees.” That’s at least 4.2 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits—and possibly more—who could lose their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their families.

Ari Ne’eman, who sits on the federal National Council on Disability, said that group would oppose any federal rule change that used the existence of a representative payee as a reason to deny fundamental rights. “The rep payee is an extraordinarily broad brush,” Ne’eman told theLos Angeles Times.

Here’s the tricky part, at least right now. Unless you’re a Philadelphia lawyer or someone fluent in the language of Washington bureaucratese, it’s not easy to figure out in advance, who, exactly, will fall under such a ban.

Once you start wading into the wilderness of the Federal Register—as we did—to try to sort out exactly who will be banned from owning firearms, several things strike you:

First, the regulations are so voluminous and impossibly impenetrable (and changing all the time) that it’s hard to figure out where even to begin your search.

Second, even after you identify one of the groups whose rights will be nullified—for example, those whose “mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments”—when you finally find and read that section of the Federal Register, the definitions spiral off into an undefined infinity where (for example) having “odd beliefs” can qualify you as having a “personality disorder” … or where “sleep disturbance, fatigue or panic attacks” qualifies you as having an “anxiety disorder” … or having “poor conceptual, social and practical skills” qualifies you for having an “intellectual disability.” It goes on and on, with the terms getting vaguer and more subjective the deeper you wade.Another scheme to deny the right to arms to as many people, for as many reasons, as often and as permanently as possible.

Just as the psychiatrists’ bible of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has grown under the pressure of disease mongering—so that everyone gets their own mental “disorder” and everyone gets a pill—you can bet the number of disqualifying characteristics for lawful gun ownership will grow as fast as anyone can justify them.

And just because you’re not on the “Listings” today doesn’t mean you won’t have your rights denied tomorrow. As Dr. Allen J. Frances notes in aPsychology Today article headlined “Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis”:

“The NIMH estimates that, in any given year, 25 percent of the population has a diagnosable mental disorder. A prospective study found that, by age 32, 50 percent of the general population had qualified for an anxiety disorder, 40 percent for a depression, and 30 percent for alcohol abuse or dependence. Imagine what the rates will be like by the time these people hit 50, or 65, or 80. In this brave new world of psychiatric overdiagnosis, will anyone get through life without a mental disorder?”

Disarming dangerous, mentally ill people is one thing. This is something an order larger.

If someone is mentally ill and presents a danger to him- or herself or others, no one wants to see that person have access to firearms. That goes without saying. No one benefits from the tragedies that can result except the anti-gun lobby, which often exploits them. The rest of us suffer, not just with our safety and loss but also, thanks to Obama’s SSI and VA schemes, with our ability to protect ourselves from those very dangerous people. That’s wrong.

But this isn’t about keeping guns away from the mentally ill. It’s about denying the right to keep and bear arms to as many people, for as many reasons, in as many places, in as many ways, as often and as permanently as they possibly can.

It’s part of a bigger trend, where politicians seek to take away the gun rights of ever more people—not just through the diagnosis of a medical professional, but also with little more than hearsay, as they’re pushing to do in California now.

And it’s just one of the ways Obama is going around the law to make new law—just as the NRA warned he would do in his last months in office.

But Obama’s scheme isn’t just the biggest gun grab by an American president in history.

For President Obama, who said his failure to win gun control is the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, to turn around now and bend the law into knots to disarm countless Americans who pose no threat—just so he can leave behind a blob of regulations for decades of lawyers to try to disentangle, despite the legislative process and regardless of how many good people are needlessly left defenseless—is more than arrogant. It’s a downright embarrassment.

In the end, your best way to fight back may be to contact your U.S. senators and representative. Urge them to oppose Obama’s Social Security gun grab. Americans who pose no threat to anyone should not have their most fundamental right—the right that gives us the ability to survive criminal attack—denied by hearsay, financial incompetence or a president’s arrogance.

Most importantly, get registered to vote, and on Nov. 3, cast your vote. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, you can bet she’ll push through schemes like this that make Obama look like an amateur.

Use Your Power!

Right now, Obama’s proposed rule is open for public comment until July 5, 2016. You can submit your comments by
clicking here.

News Privacy Self-defense


Coalition for Civil Liberties Announces Largest Law Enforcement Union Joining the Opposition of Newsom’s Ballot Initiative


Please take a moment to read this important update from the Coalition for Civil Liberties on the Newsom ballot initiative and the ever growing number of groups coming out in strong opposition.




California’s Largest Law Enforcement Union Joins Eight Others in Opposing Newsom

Zero Law Enforcement Groups Support Newsom

SACRAMENTO, CA (May 10, 2016) – The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), the state’s largest law enforcement union, announced its opposition to Gavin Newsom’s ammunition proposal. In an open letter to the citizens of California, CCPOA President Chuck Alexander says that the organization “vehemently opposes” Newsom’s proposal, which “lessens our ability to protect ourselves and the public.”

The first public hearing on Newsom’s proposal was held in Sacramento this week, with representatives from several law enforcement organizations on hand to voice their opposition. Newsom chose not to attend and has not won the support of any law enforcement organizations.

The CCPOA is the latest law enforcement organization to stand against Newsom’s proposal. The nine organizations represent thousands of officers, prosecutors, sheriffs and other officials on the frontline of public safety. Groups opposing Newsom’s proposal so far include:

  • Association of Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles
  • California Correctional Peace Officers Association
  • California Fish and Game Wardens’ Association
  • California Reserve Peace Officers Association
  • California State Sheriffs’ Association
  • Law Enforcement Action Network
  • Law Enforcement Alliance of America
  • San Francisco Veteran Police Officer Association
  • Western States Sheriffs Association

“It’s telling that California’s law enforcement experts are overwhelmingly critical of Newsom’s proposal,” said Chuck Michel, a co-chair of the Coalition for Civil Liberties, a diverse group of Californians opposed to Newsom’s ballot initiative. “They’re the ones risking their lives every day and have a unique vantage point on what it takes to keep our streets safe. We should be listening to them, not politicians out to promote their own personal interest.”

For more information on the opposition to Newsom’s proposal,

News Privacy


MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016

The Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hold an informational hearing tomorrow, Tuesday May 3, at 9:30am in hearing room 4203, on Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s gun control initiative, “The Safety for All Act of 2016.”  A vote will not be taken at this hearing however members are encourage to contact members of the committee with their opposition to the initiative and similar legislation that is currently moving through the Legislature.  Assembly Public Safety Committee contact information can be found hereand the Senate Public Safety Committee contact information can be found here or you can click the take action button below.

The NRA is joined by a growing number of diverse organizations that have publicly come out in opposition to Newsom’s gun control imitative. These groups include: the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Congress of Racial Equality, Women Against Gun Control, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, just to name a few.  These are all reputable organizations opposing this misguided initiative that recognize “The Safety for All Act of 2016” will do nothing to criminals, nothing to stop gun crimes and will only harm the law-abiding citizens of California.

According to the official language submitted to the Attorney General, Newsom’s intiative includes a laundry list of proposals that restrict, complicate and increase the cost of exercising your Second Amendment rights. Notable provisions include:

House-to-House Confiscation of Private Property – Millions of legal magazines will need to be sold out-of-state, taken out-of-state, or seized by law enforcement.  Many legal firearms are designed around magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, making them effectively useless for self-defense, competitive shooting, and hunting.  This backdoor gun ban is not just on future sales, but forces you to surrender your existing private property to law enforcement.

Restricting Legal Ammunition Vendors – Thousands of ammunition retailers will be prohibited from selling ammunition in California.  Vendors will be required to pay additional fees to have their employees authorized as a seller of ammunition.  Out-of-state ammunition vendors will be prohibited from directly selling ammunition into California.  Because of its ineffectiveness, in 1986, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported repeal of a similar federal ammunition record-keeping requirement: “The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value.”  These ammunition restrictions will severely curtail the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct while providing no law enforcement value.

Leaving the Range With Ammunition – By criminalizing the private sale or transfer of ammunition, it will be a crime to share ammunition with a friend or family member to finish up a hunting trip or day at the range. The initiative would even prohibit leaving the range with any unused ammunition purchased at the range.

Costly Fees & Long Waits Just to Acquire Lawful Ammunition – This latest attempt to reduce the exercise of Second Amendment rights includes yet another excessive fee under the guise of more background checks.  Newsom wants you to pay another $50 fee and wait 30 days for authorization to purchase ammunition.  Law-abiding gun owners who have already gone through the burdensome firearm safety certificate procedures would not be exempt from the new ammunition authorization requirement.  The authorization would be added on top of California’s already complicated regime of firearm and ammunition regulations.

Lost and Stolen Reporting – This requirement would turn law-abiding citizens into criminals should they fail to report lost or stolen firearms to police within a limited amount of time after they “should have known” the firearm was missing.  Governor Brown has already vetoed similar legislation twice because it would do nothing to improve public safety in California.

Defeating Newsom’s gun control initiative will be a fight through November and it’s imperative that you help educate your family, friends and other Californians. Newsom is operating under the guise of “safety” to mislead citizens into somehow thinking restricting and creating new crimes against law-abiding citizens will curb criminal activity. The truth is, this initiative creates new crimes for the law-abiding while ignoring the acts of criminals.  Don’t let Newsom’s propaganda fool you because he has never met a gun control measure he doesn’t like including pushing for a complete handgun ban while serving as the Mayor of San Francisco.

Anti-gun Legal Legislation News Privacy State



After a busy week of hearings, Friday April 22nd marked the deadline for bills with a fiscal note to be passed out of their respective policy committees. Bills not meeting this deadline are considered defeated for the 2016 legislative session.  The good news is that a couple anti-gun bills are dead for the session.  The bad news is, many of the most egregious bills are still moving. Additionally, several bills have been placed in the suspense file and will not be considered until the end of May.  For an update of where we stand please see below:

Anti-Gun Assembly Bills still alive:

Assembly Bill 2607 would amend the “Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO)” procedures that were created by AB 1014 (2014).  GVRO’s were opposed by NRA during the 2014 session because of the lack of due process when depriving an individual of their right to keep and bear arms.  AB 2607 would compound the existing problems by significantly expanding the class of individuals who could seek a GVRO.

AB 2607 has moved to the Assembly floor and could be heard at any time.  Please contact your state Assembly Member and urge him or her to OPPOSE AB 2607.  Contact information can be found here or by clicking on the TAKE ACTION button below.

Anti-Gun Senate Bills still alive:

SB 880, SB 894, SB 1006, SB 1407, and SB 1446 all passed through the respective policy committees and could be heard as early as Monday, May 2 by the Senate Committee on Appropriation.  Please take a moment to contact the members of the committee and urge them to OPPOSE SB 880, SB 894, SB 1006, SB 1407, and SB 1446.  Contact information can be found here or by clicking on the TAKE ACTION button below.

Senate Bill 880  would massively expand the current definition of “assault weapon” to include ALL semi-automatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine.  The California State Sheriffs’ Association has already testified in opposition to this egregious bill.

Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours.  Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.

Senate Bill 1006 would enact a California Firearm Violence Research Act and would declare legislative intent regarding the principles by which the university would administer the center and award research fund at tax payer expense in an effort to continue to erode your constitutional rights.  Let’s be clear, the NRA is not opposed to research that would encourage the safe and responsible use of firearms and reduce the numbers of firearm-related deaths.  Safety has been at the core of the NRA’s mission since its inception.  But that is not the goal of the gun control advocates who are behind Senate Bill 1006.

Senate Bill 1407 would make it a crime under California law for an individual to manufacture a firearm without first obtaining California Department of Justice (DOJ) approval to do so and subsequently engraving a DOJ-provided serial number on the firearm.  This legislation should be opposed because it will effectively nullify the long-standing and constitutionally protected activity of building one’s own firearms.   Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2014.

Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.  The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness.  Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.


Assembly Suspense File:

The following bills have been placed in the Assembly suspense file and will not be heard until the end of May.  Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you posted on potential hearings as the time nears.

Assembly Bill 1663 and Assembly Bill 1664 are similar and would massively expand the current definition of “assault weapon” to include ALL semi-automatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine.  The California State Sheriffs’ Association has even testified in opposition to both of these egregious bills.

Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that can be readily convertible. This expanded definition continues to push the limits on when a hunk of metal or polymer can be classified as a “firearm” regardless of the significant machining and fabrication necessary.

Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the current restriction on the number of firearms an individual can purchase within a 30 day period. Currently the “one gun a month” rule only applies to dealer sales of handguns. This legislation would make it applicable to all firearm transfers, including long guns. If this ridiculous proposal becomes law the average competitive shooter might be required to wait months to purchase all the necessary firearms for their competition.

Assembly Bill 1695 would make it a misdemeanor to report to a local law enforcement agency that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing that report to be false and create a 10 year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of this offense.  This bill would also require the Attorney General to send a letter notice to each individual who has applied to purchase a firearm informing him or her of laws relating to firearms, gun trafficking, and safe storage and would allow the Department of Justice to use funds in the Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund.

Anti-Gun Legislation Defeated for the 2016 Session:

Assembly Bill 2459 would have meant the end of almost every gun store across the state.  As previously reported this legislation would have placed four crippling burdens, in which the cost of compiling these unnecessary and ineffective changes would have driven FFL’s out of business.

Senate Bill 1037 would have effectively removed the SOL from many firearm crimes including many common missteps because of the existing draconian measures that are often confusing and buried throughout CA statute.  This means a gun which an owner may have believed to be in compliance for the past 10 years could continue to be a crime and lend an owner to becoming criminally culpable.  Further it would have created a presumption in state law that would presume the person in possession of the firearm is the owner.  Meaning that a person who is borrowing a gun within the current transfer exemptions would need to prove their possession was legal as opposed to how our system of justice works in almost every other situation, “innocent until proven guilty”. A continuing trend for CA gun owners, the anti-gunners believe you are guilty until proven innocent for exercising your constitutional rights.

Please stay tuned to NRA-ILA for updates.  Please take a moment to forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners and sportsmen.  The Second Amendment in California is going to need all of its supporters to survive.

AB 1663 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2459 AB 2607 Anti-gun Legislation News Privacy SB 1006 SB 1037 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

AB 2459, which would have outlawed gun dealers in California, failed to pass out of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. But, that didn’t stop the rest of the Legislature from flexing their stoopid…

In what critics call “Gunmageddon,” California lawmakers passed more gun restrictions and magazine bans out of committee on Tuesday.

Source: ‘GunMeggedon’ in California With More Gun, Magazine Bans – Breitbart

AB 2510 also passed out of committee. This bill requires the AG’s office to develop a uniform CCW license card. Right now, each county has its own design. While LEOs may recognize the formats used by neighboring counties, it’s unlikely that an Imperial County deputy has ever seen a Shasta County permit.

Shockingly, AB 2478 did not pass out of committee. This bill would have made gun theft a felony. Prop. 47 reduced the theft of many firearms (Those with a price tag under $1000) to a misdemeanor.

AB 2510 Anti-gun Legislation News Privacy SB 1006 SB 1037 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

Here is some more info on Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for all” initiative from Chuck Michel on Just Guns Radio. Chuck also discusses the latest from the Supreme Court on your right to keep and bear arms…

As you heard in the interview, paid signature gatherers are reportedly “misstating” the effects of the Newsom initiative. This initiative will ban possession of all magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds, regardless of when said magazines were purchased. It also requires background checks for all ammunition purchases. Signature gatherers have allegedly been telling the gun muggles in front of Wal-Mart or Target that the initiative will “ban assault weapons” or “require background checks on all gun purchases”. It does neither. If you witness a signature gatherer saying these things, make a video of what you saw and report it to Michel and Associates or to the CRPA. See somethin’, say somethin’!

Anti-gun Legal Legislation News Privacy Self-defense State

It is often pointed out that UK government officials treat George Orwell’s “1984” less like the dire warning it was intended to be, and more as an instruction manual. Further evidence of this was provided this week when an astute member of the UK shooting community brought attention to an admission that UK intelligence agencies are using centralized records of UK firearm owners in their efforts to target “terrorists.”

Source: NRA-ILA | Snoopers’ Charter Reveals Extent of UK Gun Owner Surveillance; Provides Warning for Americans

News Privacy

California, despite doing its best to chase film and TV production to places like Vancouver, is still widely regarded as the entertainment capitol of the planet. Some of the best sci-fi films and TV shows ever made were made right here in the Golden State. In keeping with that cinematic history, it should come as no surprise that some of the best sci-fi legislation ever written has also come from this State.

The first bit of Hugo Award winning legislation that comes to mind is our microstamping law. While it’s possible to make this technology work in a lab setting, doing so in a production environment would require a surplus replicator from the U.S.S. Enterprise to work. This may seem worthy of a few giggles except that no modern handgun may be offered for sale here. Only “legacy” designs are legal to sell and the list of allowed handguns is shrinking every year.

The latest example of creative writing comes from Assemblyman Kevin McCarty. AB 2459, as we’ve mentioned before, requires that all firearm and ammo sales be videotaped. The law also requires that the video be kept by the dealer for a period of 5 years and that it be of high enough quality that facial recognition software can use the data. (The bill does a number of other onerous things that we’ll get to later.) In some circumstances, the data may need to be retained for up to 10 years. This all got me thinking that there could be some other hardware that we’d need to borrow from the Enterprise: Her data storage.

Depending on the data format, high definition video requires at least 10 GB of storage for every hour of recording. Some formats require over 500 GB per hour. But for our purposes, let’s assume that a 10 GB/hour format is acceptable to the DOJ. Keep in mind that’s 10 GB per hour per camera. So how many cameras are we talking about?

To actually record facial data, and not just the bills of baseball caps, the cameras would have to be mounted at roughly eye level; not up near the ceiling. Many gun stores have long guns in that space already, so the cameras would have to be mounted in front of the rifles and shotguns. This puts the camera, with a 24mm, f/2.8 lens, about 2 meters from the customers’ faces with a roughly 3 meter field of view. Assuming 50 feet of counter space, 5 cameras would be needed to cover the counter space. Let’s assume 2 more for the parking lot, 1 for the entry, 1 for the cash register, and 1 for an area where boxes of shotshells are stacked. This is probably too few, but let’s say 10 cameras in total.

OK… So that’s 10 cameras, recording 120 GB of data each throughout a 12 hour business day. If the shop is open 360 days per year, that’s 4320 hours of video per camera per year not counting whatever might be recorded by the required motion detection feature. Over the course of 5 years, the shop owner would have to archive 2.2 PB of data. Stored on dual layer Blu-Ray disks, these data would require 43,200 disks; a stack 170 feet tall.

If only sad puppies were all we had to worry about because of this bill!

Click here for more information about AB 2459 and what you can do about it.

AB 2459 Anti-gun Legislation News Privacy State