Tag: ammo

At what point does a species go from endangered to extinct? Is it when the last individual dies? Or is it when the last individual of one gender dies leaving a lone survivor? This may not seem to be a gun related topic; but, here in California, it is. The State’s attempts to “save the condor” affect hunters in particular and gun owners in general. Laws on lead ammunition will ultimately determine the ammo choices, and costs, that even non-hunters will have when they seek ammunition for self-defense or other non-hunting applications.

The popular view of extinction is the latter of the two listed above. When the last male or the last female dies, breeding another generation becomes impossible. Or does it? Cloning might offer hope, some would argue. But recent studies suggest that it was all over for a particular species long before the last breeding pair was parted. This study of Woolly Mammoth populations shows how a species can pass the point of no return even while there may be hundreds of individuals still alive. (Here’s something of a Cliff Notes version from the NY Times.) The study documents the dramatic loss of genetic diversity in the last known mammoth population.

The last mammoths of Wrangel Island died out about 4000 years ago. The DNA of one individual that died about 300 years before that point was compared to the DNA of a mammoth from Siberia that lived 45,000 year ago. The genetic diversity was about 20% lower in the younger sample and showed signs of multiple, deleterious mutations that would have hindered the ability of the Wrangel Island population to survive changes to their environment. The estimate of the island’s mammoth population 4300 years ago is 300 breeding individuals. (There may have been more individuals present on the island, but only 300 or so were actively breeding.) This proved to be too small a population to sustain the species. Harmful mutations built up and natural selection couldn’t weed them out of so small a population.

In 1987, when the last wild California Condor was captured at the start of the State’s breeding program, there were 27 individuals left in the world. Out of that group, only 13 were breeding individuals. All California Condors alive today are descendants of those original 13. Making matters worse, there’s a very good possibility that all 13 were closely related. If that’s the case, then the entire population of California Condors in the world today is descended from less than 13 birds.

Current law regarding endangered species focuses on simplistic census numbers; how many animals exist. 300 large animals on a 2900 square mile island would seem, by this measure, to be a healthy population. It wasn’t. But laws such as the Endangered Species Act were written before science could accurately describe a species’ genome. It assumes that having more individuals in a population is automatically good. But, if all of these individuals are closely related, then even a large population isn’t healthy and isn’t sustainable. Merely counting heads won’t save a species from extinction.

The question to be asked about new or existing laws here in California isn’t “Will this save the condors?”, but rather “Is saving the condors even possible anymore?”. Arguably, the answer to that question is “no”. Gymnogyps californianus is already extinct when one considers their genome. But all of this goes further than condors. Recent studies have shown that some “endangered” wolf species aren’t wolves; they’re coyote hybrids. Under current law, this means that they’re not endangered at all.

It’s time for the law to catch up to science. More than nose counting must be done to determine which species need protection, which do not, and which are beyond hope; and thus, where we should spend our finite government resources. Attempting to save an already extinct species or a hybrid population isn’t a good way to spend the People’s money. Worse yet, we hurt species that can be preserved with these quixotic attempts to “save” extinct species and hybrid populations.

Condors Conservation Legal News

I guess increasing firearms sales to record levels wasn’t enough for the anti-gun, wingnut left. Now they’ve done the same thing for ammo sales in California. One online retailer is reporting that sales in the L.A. metro area (The State’s largest market) are up nearly 400%. To quote one particularly well known individual, that’s YUGE! Sales elsewhere across the state are…

  • Los Angeles Metro Area – 395%
  • San Francisco Metro Area – 417%
  • San Diego Metro Area – 161%
  • Sacramento Metro Area – 449%
  • Anaheim Metro Area – 264%
  • San Jose Metro Area – 233%

Of course, we’ve warned the wingnut left about this sort of thing before. We’ve also joked that perhaps people like the Clintons, the Obamas, or Gavin Newsom have “gone long” on firearms in the market; but, you really do have to wonder if that’s really just a joke. Perhaps they really are heavily invested in the civilian arms market. How else can you explain the way they’ve pumped up sales?

News

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

Today is your last day to register to vote in California. You can register online here. You’ve been reading about how awful Prop 63 is here and elsewhere for months now. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Even if Prop 63 wins at the polls, the NRA and other groups will fight it in the courts. They will do so on solid legal footing, but there is an undeniable influence that polls have on judges. A resounding victory for Gavin Newsom’s vanity proposition could provide a weak-kneed judge the cover he or she needs to ignore the Constitution and approve the law. If it squeaks by, that’s another story. Your vote matters whatever the outcome!

Don’t let the party elites (in either party!) demoralize you and keep you away from the polls. Register today and vote on November 8.

News Politics

When even police chiefs oppose a gun control measure, there’s something wrong with it.

Police chiefs and sheriffs are, by necessity, political animals. It goes with the job if they want to keep that job. Sheriffs are elected and answer to the People. If the voters of their counties support or oppose gun control, sheriffs can be counted on to reflect the views of their constituents. Police chiefs are another matter. They’re not elected; they’re appointed by mayors and approved by city councils. In much of California, that means that they’re serving at the pleasure of Democrat politicians. And that, in turn, means that they had better develop a healthy appetite for more and more gun laws. Thus, it says something when they push their plates away as they have with Prop 63.

The chiefs are narrowly focused on how Prop 63 will affect their officers, so if you were hoping that they had somehow gained even a minimal level of respect for the 2nd Amendment, you’ll be disappointed. But, their fears as to how Prop 63 will hurt law enforcement are mirrored by how it will hurt all Californians.

News Politics

The effort to qualify ballot initiatives to overturn the “gunmageddon” bills appears to have fallen short. However, our gun-hating betters in Sacramento shouldn’t pop those corks just yet. NRA, CRPA, and other groups are moving forward with legal actions to overturn these unconstitutional laws in the courts.

Thank you to all of those who put in the sweat equity (And I mean that literally. Do you know how freakin’ hot it gets in places like Reseda?!?)  to gather signatures. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by the rest of us. Please don’t let this news dishearten you. The fight isn’t over yet and you’re still needed.

Legal News Politics

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

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

Are you also reminded of the underpants gnomes when you listen to the anti-gun types? They both have equally nebulous business plans. For the anti-gun left, the plan is…

  • Phase 1: Pass laws.
  • Phase 2:         ?
  • Phase 3: No more guns!

The 2nd phase of the underpants gnomes’ plan is a complete mystery. There is no conceivable Phase 2 that could actually link “Collect underpants” to “Profit”. No one, not even Cartman, could tell us what Phase 2 could possibly be.

The 2nd phase of the anti-gun plan, however, is actually quite obvious: Gun owners cooperate and surrender their arms. What’s not clear is whether or not the average anti-gun leftist is aware that our cooperation is a necessary ingredient for the plan’s success. As we’ve mentioned before, Americans are remarkably uncooperative when it comes to obeying gun laws. Thus a plan that requires the active participation of its victims is not one with a promising future.

The “senior partners” in the movement are likely aware of the missing and unobtainable component of their plan. They probably know that the goal they claim to support cannot be achieved. In short, they’re lying to their followers about ridding the US of its guns. While they know that the movement is seeking the impossible, there’s real profit to be made. For them, that is. They raise money by tricking the rubes into thinking that there’s really a way to disarm the American people. Better still for them, their “investors” are people who reward intentions rather than results.

This November, Gavin Newsom is banking on that habit of rewarding intentions over results. His “Safety for All” initiative doesn’t actually have to win in November. Nor does it actually have to work if it does win. What matters to California Democrats is that “his heart’s in the right place” and that “he means well”. So when it comes to his 2018 gubernatorial bid, “Safety for All” is already paying dividends. Even if Prop 63 turns into an election day disaster, (i.e. turning out millions of screaming mad gun owners who flip the State for Donald Trump!) Gavin Newsom will still reap a tidy profit from his investment. So while his business plan isn’t anything close to the anti-gun business plan, Newsom does have a plausible Phase 2: “Trick them again”.

News

The California Legislature, showing their utter disdain for the Constitution and their undying hatred of California gun owners, has sent a laundry list of anti-gun bills to the Governor’s desk. Gov. Brown has already vetoed similar bills in the past. It is being reported that Brown will act on these bills as early as 11am Friday before he heads to Europe.

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT!

You can email the Governor here. This link will take you to the contact form on his website. You can call the Governor’s office at (916) 445-2841.

These bad bills are…

  • 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 who are already ignoring the law 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.
  • Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 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.”  This legislation effectively outlaws magazine locking devices, more commonly known as “bullet buttons”. These areconstitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime.  These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and without 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 would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer, absent very narrow and limited exceptions. A simple loan to a trusted friend for a few days would take almost a month to complete from loan to return, requiring two background checks, two 10 day waiting periods, two fees and multiple trips to a gun dealer. The result of the misguided legislation would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for borrowing or storing a firearm with a friend.
  • Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that are “clearly identifiable as being used exclusively as part of a functional weapon”. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 could essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms. 
  • Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the existing one handgun a month law to include ALL guns, including those acquired through a private party transfer. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.
  • Assembly Bill 1695 would create a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.
  • Assembly Bill 2607 would expand the class of individuals who could seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO).”  The NRA opposes the current GVRO procedures because they provide a mechanism for an individual to lose the right to keep and bear arms with no due process of law. AB 2607 would compound these problems by significantly expanding the classes of individuals who could seek a GVRO. This expansion would now include employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary and postsecondary schools.  
  • 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 1235  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 will similarly fail to reduce violent crime, as a law requiring the registration of ammunition purchases by honest citizens will not deter criminals. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.
  • 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.

Not one of these will make a single Californian any safer. All will make us less free.

It should be noted that the ACLU has come out against AB 2607.  From the LA Times

But the bill drew objections from the American Civil Liberties Union, which said in a letter to lawmakers that the bill “creates significant potential for civil rights violations.” Co-workers with an irrational fear may target a fellow employee without cause, and the bill lacks sufficient due process protections, the ACLU warned.

“An ex-parte order means the person subjected to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to appear to contest the allegations,” the group said in a statement.

We will not be made any safer by banning unregistered bricks of aluminum or by regulating individual gun parts. We will not be made safer by banning firearms that were designed to comport with State law. We won’t be made any safer by allowing vengeful, gun hating extremists to “SWAT” coworkers they disagree with. We won’t be made safer by treating ammo buyers like criminals. We won’t be made safer by treating gun theft victims like criminals. Rationing guns will not make us safer. Making Californians “transfer” a firearm through a dealer to a friend at the range, before letting him or her try it out, will not make us safer. These laws are nothing more than a showcase of irrationality. The last thing we need are the phobias of extremists written into State law!

AB 1135 AB 1511 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2607 AB 857 Anti-gun Legislation News SB 1235 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State