Tag: background checks

I guess that they have a reputation to uphold…

The assembled clowns of the aptly named 9th Circus have had one last temper tantrum before President Trump takes office. A court panel has overturned a lower court ruling that the California 10-day waiting period for current gun owners to purchase another firearm is unconstitutional. The panel’s ruling, based on “intermediate scrutiny” rather than “strict scrutiny”, holds that the superfluous waiting period is “reasonable safety precaution”.

Anti-gun screwballs argue that current gun owners may have snapped between their last purchase and a new purchase and thus the “cooling off period” is necessary. They ignore the laws that they cried for in this State that create a mechanism to confiscate weapons from those who become “prohibited persons”. For those wanting an example of “doublethink”, this is a fine one; they simultaneously support and forget a law that they wanted.

So here’s a thought: What if the new Congress and the new President passed a Federal law prohibiting waiting periods? That could prove interesting.

Legal News

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

I was going to use another ICYMI title for this, but that makes the assumption that you could have noticed it in the first place. Minitrue did a good job of burying this…

As we’ve mentioned before, NICS checks are setting new records every month. Now one would think, given the Obama regime’s fondness for “universal” background checks, that the would also be record numbers of federal prosecutions resulting from the denied checks. While most are cases of mistaken identity, some are felons and other prohibited persons. Their attempts to buy guns are federal felonies and should result in prosecutions.

One would think.

However, Loretta Lynch, when she’s not taking secret meetings with Bill Clinton, is dutifully ignoring these opportunities to put potentially violent felons in prison. Rather than going up, federal prosecutions are setting records for all time lows!

So one has to wonder, why would we give the regime more gun laws when they ignore the ones already on the books? To borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?

 

News

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

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

From NRA-ILA:


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2016

California: Anti-Gun Bills To Be Voted on Tomorrow!

The legislature will convene tomorrow for the last time before summer recess. It’s anticipated that a number of gun bills will be considered in both chambers. This could be the last opportunity to voice your opposition before the bills are sent to Governor Brown’s desk for his consideration. The eligible bills range in topic but hold a central theme, limiting and restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.  Click here and here for additional information on the eligible bills.

It is CRITICAL that you contact state Senators using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE AB 450, AB 1664, AB 1673, AB 1674, AB 1695, and AB 2607.

Contact state Assembly Members using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE SB 880, SB 894, SB 1235, SB 1407, SB 1446, AB 156, AB 857, and AB 1511.

Yesterday, June 28, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed Assembly Bill 450 on a party line vote.  AB 450, sponsored by “F” rated Assembly Member McCarty, is a  “gut and amend” that covered a completely different subject matter until last week. Now, AB 450 is aimed at arguably the most law-abiding citizens, CCW permit holders.  The bill seeks to increase fees to not only cover issuance but also enforcement.  Exactly what “enforcement” is to cover remains unclear, however what was abundantly clear is McCarty’s disdain for concealed carry permit holders and his desire to put a price tag on permits beyond the reach of average citizens.

It is important that you forward this alert to your family, friends, and fellow guns owners and sportsmen and urge them to contact state Senators and Assembly Members. 

AB 1511 AB 156 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2607 AB 857 AB450 Anti-gun Legislation News SB 1235 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

Still tingling from the recent “victory” on the House floor, and by floor I mean the carpet itself, the anti-gun, whack-a-do wing of the Democrat party is planning on a unique way of celebrating Congress’ Independence Day recess: By encouraging Americans to surrender their God-given freedoms.

Whaaaaah

Now here’s the part that I don’t believe they’ve really thought through. They plan, as part of whatever it is they’re going to do (They’re kinda short on specifics.), to remind the American People that is was the Waskawy Wepubwicans that stood between our due process rights and the Democrats’ thirst for power. I’m no political expert, but there seems to be something a little off with that message.

But by all means, Democrats, please remind the American People who was doing what in DC this past week. And please do remind American voters, and American gun owners in particular, that it’s Donald Trump and the Republicans that are standing for freedom this November. And please do remind us all that it’s you folks who are blaming law-abiding Americans for the actions of Islamofascist terrorists. (Terrorists that you imported into the US, by the way.) Please do remind the electorate that it’s you who wants to disarm the American People while it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who armed ISIS. Yes, please do give us all a refresher course. I’d hate to see us all forget these little details.

 

News Politics

In his L.A. Times OP-ED piece opposing Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” initiative, UCLA Professor Adam Winkler starts his analysis by looking at the desirability of the measure’s actions. His thoughts on background checks for ammo buyers and magazine restrictions deserve their own post, so I’ll get to those later. Prof. Winkler specifically addresses the initiative’s “large capacity” magazine ban and its potential ill effect upon the rule of law; however, these concerns apply to all gun control laws…

What if we passed a law knowing that even usually law-abiding people wouldn’t comply with it? This fall, California voters may do just that if they approve Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Safety for All gun reform initiative. The result could be a small enhancement in public safety, and a potentially significant increase in disrespect for the law.

Some people have an ideological opposition to any gun control law. Yet when 95% of gun owners don’t comply with a law, it’s not just the die-hards objecting. Legal theorists argue that people are more likely to comply with laws they view as morally or socially just. To a person whose gun came standard with one of these magazines and who has owned it for years without incident, the idea that these devices are inherently dangerous does not resonate.

In the absence of cooperation from gun owners, the large-magazine ban is unenforceable. It would be practically and politically impossible for the government to go door to door to find and collect the magazines. The ban will be enforced only when someone gets caught with one, say in a search related to an arrest.

Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute.

We have addressed these concerns beforeEven if we accept the premise of a particular gun law, its actual benefit to society must also take into account its effect on the rule of law. Take, for example, as Prof. Winkler did, California’s 1990 “assault weapon” ban. The State estimated that there were 300,000 qualifying firearms in California at the time that should have been registered as “assault weapons”. Only 7,000 were actually registered. That’s a compliance rate of 2.3%.

So what happened to the other 293,000 naughty, naughty guns? Nothing. Has anything bad happened? No, not if we only look in terms of crimes committed. Those guns were (and probably still are) in the hands of otherwise law abiding citizens. These aren’t people inclined to commit violent crimes. However, they’re still criminals under the law. It is more accurate, though, to think of them as manufactured criminals. They weren’t doing anything wrong. They State just decided to declare them to be criminals.

But this is where we see the true harm that was done by that law. The State issued multiple threats to those noncompliant gun owners to get them to obey the new law. They were threatened repeatedly with arrest. Next, the State extended the registration deadline trying a softer touch. Neither approach worked. Those guns are still unregistered.

So a law was passed and promptly ignored by tens of thousands of our citizens. While there weren’t physical injuries that resulted from this, there was tremendous violence done to the rule of law. We are, allegedly, a nation of laws, not of men. When government inspires the People themselves to ignore the law, we stop being such a nation.

Anti-gun Legislation News State

And if you can say it with video documentation, all the better!

There have been reports of misconduct by paid signature gatherers circulating petitions to put Gavin Newsom’s “Safety For All” initiative on the ballot. While it’s perhaps perfectly acceptable for a ballot measure to have a dodgy, misleading name, it’s not permissible for signature gatherers to mislead the public as to what that measure does. The “Safety For All” initiative, as per the Lt. Governor’s website, does the following…

  1. Prohibits Possession of Large-Capacity Military-Style Magazines: The Safety for All initiative outlaws possession of large-capacity magazines of 11 rounds or more and provides for their legal disposal. If passed, California would join New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and The District of Columbia in banning possession of these military-style clips.
  2. Treats Ammunition Sales Like Gun Sales: The initiative requires licensing of ammunition vendors and point-of-sale background checks for ammunition purchases. Under the initiative, if a person is convicted of a felony, a violent misdemeanor, has a restraining order or has been declared dangerously mentally ill, they will no longer be able to buy ammunition in California. California would be the first state to require background checks at point of sale.
  3. Ensures People Prohibited from Owning Guns Do Not Possess Them: The initiative defines a clear firearms relinquishment process for those convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor.
  4. Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns: The initiative requires firearm owners to notify law enforcement if their firearm has been lost or stolen. With the Safety for All initiative, California would join 11 other states and the City of Sacramento requiring lost and/or stolen firearm reporting.
  5. Shares Data with Federal System on Prohibited People: The initiative mandates that California share data with the FBI/NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

It does not ban “assault weapons”. Nor does it require background checks for all gun sales. Nor does it “ban machine guns” or do anything else that might sound more sellable to gun muggle leaving Wal-Mart. It only does the five things listed above; no more, no less.

If you witness a signature gatherer making false claims about what the initiative does, you are urged to report their misconduct to Michel and Associates. To that end, this package has been prepared for witnesses to report misconduct. The package include instructions on how to best document what you saw, a form for reporting the violations, and a letter from Michel and Associates that can (optionally) be given to the signature gatherer. Reports and video evidence should be sent to reports@michellawyers.com.

Anti-gun Legislation News State

From NRA-ILA:


 

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2016

Yesterday, Wednesday, March 30, 2016, the Coalition for Civil Liberties announced that The Western State Sheriffs’ Association and the Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN) have officially opposed Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom’s gun control ballot initiative misnamed the “Safety for All Act of 2016.”  The Coalition for Civil Liberties Official announcement is below.  The two organizations should be commended for taking this position.

coalition-logo

Gavin Newsom is looking to give criminals a break and people are taking notice.  Last week, the editorial board of the Orange County Register wrote about his “fancifully titled” proposition, and the next day, the newspaper published an opinion piece by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Michele Hanisee (a co-chair for the Coalition for Civil Liberties).

Today, two more important organizations voiced their opposition to Newsom’s ballot initiative.  The Western State Sheriffs’ Association represents Sheriffs and their command staff across 15 states.  It’s a big deal to see an organization with such a huge constituency paying close attention to what happens in one state, and it says a lot about the danger our law enforcement officials see in Newsom’s plan.

Also critical of Newsom’s initiative is the Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN), a national non-profit organization that fights against policies that favor criminals at the expense of the police and the public.  LEAN’s advocacy on behalf of our police officers ensures critical decisions affecting our safety are made by frontline officers and prosecutors – not self-serving politicians like Newsom.

Newsom’s campaign continues to use scare tactics to confuse well-intentioned Californians into gun control measures that don’t do anything to stop crime or terrorism.  We need your help to set the record straight.  Please join us by:

  • Donating to the campaign.  Newsom is collecting checks from his Hollywood celebrity friends, some as big as $250,000.  Help us catch up with a donation.
  • Following us on social media.  Share our content and engage every gun owner you know before it is too late.  We’re on Facebook and Twitter.
  • Spreading the word at your local clubs, ranges, stories and places of worship.  There are excellent resources on our website at www.stoptheammograb.com.  Print them out and share them wherever you can.
  • Registering to vote for the June primary and November general elections.  Make it easy and vote by mail.  Learn more about the requirements here.
  • Reporting fraud by signature gatherers.  We’ve heard some of the people collecting signatures for Newsom’s proposition are distorting the truth.  If you see fraud, report it to Secretary of State’s Elections Division at(916) 657-2166 or email us at info@coalitionforcivilliberties.com.

Thank you for your support!


You can also report signature gatherer fraud to MichelLawyers.com or to the CRPA. If possible, include video of the signature gatherer. Specifically, look out for mischaracterizations of the initiative; such as claims that it bans “assault weapons” or “requires background checks for all gun buyers”. (It does neither!)

 

 

Anti-gun Legal Legislation News State