PDA

View Full Version : Top California Democrats rally around new assault weapons bill


Gabadost
08-07-2012, 10:12 AM
A California bill aimed at strengthening the state's assault weapons laws is gaining support from top Democrats in the wake of high-profile shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin.

Senate Bill 249, by Democratic Sen. Leland Yee, would ban weapons featuring easily detachable magazines, including "bullet buttons," that allow a shooter to quickly reload.

The San Francisco Democrat says the bill, introduced earlier this year and amended this week, clarifies an unintended loophole in state gun law.

The latest version of the legislation has won the backing of Attorney General Kamala Harris and other top Democrats.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who has signed on as a co-author, affirmed his support for the legislation Monday, saying lawmakers "can't be afraid to do what is just plain common sense."

"I know that everyone is afraid of the strong lobby on the other side and I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe in the right of hunters to be able to fully participate in that sport, I believe that people ought to have the ability to have a gun in their home to protect themselves if that's what they desire, but no one will convince me it's anything other than a joke to say that having multiple clips and semi-automatic weapons that can shoot 100 or more bullets at a time is necessary in this state or in this country," the Sacramento Democrat said. "It's ridiculous."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/08/california-top-democrat.html#storylink=cpy

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/08/california-senate-leader-ag-support-gun-control-bill.html

Common sense and liberal lawmakers do not equate.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 10:15 AM
Too bad they can't all just rally around a retirement from politics. I'd support that.

troysland
08-07-2012, 10:20 AM
Really? "100 or more bullets at a time". This statement stinks of ignorance. An impossible feat. Even Fully Auto weapons don't shoot two at a time.

grommit666
08-07-2012, 10:27 AM
The bill is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations next week. It must clear both houses in the next four weeks to make it to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk by the end of session deadline.

Aren't there some parliamentary tricks that can be used to stall it? 4 weeks is not a long time as these things go. I think more studies are needed.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 10:28 AM
Really? "100 or more bullets at a time". This statement stinks of ignorance. An impossible feat. Even Fully Auto weapons don't shoot two at a time.

Doesn't matter. I lie repeated often enough becomes truth. Just look where we are today.

Johnnyfres
08-07-2012, 10:28 AM
Senate Bill 249, by Democratic Sen. Leland Yee, would ban weapons featuring easily detachable magazines, including "bullet buttons," that allow a shooter to quickly reload.


:facepalm:

Wow. Quickly to reload? Actually it takes longer to reload with a Bullet button installed. This article just shows the ignorance of the author.

Hey Darrell is it not also anything other than a joke that our government provided FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles to the cartels of Mexico which are now in the mountains of CA growing marijuana?

Krak
08-07-2012, 10:29 AM
We're screwed. :(

Get out while you can.

mag360
08-07-2012, 10:32 AM
Lol round em up boys we got the gun banners drooling on this one. Were not screwed go featureless.

Krak
08-07-2012, 10:33 AM
Lol round em up boys we got the gun banners drooling on this one. Were not screwed go featureless.

Unless they amend the bill to ban those too.

tpc13
08-07-2012, 10:35 AM
What they don't understand is that it's already against the law to use more than 10 rounds in a semi auto rifle such as the AR anyway. They are not thinking clearly. This must STOP!! They are now saying they support the 2nd Amendment. The truth is they lie. Politicians want us to be like Australia where crime has tripled since they had their guns taken away by the government.

neouser
08-07-2012, 10:43 AM
Politicians want us to be like Australia where crime has tripled since they had their guns taken away by the government.

Yep. As I posted in the other thread about England, crime goes up as gun control grows tighter and tighter...

28 gun crimes PER DAY in 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html)

Rose from 5,209 in 1998/1999 to 9,865 gun crimes in 2009. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html)

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 10:46 AM
Unless they amend the bill to ban those too.

That would include every semi auto rifle and that won't go far or hold up in court.

Vlad 11
08-07-2012, 10:46 AM
Lol round em up boys we got the gun banners drooling on this one. Were not screwed go featureless.

Unless they amend the bill to ban those too.

Oh no ... they must never do that ;) Hello Heller

neouser
08-07-2012, 10:48 AM
Yep. As I posted in the other thread about England, crime goes up as gun control grows tighter and tighter...

28 gun crimes PER DAY in 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html)

Rose from 5,209 in 1998/1999 to 9,865 gun crimes in 2009. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html)

And the British want their guns back as well. It's taken away in steps. Hunters were ok with the ban on handguns. Then they realized what a mistake they made when they were next on the ban block...

mKdBxpKqUvs

EDIT: Oh yeah, and gun crime is at a peak. The cops are outgunned by criminals. "Citizens left defenseless, now victims of the very laws passed to protect them."

BluNorthern
08-07-2012, 10:50 AM
I linked to this article in the thread I started called Ramping up the Rhetoric.

They are gonna start including semi auto handguns, the media is already starting to include them into the same grouping of 'assault rifles'.

IVC
08-07-2012, 10:53 AM
They are now saying they support the 2nd Amendment. The truth is they lie.

They always supported 2A, just their own version. Heller put an end to that version (collectivism, militia) and McDonald forced it on them (incorporation against states). It's just a matter of time until they are told by the courts that they are wrong.

If they pass the law and we get a preliminary injunction, it will be a hard blow for any future legislation of the kind. If we don't get the injunction and they end up supporting a push to the SCOTUS, we get a chance to get some serious questions answered once and for all.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 10:55 AM
They always supported 2A, just their own version. Heller put an end to that version (collectivism, militia) and McDonald forced it on them (incorporation against states). It's just a matter of time until they are told by the courts that they are wrong.

If they pass the law and we get a preliminary injunction, it will be a hard blow for any future legislation of the kind. If we don't get the injunction and they end up supporting a push to the SCOTUS, we get a chance to get some serious questions answered once and for all.

We have the illustrious 9th on our side, don't we? Surely an injunction will be granted......

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 10:56 AM
Steinberg was already committed to passage. That means that the Democrat leadership was already supporting the legislation.

There's really nothing new here.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 10:57 AM
We have the illustrious 9th on our side, don't we? Surely an injunction will be granted......

What happened to the ammo ban last year that was passed and signed into law? I can't remember at the moment.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 10:59 AM
What happened to the ammo ban last year that was passed and signed into law? I can't remember at the moment.

They haven't been exactly freindly to our cause, despite a few flukes.

freonr22
08-07-2012, 11:01 AM
What they don't understand is that it's already against the law to use more than 10 rounds in a semi auto rifle such as the AR anyway. They are not thinking clearly. This must STOP!! They are now saying they support the 2nd Amendment. The truth is they lie. Politicians want us to be like Australia where crime has tripled since they had their guns taken away by the government.

Politely, you are mistaken. in a featureless, or a RAW, this is incorrect

G lock
08-07-2012, 11:01 AM
after the ban in AUS

http://i.imgur.com/xS637.jpg

phdo
08-07-2012, 11:03 AM
This isn't good for us. Talk about bad timing with all the wackjobs in the news.

neouser
08-07-2012, 11:04 AM
after the ban in AUS

Here's the video to that graphic...

fGaDAThOHhA

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 11:04 AM
No more acquiescence. We gave up too much already, wayyyy too much. And the NRA looks at gun control as a compromise situation.

It's all BS. Here is the so-called compromise the gungrabbers offer us:

Hey, if you work with us, we'll just take a LITTLE bit of your rights, otherwise we come for them all.

That is not compromise. That is an ultimatum. In a compromise both parties get something.

We haven't gotten ****.

We have simply acquiesced on one ban after another. Full auto, detached mags, mag capacity, concealment, carrying, etc etc

Look where we are today. Compare it to what it was like 100 years ago, not even the same right anymore.

You follow this to its logical conclusion then 50 years from now we'll have to right to own a muzzle-loading RIFLE but have to register it and we will only be able to transport between home and range/hunting.

That is the ultimate agenda of the gungrabbers. A total ban on firearms, they'll have to keep the muzzle loaders (well until they can completely trash the 2A with either another amendment or a Constitutional Convention).

BluNorthern
08-07-2012, 11:07 AM
Neutering our guns isn't enough for them.
And Dems are never gonna lose their majority here.

IVC
08-07-2012, 11:21 AM
We have the illustrious 9th on our side, don't we? Surely an injunction will be granted......

It doesn't go straight to the 9th. It starts at the lower level.

Also, don't shortchange the courts. While they might have their judicial frameworks when it comes to the questions of law vs. policy, an injunction is much more a matter of facts *before* they come to addressing the policy. When we talk about "activist judges," it's about how they use law vs. policy, rarely about fact finding during preliminary injunction phase.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 11:21 AM
Neutering our guns isn't enough for them.
And Dems are never gonna lose their majority here.

This is the main reason I am leaving in two years, preferably Idaho or Texas. I am still going to give them he'll while I am here though.

Vlad 11
08-07-2012, 11:21 AM
http://redwoodcity.patch.com/articles/what-to-do-about-guns

Keigwin stressed that while Democratic lawmakers such as Yee support second-amendment rights including ownership of hunting rifles and other single shot weapons. The type of weapons on the market today are too harmful to be available to anyone," he said.

Yee support second-amendment rights .... :smilielol5:

including ownership of hunting rifles ... "deer hunting rifles ... ban those too - A Keigwin " :smilielol5:

single shot weapons. :smilielol5:

njineermike
08-07-2012, 11:22 AM
This is the main reason I am leaving in two years, preferably Idaho or Texas. I am still going to give them he'll while I am here though.

Tenessee, South Dakota or Arkansas for me. I'll fight while I'm here, but when I'm gone this place can sink into the sea for all I care.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 11:26 AM
Tenessee, South Dakota or Arkansas for me. I'll fight while I'm here, but when I'm gone this place can sink into the sea for all I care.

I would like Arkansas since I have friends that live in NWA but I am having a hard time talking the old lady into it. She is okay with Oregon and Texas so far so I still have some more work to do lol.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 11:27 AM
I would like Arkansas since I have friends that live in NWA but I am having a hard talking the old lady into it. She is okay with Oregon and Texas so far so I still have some more work to do lol.

Taker her to Branson. It's an easy sell.

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 11:29 AM
.
.
.
And the NRA looks at gun control as a compromise situation.
.
.
.

Just a quick note on this part.

I don't think the NRA views this as an area for compromise. I'd be stunned if our NRA lobbyist were not working this issue very hard.

And I'll virtually guarantee that if Brown signs SB249 that the NRA will be racing to file for an injunction. CGF might beat them to the punch, but the NRA will be eager to oppose this.

You can take any sort of jaundiced view of the NRA's reasons for opposition, but for a whole bunch of reasons they will be adamantly opposed to SB249.

IVC
08-07-2012, 11:30 AM
...but I am having a hard talking the old lady into it.

Is that really what you meant? :)

jamesob
08-07-2012, 11:35 AM
Lol round em up boys we got the gun banners drooling on this one. Were not screwed go featureless.

? thats like having your balls cut off but your still exited you still have the shaft. it looks funny and is weird to play with.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 11:35 AM
Is that really what you meant? :)

:rofl:

This is what happens when I type on my cell phone......I sometimes miss a word or two lol.

adampolo13
08-07-2012, 11:36 AM
My take on the NRA, CGF, and the other organizations fighting for our civil rights is this.

They have the knowledge of how to effectively apply their political pressure. Just because I don't see the NRA on twitter every 10 seconds blasting Yee and Adam doesn't mean their not working. I am confident that they are working very very hard, we just don't see it because thats how they work best. I think if we calm down, let the NRA etc do their thing, we do ours (emails, phone calls, letters etc) that the end of this fight will prove that our civil rights cannot be infringed.

bandook
08-07-2012, 11:54 AM
Yep. As I posted in the other thread about England, crime goes up as gun control grows tighter and tighter...

28 gun crimes PER DAY in 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html)

Rose from 5,209 in 1998/1999 to 9,865 gun crimes in 2009. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html)


Far better to quote North Dakota (Maine, Vermont) crime numbers which are even lower than the UK with almost no gun control.

mag360
08-07-2012, 12:06 PM
Some of you will have an "aha" moment when you see what is going on. This just speeds it up a lot.

a1c
08-07-2012, 12:16 PM
You will NEVER convince any anti about the correlation (which has yet to be demonstrated by either camp) between gun control and gun violence.

Everytime we go down that path, it's a lost battle, because statistics just don't support either side. Why? Because there are lots of factors at play.

What resonates a LOT more is to point out that areas strongly affected by gun violence (and violence in general) all have one thing in common: poverty, high unemployment, poor education. Those are the root cause of violence.

It's important to adopt that approach, because not only is it the real problem, but most importantly, those are issues that resonate with liberals who tend to be for the large part gun control advocates. Those are things they can only agree with.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 12:29 PM
I don't mean on this particular issue, but on other issues with gun control over the years. Sometimes they stand up, sometimes they sit down.

My point is over the years if gun owners had been more active in opposition to any gun control legislation as they are today, well I don't think we'd be where we are today. :)



Just a quick note on this part.

I don't think the NRA views this as an area for compromise. I'd be stunned if our NRA lobbyist were not working this issue very hard.

And I'll virtually guarantee that if Brown signs SB249 that the NRA will be racing to file for an injunction. CGF might beat them to the punch, but the NRA will be eager to oppose this.

You can take any sort of jaundiced view of the NRA's reasons for opposition, but for a whole bunch of reasons they will be adamantly opposed to SB249.

Paul S
08-07-2012, 12:45 PM
I don't mean on this particular issue, but on other issues with gun control over the years. Sometimes they stand up, sometimes they sit down.

My point is over the years if gun owners had been more active in opposition to any gun control legislation as they are today, well I don't think we'd be where we are today. :)

I am inclined to agree. The theory and process is incrementalism.
Unfortunately for we gunnies it works and is working in California.

Much like the frog in the pot of water being warmed on the stove for cooking. :(

Gray Peterson
08-07-2012, 12:57 PM
Jerry Brown is silent on the matter.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 1:09 PM
Jerry Brown is silent on the matter.

Do you think that is good or bad?

I would have to think he wouldn't like someone messing with his previous work but who knows.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 1:11 PM
Do you think that is good or bad?

I would have to think he wouldn't like someone messing with his previous work but who knows.

I'm just hoping he sees this as a bad idea. I have no faith whatsoever in the 9th, and the legislature rubber stamps every bad idea that comes along.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2012, 1:12 PM
Do you think that is good or bad?

I would have to think he wouldn't like someone messing with his previous work but who knows.

At the moment good.

Bruceisontarget
08-07-2012, 1:16 PM
They always supported 2A, just their own version. Heller put an end to that version (collectivism, militia) and McDonald forced it on them (incorporation against states). It's just a matter of time until they are told by the courts that they are wrong.

If they pass the law and we get a preliminary injunction, it will be a hard blow for any future legislation of the kind. If we don't get the injunction and they end up supporting a push to the SCOTUS, we get a chance to get some serious questions answered once and for all.

Sounds great... just one question... what happens if Obama wins re-election and he appoints another Kagen/Sotemeyer to the SCOTUS? Working under the radar.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 1:17 PM
Sounds great... just one question... what happens if Obama wins re-election and he appoints another Kagen/Sotemeyer to the SCOTUS? Working under the radar.

But Obama has never done anything to hurt our 2A rights. People on here are saying that all the time, so it must be true. :D

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 1:20 PM
Sounds great... just one question... what happens if Obama wins re-election and he appoints another Kagen/Sotemeyer to the SCOTUS? Working under the radar.

Start at the ballot box and don't vote for Obama!

The aging judges have already stated that they will not retire until there is a POTUS that will replace them with like minds. Pray for their continued health if Obama gets re elected.

vantec08
08-07-2012, 1:26 PM
Sounds great... just one question... what happens if Obama wins re-election and he appoints another Kagen/Sotemeyer to the SCOTUS? Working under the radar.



Which is entirely possible, in which case Congress would be irrelevant.

neouser
08-07-2012, 1:33 PM
Far better to quote North Dakota (Maine, Vermont) crime numbers which are even lower than the UK with almost no gun control.

Why bother? You can look at the entire US overall and the proof is in the pudding...

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

EDIT: I should clarify. The link is to emphasize that crime is at it's lowest in almost 2 decades. Well after the federal AWB sunset and after the country was flooded with firearms, crime continues to plummet.

The point is that gun control advocates point at countries like England and Australia as proof that gun control works, and the point of my links was that their data is wrong. Gun control advocates normally try to compare the amount of crime in England/Australia/Japan vs. the US, which creates skewed data. Apples and oranges. The links I posted compare apples to apples. Same country before and after gun control.

As far as I know, gun control advocates have never produced any real stats or evidence that shows that gun control works.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 1:49 PM
I am inclined to agree. The theory and process is incrementalism.
Unfortunately for we gunnies it works and is working in California.

Much like the frog in the pot of water being warmed on the stove for cooking. :(

Ah that's the word I was looking for :thumbsup:

vantec08
08-07-2012, 2:08 PM
Jerry Brown is silent on the matter.

Yes . . .. . and will roll us up in a heartbeat. Has to make his bones somehow to support his rail boondoggle.

TempleKnight
08-07-2012, 2:16 PM
Hey, if you work with us, we'll just take a LITTLE bit of your rights, otherwise we come for them all.

That is not compromise. That is an ultimatum. In a compromise both parties get something.



Exactly!!! They are not clear on the concept of compromise. My idea of compromise would be to eliminate anything in GCA68 and NFA34 that can't be proven to reduce crime. In fact, all laws should have a quantifiable benefit. Since the firearms that they consider AW's account for less than 2% of crimes an AWB would be DOA.

IVC
08-07-2012, 3:42 PM
Sounds great... just one question... what happens if Obama wins re-election and he appoints another Kagen/Sotemeyer to the SCOTUS? Working under the radar.

We always have a choice not to appeal to the SCOTUS and avoid getting a case to them. Remember, it took an anti gun zealot in Chicago mayor Daley to get McDonald to the SCOTUS, while Brady's and their ilk were begging him not to appeal.

Finally, it's really hard to go against the recent precedents. More likely they would try to limit other aspects of the RKBA that haven't yet been ruled on. Even the AW laws will already be hard to justify in light of the "common use" in Heller. Currently, we really need a good "carry" case much more than anything else.

Sgt Raven
08-07-2012, 4:13 PM
I would like Arkansas since I have friends that live in NWA but I am having a hard time talking the old lady into it. She is okay with Oregon and Texas so far so I still have some more work to do lol.

Have fun with the Chiggers, you can have them. BTDT.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-07-2012, 4:15 PM
Using their same logic, why on earth should car companies be able to sell cars in CA that exceed the CA speed limit?? 230 MPH cars?? (Ferrari, Ford GT, Lamborghini, etc) Are you kidding me!?

Wanna see some pissed off liberals? take away their fast BMWs, Porsches, etc.
A gun is nothing more than a hunk of metal and plastic.

Remember this eloquent quote:

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Col. Jeff Cooper

SuperSet
08-07-2012, 4:47 PM
I can't help but think of the now-banned Booshanky when he mentioned that even though he was a hardcore Democrat, he'd be standing side-by-side with us if they came for our guns. Well, they're coming for your bullet button AR. Will those Democrats stand with us now?