PDA

View Full Version : Senator Darrell Steinberg Discusses New Gun Control Ideas


Writer
12-20-2012, 11:22 AM
On 12/19/2012, on Capital Public Radio’s Insight program, Senator Darrell Steinberg spoke about new gun legislation. Step 1 is to reintroduce Senator Yee’s bill to close the bullet-button loophole. Step 2 is to consider measures beyond a buyback program to get existing “assault” weapons off the streets. He also said he disagrees that a person has a right to use a firearm in self-defense in their own home, but that that should not be part of the current debate. Essentially: Firearms are for hunters and target shooters and women (not sure why them specifically if not for self-defense). Any firearm that is capable of being fired rapidly (not just reloaded rapidly) is an assault weapon for military use only. Oh, and you should need an annual permit to buy ammunition.

A few quotes:

Steinberg: “How about we all agree that the constitution … ought to protect hunters and sportsmen and women and people who want to target shoot and people who use guns for recreational purposes. … I may have a different opinion than others whether or not guns should be used for self-defense in the home, but let’s even set that one aside for a moment. Can we agree that guns that shoot in a rapid fire fashion, that allow detachable magazines where you can reload and spray gunfire, that those ought to be banned, they ought to go away, that we ought to be aggressive about trying to get them out of our communities? Let’s have a reasonable conversation where we try to draw reasonable lines.”

Steinberg: “My colleague Senator Leland Yee…has reintroduced a bill that did not make it through the process last year because of, really, the influence of the gun lobby, that closes the loophole [explanation of current law in CA] there are all kinds of gadgets that allow a gun owner to detach the magazine by fiddling with it and reloading quickly. We want to close those loopholes. Senator Yee has a bill to do that that I’m going be proud to co-sponsor and co-author. That’s the kind of common sense idea that we need to pursue. Distinguish between the hunters, the sportsmen, the women, the people who use guns for recreational purposes, and these assault weapons, rapid-fire weapons, that have no place on the streets, and that have no place when it comes to sport or recreation. We’re going to pursue that bill very assertively and will be open to other reasonable measures as well.”

Interviewer: "Is there room to take it any farther? Do you have new ideas on gun legislation?"

Steinberg: “Well, we are going to look at this very carefully before we come out publically with other ideas. But certainly one of the issues that skeptics raise is: ‘Well what are you going to do about all the guns that are on the streets already? What are you going to do about recovering those guns.’ And I think that question bears a lot of thought as well. I mean, back in the 80s and 90s the idea of gun buyback plans were popular. I don’t know whether that’s enough, really, given the flow of arms and what we know is out there. But I do think California has among the strictest gun control laws in the country. Certainly tighter than the national laws that I know Senator Feinstein is trying to address with the Assault Weapons Ban. But there is room to do more. The Yee bill is one good example, and we will be looking for others.”



“... There is no one solution here or magic wand. But we can avert more tragedies than not, and save more lives than not, by passing responsible laws around guns, around ammunition. Senator Deleon, my colleague, has a bill that would regulate the purchase of ammunition; by requiring that all schools, as Ted Lou seeks to do, have a safety plan which you have confidence in, and training not only for the teaches, of course, but for the students as well as to what to do, god forbid, if there is this kind of an incident. The more we do of that, the more likely we can avert future tragedies.”

Here are links to the audio:

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2012/12/19/steinberg-focus-on-gun-control,-mental-health,-culture-of-violence

http://www.capradio.org/news/insight/2012/12/19/insight-california-school-safety--pet-tales--a-sidekick-christmas--sound-advice

Diablohtr
12-20-2012, 11:31 AM
No surprise coming from Steinberg.

epilepticninja
12-20-2012, 11:32 AM
The mindset of the politicians in this state scares me. It really does. The criminals in this state must be laughing their asses off. Hell, if I was a criminal, I would support every piece of stupid legislation that these idiots come up with. Permit to buy ammo in CA? I won't point out why this is dumb as dirt, but it really is.

CCWFacts
12-20-2012, 11:35 AM
Any firearm that is capable of being fired rapidly (not just reloaded rapidly) is an assault weapon for military use only.

They said EXACTLY THE SAME THING when revolvers came out, when metallic cartridges came out, when Mauser-style box magazines were introduces, and that was all ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

In fact they said the same thing when CROSSBOWS were first used:

Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows against Christians

Crossbows were weapons of war banned for us against Christians in the year 1139!

So this whole "such and such is an assault weapon not fit for civilians" has been said many times over the centuries! Mausers, crossbows and many other things were the "assault weapons" of their times.

kaligaran
12-20-2012, 11:44 AM
loop·hole (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole) : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

Definition of a "Detachable Magazine" CCR 11 § 5469: “Detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.


Doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.

frankm
12-20-2012, 12:33 PM
Same old tired lies. Here's the real truth. The 2nd Amendment was designed to we could shoot jack-booted thugs who try to tyrannize us, either foreign troops or our own troops. That's it, that's what it means. You cannot refute this historical fact.

randian
12-20-2012, 12:54 PM
Essentially: Firearms are for hunters and target shooters and women (not sure why them specifically if not for self-defense).
Why? He's a liberal. Liberals deem women a special class of person. Ergo, if men die who cares? QED.

desertjosh
12-20-2012, 1:05 PM
Politicians meaning of "reasonable and common sense" is alot different than mine apparently. This state sucks.

IVC
12-20-2012, 1:19 PM
He is wrong on the 2A and so says the SCOTUS. Good luck with his argument in court.

nothinghere2c
12-20-2012, 1:21 PM
I guess all the individuals who helped spread the word and oppose sb249 are now considered a gun lobby

POLICESTATE
12-20-2012, 1:23 PM
"Many shots bad, one shot good!"

hornswaggled
12-20-2012, 1:26 PM
He doesn't believe in guns for self-defense, so no we cannot have a reasonable conversation.

Moonshine
12-20-2012, 1:36 PM
I'd like to see if he practices what he preaches because I would bet money in Vegas that steinberg has AT LEAST one handgun in his home explicitly for self defense.

mjmagee67
12-20-2012, 2:06 PM
We are in for a fight! The Democrat stupidity knows no bounds.

We should keep our mouths shut, let the Anti A2'ers do as the will. The sue the hell out of them in courts.

The bottom like you can't talk reasonable with idiots and the idiots have a super-majority.

S470FM
12-20-2012, 2:07 PM
and who is going to fund this proposed buy back?

Sam .223
12-20-2012, 2:12 PM
and who is going to fund this proposed buy back?

thats what i'd like to know, i don't think they have any idea what that'll cost.

Moonshine
12-20-2012, 2:13 PM
The super majority is kind of a non-issue in this climate... Is anyone under some illusion that Governor Brown wont sign every gun control bill that reaches his desk? We either have to kill these in committee or beat them in court.

Bhobbs
12-20-2012, 2:19 PM
I've noticed a lack of the usual taunting, "don't throw us in the briar patch", on here. I guess even the people in the know are nervous now.

vantec08
12-20-2012, 2:20 PM
I guess all the individuals who helped spread the word and oppose sb249 are now considered a gun lobby

Right. Like the "gun lobby" is some mysterious, clandestine group that meets every thursday at Fred Furd's place and conspires and schemes to meddle in politicians attempts to save us from ourselves.

not-fishing
12-20-2012, 2:37 PM
In fact they said the same thing when CROSSBOWS were first used:

Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows against Christians

Crossbows were weapons of war banned for us against Christians in the year 1139!

So this whole "such and such is an assault weapon not fit for civilians" has been said many times over the centuries! Mausers, crossbows and many other things were the "assault weapons" of their times.

Thanks for the data. I've been telling people that most firearms were developed for military use ---- because it guaranteed big contract sales. :oji:

press1280
12-20-2012, 2:48 PM
Amazingly this Senator is to the LEFT of Piers Morgan on the issue. I also watched C-Span and saw a Philly area Congresswoman (Alison Shwartz?) who got a call from a pro-2A person, and basically repeated the pre-Heller nonsense about her state's National Guard being 2A protected.

IVC
12-20-2012, 2:51 PM
I've noticed a lack of the usual taunting, "don't throw us in the briar patch", on here. I guess even the people in the know are nervous now.

There is much that needs to be done and prepared at this time. We didn't ask for this battle, but we'll fight it to the end. Taunting stops when the fighting is about to begin.

stix213
12-20-2012, 2:55 PM
The super majority is kind of a non-issue in this climate... Is anyone under some illusion that Governor Brown wont sign every gun control bill that reaches his desk? We either have to kill these in committee or beat them in court.

Brown has vetoed most gun bills that have reached his desk. By my estimation Brown is very pro-gun ownership, but he thinks all guns should be registered, and doesn't think we should be walking around outside with them in public view. Anything else he has vetoed. I also think that is about all we can hope for with a Dem governor in CA today.

I'd expect him to do the same here, especially if a buy back is floated because Brown can do math.

Bhobbs
12-20-2012, 2:57 PM
There is much that needs to be done and prepared at this time. We didn't ask for this battle, but we'll fight it to the end. Taunting stops when the fighting is about to begin.

True but I think it's bad this time. I think this is just the tragedy the antis have been waiting for.

hornswaggled
12-20-2012, 2:59 PM
There is much that needs to be done and prepared at this time. We didn't ask for this battle, but we'll fight it to the end. Taunting stops when the fighting is about to begin.

Agreed the time for taunting is over. It's time to start warming up on the mitts.

M1Kev
12-20-2012, 3:10 PM
Funny how they keep calling their ideas "reasonable". What they are trying to do is marginalize the opposition by appearing that they are doing us a favor by not being harsh about bans. The reality is that the could not get harsher restrictions because it would not pass muster, however if they incrementally make minor "reasonable" restrictions they have a better chance.

It is like drinking a cup of very hot coffee (or hot chocolate for you teetotalers). If you gulp the whole thing down right out of the pot you will burn your mouth, throat, etc. If you take small sips however... pretty soon the cup is empty and you are ready for more. After that first cup is gone, the pot is cool enough to drink rapidly.

Their ultimate plan? Take the second first, then take the first second. Once those are gone, well it is all downhill from there.

IVC
12-20-2012, 3:11 PM
True but I think it's bad this time. I think this is just the tragedy the antis have been waiting for.

It's deplorable that antis are using this to push their agenda, while they should be the ones on the defensive explaining how the whole "gun free school zone," "call the police" and "learn karate" approaches helped those kids.

Tragedies come and go. The antis might lower their political cost by hiding behind a recent tragedy, but it won't hold in the long run. Then there are courts, the Constitution and Heller/McDonald Supreme Court decisions. That's no small potatoes.

russ69
12-20-2012, 3:20 PM
...rapid-fire weapons,...and that have no place when it comes to sport or recreation...

I've been using them wrong for 30 years, who knew?

Dave A
12-20-2012, 3:22 PM
Darrel Steinberg is a glaring example of politicians who could care less what the Supreme Court thinks and decides. They exist in their own little, narrow world and until they are turned out of office they will continue to annoy most of us when they expose the sickness within.

dfletcher
12-20-2012, 3:23 PM
He doesn't believe in guns for self-defense, so no we cannot have a reasonable conversation.

And he believes all semiauto firearms should be banned. Not just certain "AW" configured rifles, but all of them.

I keep reading about so called "Democrat gun owners" or "liberal gun owners" and have to wonder, if there's so many of them out there why do people like Yee and Stenberg get elected? When are those voters going to get off their fannies, deem guns important and vote accordingly? Personally I think the "we're liberal but like guns" protestations are rather weak. They don't really care, at least not in the same way as they do about unions, same sex marriage and abortion.

randian
12-20-2012, 4:35 PM
Funny how they keep calling their ideas "reasonable".
Other code words:

"common sense"
"protect our children"
"close loophole"

Writer
12-20-2012, 4:35 PM
Funny how they keep calling their ideas "reasonable". What they are trying to do is marginalize the opposition by appearing that they are doing us a favor by not being harsh about bans.

I picked up on that as well. It's an effective tactic. By framing your own arguments as "reasonable" then the opposition's arguments must be "unreasonable." I heard another politician do the same thing today. The suggestion that schools should arm themselves was met with "this is insane" and "what kind of America do we want to live in." So now the following logic is insane:

1) We cannot guarantee that firearms will only be used by law-abiding citizens, and
2) We cannot preemptively detain the mentally ill, nor predict when those with treatable mental illness will have a "break from reality" and become a harm to themselves or others, and
3) Evidence has shown that once an active shooter begins killing the only thing that stops him is the threat or application of armed resistance, therefore...
4) We should do all we can to reduce the amount of time it takes for armed resistance to be applied, and...
5) Train willing teachers, whose responsibility it is to protect our children while they are in their care, to use deadly force to resist an armed attacker.

I'm not saying that is the best solution. But it certainly isn't insane. By deeming it insane the anti-gun lobby seeks to avoid the conversation in favor of "let's do it for the children" demagoguery.

MOA1
12-20-2012, 4:38 PM
New gun control legislation needs to ban gun free zones. Needs to make every state a shall issue state with no further restrictions on type or capacity.

Their thinking is all messed up.

warbird
12-20-2012, 4:58 PM
In my personal opinion Darrell Steinberg was a crackpot when he was in Sacramento county as a supervisor and he is more than that now that he is drunk on power in the state capitol. His goal is to disarm every honest citizen and leave their homes defenseless while protecting all the rights of the mentally ill and criminals to to commit crimes and harm the hard working honest public. if you look at what he is proposing you will see that the only people who will be put at risk are those that obey the law (called honest citizens) and will do absolutely nothing to prevent one additional criminal or mentally ill person from getting a weapon and committing crimes. Ask him to show you objectively and not just his opinion that passing these laws will accomplish the goal of keeping guns out of criminal or mentally ill. He can't. But he will hedge, lie, and present falsified studies (i know how to change studies and it happens all the time). We are having record gun sales in this state and it is clear while citizens would prefer not to have to use a gun having their own for protection they do want firepower that is equal to what the criminals are using. And as for cops we have a record number of unarmed citizens killed this year by cops "fearing" for their lives. Ask for a public accounting of how much each city/county spends on settling lawsuits for unlawful deaths and assaults by cops each year. Think about that next time sheriffs and police chiefs say they don't have enough money to hire qualified police officers. YOU NEED TO FIGHT STEINBERG AND YEE.

warbird
12-20-2012, 5:00 PM
And one more point, we need to go after the media that only presents one side of thes tory or selectively choses the best interview for anti gun adn the worst one for pro gun. Your media is controlling this to a large degree and maybe some of these stations and media outlets should have protests filed on their licenses.

Wherryj
12-20-2012, 5:04 PM
The mindset of the politicians in this state scares me. It really does. The criminals in this state must be laughing their asses off. Hell, if I was a criminal, I would support every piece of stupid legislation that these idiots come up with. Permit to buy ammo in CA? I won't point out why this is dumb as dirt, but it really is.

The idea isn't for this to work, it is to make things so difficult to implement that the honest citizen will cease trying to own firearms. The politicians are afraid of guns because they are a potential check to political ambitions.

This isn't intended to stop crime, it is intended to stop legal gun ownership.

cjc16
12-20-2012, 5:17 PM
Our Government has gone full retard.

Dioxindude
12-20-2012, 5:21 PM
I would like to know how many of our politicans have a ccw. So will they be exempt, while they take our guns and keep theirs. I wish they would be more concerned about putting people back to work then taking our guns.

randian
12-20-2012, 5:29 PM
So will they be exempt, while they take our guns and keep theirs.
I assume the usual favored government constituencies will be exempted, in return for their public support, which they will enthusiastically provide.

The Wingnut
12-20-2012, 5:40 PM
I would like to know how many of our politicans have a ccw. So will they be exempt, while they take our guns and keep theirs.

It's the 'one for me, none for you' mentality. DiFi is the perfect example of this.

mag360
12-20-2012, 6:12 PM
Two words...full retard. What are you never supposed to do? That's right....I hope it backfires on their asses.

advocatusdiaboli
12-20-2012, 6:41 PM
This isn't intended to stop crime, it is intended to stop legal gun ownership.

You nailed it. that is what it has always been about and always will be.

wjc
12-20-2012, 6:45 PM
You nailed it. that is what it has always been about and always will be.

^^this^^

All part of the plan so we will become nice cowering sheep...

advocatusdiaboli
12-20-2012, 6:46 PM
Same old tired lies. Here's the real truth. The 2nd Amendment was designed to we could shoot jack-booted thugs who try to tyrannize us, either foreign troops or our own troops. That's it, that's what it means. You cannot refute this historical fact.

Note that Steinberg talks about hunting as if that's what the amendment was about. Ignorance plain and simple. Our legislators and leaders (for the most part) are corrupt ignorant buffoons. Of course they are—they were elected by selfish ignorant voters.

I am starting to believe what Rousseau said about democracy: "tyranny of the masses". The problem is, I can envison no better system that is less corruptible or flawed as this one is. This one needs to stay, but man it's ugly.

CBruce
12-20-2012, 6:49 PM
Last night on Capital Public Radio’s Insight program Senator Darrell Steinberg spoke about new gun legislation. Step 1 is to reintroduce Senator Yee’s bill to close the bullet-button loophole. Step 2 is to consider measures beyond a buyback program to get existing “assault” weapons off the streets. He also said he disagrees that a person has a right to use a firearm in self-defense in their own home, but that that should not be part of the current debate. Essentially: Firearms are for hunters and target shooters and women (not sure why them specifically if not for self-defense). Any firearm that is capable of being fired rapidly (not just reloaded rapidly) is an assault weapon for military use only. Oh, and you should need an annual permit to buy ammunition.

A few quotes:

Steinberg: “How about we all agree that the constitution … ought to protect hunters and sportsmen and women and people who want to target shoot and people who use guns for recreational purposes. … I may have a different opinion than others whether or not guns should be used for self-defense in the home, but let’s even set that one aside for a moment. Can we agree that guns that shoot in a rapid fire fashion, that allow detachable magazines where you can reload and spray gunfire, that those ought to be banned, they ought to go away, that we ought to be aggressive about trying to get them out of our communities? Let’s have a reasonable conversation where we try to draw reasonable lines.”

Steinberg: “My colleague Senator Leland Yee…has reintroduced a bill that did not make it through the process last year because of, really, the influence of the gun lobby, that closes the loophole [explanation of current law in CA] there are all kinds of gadgets that allow a gun owner to detach the magazine by fiddling with it and reloading quickly. We want to close those loopholes. Senator Yee has a bill to do that that I’m going be proud to co-sponsor and co-author. That’s the kind of common sense idea that we need to pursue. Distinguish between the hunters, the sportsmen, the women, the people who use guns for recreational purposes, and these assault weapons, rapid-fire weapons, that have no place on the streets, and that have no place when it comes to sport or recreation. We’re going to pursue that bill very assertively and will be open to other reasonable measures as well.”

Interviewer: "Is there room to take it any farther? Do you have new ideas on gun legislation?"

Steinberg: “Well, we are going to look at this very carefully before we come out publically with other ideas. But certainly one of the issues that skeptics raise is: ‘Well what are you going to do about all the guns that are on the streets already? What are you going to do about recovering those guns.’ And I think that question bears a lot of thought as well. I mean, back in the 80s and 90s the idea of gun buyback plans were popular. I don’t know whether that’s enough, really, given the flow of arms and what we know is out there. But I do think California has among the strictest gun control laws in the country. Certainly tighter than the national laws that I know Senator Feinstein is trying to address with the Assault Weapons Ban. But there is room to do more. The Yee bill is one good example, and we will be looking for others.”



“... There is no one solution here or magic wand. But we can avert more tragedies than not, and save more lives than not, by passing responsible laws around guns, around ammunition. Senator Deleon, my colleague, has a bill that would regulate the purchase of ammunition; by requiring that all schools, as Ted Lou seeks to do, have a safety plan which you have confidence in, and training not only for the teaches, of course, but for the students as well as to what to do, god forbid, if there is this kind of an incident. The more we do of that, the more likely we can avert future tragedies.”

Here are links to the audio:

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2012/12/19/steinberg-focus-on-gun-control,-mental-health,-culture-of-violence

http://www.capradio.org/news/insight/2012/12/19/insight-california-school-safety--pet-tales--a-sidekick-christmas--sound-advice

HAH! Apparently I'm part of the 'gun lobby'.

I thought I was part of the civil rights lobby.

Exnihilo
12-20-2012, 7:21 PM
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

Kid Stanislaus
12-20-2012, 7:23 PM
and who is going to fund this proposed buy back?

We'll have a ballot measure to pass a special tax!:facepalm:

JeepMan
12-20-2012, 7:29 PM
I can't wait for the tatoo on my forearm and my nice suit of yellow clothes.

The camps will be nice, until they turn on the showers.

Thanks Mr. Steinberg. How quickly you have forgotten.

okimreloaded
12-20-2012, 10:26 PM
It's not even criminals that they're trying to keep guns away from. It's the "mentally unstable" the quiet kid in school who gets picked on - the disgruntled blue collar worker, etc. that can legally obtain a weapon. That's what it's about. Keeping guns out of people's hands that MIGHT fly off the handle. That's what they're trying to prevent / predict and the fact that they're trying to prevent future crimes from happening reminds me of Minority Report and thought crime.

It's impossible.

I am going to go order a lower receiver this weekend, I'll wait on whatever list I have to wait on for as long as I have to wait on it.

Nyanman
12-20-2012, 10:33 PM
I am not sure what is worse, that unconstitutional bills like this are getting pushed, or that your average person on the street doesn't grasp the ideas and supports things like total bans on ammunition.

Sleighter
12-20-2012, 11:36 PM
Every time he says reasonable I shudder and lose brain cells.

Hoooper
12-21-2012, 8:06 AM
where did the text come from? I cant find the full text from the OP on either of the links, I prefer to send links to people to read as opposed to walls of text

SWalt
12-21-2012, 8:25 AM
They said EXACTLY THE SAME THING when revolvers came out, when metallic cartridges came out, when Mauser-style box magazines were introduces, and that was all ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

In fact they said the same thing when CROSSBOWS were first used:

Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows against Christians

Crossbows were weapons of war banned for us against Christians in the year 1139!

So this whole "such and such is an assault weapon not fit for civilians" has been said many times over the centuries! Mausers, crossbows and many other things were the "assault weapons" of their times.

Excellent piece of information!

Since then, how many murders? How many mass killings?

The problem isn't the weapon.......its the human heart.

Yee and others will never understand how many monsters live among us nor how the State fails in every way to protect us.

Untamed1972
12-21-2012, 8:29 AM
“How about we all agree that the constitution … ought to protect hunters and sportsmen and women and people who want to target shoot and people who use guns for recreational purposes. … I may have a different opinion than others whether or not guns should be used for self-defense in the home, but let’s even set that one aside for a moment.


Yea.....lets set that aside.....seeing how that issue has already been settled by SCOTUS 4 YEARS AGO! What an effing retard. I guess you've completely forgotten your oath of office to uphold the constitution aye?

So what does it REALLY take for someone to qualify as a "Domestic enemy of the Constitution" anyway?

Writer
12-21-2012, 2:32 PM
where did the text come from? I cant find the full text from the OP on either of the links, I prefer to send links to people to read as opposed to walls of text

I transcribed the interview from the audio available at the website. Insight may provide a full transcript at some point. I wanted to capture what he said before they took down the audio.

thebronze
12-21-2012, 9:42 PM
He doesn't believe in guns for self-defense, so no we cannot have a reasonable conversation.


This.

Swatter911
12-22-2012, 9:27 AM
1. He is willing to go way beyond gun buybacks. Funding any buyback is the least of his concerns.

I mean, back in the 80s and 90s the idea of gun buyback plans were popular. I don’t know whether that’s enough, really, given the flow of arms and what we know is out there.

2. Steinberg is not a stupid man, his comments equating the 2A to hunting and target shooting do not come out of ignorance or stupidity. He is re-framing the debate. The lie grows with the the telling.

speleogist
12-22-2012, 9:31 AM
On 12/19/2012, on Capital Public Radio’s Insight program, Senator Darrell Steinberg spoke about new gun legislation. Step 1 is to reintroduce Senator Yee’s bill to close the bullet-button loophole. Step 2 is to consider measures beyond a buyback program to get existing “assault” weapons off the streets. He also said he disagrees that a person has a right to use a firearm in self-defense in their own home, but that that should not be part of the current debate. Essentially: Firearms are for hunters and target shooters and women (not sure why them specifically if not for self-defense). Any firearm that is capable of being fired rapidly (not just reloaded rapidly) is an assault weapon for military use only. Oh, and you should need an annual permit to buy ammunition.

A few quotes:

Steinberg: “How about we all agree that the constitution … ought to protect hunters and sportsmen and women and people who want to target shoot and people who use guns for recreational purposes. … I may have a different opinion than others whether or not guns should be used for self-defense in the home, but let’s even set that one aside for a moment. Can we agree that guns that shoot in a rapid fire fashion, that allow detachable magazines where you can reload and spray gunfire, that those ought to be banned, they ought to go away, that we ought to be aggressive about trying to get them out of our communities? Let’s have a reasonable conversation where we try to draw reasonable lines.”

Steinberg: “My colleague Senator Leland Yee…has reintroduced a bill that did not make it through the process last year because of, really, the influence of the gun lobby, that closes the loophole [explanation of current law in CA] there are all kinds of gadgets that allow a gun owner to detach the magazine by fiddling with it and reloading quickly. We want to close those loopholes. Senator Yee has a bill to do that that I’m going be proud to co-sponsor and co-author. That’s the kind of common sense idea that we need to pursue. Distinguish between the hunters, the sportsmen, the women, the people who use guns for recreational purposes, and these assault weapons, rapid-fire weapons, that have no place on the streets, and that have no place when it comes to sport or recreation. We’re going to pursue that bill very assertively and will be open to other reasonable measures as well.”

Interviewer: "Is there room to take it any farther? Do you have new ideas on gun legislation?"

Steinberg: “Well, we are going to look at this very carefully before we come out publically with other ideas. But certainly one of the issues that skeptics raise is: ‘Well what are you going to do about all the guns that are on the streets already? What are you going to do about recovering those guns.’ And I think that question bears a lot of thought as well. I mean, back in the 80s and 90s the idea of gun buyback plans were popular. I don’t know whether that’s enough, really, given the flow of arms and what we know is out there. But I do think California has among the strictest gun control laws in the country. Certainly tighter than the national laws that I know Senator Feinstein is trying to address with the Assault Weapons Ban. But there is room to do more. The Yee bill is one good example, and we will be looking for others.”



“... There is no one solution here or magic wand. But we can avert more tragedies than not, and save more lives than not, by passing responsible laws around guns, around ammunition. Senator Deleon, my colleague, has a bill that would regulate the purchase of ammunition; by requiring that all schools, as Ted Lou seeks to do, have a safety plan which you have confidence in, and training not only for the teaches, of course, but for the students as well as to what to do, god forbid, if there is this kind of an incident. The more we do of that, the more likely we can avert future tragedies.”

Here are links to the audio:

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2012/12/19/steinberg-focus-on-gun-control,-mental-health,-culture-of-violence

http://www.capradio.org/news/insight/2012/12/19/insight-california-school-safety--pet-tales--a-sidekick-christmas--sound-advice


I've always loved the "reasonable conversation" line which really means "we need to ban all semi-automatics".

NoHeavyHitter
12-22-2012, 9:38 AM
Same old tired lies. Here's the real truth. The 2nd Amendment was designed to we could shoot jack-booted thugs who try to tyrannize us, either foreign troops or our own troops. That's it, that's what it means. You cannot refute this historical fact.

+1

I seem to recall one of our nation's founding fathers say that the 2nd amendment wouldn't be of much use until they wanted to take it away?

lavey29
12-22-2012, 10:19 AM
He is wrong on the 2A and so says the SCOTUS. Good luck with his argument in court.


O will be appointing 2 liberal judges to the bench during his next 4 years in office so a lot will change in the near future.

jbburrows
12-22-2012, 11:06 AM
Brown has vetoed most gun bills that have reached his desk. By my estimation Brown is very pro-gun ownership, but he thinks all guns should be registered, and doesn't think we should be walking around outside with them in public view. Anything else he has vetoed. I also think that is about all we can hope for with a Dem governor in CA today.

I'd expect him to do the same here, especially if a buy back is floated because Brown can do math.

Even if Brown is somewhat pro gun, the supermajority is troubling. Political pressure from every gun owner (both D & R) will be required to stop the statists.

Ford8N
12-22-2012, 11:28 AM
1. He is willing to go way beyond gun buybacks. Funding any buyback is the least of his concerns.



2. Steinberg is not a stupid man, his comments equating the 2A to hunting and target shooting do not come out of ignorance or stupidity. He is re-framing the debate. The lie grows with the the telling.

He is also dividing the gun community. Hunters from the gun owners who own AW's or just shoot for recreation. I still hear the stupid "...what do you need one of those guns for? It's only made for killing..." at the shooting range or from gun shop fudmiesters!

IVC
12-22-2012, 11:28 AM
O will be appointing 2 liberal judges to the bench during his next 4 years in office so a lot will change in the near future.

Not that easy to make a change, particularly when there are two very clear recent rulings in Heller and McDonald.

If there was a simple way, Roe vs. Wade would be gone during Bush tenure as he appointed two conservative justices, Alito and Roberts, AND the majority was at that time conservative.

The court composition might/will affect future rulings only on unresolved issues, such as right to carry and some aspects of rifle bans. There are several ripe right-to-carry cases waiting to be picked up, and if the AWB is pushed to become law, we should have another court case with high likelihood of reaching the court sooner rather than later.