PDA

View Full Version : Why is AB 1471 the Apocalypse, but SB 489 wasn't?


marklbucla
10-14-2007, 8:53 PM
Like the title says, I don't understand why AB 1471 is much worse than SB 489. The original version of SB 489 would have ended retail sales immediately starting 1/1/06 for handguns that didn't have at least one feature, yet it didn't seem like anyone else was going on a mad buying spree.

This time around it looks like it's just an add on to SB 489, but people on this board talk as if the world were coming to an end.

Why's this one so much worse?

NeoWeird
10-14-2007, 9:43 PM
Because this one can be abused and missued to wrongfully inciminate innocent people. I don't think anyone here would care if they said "Hey, we're adding $10 on top of the gun price already." but now all it takes is some thug to grab some used shells from a bucket at the range, fling them out the window during a drive by, and YOU are placed in custody and you have to worry about your job waiting for you, the community looking at you as a killer, losing your home because you can't make payments while in jail, bond, lawyer and court fees, and the actual battle of proving it wasn't you simply because some liberal feel gooder can't use the brain God gave them to logically see this thing is flawed or they know it's flawed and are using it as weapon against us gun owners.

Either way it's there as an attack on US and not crime.

RRangel
10-14-2007, 9:51 PM
Like the title says, I don't understand why AB 1471 is much worse than SB 489. The original version of SB 489 would have ended retail sales immediately starting 1/1/06 for handguns that didn't have at least one feature, yet it didn't seem like anyone else was going on a mad buying spree.

This time around it looks like it's just an add on to SB 489, but people on this board talk as if the world were coming to an end.

Why's this one so much worse?

I remember it was treated about as bad, and now people realize more clearly which direction the leftists gun grabbers want to go with our guns.

bwiese
10-14-2007, 10:37 PM
SB489 was indeed bad.

However, from a practical standpoint these features (loaded chamber indicators, mag disconnects) already were in a variety of semiauto pistols for quite some time, or were on the drawing boards for others as they were not technically difficult to do and did not appreciably change costs.

Many PDs require these features anyway and other states may have these requirements too (MA, MD). So it really didn't create a great disturbance except for low-volume mfgrs: the number of guns moving into CA has grown, not declined.

xrMike
10-15-2007, 9:59 AM
and the actual battle of proving it wasn't you simply because some liberal feel gooder can't use the brain God gave them to logically see this thing is flawed or they know it's flawed and are using it as weapon against us gun owners.But it was a Republican governator that did this to us! How can a Republican do this to us? It's not right. It's not conservative. It's not Republican!

I didn't really like Arnold much as a candidate when he ran for that 2nd term, but I thought he was the lesser of 2 evils, so I voted for him.

Can anybody see where I'm going with this??????? :rolleyes:

bwiese
10-15-2007, 10:25 AM
But it was a Republican governator that did this to us! How can a Republican do this to us? It's not right. It's not conservative. It's not Republican!

I didn't really like Arnold much as a candidate when he ran for that 2nd term, but I thought he was the lesser of 2 evils, so I voted for him.

Can anybody see where I'm going with this??????? :rolleyes:

Yes, but on the the national plane it's different. We essentially have pro-gun (or not-anti-gun) balance in US House+Senate. That balance is going to remain pretty much unchanged. The main danger in Presidential election is not whether the Prez is antigun or not but will he appoint proper Supreme Ct justices.

All the Repub candidates (even Rudy G.) have voiced opinions on appointing originalists the Supremes.

So even if the direct gun stance of Hillary vs Rudy|Romney is not that different, the folks appointed to the Supremes by Hillary would be terrible, while those appointed by Rudy|Romney will veer our way as a byproduct.

xrMike
10-15-2007, 11:01 AM
All the Repub candidates (even Rudy G.) have voiced opinions on appointing originalists the Supremes.

So even if the direct gun stance of Hillary vs Rudy|Romney is not that different, the folks appointed to the Supremes by Hillary would be terrible, while those appointed by Rudy|Romney will veer our way as a byproduct.I see what you're saying, and am trying to integrate it into my thinking about who to vote for, but the thing is, while gun issues ARE important to me, there are OTHER things to consider about a candidate too -- like their stance on illegal immigration, foreign intervention, big/small federal govt., deficit/balanced budgets, etc.

We all voted for Arnie, and look what he did to us.

I do see what you're saying about the courts though. I'm just so fed up with all govt. right now, state AND federal both. There are a lot of us out here who are sooooo tired of being practical, and all we want to do at this point is throw the baby out with the bath water.