Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #481  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:37 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

So there are 226,288 weapons in the registry, total, including all other periods.

They got 70,000 say of 1.5 million, that's slightly less than 5%.

And this garbage article has the antis claiming this works and is a victory and helps LEO do their jobs. What a joke.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:48 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,593
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjjj View Post
I
People vote. Not guns. Having 300 million guns in civilian hands doesn't help much, if that translates into only 10-20 million votes.
With a 44-37% Democrat vs. Republican split, 5-10% of eligible voters swing elections.

Quote:
If we are to increase our ranks, we must absolutely focus on getting as many moderates as possible to "buy that first gun". So they can protect their family. After all, every person on here started their collection with that very first gun.
Right. We need celebrity endorsements. Lots of people would buy guns and demand concealed carry permits if the Kardashians were living the pew pew life on their show.
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:48 PM
HiND-SIGHT HiND-SIGHT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 243
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The joke is on the DOJ, who can’t even finish the registration process when they wrote the system themselves. Makes the DMV look half competent
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:01 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,935
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
So there are 226,288 weapons in the registry, total, including all other periods.

They got 70,000 say of 1.5 million, that's slightly less than 5%.

And this garbage article has the antis claiming this works and is a victory and helps LEO do their jobs. What a joke.
I’m shocked at how many in comparison to the population of California.

Guns are not a normal item let alone a legally owned item in a household.

You are not going to win at the polls with these numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:41 PM
Endless's Avatar
Endless Endless is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ellsworth, ME/ Bend, OR
Posts: 1,347
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
I’m shocked at how many in comparison to the population of California.

Guns are not a normal item let alone a legally owned item in a household.

You are not going to win at the polls with these numbers.
Different priorities vs a small rural state. 95% of households in Maine and 85% in Oregon. To me that’s the norm.

I am glad folks aren’t registering. Folks in freestates will tell you you have to be an idiot to register any firearm with the state.

I will be an idiot come November when I actually buy my first firearm in California. The irony is it’s a lever action and is cheaper in California than Maine. Crazy. Then I am moving back to a freestate and wouldn’t have paid the high price they go for outside of California.
__________________

Military Veteran
DHS veteran
“An assualt rifle by definition is a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use. A semiautomatic Ar15/Ak47 type firearm with a standard magazine release is not considered an assualt rifle”......Governor LePage

Last edited by Endless; 07-17-2018 at 1:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:33 PM
haodoken haodoken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 523
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Looks like the inital report was too soon and it's more like what Librarian said, reg is up?

Reg up 43% Story

"Californians have applied to register 68,848 additional assault weapons in the last 11 months"
Maybe they are finally catching up to all the registrations in the system? That's surprising. Or else they are counting the applications versus actual completed registrations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:50 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by haodoken View Post
Maybe they are finally catching up to all the registrations in the system? That's surprising. Or else they are counting the applications versus actual completed registrations.
Whats nuts is:

70,000 applications

30 employees

that's 2400 applications for people to process per employee

261 days in a working year, that would mean 10 applications per day

6700 processed so far, so 233 per employee

That means in a year they did less than 1 application a day per employee?? I know lots could be at the end but these seems almost comical.

At this rate the remaining 63,000 applications will take 2100 days to finish? Am I doing this math right at 30 applications a day. That's lulz.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez


Last edited by Discogodfather; 07-17-2018 at 2:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:56 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,264
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by haodoken View Post
Or else they are counting the applications versus actual completed registrations.
They received applications for 69k firearms (from roughly 30k people), of which they've only processed 13k firearms (from roughly 6k people) so far.

Neither count was "wrong", they were just counting different things and everyone got confused.



Fun fact: DOJ had expected 1 out of every 150 citizens to register something. In actuality, only 1 out of every 1,500 registered something.

__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-17-2018 at 3:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 07-17-2018, 3:31 PM
scootle's Avatar
scootle scootle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,535
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Looks like the inital report was too soon and it's more like what Librarian said, reg is up?

Reg up 43% Story

"Californians have applied to register 68,848 additional assault weapons in the last 11 months"
For those who missed the reference to Librarian, this is highly consistent with the "Bird Story" from a while back...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1460629
__________________
#2A4CA -- it has begun! https://www.2aforca.org/
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 07-17-2018, 3:39 PM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 2,850
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
They received applications for 69k firearms (from roughly 30k people), of which they've only processed 13k firearms (from roughly 6k people) so far.

Neither count was "wrong", they were just counting different things and everyone got confused.



Fun fact: DOJ had expected 1 out of every 150 citizens to register something. In actuality, only 1 out of every 1,500 registered something.

LOL, they might have reached their numbers if they hadn't made the registration process stupid and time consuming, requiring photos and such. If they had kept it to just a document filling and listing your serial numbers like the last RAW period, then maybe they would have gotten the numbers they wanted. They screwed themselves by making the process unnecessarily difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 07-17-2018, 3:48 PM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,072
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

So, they were expecting roughly 250,000 x $15 = $3.75 million in income. Actual income is going to be closer to 30,000 x $15 = $450,000, so the shortfall will be around $3.4 million dollars. Oopsie!

The DOJ has asked for a loan of $3.7 million from Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund to deposited in to the DROS fund. That $3.7 million loan is supposed to be repaid by 6/30/2021. Guess what loan is not going to be repaid? I guess the APPS program is going to be even MORE short of funds for enforcement...

T

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
.

__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 07-17-2018, 3:51 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timdps View Post
So, they were expecting roughly 250,000 x $15 = $3.75 million in income. Actual income is going to be closer to 30,000 x $15 = $450,000, so the shortfall will be around $3.4 million dollars. Oopsie!

The DOJ has asked for a loan of $3.7 million from Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund to deposited in to the DROS fund. That $3.7 million loan is supposed to be repaid by 6/30/2021. Guess what loan is not going to be repaid? I guess the APPS program is going to be even MORE short of funds for enforcement...

T
Yeah, the math adds up pretty well. Who knows if they get a ding on their millions of wasted dollars- they never have in the past.

That bad article didn't even mention it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 07-17-2018, 3:53 PM
HiND-SIGHT HiND-SIGHT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 243
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Maybe it was their intention to rob the DROS funds for registration before the DROS accounts could be audited. They’ve been overcharging us for decades, now it’s “whoops we used it all up!(while using it to funnel money to our pockets)” can’t audit what’s not there to be refunded.

Last edited by HiND-SIGHT; 07-17-2018 at 3:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 07-17-2018, 3:59 PM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,072
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiND-SIGHT View Post
Maybe it was their intention to rob the DROS funds for registration before the DROS accounts could be audited.
I think that is backwards. The loan was deposited INTO the DROS fund from the Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund (which stole its money from the DROS fund). So the DROS fund is UP $3.7 million and the Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund (which pays for the APPS enforcement program) is going to be short $3.4 million.

T
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 07-17-2018, 4:13 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,748
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax Error View Post
They screwed themselves by making the process unnecessarily difficult.
They did not screw themselves. They did not want people registering. You completely misapprehend their motives.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 07-17-2018, 4:49 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,935
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
They did not screw themselves. They did not want people registering. You completely misapprehend their motives.
True, they never wanted to make legal any more scary looking firearms. But also, Law Enforcement is a huge black hole that the Rulers constantly throw money at to look good to the sheep voters. It’s easy to do in a state like California where the majority of voters are idiots, easily lead by the nose and come from a culture where they are used to dictators or oligarchs. This State is pathetic.
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 07-17-2018, 4:58 PM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 10,123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

And where is any verification at all that the numbers in this new propaganda piece are not fiction?

Kind of a big jump from 13,000...
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:06 PM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 5,354
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

13000 were registrations approved on or before June 30.

It's within reason that applications submitted as far as several months prior did not get approved yet. Hence the jump in SUBMISSIONS.
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:08 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,308
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
They did not screw themselves. They did not want people registering.
If their goal was to remove assault weapons from the streets, they indeed screwed up. While the chart below doesn't specify what type of long guns were sold in 2016, I will bet that the numbers are a direct reflection to the new ban when it passed.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/dros_chart.pdf
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:10 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,748
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
If their goal was to remove assault weapons from the streets
This was never their goal. As you know there are no rampaging gangs wielding assault weapons on "the streets". They all use handguns.

The DoJ's goal is to make people believe they removed assault weapons from the streets, and that assault weapons are scary and unusual.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #501  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:15 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,308
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
This was never their goal. As you know there are no rampaging gangs wielding assault weapons on "the streets". They all use handguns.

The DoJ's goal is to make people believe they removed assault weapons from the streets, and that assault weapons are scary and unusual.
Same result. They failed. Too many rifles will still be used at ranges. Too many people reacted to the ban and it will continue to be known with the new compliance products available that these exact same rifles will continue to be available for sale.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:34 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,308
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Interesting side note to the numbers were handguns sales during the GWB years. In 2000 the handgun roster was initiated and the comparative sales don't truly reflect that. By 2008 they exceeded sales from 2000 year to year and have continued to rise since.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...dros_chart.pdf
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:42 PM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 826
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Except for the gangs that Ex-senator Lee was going to supply and organized gangs with direct ties to Mexico almost all gang bangers use handguns. the removal of "assault" rifles and indeed all semi-automatic rifles might be goal of the state so that the taxpaying population has no chance to revolt or defend itself. a disarmed population is far easier to bully and steal from and the state seems to be very good at that. leftist democrats can hold violent rallies but let the right wing do a peaceful rally and the leftists physically attack them and do not get arrested. See the latest LA incident with the "Proud boys" and more leftist attacks will come in the coming months. When will leftist democrats attack neighborhoods for whatever reason excuse? should be interesting around election time. I do not support the Proud Boys but I do defend their right to gather peacefully even if I do not agree with the message.
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:53 PM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 10,123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"A lawsuit filed against the state by firearms groups, who campaigned against the new law, alleged some gun owners were unable to access the state website to register their guns before the deadline.

The DOJ denied the allegations in a statement, saying its website has been working correctly. A representative said the agency has not been served with any lawsuit, “but will be prepared to respond in court.”"

Yeah...this adds legitimacy to the piece.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

Last edited by BluNorthern; 07-17-2018 at 6:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:10 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluNorthern View Post
And where is any verification at all that the numbers in this new propaganda piece are not fiction?

Kind of a big jump from 13,000...
So 1% or 5%? It's a failure either way right? Pretty hard to imagine they made up such a bad number, lol.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:13 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,593
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
This was never their goal. As you know there are no rampaging gangs wielding assault weapons on "the streets". They all use handguns.

The DoJ's goal is to make people believe they removed assault weapons from the streets, and that assault weapons are scary and unusual.
Californian elected and appointed officials' goal is to eliminate firearms ownership among private citizens, because

1. They’re usually urban dwellers with no exposure to firearms outside news and entertainment with those limited inputs understandably leading to anti-gun views.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-democra.../Drew-Eckhardt

2. They're observant enough to notice the world becoming a place where most people will be unable to work to feed themselves, and don't want the proletariat armed with more than pitchforks when that happens.

They pursue that end the way you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Laws and regulations are easiest to pass when they're incremental. This year it's closing the bullet button loophole, next year it's featureless, and one tragedy farther it'll be semiautomatic firearms readily converted to accept detachable magazines.

Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 07-17-2018 at 6:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:14 PM
SAD338 SAD338 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That's a lot of forms for Colonel Bella to review.
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:19 PM
AGGRO's Avatar
AGGRO AGGRO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,858
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
I’m shocked at how many in comparison to the population of California.

Guns are not a normal item let alone a legally owned item in a household.

You are not going to win at the polls with these numbers.
It's a normal item to own if you aren't a lib living, lab rat in a large urban area.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:24 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGGRO View Post
It's a normal item to own if you aren't a lib living, lab rat in a large urban area.
Come over to my place, you will see a lot of normality in San Francisco.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 07-17-2018, 9:34 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,709
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
So there are 226,288 weapons in the registry, total, including all other periods.

They got 70,000 say of 1.5 million, that's slightly less than 5%.

And this garbage article has the antis claiming this works and is a victory and helps LEO do their jobs. What a joke.
Yea, the article makes it sound like a bump of 43% was a good thing. Too bad they were targeting a bump of 1000%. These idiots know it was a complete failure and they are trying to spin it.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 07-17-2018, 9:43 PM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,473
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.".
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:07 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.