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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-15-2022, 8:00 PM
bigdaddyz1776's Avatar
bigdaddyz1776 bigdaddyz1776 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: California
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a good summary of RINOs.

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-21-2022, 3:22 PM
davidj davidj is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 28
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Senate Gun Control Bill Released

https://www.scribd.com/document/5792...oad&from_embed
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-21-2022, 3:27 PM
davidj davidj is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 28
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

"Schumer: This bipartisan gun-safety legislation is progress..While it is not everything we want, this legislation is urgently-needed. I will now put this life-saving legislation on the Senate floor for a vote, with an initial procedural vote as soon as tonight"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-21-2022, 3:51 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,941
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

See also https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...old-vote-week/
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-21-2022, 4:23 PM
M76's Avatar
M76 M76 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Urbanized Suburbia
Posts: 4,203
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Funding for School Safety Resources
in other words, line the pockets of activist-scumbags posing as "admin, educators, etc."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
Stop digging.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-21-2022, 4:37 PM
Kokopelli's Avatar
Kokopelli Kokopelli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "the drop edge of yonder"
Posts: 3,063
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Makes for an interesting collision of ideologies. It’s like Senators already know how SCOTUS will rule on Constitutional carry. This latest batch of new laws would throw a wrench in the machinery where “red flag” laws would allow anyone to call in anyone else that is carrying in public under the upcoming SCOTUS ruling. A real clash of cultures.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” - Ronald Reagan
"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best." - Voltaire
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-21-2022, 4:55 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,515
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Here is the text of the bill without the scribd nonsense
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/me...s_act_text.pdf
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-21-2022, 5:01 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,515
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Also, are they about to retroactively screw a lot of people with juvenile records - people who have been buying guns for decades?? Cops, FFLs, etc?

Quote:
IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(A) in subsection (d)—
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ‘‘, including as a juvenile’’ after ‘‘such person’’; and
would make 18 USC 922(d) read:

Quote:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person, including as a juvenile—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Juveniles are not usually "convicted", they are adjudicated. I believe there is Supreme Court caselaw on this as it pertains to guns? I know there are conflicting views in various states.

Here is one ruling from the 4th circuit but only as it applies to juvenile adjudications in VA
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...59/340/577514/

There is a Supreme Court case out of Ohio that screwed a guy
https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/...p#.YrJtZi1HafA

And another guy in Washington State screwed by the 9th
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/13-30170.pdf

PA Supreme Court says adjudication is not a conviction
https://mcmahonwinters.com/71087/


To that point, 18 USC 921(20) says this:

Quote:
(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
Which seems to indicate nothing changes at all, so why add the words "including as a juvenile" to 922(d)?

I'm not the only one wondering about this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...n-murphy-bill/

Quote:
According to an explanatory document issued by his office, Cornyn’s bill “clarifies current law that a person is prohibited from purchasing a firearm if their juvenile record meets the existing criteria for a prohibited firearms purchaser under 18 U.S. 922(d).” If enacted, this would represent a biggest change in the law, in that, for the first time, Americans who have juvenile records (obtained at any age) would be excluded from buying firearms irrespective of their current age. (Possibly due to a drafting error, the text of the law makes it unclear whether these rules apply to possession, or just purchasing.)

It is unclear what happens to Americans whose juvenile records have been expunged.

What a mess this will turn out to be. How the F is Cornyn giving an inch here when the ramifications could be so serious?? There are people with FFLs, Law Enforcement officers etc who could be swept up. This could be another Laughtenberg nightmare.

Why add these words when 18 USC 921(20) already covers juvenile convictions. Unnecessarily tinkering with the wording of 18 USC 922(d) will beget years of litigation and for some people, nightmarish outcomes.
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 06-21-2022 at 5:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-21-2022, 5:49 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,270
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
the term ‘dating relationship’ means a rela-
tionship between individuals who have or have recently
had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or inti-
mate nature.
It sound extremely vague. Romantic or intimate, I'm sure there's plenty of romantic but not dating relationships.

So if you give the girl a rose for Valentines day, woops, your a dating partner.

They have this also,

Quote:
casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context does not constitute
a dating relationship under subparagraph (A).’’.
But who is to say what is ordinary or not.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-21-2022, 5:52 PM
Helmut Helmut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 467
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Beginning of the end folks.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-21-2022, 6:08 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 4,313
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Incrementalism at it's finest!

Won't stop a single shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-21-2022, 6:19 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,270
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
pre-deprivation and postdeprivation due process rights that
prevent any violation or infringement
of the Constitution of the United
States, including but not limited to
the Bill of Rights, and the substantive
or procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied
to the States, and as interpreted by
State courts and United States courts
(including the Supreme Court of the
United States).
So I'm not a lawyer , but this is the definition of procedural due process I found,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/procedural_due_process

Quote:
Procedural due process refers to the constitutional requirement that when the federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker.
If this is what they are going with, then California's GVRO doesn't seem to give anyone an opportunity to be heard.

California's process is done entirely without you knowing.

Last edited by abinsinia; 06-21-2022 at 6:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-21-2022, 6:41 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

How do "red flag" laws differ from a Bill of Attainder?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-21-2022, 7:39 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Conflicting priorities...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
To that point, 18 USC 921(20) says this:


What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
For years Democrats have been trying to expunge all these records in the name of "equity." I've yet to see a Republican turn that around and talk about how the Dems are trying to "make it easier for criminals to buy firearms."

On the other hand, since a "process" exists, these complications may make it more difficult for stupid people to navigate the bureaucracy, expunge their record, and buy firearms. It's kind of the same elitism that is embedded in NY's current CCW laws.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-21-2022, 7:44 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Not quite the same...

Quote:
Originally Posted by snailbait View Post
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

How do "red flag" laws differ from a Bill of Attainder?
That's when a legislature votes to convict a specific person of a crime.

There Constitutional right to "face your accusers" and have a jury trial for any amount over $20 might come into play in future due process legal challenges.

So that's 6th Amendment:

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-6/

And 7th Amendment:

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-7/

And if the collection is big enough, sounds like an "excessive fine" under the 8th Amendment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-8/
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-21-2022, 8:47 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,314
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

So how does this reconcile the ability for most people in most states to just buy a gun as private party with no background check. 18 year olds can just bypass the extra check buying private.

Also, exactly how are they going to track how many guns someone has sold, or if they made a “profit”. They don’t know the buy price, they won’t know the sale price.

Red flag laws, states that want them already have them, states that don’t want them, won’t decide to have them after this anyways.

“Boyfriend” still is vague, and I’m still not sure who gets to decide if the definition applies. I guess a judge, and it’s just vague enough for an activist judge to take guns indiscriminately.

So all in all, a fairly stupid attempt at nothing much. The republicans and Democrats are just doing this to show they can agree and “do something”. But the republicans are the only ones who are losing. Im not sure why they are even risking this BS in an election year.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-21-2022, 9:37 PM
denpython denpython is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,661
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Covid vaccines were also described as common sense and benign.
Yeah,its the foot in the door and in the yinyang!
__________________
NRA Life Member, GOA member
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-22-2022, 4:48 AM
mshill mshill is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Subtitle D starting on page 67....

It's a ****ing money grab. 13 pages of hundreds of million dollars to be given away to numerous bureaucracies of federal and state governments.
__________________
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
  #59  
Old 06-22-2022, 6:36 AM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Not in California
Posts: 2,996
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/me...s_act_text.pdf
Page 32 has the new language about activity requiring a dealer’s license.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:03 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,270
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default



He's claiming they are changing the law so if you sell a gun for profit your committing a felony unless you have an FFL.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:22 AM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dago Red View Post
Well, maybe I’m a bad 2a supporter I don’t see anything wrong w it. My only thing, and I’ve only thought of it for 60 seconds but the 21yo thing I’ve already got an issue with however. There’s legit reasons (competitive shooters for instance) someone between 18-21 would need one. I think more time to look into their background wouldn’t be bad, but who makes that call? And who decides what online, non-criminal postings and behaviors legally keep someone from owning a gun?

I always bring that up when people talk about “mental health” checks before hand. Hey, someone is a schizophrenic or bipolar diagnosed by their own dr that’s one thing. If they go to buy a gun and get sent to a dr, what keeps that gov required doc from being anti gun? Anti everything nuts have infiltrated all areas of free America. Fish and game, adult entertainment, all the best things about America are infiltrated because “they” in power wish it so.

We have all the laws we need in place, if you want to fund more mental health (and crack down on all the illegal drugs linked to mental health, and homelessness) I’ll go for that. Harden schools, hire retired military as security. Hell just put me in charge I’ll fix ****

Red
How about the "Red Flag Laws:" Well, they at least allow you to be re[presented by an attorney "at no expense to the government." I'm guessing many gun owners don't have $10K burning a hole in their pocket.

Quote:
‘‘(I) Implementation of State crisis intervention court proceedings and related programs
16 or initiatives, including but not limited to—
17 ‘‘(i) mental health courts;
18 ‘‘(ii) drug courts;
19 ‘‘(iii) veterans courts; and
20 ‘‘(iv) extreme risk protection order
21 programs, which must include, at a minimum—
23 ‘‘(I) pre-deprivation and post24 deprivation due process rights that
25 prevent any violation or infringement

34
OLL22583 HSF Discussion Draft S.L.C.
1 of the Constitution of the United
2 States, including but not limited to
3 the Bill of Rights, and the substantive
4 or procedural due process rights guar5 anteed under the Fifth and Four6 teenth Amendments to the Constitu7 tion of the United States, as applied
8 to the States, and as interpreted by
9 State courts and United States courts
10 (including the Supreme Court of the
11 United States). Such programs must
12 include, at the appropriate phase to
13 prevent any violation of constitutional
14 rights, at minimum, notice, the right
15 to an in-person hearing, an unbiased
16 adjudicator, the right to know opposing evidence, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront adverse witnesses;
20 ‘‘(II) the right to be represented
21 by counsel at no expense to the government
;

23 ‘‘(III) pre-deprivation and post24 deprivation heightened evidentiary
25 standards and proof which mean not
35
OLL22583 HSF Discussion Draft S.L.C.
1 less than the protections afforded to a
2 similarly situated litigant in Federal
3 court or promulgated by the State’s
4 evidentiary body, and sufficient to en5 sure the full protections of the Con6 stitution of the United States, includ7 ing but not limited to the Bill of
8 Rights, and the substantive and pro9 cedural due process rights guaranteed
10 under the Fifth and Fourteenth
11 Amendments to the Constitution of
12 the United States, as applied to the
13 States, and as interpreted by State
14 courts and United States courts (in15 cluding the Supreme Court of the
16 United States). The heightened evi17 dentiary standards and proof under
18 such programs must, at all appro19 priate phases to prevent any violation
20 of any constitutional right, at min21 imum, prevent reliance upon evidence
22 that is unsworn or unaffirmed, irrele23 vant, based on inadmissible hearsay,
24 unreliable, vague, speculative, and
25 lacking a foundation; and
36
OLL22583 HSF Discussion Draft S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(IV) penalties for abuse of the
2 program.’’.
__________________


Mojave Lever Crew Member

"it’s time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is every day. Every day it is time for us to agree that there are things and tools that are available to us to slow this thing down." - Kamala "Heels Up" Harris

Slava Ukraini (Слава Україні)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-22-2022, 9:26 AM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I am rather impressed with what is NOT in the bill...Weapons bans and std capacity magazine bans. I am sure the NRA/GOA/SAF were all working hard behind the scenes.
__________________
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” ----Sen. Barry Goldwater
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----Benjamin Franklin

NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-22-2022, 10:19 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,706
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Republicans are signaling they don't want to win what could have been a slam-dunk mid-term election.
__________________
I refuse to humanize those who cannot be bothered to lift a finger to humanize themselves. The mentally ill need our care. The rest need the whip.

- Alexander Zubatov
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-22-2022, 10:23 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,706
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Den60 View Post
How about the "Red Flag Laws:" Well, they at least allow you to be re[presented by an attorney "at no expense to the government." I'm guessing many gun owners don't have $10K burning a hole in their pocket.
That happens after the guns are gone. Most of these "red flag" hearings will be ex parte, meaning one of the parties doesn't have to be there - and that will always be the gun owner. Once the cops present the court order and take the guns, then you get the government attorney who will help clear your name and get your guns back.

Just how well do you think that government lawyer is going to represent you? You'll never see those guns, or any other gun, for the rest of your life and it's all perfectly legal.
__________________
I refuse to humanize those who cannot be bothered to lift a finger to humanize themselves. The mentally ill need our care. The rest need the whip.

- Alexander Zubatov
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-22-2022, 10:52 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,515
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post

He's claiming they are changing the law so if you sell a gun for profit your committing a felony unless you have an FFL.
Everyone memorize this phrase:

"I was only trying to improve my firearms collection".

Quote:
The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection:
If I sell a gun with a scratch on the slide because I want to replace it with a better one that does not have a scratch, that is an intent to make an improvement of my personal collection. Similarly if you sell a Gen 4 Glock to get a Gen 5, that could be considered an improvement and so long as your intent was to make an improvement, it does not matter if you sold the gun for profit.

No one expects folks to sell their 1972 Colt Python for $300 just because they are not allowed to make a profit 50 years later.

However as I already pointed out, once they start monkeying with the wording of these laws, words whose meaning have been hashed out in many a court case - they reset the basis for litigation back to square one - and there will be plenty of people caught in the new grinder
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 06-22-2022 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-22-2022, 11:10 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

There's going to be a lot of litigation. I suppose that like other legislation you don't want to be the test case. Which probably means that some clueless person will be the test case.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-22-2022, 11:15 AM
ENTHUSIAST's Avatar
ENTHUSIAST ENTHUSIAST is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hill Country, TX (Political Refugee from CA)
Posts: 4,359
iTrader: 123 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
What a mess this will turn out to be. How the F is Cornyn giving an inch here when the ramifications could be so serious??
Because he is a RINO cut from the Bush style of Texan politician that fooled the good ol’ boys here into letting him control the levers of power. There are a lot of dumb Texans out here that are easily fooled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
Once again the RINOs ride in to the rescue.
Nauseating.

John Cornyn (R-TX)
__________________
“This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.”

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
March 29, 2019
____________

Last edited by ENTHUSIAST; 06-22-2022 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-22-2022, 11:24 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,515
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTHUSIAST View Post

John Cornyn (R-TX)
this ^^
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-22-2022, 5:31 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Is it really a give-away, or is there a plan they have to mitigate damage?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-22-2022, 6:49 PM
Oxnard_Montalvo Oxnard_Montalvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NorCal
Posts: 976
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCEquestrian View Post
I am rather impressed with what is NOT in the bill...Weapons bans and std capacity magazine bans. I am sure the NRA/GOA/SAF were all working hard behind the scenes.

Any why would they be if there are 'red flag' laws? They can go straight after the 'end user' and get ALL of it, not just 'bad' guns and accessories, each and every thing even that box of corroded .22's in your fishing box.

Here's how it will come down, you'll post something on your favorite social media account that's completely innocent and innocuous TO YOU, some 'social justice warrior' will see your post which, according to the ever changing 'societal norms', will be used against you in the kangaroo court of public opinion and then it's all over but the call to your lawyer. Tell me I'm wrong in my assessment, I can't see, given how recent events have occurred, any flaws in it...
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:01 PM
cz74 cz74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 519
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So if some stranger annoys me at Costco, I can order a red flag on that individual?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:16 PM
lmcc0072 lmcc0072 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: NorCal
Posts: 273
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

After this maybe it will be safe enough for California to become a Shall Issue State.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:25 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Cuts both ways...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo View Post
Here's how it will come down, you'll post something on your favorite social media account that's completely innocent and innocuous TO YOU, some 'social justice warrior' will see your post which, according to the ever changing 'societal norms', will be used against you in the kangaroo court of public opinion and then it's all over but the call to your lawyer. Tell me I'm wrong in my assessment, I can't see, given how recent events have occurred, any flaws in it...
The second wave of that will be people anonymously reporting politicians, police chiefs, etc. to get their firearms taken away. Which may subsequently result in some "clarifying" legislation. That will take years though.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:26 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Two Weeks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by lmcc0072 View Post
After this maybe it will be safe enough for California to become a Shall Issue State.
Let's revisit this discussion next week.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:45 PM
Oxnard_Montalvo Oxnard_Montalvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NorCal
Posts: 976
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
The second wave of that will be people anonymously reporting politicians, police chiefs, etc. to get their firearms taken away. Which may subsequently result in some "clarifying" legislation. That will take years though.
I'd like to think that there is equal justice but after the Swallwell / Fang Fang thing and of course Hunter 'I can do whatever I want' Biden plus any other number of examples I think any 'anonymous reporting' would be handled along party lines with predictable results...
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-22-2022, 8:22 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 443
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"BREAKING: I just filed an amendment to the Senate's bipartisan gun bill that would raise the age to purchase an assault weapon to 21."

https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/sta...C9vaOkmN4qAAAA
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-22-2022, 9:27 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,515
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
"BREAKING: I just filed an amendment to the Senate's bipartisan gun bill that would raise the age to purchase an assault weapon to 21."

https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/sta...C9vaOkmN4qAAAA
Good, hopefully she torpedos the whole thing
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-22-2022, 10:01 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,941
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Good, hopefully she torpedos the whole thing
That would be nice.

Does DiFi have a definition for 'assault weapon'?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-22-2022, 10:18 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Depends...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cz74 View Post
So if some stranger annoys me at Costco, I can order a red flag on that individual?
You may need to convince a court they are your boyfriend, if I'm reading the articles about the "boyfriend exception" correctly.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-23-2022, 1:16 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 851
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
Is it really a give-away, or is there a plan they have to mitigate damage?
I would like to think this, as there is NO other justification for any Republican to support this abomination of a bill, however, I don't honestly think they are even that smart to execute such a strategy.....

We have been sold out by a bunch of RINOS from deep red states who have probably been compromised by the DC swamp and who no longer care about their oath of office!

This is a total give away and as previously posted in this thread, this bill will simply generate a ton of new litigation, new case law and create a bunch of innocent, law abiding citizens becoming "test cases" while having their lives destroyed.

And good luck trying to define a "dating relationship" LOL! Your honor, I only banged her once, in my hot tub, bent her over the edge and hit it doggie style. Met her at a bar that night, I drank too much, don't even know her name or number and don't readily recognize her since she was bent over most of the time and my vision was a bit fuzzy, I swear we are not in ANY type of "dating relationship"
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 6:48 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical