Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

AB 1663- Chiu, 2016 - Dead in Committee

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • matix101
    Member
    • Jan 2016
    • 366

    Shhhhhh...

    Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

    Comment

    • bobbodaggit
      Member
      • Dec 2013
      • 287

      Originally posted by ColdDeadHands1
      You make MOONBEAM sound like the gun packin governor of Texas! Pretty rosy picture you have painted here. Quit kidding yourself and all of us. The liberal Jerry Brown will make you feel good by rejecting half of the anti gun bills. Then he will stick it up our rears by signing the other half just like last year.

      What's worse is that all the Calguns libs will sing his praises for only partially undermining our 2A rights instead of completely burying them.
      Hardly. Considering he signed the 'gun violence restraining order, I'd hardly call him 'rosy.' Read his signing statement on SB 374 from a few years ago. I AM NOT saying he even agrees with post-Heller jurisprudence, but only that as legislation, a semi-auto & detachable magazine ban will not accomplish its stated goals.

      If we want these bills to be vetoed by him, this is the angle to take - and I was complementing Mr. DeLuz for doing a good job so far this round.

      And a Gov. Newsom or deLeon won't care at all over effectiveness to veto any of these, which will make Brown seem the model of reasonability.

      Comment

      • violentmouse
        Junior Member
        • Jan 2012
        • 88

        I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to go and take advantage of the current cheeseburger loophole by using my driving loophole and my income loophole.

        Seriously, just because it's not currently regulated its a mother effin loophole now ?

        Facts are facts, it doesn't matter how many of us vote for something it will make it anyways, they will just dig up a surplus of dead peoples social security #'s and bypass us, kind of the way they win elections for office now anyways.

        If you think for a hot minute that we can fight this on the terms they have set, you are beyond a lost cause.

        The courts are against us, they are too busy making a political statement to defend us from a tyrannical government.

        The sheeple are so busy watching TMZ and learning that "gunz be bad, and black lives matter, more than other lives movement is good"

        Seriously, the only way we are going to get this kind of crap shut down is to make such a stink that the smell can't be ignored. You need to find a way to make them suffer doing the things they enjoy much in the same way they are making us suffer. (I won't go into details.... figure it out...)

        Unite, and punish.
        You don't blame cars for speeding or D.U.I's yet you put the most unqualified people behind the wheel!
        Then you blame guns for senseless acts of violence and prohibit the most qualified people from owning them?
        My keyboard is at fault for all typographical errors so flame the keyboard not me.

        P.S come for my guns I F****** dare you

        Comment

        • snowdog650
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2009
          • 1108

          Originally posted by bobbodaggit
          The governor likely owns or uses semi auto rifles with detachable magazines. He knows how many violent crimes are committed with these rifles and understands statistics. He knows how utterly pointless and unenforceable a ban of them would be towards stopping crime. I don't think the 2A as an individual right per Heller/McDonald was the primary motivation for his vetoes. I think to get his continued vetoes, we have to keep showing the futility of the bills, which DeLuz has done in the hearings. Even if the legislative Dems won't listen, Brown is.
          1. You are assuming that Brown can stay sober long enough to remember what firearms he actually owns.

          2. You are assuming that Brown, who is 77 years old, will be alive when this reaches the Governor's desk. You do realize who the next in command is, correct?

          Comment

          • Wes C Addle
            Banned
            • Apr 2015
            • 1867

            Originally posted by Sizzlechest
            What about 80% lowers. Would they have to be registered as well?
            what about them?

            MYOB

            Comment

            • matix101
              Member
              • Jan 2016
              • 366

              So its been said numerous times in these 2a threads, but isn't the fact that these slimeball legislators swear an oath to protect the constitution but are systematically dismantling it grounds for removing them from office?

              Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

              Comment

              • matix101
                Member
                • Jan 2016
                • 366

                As far as im concerned anyone who takes that oath then pushes bills like this is breaking that oath!!! Am i wrong in assuming this???

                Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

                Comment

                • bootstrap
                  Senior Member
                  • Jul 2015
                  • 1239

                  Originally posted by Myles100
                  This loophole existing infrigement on 2A rights enables a firearm owner to use a bullet or other pointed object to quickly significatly more slowy which was the real purpose behind the bullet button anyways; to limit firepower by magazine capacity and impede reload times by requiring a bullet button to ensure an unlevel playing field between the peasants and the king's men.
                  FIFY

                  Comment

                  • bootstrap
                    Senior Member
                    • Jul 2015
                    • 1239

                    Originally posted by matix101
                    As far as im concerned anyone who takes that oath then pushes bills like this is breaking that oath!!! Am i wrong in assuming this???
                    Not at all, at the nucleus of their representation of us is preserving and protecting our Constitutional rights, period.

                    Our individual rights & freedoms outlined in the US Constitution should be their primary concern, not the non-existent rights of the collective "public safety."

                    Comment

                    • matix101
                      Member
                      • Jan 2016
                      • 366

                      Originally posted by bootstrap
                      Not at all, at the nucleus of their representation of us is preserving and protecting our Constitutional rights, period.

                      Our individual rights & freedoms outlined in the US Constitution should be their primary concern, not the non-existent rights of the collective "public safety."
                      Then like i said i don't understand why there is even any argument about this topic they are breaking their sworn oath to protect the individuals constitutional rights!!
                      Why has no one gotten a lawyer to not only toss these criminals out of office but also throw them in jail??

                      Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

                      Comment

                      • Ford8N
                        Banned
                        • Sep 2002
                        • 6129

                        Originally posted by matix101
                        Then like i said i don't understand why there is even any argument about this topic they are breaking their sworn oath to protect the individuals constitutional rights!!
                        Why has no one gotten a lawyer to not only toss these criminals out of office but also throw them in jail??

                        Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

                        Ha, they don't give a damn about your constitutional rights. As long as you live in California, you will obey them like a good serf.

                        Comment

                        • AceGirlsHusband
                          Veteran Member
                          • Jan 2013
                          • 2651

                          Originally posted by Sizzlechest
                          What about 80% lowers. Would they have to be registered as well?
                          Assembly "legislators" are already working on that "problem." Ssshhh's and MYOB's notwithstanding, its not a secret - and has been a target for legislators for some time. They just have to figure out the language so its not so "vague" to collapse under a court challenge.

                          Comment

                          • matix101
                            Member
                            • Jan 2016
                            • 366

                            Originally posted by Ford8N
                            Ha, they don't give a damn about your constitutional rights. As long as you live in California, you will obey them like a good serf.
                            Yeah and that is down right criminal, their sole purpose is to serve us, not their twisted agenda.
                            Are there any lawyer types here that would know or be able to look into if there is a possible case in forcing these authors to resign for breaking their sworn oath?

                            Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

                            Comment

                            • CandG
                              Spent $299 for this text!
                              CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                              • Apr 2014
                              • 16970

                              Originally posted by AceGirlsHusband
                              Assembly "legislators" are already working on that "problem." Ssshhh's and MYOB's notwithstanding, its not a secret - and has been a target for legislators for some time. They just have to figure out the language so its not so "vague" to collapse under a court challenge.
                              DeLeon just needs to write a new bill that bans anything that can fire a 30 magazine clip in under half a second. That should take care of the 80% lower "problem".

                              The fact of the matter is, I don't see how they can make 80% lowers illegal. Here's why. They would have 2 choices: a) an outright ban on all 80% lowers, which would instantly create tens of thousands of felons with the stroke of a pen (local ordinances like the LA mag ban notwithstanding, most laws at the state level that attempt do this, do not get passed), or b) grandfather all existing 80% lowers, but ban new ones. In that case, by the very nature of an 80% lower, it would be completely impossible for the legislation to accomplish anything. "Oh look, I found all those 80% lowers I lost in that tragic boating accident all those years ago".

                              Additionally, how does one ban "anything that can be made into a firearm"? Literally EVERY solid material in existence would become illegal. Sorry, you must forfeit in your kitchen table, the wood can be machined into a lower. Turn in your laptops, soda cans, and loose change, they can all be melted into a lower. You may buy a replacement kitchen table, laptop, or case of Coca Cola, after you buy a safety certificate, submit the serial numbers and your thumbprints for a background check, and wait for 10 days.

                              Realistically, the legislators are grasping at straws trying to pass such a law. Brown already shot down the serial number requirement, so they don't have much left to work with.
                              Last edited by CandG; 03-09-2016, 12:08 PM.
                              Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


                              Comment

                              • CAL.BAR
                                CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
                                • Nov 2007
                                • 5632

                                Originally posted by ColdDeadHands1
                                You make MOONBEAM sound like the gun packin governor of Texas! Pretty rosy picture you have painted here. Quit kidding yourself and all of us. The liberal Jerry Brown will make you feel good by rejecting half of the anti gun bills. Then he will stick it up our rears by signing the other half just like last year.

                                What's worse is that all the Calguns libs will sing his praises for only partially undermining our 2A rights instead of completely burying them.
                                That's because the alternative is a DEM or (RHINO) who will sell out our rights ENTIRELY!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                UA-8071174-1