Safety for All Act

[Mully]

Just read the links about the Newsom legislation. I didn't realize how draconian this thing is. I'm awake now. This is infringement deluxe and it will probably pass as mentioned in numerous responses ahead of me. All of us here will be mobilized and vote, we will be outnumbered true, so what are we prepared to do afterward when we lose? Either we have a 2nd Amendment or we don't. If we don't then the 2nd Amendment will need to be repealed. Not voted out in this manner. Somehow, someone in the legal world will step up, hopefully.

[R-Cubed]

It will pass, and an law suit will be filed, and it will sit in appeals courts for years, meanwhile all but the largest guns and ammo stores will be forced out of business.

Oh and crime won't go down one bit.

[CitaDeL]

All it would take is one round to break the law. 5,000 gun owners meet, each with one round, caliber doesn't matter. Pass the round to the person on your left. 5,000 people have now openly broken the law.

It would work if a large number of people did it, like in Washington. http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...olice-n1931759


Not so much if it's two guys.

Actually, there is a threshold of 500 rounds over 30 days to require a ammo vendor license...

Which is why i chose a brick of .22lr (apparently it will need to be a brick+1.)

And yes, I think it would be vastly more impressive if we all sold the same brick (+1) of .22lr to more than 1,000 or 2,000 participants. If this is something that there is interest in, I would be happy to spearhead the demonstration. (How many people you think it would take to encircle the Capitol on the sidewalks?)

[ntrinsik]

It will pass because the title is safety for all

Is there no way to have the name legally changed for what it is? Safety for All is misleading.

[CookieMonster]

Just another reason to TEXIT!

Idahome.

[Merovign]

"Safety" evidently requires punishing innocent third parties not involved in crime or violence.

As usual, people who violate laws against murder will not obey laws against obtaining ammunition.

I don't even believe anymore that any of these people really think they can stop human problems by attacking implements, I think they simply wish to punish people they dislike.

[canid]

Forgive my responding before I have finished the thread but I am deeply concerned by my reading of the proposed amended section 16150 (b).

Various readings of it range from totally insane down to 'let's hope we can trust prosecutory intent not to be abusive'. Neither of these seem like enviable positions, to say the very least.