What makes California so different?

[adrenalinejunkie]

This question has been on my mind for a few days. I know that they're found some far fetched reason as to why CA needs specially imposing gun laws, but what are those reasons? How do they justify CA being different from any free state where there is no hicap mag ban or evil features ban?

Los Angeles? Every state has their high-crime areas.

That's the only reason I can think of. What reasons do our "all-knowing" CA legislators use to say that our state is different from any free state? How does each ban improve our way of living? Free states have not collapsed without these restrictions, why would we?

It's just been bothering me and I wanted to know if anyone actually knew what specific arguments they had for this.

[Crom]

Go to Amazon and order: More Guns, Less crime, understanding Crime and Gun control Laws. By John Lott.

[CAL.BAR]

Your assumption is that CA is different. It's not HI, NY, NJ D.C., IL and many others have just as many (if not more and worse) gun laws. CA is just the LARGEST, so we get the attention.

Population desity is your answer (for the most part). The greater the population density, the more stringent the gun laws. Where are the epicenters of gun laws? LA, NY, Chicago etc.

[wjc]

We do have a lot of Democrats in office.

The current concern is the re-districting maps because they could potentially achieve a super majority in Sacramento.

[sholling]

Three things hurt us. First first we suffered an invasion of north-eastern and rust belt liberals during the 60s and 70s that make the illegal alien invasion look like a drop in a bucket. Second the major population centers lean left even though the more sparsely populated remainder of the of the state leans center-right. Third Californians have been the victim of a very-very effective 50 year media disinformation campaign to demonize guns.

[motorhead]

for the children, of course.

[mes227]

Your assumption is that CA is different. It's not HI, NY, NJ D.C., IL and many others have just as many (if not more and worse) gun laws. CA is just the LARGEST, so we get the attention.

Population desity is your answer (for the most part). The greater the population density, the more stringent the gun laws. Where are the epicenters of gun laws? LA, NY, Chicago etc.

Australia is very sparsely populated and has very strict gun control.

[Librarian]

Australia is very sparsely populated and has very strict gun control.

Australia had Port Arthur in 1996.

[MindBuilder]

They don't think California needs especially tough gun laws, they think all the states and even the whole world would be better off to ban private guns completely. They know that the state won't fall apart if they allow hi-caps etc, they just think that every little restriction helps save a few lives and helps get closer to a complete ban. Also, big city dwellers are less likely to be hunters and more likely to be Democrats.

[Quiet]

We do have a lot of Democrats in office.

The current concern is the re-districting maps because they could potentially achieve a super majority in Sacramento.

Having a lot of democrats is not the reason why CA has so many anti-gun laws.

Look at NV, the democrats hold the majority in that state and have done so for decades, but their gun laws are less resrtictive than CA's and proposed anti-gun bills almost always get defeated.

Has to do with the type of politcian, not the politican's party affiliation.

Also, if you look at CA's history, the majority of anti-gun laws that were passed, prior to the 1980s, was due to racisim.

[CAL.BAR]

Australia is very sparsely populated and has very strict gun control.

Yes, but Australia is populated by English who never had firearms right to begin with. It's no surprise that they fear such rights as they never had any history of them.

Back to the subject (the US) population = gun control. From the days of Tombstone.

[Rossi357]

One thing is that Calif never had any 2nd amendment language in it's constitution. The was no right to keep and bear arms.

[Shoobee]

One thing is that Calif never had any 2nd amendment language in it's constitution. The was no right to keep and bear arms.

Well fortunately John Roberts has now solved that problem.

Now it's just a matter of enforcing the USSC's holding in California as well.

But please understand, I am talking about the "keeping" and "bearing" part.

I am not hung up on banana-clip magazines.

I am happy that my (new) CZ 97B is allowed 10 + 1 and that my Mossberg 590 is allowed 8 + 1 in California. That's plenty, for me. Now if only I could bear them as well as keep them, in San Jose, when I walk home late at night from work alone, in a part of town where the vagrants and x-cons outnumber me.

[vantec08]

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." -- Aexander Tytler




CA is the national leader in "progressing." The nation and world are a closed circle, and at any time in history we are somewhere within that circle, which is why those who call themselves "progressives" amuse me (were it not for the tragedy and drama they inflict). The next couple of elections and SCOTUS makeup will pretty determine whether we "progress" as Tytler suggests, or buy some more time (a decade, perhaps century).

[Hopalong]

Simple really.

Politics.

If Ca. legislators thought they would be voted out of office for being anti 2A

They would change their tune in a hot second.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

On the flip side, can you imagine a Texas legislator wanting to impose restrictive gun laws getting elected in Texas?

He'd be sent packing to Ca.