Mulford act

[chris]

I can explain that the Mulford Act has been brought up thousands of times over the years, in great detail, and it happens just about every time anyone ever mentions the secret password to start the conversation: 'Reagan'.

You could start a thread on Jelly-Belly jelly beans, someone would say 'Regan', and another some other person would bring up the Mulford Act, guaranteed. Talking about cinematic attributes of 'Bedtime for Bonzo?' ....Mulford Act. Berlin Wall? .... Mulford Act. Just Say No? ....Mulford Act. Simi Valley is such a nice area? .... Mulford Act.

I think if you do a search of Calguns going back to 2002, you'd get hundreds-of-thousands of references and discussions on it.

.

You are correct. And people blame Reagan for gun control in California. What is funny almost no gun control legislation 10 years after Mulford and about 15 before the AWB in 89-90 from that POS who came down from Oregon with an AK and shot up the school in Stockton.

[chris]

The Mulford Act is actually talked about or, at least, mentioned quite often on this site. It's just that the discussions don't necessarily go into any great detail. As an example...



Short version is that a group of Black Panthers 'scared' not only California politicians, but certain elements of the population. You have to remember, in its own way, it was actually much like how the Liberal media portrayed Jan. 6 in terms of actual guns in the State Capital.

Black-Panthers-protest-against-gun-control-in-Californias-State-Capitol-1967.jpg

ca-black-panther-protest-1967.jpg

89hejhcoppm71.jpg armed-members-of-the-black-panther-party-leave-the-capitol-in-sacramento-may-2-1967-the-panthers-entered-the-capitol-fully-armed-and-said-they-were-protesting-a-bill-before-the-legislature-restricting-the-carrying-of-arms-in-public-ap-photo-2NG58HC.jpg

Now, you have to recall that it was a 'different era' in America in 1967. We had gone from the 'quiet' (ahem) of the Eisenhower era, through the JFK assassination, to Vietnam, to... a whole lot of 'unrest.' The media had taken a turn, noticeably, to the Left and it was showing. Likewise, partly in reaction, the Right had its elements which publicly took umbrage. Since then, events, when viewed through the lens of History, are given various slants depending on their source. As was stated in a 2020 piece... The Black Panthers, NRA, Ronald Reagan, Armed Extremists, and the Second Amendment



A few lines later, that piece noted...



In other words, the Mulford Act was just like many actions taken by Republicans, including Trump; i.e., an effort to stave off worse legislative efforts by those politicians looking to 'take advantage' of public concern that was not only being driven by the media, but was a predictable outcome of national efforts to limit the 2nd Amendment. Bear in mind that in 1967, Johnson was President, a Democrat. The Sullivan Act had been passed in New York nearly 50 years earlier and Johnson was in favor of other states adopting similar legislation. In fact, there were other pieces of legislation, all designed to limit ownership of firearms in the home, which were on the docket. Couple that with groups such as the Black Panthers which openly challenged police; i.e., the 'status quo.' For the time, it was a seismic shift in terms of what many felt was the 'norm.' Such shifts tend to create uneasiness in the population at large and, as a result, politicians are not only pressured to 'do something,' there are those who, in modern parlance, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Today, we see the take you present in the OP... The 'CONSERVATIVES' and 'REAGAN' were at fault. The reality is, society as a whole, at the time, had a different take than many do today in terms of how guns and society meshed. When elements put that 'take' into question vis a vis their actions, it can create unintended consequences. In a sense, it's the same reason people are reacting to Trump's latest faux pas in relation to carrying guns in public or his 'take the guns first, due process later.'

Again, it wasn't necessarily that 'Conservatives' were making the 'first move' toward disarming the citizenry. It was felt that, instead, they were making moves to keep elements and events from snowballing into such efforts. Unfortunately, that was later 'taken advantage of' in terms of building it into something it wasn't necessarily intended to be. Thus, pointing to a Liberal/Conservative 'divide,' then exacerbating it by 'blaming' Conservatives is simply another manifestation of unintended consequences and the 'slant' of how History is changed via interpretation. It's just like the piece I quoted from stating that the 'policy' applied to the Black Panthers, but it wasn't the 'only' reason. The Black Panthers actions in Sacramento were simply the tipping point. There were a number of other things, all of which fall under the rubric of 'social unrest,' which led up to their actions and the Mulford Act was a reaction.

It seems that just about all gun control is a knee jerk reaction to something someone did. Be it state or federal legislation.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

It seems that just about all gun control is a knee jerk reaction to something someone did. Be it state or federal legislation.

It's about actions the Government, most often those on the Left, want to take, but need something they can hang their hat on to justify it to the public. Such is particularly the case in that, most often, it involves disregarding and/or eliminating protected rights. Remember, the supposition many have is that even the Mulford Act was something that was a reaction to what many anticipated that the Left was trying to do in using the Black Panthers' provocative actions to justify, despite the fact that they already had a series of bills in the System before the Panthers acted. This is why we noted and continue to reference Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a good crisis go to waste" commentary; i.e., he said the private part out loud, so to speak. It's also why many assume that many things, including 'mass shootings,' are actually orchestrated rather than 'random' events.

[chris]

It's about actions the Government, most often those on the Left, want to take, but need something they can hang their hat on to justify it to the public. Such is particularly the case in that, most often, it involves disregarding and/or eliminating protected rights. Remember, the supposition many have is that even the Mulford Act was something that was a reaction to what many anticipated that the Left was trying to do in using the Black Panthers' provocative actions to justify, despite the fact that they already had a series of bills in the System before the Panthers acted. This is why we noted and continue to reference Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a good crisis go to waste" commentary; i.e., he said the private part out loud, so to speak. It's also why many assume that many things, including 'mass shootings,' are actually orchestrated rather than 'random' events.

I've long held the sad opinion that mass shootings no matter where they happen are orchestrated and planned very carefully and almost in every occasion the POS dies in the event. We will never know who motivated it to commit such a heinous act.

I REFUSE to use any name or ever refer to it as a human who commits these acts. They are to burned and destroyed any mention of their name is removed and existence to be removed from any record. They never existed. I hate them with extreme prejudice.

Apologize for the rant.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I've long held the sad opinion that mass shootings no matter where they happen are orchestrated and planned very carefully and almost in every occasion the POS dies in the event. We will never know who motivated it to commit such a heinous act.

I REFUSE to use any name or ever refer to it as a human who commits these acts. They are to burned and destroyed any mention of their name is removed and existence to be removed from any record. They never existed. I hate them with extreme prejudice.

Apologize for the rant.

There's really no need to apologize for 'ranting' as it's not necessarily a 'rant.' What we have to be careful of is ascribing 'every action' to nefarious parties trying to take our rights. That's the crucial aspect of those events which are, undoubtedly, orchestrated; i.e., they simply point to those events which weren't and the distraction, not to mention the doubt, raised is sufficient to derail any accusation, investigation, or accountability.