Governor Brown Creates CA Long Gun Registry

After signing a bill outlawing open carry, California Governor Jerry Brown has put his John Hancock on AB 809. The bill creates a long gun registry; the Golden State will now maintain a permanent record of all new long guns purchased within it borders. Brown justified the open carry kibosh by agreeing with his state’s top cops that empty guns holstered in plain sight put the public and the po-po in harm’s way—despite any statistical or even anecdotal evidence that the statement was factual in any way shape or form. This time ’round, Brown’s felt slightly less need to tell the folks WTF. “Since the state already retains handgun purchaser information,” the Gov’s official statement reminds us. “I see no reason why the state should not also retain information pertaining to the sales of long guns.” Where’s an NRA lobbyist when you need one?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

71 Responses to Governor Brown Creates CA Long Gun Registry

  1. avatarRob in Cali says:

    The Calguns foundation is already all over this. The law goes into effect in 2014, which is plenty of time to take it to court. With DC’s long gun registration being struck down, I can only hope that California’s will have the same outcome.

    • avatarRob J says:

      Calguns is great. I have been to the site lots, but now I will make it a point to support them (or their sponsors) financially.

  2. avatarDrew says:

    If I could get an endorsement on my drivers license that let me purchase over the counter and conceal carry, I’d be happy to register my firearms and pay a nominal (like $5 or under) fee every year. The 10 day wait and the particularly stupid “one handgun every 30 days” crap is a thousand times more annoying to me.

    • avatarMike says:

      The issue with firearm registration has never been that it would be particularly annoying, in and of itself. It’s that it’s a pretty much required first step to any complete ban.

      • yeah, and where is that ban? Is it still coming for pistols and soon for rifles too?

        Once the “ban” goes into effect, I suppose we’re looking at confiscation too. Is that right?

        When do you think we can expect that in CA?

        • avatarScottH says:

          Oh how people forget. This has already happened once in CA. When the initial assault weapon ban took place, CA’s DOJ allowed people to register their scary guns. After the deadline, applications were still accepted. Soon the DOJ sent out letters for people to turn them in or sell them out of state. If it can happen once, it can happen in the future. Isn’t that what you’d like anyway?

          Today any registered AW can’t be passed down to the next generation. Instead any ‘registered AW’ must be turned in to the police or sold out of state IF one can find a FFL with the proper AW permit.

        • avatarBasil Duke says:

          A question for those who support this measure: WHY exactly does government need to keep a list of who owns what guns? How exactly does a master list of guns and the folks who own them deter gun violence? I’m pretty sure that the scum responsible for the vast majority of gun-related violence in California don’t bother to register their weapons. And most of them don’t buy their firearms conventionally, in gun shops – unless, of course, Holder has got a Fast & Furious operation going in the Golden State that I haven’t heard about. The need for a “list” of legally obtained guns, and the names and addresses of the people who obtained them, won’t be used in the near future. But it will be used eventually. As a malignant and lethal idealogy, leftism understands that its mass graves and concentration camps can’t be filled unless their future occupants are first rendered helpless. The Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba have shown all too clearly what American “progressives” are about.

        • avatarAD says:

          This is required to prevent harm to innocents just as The State maintains registration lists of printing presses and computor printers to prevent the life-threatening incidents of libel that are rampant in our un-civil society.

        • avatarAlan says:

          Lets not forget that it is ILLEGAL to require CRIMINALS to register their guns.
          Is US v. Haynes, the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal, prohibited from owning guns, cannot be charged with failing to register his guns.

          If he registers, he is providing evidence of a crime (possession by an offender). The law cannot require him to incriminate himself.
          Therefore, by case law, gun registration can ONLY be required for NON-criminals.

          So, what’s the point, again?

        • avatarLou Gots says:

          Very Good. You beat me to it on citing Haynes. Here’s the opinion. Reads like a novel. BTW, it’s Haynes v. U.S., not the other way around.
          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=85

        • That’s really a tired and silly response that you guys have been passing around for years.

          No one is expecting criminals to obey laws. Laws are directed at the law-abiding gun owners who interestingly are the source of all the guns used by criminals. With proper gun control we can affect the flow of guns from the good guys to the bad guys.

          But you’re not interested in that. That’s why you use inane bullshit like criminals can’t be required to register their guns argument. It diverts the discussion away from the main point, which is that you guys and your FFL friends are doing a piss poor job in preventing criminals from arming up, and you need help from the government in order to be constrained to do the right thing. That’s the point.

        • avatarTyranny says:

          Come and take it.

  3. avatarPete says:

    Laws such as these are why I escaped from the People’s Republic of California in 2004. Seriously, I think the state is a hopeless basket case – the best thing that could happen there is a total collapse of the state government’s ability to borrow money, followed by a collapse of their elaborate leftist welfare system. A few months of riots should convince the survivors that the state’s gun laws should be scrapped. My advice to firearms owners in the PRCa: GTFOOF.

  4. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    can we re-elect arnold again???

    • avatarRobert says:

      Arnold signed the .50bmg ban and increased restrictions on handgun sales. You can no longer buy new 1911 based designs in Cali due to the lack of a magazine disconnect.

      • avatarready,fire,aim says:

        can we re-elect regan again?

        • avatarPascal says:

          It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, “prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.” The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners. [I would like to add, with NRA Support]

          Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. “I support the Brady Bill,” he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, “and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.”

          http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Can we elect Jefferson again?

        • avatarVeeshir says:

          You’d need to re-elect William Ide.

      • avatarDrew says:

        And that rule isn’t even consistently enforced. It’s a joke. 3rd gen Glocks: Totally fine. 4th gen: Nope. CZ85? Nope. CZ75B S.A. ? Yep. Not to mention the fact that there are many,many models of f-ing REVOLVERS that aren’t approved. Legislators in this state are idiots.

        • avatarMichael says:

          It’s much worse than that. If I were a government employee (LEO) I could buy a 4th gen Glock for personal use. I could even turn around and sell it to a non-LEO. As a non-LEO I can buy a 4th gen Glock as long as it were converted to a single shot / extended barrel configuration. I can then legally convert it to standard configuration…

    • avatarAD says:

      I certainly hope not.

  5. avatarMoonshine7102 says:

    MikeB’s wet dream is coming true. Get ‘em, Calguns!

  6. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    This is great! Like Gottlieb and Gura aren’t busy enough. There’s gold in them thar hills of Californy.

  7. avatarRalph says:

    If Kali was still part of Mexico, the ATF would be sending guns there by the thousands.

  8. avatarGS650G says:

    Such lovely weather, vast resources, hours of driving pleasure, and no way in hell I would consider living there. Somebody mail Gov. Moonbeam a copy of the Constitution and ask him if any if it looks familiar.

    • avatarScottH says:

      CA state constitution has no 2A and federally the restraint on states hasn’t been clarified. Relief will come through federal litigation; not through the legislature

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        If a right is granted by the US Constitution, state laws / state constitutions do not trump it. This has been backed up countless times (especially when involving the 1st amendment), yet they love to ignore the law when it comes to guns.

        • avatarScottH says:

          Look up Federalism and ‘incorporation.’ The Bill of Rights are a limitation on Federal power, not State power. Up until the McDonald case, CA could have banned EVERY gun and it would have been totally legal and CONSTITUTIONAL. And that’s because like 5 other states there is no 2A state protection.

          What you are alluding to with regards to 1st amendment protections were hashed out in court over many decades after the 14th amendment was ratified (and once cases were heard by SCOTUS ‘incorporating’ the 1st amendment and hashing out the details) . We take this for granted now but it wasn’t always the case.

        • avatarDonM says:

          The 14th Amendment prevents states from violating the rights of US citizens.

          The Priviledges and Immunities clause (Article 4) prevents a state from violating the rights of citizens of other states. If you are visiting from Vermont or Alaska, California can not prevent you from exercising your Concealed Carry rights. The Priviledges or Imminities clause in the 14th Amendment prevents California from banning or restricting the exercise of federally guaranteed rights.

        • avatarScottH says:

          P&I was rendered impotent during the Slaughterhouse cases. It no longer applies.

        • avatarScottH says:

          Let me put it to you another way. Under our system of Federalism we have two sets of law. Federal laws and State laws which are separated by a big fence that runs between them. Initially the Bill of Rights solely prohibited the Federal end of things. States can and did have all kinds of censorship, prohibitions, etc. They were free to do so. After the civil war it became evident that southern states weren’t overly keen on their new citizens enjoying all the rights and privileges previously only available to whites. So in response the 1st Civil right’s movement was born passing the 13th-15th amendments.

          Anyway, there are several ways to punch through this big legal fence running between Federal and State power. Among others one is the 14th Amendment which can apply the Bill of Rights against individual states. Its designed to restrain the abuse of state power on its citizens. To do that an amendment must be ‘incorporated’ through the 14th Amendment. That just happened a couple of years ago and now every citizen in the US and territories have that 2A federal protection (on top of any 2A protection from its state constitution). Not an easy concept for me to explain.

          Anyway, I’m not an attorney but I did my best. I hope that helps. :)

      • avatarAD says:

        The 2nd-A was “incorporated” against the States via McDonald v. Chicago.
        There are numerous suits in the State and Federal courts in CA that will now move forward guided by McDonald.
        These things do not happen overnight.

  9. avatarSilver says:

    “I see no reason why the state should not…”

    This is the mantra of the left. This is what separates their sick, totalitarian thinking from true American thinking. Just insert the oppression of the day after the ellipses and you have leftist government in a nutshell.

    • avatarDerek says:

      My sentiments exactly. Rule of Law would require him to say “This is why the State should…” otherwise he can’t do it. Granted, I don’t think any one in that state even knows what Rule of Law means let alone abides by it.

  10. avatarDerek says:

    “Brown’s felt slightly less need to tell the folks WTF.”

    Perhaps because it worked so well to solve crimes in Canada?

  11. avatarkarlb says:

    I am not for this. Not at all.

    As for the constitutionality of it, I am hoping Ralph might help us here. I do not see how this limits ownership (not counting worries of future “gun grabbing”). Ralph, could it be argued that this would fall under the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd?

  12. avatarBlack Sabbath says:

    Illegals are welcome and there’s no need to keep track of them. US citizens, however, should be monitored carefully and their every move should be regulated. This is what happens when Liberalism is allowed to go unchecked.

  13. avatarKevin M says:

    The new Jerry Brown is much like the old Jerry Brown. Governor Moonbeam.

  14. avatarBob says:

    Can we seal the border so this idiocy stays confined to the PDRC?

  15. avatarKevin O'Brien says:

    Where’s an NRA lobbyist when you need one?

    Judging by what their paid lobbycreature John Hohenwarter tried to do to us in NH, lobbying for both of those bad bills, most likely. NRA particularly opposes constitutional carry and especially any form of open carry, favoring shall-issue with a stringent training requirement: one requiring “NRA certified instructors.” On the registration bill, based on what they’ve done in other eastern states, they probably didn’t take a position either way.

    For what it’s worth, the NRA supported Brown over Whitman even though the best they could spin his anti-gun record is a D instead of the F he deserved. (IIRC Whitman, who ran a remarkably hamfisted campaign, didn’t even answer their questionnaire. The NRA stopped just short of endorsing Moonbeam.

    Seriously, if you’re in a People’s Republic somewhere, get out. Liberty is alive in he USA, just not in CA, MA, NJ, NY, etc. And the NRA not only can’t save you, but they won’t even try. They have sold their souls for “access” and become just one more Beltway kleptoligharchy.

    I bet there’s already a page on their website decrying these new CA laws… and I bet double that it’s basically a fundraising appeal. Canapés with Jerry Brown don’t come cheap.

    • avatarDan from Oregon says:

      I was born in California and moved to Oregon at age 11. I’ll never go back. I was also a long time member of the NRA, but quit when they started compromising on gun control. Now I support the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF). They’re a no compromise lobby group here. I hope Calguns is similar and can help roll back this law. You guys need to clean House down there (excuse me, clean Assembly) .

  16. avatarMarkJ says:

    “Since the state already retains handgun purchaser information,” the Gov’s official statement reminds us. “I see no reason why the state should not also retain information pertaining to the sales of long guns.”

    A lot of Californians now “see no reason” why they shouldn’t just move to another state.

  17. avatarcowgirl says:

    Go join a Mexican drug cartel and get free assault weapons from the Obama Administration – good way to avoid all that paperwork that legal citizens of California must endure.

  18. avatarJones says:

    First, is there an epidemic of ‘…empty guns holstered in plain sight’ in CA? I would think locked and loaded guns holstered in plain sight would be a concern.

    Second, I don’t care about California any more. Those people have the government they voted for.

  19. avatarGilligan says:

    This is battle field shaping for upcoming elections.

    Notice how many posters have written that California’s gun laws are a large part of why they will never move there. Gun issues aside, how many of those posters would vote for Jerry Brown if they lived in California?

    • avatarMorseus says:

      Is the suggestion that if they lived or stayed in CA, they could fix the electoral problem?

      If that’s the argument, it’s fataly flawed. LA and SF alone would outweigh the right-leaning voters. . .

      • avatarGilligan says:

        First, Brown is a competent politician who uses every advantage he can.

        Second, consider how often the California legislature has been in Republican control since Roberti-Roos compared to before. The laws the state legislatures pass make their states more or less attractive destinations to different segments of the electorate.

  20. avatarTom Servo says:

    Let’s not forget that the DC Circuit Court found no constitutional basis for a long-gun registry last week in the Heller case. Given that, a drunken howler monkey could easily get this thrown out in the 9th Circuit.

    • avatarMrJest says:

      Except, as you point out, CA is under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit… who are, as best we can tell, just a pack of drunken howler monkeys – and extremist left-wing monkeys at that. There’s a REASON the rest of the nation calls them the “9th Circus”. Expect head-exploding tortured logic forthcoming….

      • avatarScottH says:

        And once its kicked up to SCOTUS the legality nationwide will be determined. The beauty of a case coming out of the territory of DC. Its a direct line where a split between circuits is not needed. Its Federalism at work.

        BTW – The 9th is huge, includes more states, and has a case load several times larger than other circuits. Statistically, it is no more overturned then the others. That being said, the 9th was the 1st to incorporate the 2nd. And cases don’t reach SCOTUS without a split between circuits; so sometimes the 9th becomes a good thing.

  21. avataranona says:

    Here comes the Law Of Unanticipated Consequences. Namely, a thriving market gunrunning firearms into Calif.. Short of wmds’ it’s no business of the govt. to know what you own, period.
    ps; Seeing as how this is California; did they remember to exempt on duty peace officers from the open carry ban?

  22. avataranona says:

    Sudden thought. Isn’t keeping a list of firearms owners fordidden under the Firearms Owners Protection Act?

  23. I relish, cause I found exactly what I was having a look for. You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye

  24. avatarJW says:

    What are you guys so scared of anyways? Ive owned and bought guns in several of the most restrictive markets in the country…no big deal. And no the govt isn’t going to steal my guns away if my name is one some long gun registry. But it may help the cops track the next gang banger who shoots someone dead in east Oakland. 2000 shootings last year with a pop of 350,000…you do the math.

    • avatarR.L. Green says:

      “JW” WROTE: “And no the govt isn’t going to steal my guns away if my name is one some long gun registry.”

      Your “guarantee” is absolutely, completely without worth and deserving of severe ridicule by anyone that possesses more than a 70+ IQ. You’re what government control-freaks and totalitarians DREAM of, the “useful idiot.”

  25. avatarfrank sims says:

    This bill is another step to disarming American just like it happened in England, but this is worse. We are at War! Disarming Americans in a time of war is clearly aiding our enemies. Providing aid to America’s enemies is described as treason under the US Constitution. Legislators that voted for this bill and Gov Brown should be charged with treason.

  26. Pingback: Daily Digest: Slicing & Dicing Edition | Families Fighting Cancer

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.