BREAKING: CA Governor Jerry Brown Vetoes AWB, Signs Lead Ammo Ban

jerry-brown-getty courtesy sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com
With the statement that he didn’t believe “that this bill’s blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights,” California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 374, the assault weapons ban, along with several others late Friday afternoon. Among the gun bills he did sign into law was AB 711, the blanket ban on lead ammunition for hunting, making California the first state in the nation to enact a full prohibition. Click here for the Governor’s letter to the California State Senate. Make the jump for the full roundup of gun bill dispositions . . .

SIGNED:

  • Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) bans the sale of parts and repair kits capable of creating or converting a magazine to a capacity to hold greater than ten rounds.
  • Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms.
  • Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) makes California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.
  • Senate Bill 683 (Block) expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

VETOED:

  • Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson) limits the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns to two a year and redefines the technical provisions of single short pistols.
  • Assembly Bill 180 (Bonta) repeals state firearms preemption by allowing the City of Oakland to enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws concerning the registration or licensing of firearms.
  • Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) makes it a crime if a victim of firearm theft does not report the theft within seven days.
  • Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) bans the future sale or transfer of and classify ALL semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as “assault weapons” and the continued legal possession of these newly classified semi-automatics as “assault weapons” would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL of them.
  • Senate Bill 475 (Leno) effectively bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval of the board of supervisors of the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco prior to any gun shows.
  • Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.  SB 567 also bans the sale of shotguns encompassed by the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.
  • Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while they are impaired commonly referred to as DUI.

The full legislative update from Gov. Brown’s office, including his veto and signing statements, is here: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18265

comments

  1. avatar AJ says:

    GODDAMN – 374 is dead!! WOOHOO!! I thought moonbeam would have just let it pass into law. Maybe he isn’t *totally* worthless after all.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Dead? No, not dead, just delayed.

      1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        No it is dead, I don’t think with our recall effort the Dems will even bring it back. Yee however will be back, but we plan on making his life a living hell. So stay tuned!

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Yee will not be back for awhile. HE IS TERMED OUT! He plans to run for Secretary of State (which regulates corporations).

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          I wish I could share in your optimism.

    2. avatar Matt says:

      Yeah, just wait until Gavin Newsom is governor. We’ll have this, and worse.

      In a way, I was almost looking forward to 374. I was hoping the court battle would come sooner rather than later. There is not an iota of doubt in my mind that CA will eventually pass this law in some form, and potentially something much more devious and pernicious.

      All this does is draw out the wait for a definitive victory. In the meantime, it’s death by a thousand cuts, and more time for the anti’s to wage, and win, a culture war against us.

      1. avatar The mayor of Candor says:

        I don’t think Nooseum has a shot at the Gov job. His sexcapades in his office will be great ammo for his opponent. Totally worthless idiot. I should have voted for the illegal pandering Gonzales instead.

        1. avatar Andy says:

          Does bizarre behavior actually matter to CA voters?

        2. avatar ThayneT says:

          Andy: Yes, it does, to many of them. Please witness the ousting of San Diego’s Mayor Fillner only weeks ago.

          Your are, as others do on this site, trying to imply that 38 million people are all identical in some regard or way of thinking. That’s prejudice, and it is exactly what the anti-gun crowd tries to do with pro-2A advocates.

      2. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        Kamala Harris is probably going to run, but she is being sued by the NRA, CalGuns and a few others, so she might be out.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          either that or she gets nominated for SCOTUS.

          her credentials of keeping an innocent man in prison due to a clerical error uniquely qualify her as an Obama appointee

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        As I understand it. Brown can run one more time, and he has been so successful in balancing the budget and in defeating these gun bills that I can’t see anyone beating him. By then, perhaps SCOTUS will have weighed in on a few of these issues.

        1. avatar Blue says:

          Moon Beam may have seen shades of Gray . . . as in the “Beige” Davis recall.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      Well he did ban magazine parts with bill 48. So you must really love him, AJ.

  2. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    So, Fudds… how does it feel to have something YOU enjoy get hit with the ban hammer?

    Care to join forces yet?

    1. avatar Jay Wolf says:

      No the Fudds wont’ See my fine state of IL.

      1. avatar Ross says:

        Jay is right the fudds will never understand even when they finally come for their single shot hunting rifle they will still not understand, you just can’t fix stupid.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          You mean their “sniper” rifles?

    2. avatar RLC2 says:

      I think we already had a conversation here about the foolishness of creating divisions among ourselves as gun-owners, by labeling hunters as Fudds.

      Not all hunters think alike, just like not all AR owners are video-gamer-freak mall-ninjas and wannabe-tactical-operator-commandoes.

      There, see how stupid that sort of gross generalization sounded?

      Theres plenty of trolls and sock- puppets who’d like to see us form the circular firing squad. And much better places to do that, if you insist- just not here.

  3. avatar Capybara says:

    We dodged the AWB for another year, but we still had some big losses of our civil rights. AB711 is the big loser but not surprising seeing as Kalifornia is the land of fruits and nuts with B.S. theories about ecological impacts of lead on wildlife rife here. No further sales of magazine rebuild kits is ridiculous but once again, since only 10 rounders are legal here unless you owned them pre-2001, it is to be expected in our overlord’s continual chipping away of our rights.

    I have to admit, I thought Brown would sign SB374 and he didn’t, I must pay him props on that and AB169 being vetoed also means we have one more year of SSE pistols and AOWs possible so that is a good thing.

    The fight here continues…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I think this is good politics. He gave them something, takes the sting out of the losses. I thought he would veto 374 for when its author Steinberg decided to go head to head with the gov over the prisoner release issues hanging over Brown’s head, accompanied by a threat of contempt.

  4. avatar Leadbelly says:

    It’s still “death by a thousand (paper) cuts”.

  5. avatar Paul says:

    Too bad MOST Cal gun owners sat on their asses! 374 is gone and that’s good but this campaign to rally the troops failed. A few worked their asses off so good job to them.

  6. avatar dwb says:

    wow, take THAT O’Malley.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Take what exactly? O’Money will prolly want to ban lead here too, unless Western MD and the Eastern Shore raise Holy Hell.

      1. avatar dwb says:

        o’malley only wants to be relevant in 2016. He was just a sacrificial lamb to try to generate “momentum”

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          He’s Bloomberg’s sock puppet is all. We have the best gummint money can buy.

          This comment was approved by Spiro Agnew.

  7. So I suppose the banning of lead-core ammunition means that people will have to use solid copper or steel (or steel/steel) which the forestry service recently showed has a MUCH higher chance of starting fires….

    OMG!

    1. avatar Ron Burgundy says:

      A higher chance of starting fires….. so that effectively will become a total hunting ban.

      And isn’t quite a bit of non-lead ammo considered armor piercing and therefore forbidden in CA? I’m not familiar with their laws, but it’s a fine example of banning guns without actually banning guns.

      1. avatar dwb says:

        when i researched it, it seems like there is a long list of non-lead ammo that is CA approved.

      2. avatar JoshuaS says:

        No.

        The NRA and others have been hysterically wrong on 711. There is plenty of non-lead ammunition for hunting sold in CA already. Even arguments in favor of it for practical reasons.

        But where this bill would have an impact, is on handgun hunting. I can have steel ammo or even actual tungsten core AP rounds for RIFLES but not handguns. Remember the whole armor piercing law is centered on handguns. And California’s law is identical, virtually, to federal law on this point.

        So yeah, it sucks. Not sure I can hunt with my .357 anymore. But it does not have the far reaching effects you doomsayers say

        1. avatar Blue says:

          I think guys with experience using the lead 62 grain ..56 and the new “green” 5.56 in Afghan etc. may eventually weigh in on this. The “green” version looks like cryptonite to bad guys on paper but I have been hearing the opposite from folks in the field. Of course, the military can’t use expanding ammo such as hollow points, soft points etc. That is going to be the limitations of non-lead bullets in hunting. This reminds me of the move to steel shot because of the fear of birds dying from chronic lead poisoning. They failed to understand that the idea was “acute” lead poisoning. The fix for steel was bigger shot and longer shells.

      3. avatar RLC2 says:

        Non-lead rifle has been required in condor country for deer and pig for several years. Its not commonly stocked at Walmart, but it is becoming more available and some of it is pretty good, accuracy and stopping power-wise. It is more expensive, and the science is still debatable, but I can see why Gov Brown passed this- a sop to the environmentalists, of which I think theres a LOT more in LA, SF, where it counts. I dont like seeing this go, but all things considered, I must say I am surprised we gun-owners came out as good as we did- I’d expected one or maybe two vetos- and prepared for none, given how foolish this Legislature has been for so long. Good on the Governor for exercising some adult leadership in the playpen there in Sacramento.

    2. avatar The mayor of Candor says:

      Of course. So they will then either outlaw hunting or make hunters carry $1,000,000 forest fire insurance. So no hunting in Calif. Death by a thousand cuts indeed.

    3. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      Note that AB711 (the no-hunting-with-lead-ammo) bill doesn’t take effect until 2019, and even then, there are already questions whether it will be allowed to go into effect at all. Potential reasons for blocking implementation include the Feds ruling that non-lead ammo is armor-piercing, and lack of commercial availability of non-lead ammo in common calibers.

      1. avatar dlj95118 says:

        …oh good! I have some time to use up all the lead ammo I just bought!

  8. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    I’ll graciously accept “you were right” replies from everyone who gave me crap for asserting that Brown would veto SB374.

    Sadly, I’m not surprised that AB48 passed (ban on rebuild kits) but that law is a steaming pile and I fully expect that it will be challenged in court.

    If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to order some rebuild kits while I still can…

    1. avatar Mike says:

      didn’t only ban rebuild kits but bans possession, no grandfathering… requires the destruction (or disposal) of all large capacity magazines by July 1st, 2014, irregardless of date of purchase, etc…

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        Nope. Wrong. That stuff depended on 374, which was vetoed.

        1. avatar Aaron says:

          Right. it’s a procedural thing to avoid two bills cancelling each other out. so if two bills modify the same sections of law, they amend both like this:

          SBxx
          SECTION 1:

          No importing, buying, selling, or lending rebuild kits!

          SECTION 1.5:

          All previously grandfathered magazines are now illegal.

          SECTION 2:

          SBxx is introduced concurrently with AByy. Section 1.5 will only become law IF both SBxx AND AByy are voted into law.

    2. avatar FrankDaTank says:

      So up until what date exactly can we buy rebuild kits in CA? I’m guessing this is the same as ordering 30 round mags that are left disassembled while in CA, and only assembled once outside of states that ban their use, such as CA?

    3. avatar RLC2 says:

      Alpha, and the many others in state and from elsewhere, thank you for stepping up to the plate. I am sure the 65000 letttek’d
      it had an impact on Gov Brown, who as one poster mentioned, is not a party hack, but a canny lawyer, who thinks far ahead.

      I’m not surprised that 374 was vetoed. That was just bad law and over-reach, which would likely have been reversed, and been a distraction given the real work to be done in the economy.

      And given the trend elsewhere in the nation, and widespread gun buying elsewhere, its clear the mood has swung towards supporting gun-rights.

  9. avatar Cameron S. says:

    Is it me, or is the lead ban not a huge deal?

    I use steel shot for bird hunting because it’s required by law on the land I hunt, and Barnes makes some damn good all-copper rounds for putting down most things with 4 legs.

    So… no more slugs/buckshot?

    What am I missing that really takes away the ability to hunt? I’m curious. I don’t support this by any means, but I’m not seeing where this is a tragedy so much.

    1. avatar akira says:

      Its true that a “hunting with lead” ban is not the worst thing. It’s just that the purpose behind it is to make gun ownership and use a difficult and expensive as possible.

      If oriole conclude that the ban is “no big deal”, then how long before they try to expand that ban to any outdoor shooting area, allegedly “for the environment”?

      1. avatar akira says:

        That first sentence of the second paragraph should say “people”, not “oriole”. Damn phone.

      2. avatar Cameron S. says:

        I just did a few price checks.

        The price difference between standard and lead-free munitions is far from prohibitive.

        I also think they simply did it thinking that they’d save birdies. I don’t think THIS one was a spitef***ing

        1. avatar The mayor of Candor says:

          This is how I think it works. They outlaw lead bullets. Hunters are forced to switch to bullets made of a material that has a better chance than lead for starting a fire. Suspicious fires ensue. “Reports say the blaze was most likely caused by an errant bullet from a deer hunter.”
          No more hunting.

    2. avatar KCK says:

      The’re only killing the serously mentaly and physical disabled and a few enemies of the state, I don’t see that it’s a big deal. Yeah, I hear too that they don’t like Jews.Oh well.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      So, what happens to the muzzleloader season? The patched ball crowd has to retire their firearms, because they are not rifled for sabots (twist rate too slow). Or hunting deer with shotguns?

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        Interesting questions. I’ll speculate wildly on muzzle-loaders and say that it would create a market for copper-over-tungsten or copper-over-bismuth projectiles.

        Shotguns… similar, I guess, though I don’t think you can get buckshot-sized Hevi-Shot. I’ve never seen it as loaded ammo or at the online outlets for shotgun hand-loading supplies. Worst case you could run (ugh) steel shot, though I wonder if steel-clad lead pellets would pass muster if they could be proven to remain intact.

        As far as slugs go, it’s not like we have crazy OH/PA style laws about deer hunting that force you to use a shotgun. I’ll take a rifle over a shotgun for taking big game in CA any day. Especially now that I’ll be able to build an AR-type rifle in 308 on my own schedule, instead of having to rush to buy lower receivers before the end of the year. 🙂

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Depleted Uranium.

          You can get it for the taking in the Middle East I hear.

        2. avatar ropingdown says:

          Agree strongly with the bizarre PA law on shotguns-only for deer in many zones, together with the ban on semi-auto shotguns, except in special zone just north of Philadelphia. That special zone, though, does not allow rifled slug barrels. Really.

          The tide in favor of shoguns on deer is rolling back, I perceive, as the stats are showing that the former occasional rifle bullet accident is now a shotgun accident. Big surprise.

          I’m actually pleasantly surprised that 374 was vetoed. I attribute it to Brown’s new-found sense of economy. 374 was just a numerical interpretation of the the word ‘litigation.’ The magazine parts bit is interesting. The incentives are definitely there, but still, you’re quite the do-it-yourself’er.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          The tide toward shoguns? Really? Nope. Too late to edit it. laugh. Kinda went James Clavell on it…

    4. avatar Steve says:

      “Not a huge deal”?

      It’s all part of their incremental war on our freedom, so every victory for them, no matter how small, is a huge loss to us.

  10. avatar KCK says:

    SCOTUS
    Where are you?

    1. avatar Steve says:

      After the ACA decision, liberals just have to call things a “tax” and it will be rubber stamped in to legality.

  11. avatar Roscoe says:

    I might even be persuaded to vote for Brown on the next go around because of his vetos on these measures now that I’m virtually a single issue voter.

    Thank you, Moonbeam!

  12. avatar ThayneT says:

    I’m not sure I’m happy, happy, happy yet. All of the so-called veto letters just say that he is “returning them without his signature”. Is that really a veto? If he just doesn’t sign them, they become law by default.

    Any CA legislative experts out there who can clarify?

    1. avatar JoshuaS says:

      That is what is said in every veto message. It is California legal speaks for vetoed.

      1. avatar ThayneT says:

        Thanks. Now I can start celebrating (reservedly – still some crap bills that he did sign).

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          Don’t celebrate too much; this cr4p will be back again – and soon.

          Next time they’ll just take smaller bites and wait for the CA political landscape to become even more anti gun.

          Sooner or later this stuff will have to go to the courts, and by then, who knows what the judicial make up will look like.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      It’s the “returning them” part that’s important. It’s formal notification of his rejection of the bill. They then have the opportunity to muster the votes for an override.

    3. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      A Veto means he sends them back. I think if he just let them set, they would mature into law, but he sent them back to be rewritten or dumped or whatever they want to do with them.

      sooo, I guess we can say the glass is half full now, instead of half empty.

      There is also a upside about the lead ban, this will push the development of bullets into new materials and technology. A lot of people hunt in CA, so there will be a cracking demand for them. Time to buy stock in Barnes i guess.

      So you can shoot tin cans in your back yard with lead, but to hunt down a pesky ground squirrel you have to have non lead? still confused on the actual application of this law.

      Legal Disclaimer: Anything I say should be regarded as the insane mutterings of a disillusioned CA Gun owner and will not hold up in court.

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        At this point, I’m just happy that Hornady has caught up enough on rifle ammo production that they’re making 5.45×39 ammo with copper-over-lead projectiles again. (Steel-core 5.45 is unwelcome at some ranges and pretty much anywhere with steel-plate targets.)

  13. avatar Dave357 says:

    I am impressed and surprised that he vetoed the bill that would have allowed Oakland to bypass the State preemption. It would have been a very bad development.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m surprised that Gov. Moonbeam would do anything — anything — that remotely respects 2A. But then again, Gov. KrispyKreme in NJ also vetoed the worst of the gun bills, so go figure.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      They might be liars and statist cowards, but they are not stupid enough to see that if they piss enough of us off we will recall them. We kicked out Gray Davis, and we can and will do it again, if we have enough votes.

    2. avatar Dave357 says:

      I kind of expected him to veto at least some of the bills, although not as many as he ended up vetoing. The governors who have never seen a gun control bill they didn’t like tend to support such bills – often rather vociferously – from the moment they are proposed, which was not the case here. Christie was also not like that.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Let’s set the record straight. The “Governor Moonbeam” moniker arose when he was proposing that the State invest in far out energy production technology and promoted other techie solutions, not because he was a dingbat. He was just too far forward thinking for his day (back then). Brown also owns a ranch, two handguns, and a shotgun–which isn’t much BUT, as California AG (and much to the chagrin of a bunch of politicos in Sacramento) penned an amicus brief in McDonald IN FAVOR of extending the 2A to the states. He at least looks at these issues with a rational mind instead of raw emotion.

  15. avatar Mark N. says:

    For anyone interested in the gory details: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18265 Brown does not issue signing statements on the bills he approves, but does give veto messages.

    1. avatar JoshuaS says:

      Correction, he gave a signing statement on 711. He doesn’t usually, but for some bills he does

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        Yes, and the statement is long and kind of interesting:

        http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_711_2013_Signing_Message.pdf

  16. avatar Jahead1982 says:

    Are you all sure he didnt veto those he knew would bring a valid US Supreme Court challenge that would in the end defeat the bills he vetoed?

  17. avatar C says:

    Que the photos of starving game animals that have out populated the food source.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      *cue

      1. avatar C says:

        Thank you. There was a moment of hesitation on my part but I just wasn’t vested enough in the point to google.

  18. avatar bill says:

    Bill 48? How are we supposed to repair our mags?

    1. avatar JoshuaS says:

      Take them to an FFL who has a “large capacity magazine” license. They can repair and/or create blocked mags (for those who have guns whose standard mags hold more than ten and 10 or less is not commercially available).

    2. avatar Daniel says:

      The bill prohibits even the ones you already have. Can’t repair something that isn’t supposed to exist legally.

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        Nope. Not true. 374 got vetoed, and those provisions don’t take effect.

        1. avatar Xanthro says:

          AB 48 prohibits possession of large capacity magazines as of July 1, 2014

          Here’s the text

          Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2014, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
          (c) Any person who, prior to July 1, 2014, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
          (1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
          (2) Prior to July 1, 2014, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
          (3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
          (4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
          (d) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.
          SEC. 2.
          Section 32311 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
          32311.
          (a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2014, any person in this state who knowingly manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large capacity magazine conversion kit is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This section does not apply to a fully assembled large-capacity magazine, which is governed by Section 32310.

        2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          I’ve read the text and know this issue cold, but thanks for playing. Feel free to read any of the several dozen AB48 threads in the CalGuns forum if you don’t believe me.

  19. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    Direct consequence of AB48 being signed into law: magazine prices at Exile Machine jumped up by 20% overnight. The six magazines I had in my shopping cart last night are now going to cost me $24 more.

  20. avatar ensitue says:

    the lead ban is as good as banning every rifle/handgun in the state, Gee I wonder how the Gang bangers will cope?
    That is the point of gun control, right?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      “for hunting use”

  21. avatar Accur81 says:

    Well I’ll be danged! Perhaps the phone calls, faxes, and donated money actually did some good. While CA is still mostly lost, it isn’t completely so. Thanks to everyone fighting the good fight, in whatever anti-gun state they may be in, and for those living in free states who support our cause.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      And here is my one-finger salute to everyone who said “quit your job and move, it’s a lost cause”…

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Does this mean that Demanding Moms will boycott California?

        1. avatar DerryM says:

          We can only hope and pray for that…and pray…and pray!

        2. avatar ropingdown says:

          It does seem that the winner was Organize for (Semi-Auto) Action.

        3. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          Oh, the butthurt is flowing strongly. Can’t wait for the anguished statements to the media to start showing up.

  22. avatar Richard LInares says:

    Just means more people well be moving from California to Arizona faster than ever.

  23. avatar EATENG says:

    What do you know, one of the few times I decide to write a politician and it was effective (somewhat). Thank you to the other 65000 Californians who have not given up the fight.

  24. avatar PavePusher says:

    I’m looking forward to the shops that will be set up just outside the Cali borders, in AZ, NV and OR with signs proclaiming “We will sell anything Federally legal to Californians”, within sight of border crossing areas.

    And hopefully each year they will send totals of all their Cali-Citizen sales receipts to the Cali Dept of sales taxes with a letter saying “Look what you’re missing out on”.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      In Reno, they call that “Cabela’s”. Too bad that operation refuses to sell guns to CA residents for transfer through a CA FFL.

  25. avatar John Dennis says:

    “Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians.” – George S. Patton. California democrats definitely Lead the Way.

  26. avatar niceguns says:

    When the hell is everyone going to get in the same boat and realize all Democrats have to go at every level in every state. When we have that, we will have some peace. Until then we all have to get off our dead asses and try to convince the uneducated. Monumental job but we have to do it for the sake of America as we know it…

  27. avatar Silver says:

    Still waiting on those apocalyptic coastal tsunamis.

  28. avatar Mark G. says:

    Nice job Brown, Did you bump your head ? AB711 what is next, Archery

  29. avatar Big B says:

    You Cali folks just dodged a close one and I’m not talking about SB374, I’m talking about SB 755. Had he signed that (maybe there was no chance of that but hell, it got that far) half or more of you wouldn’t be allowed to have any guns. I’m not calling you drunks by any means but over the course of our lives, at least half of us have been charged with a DUI. Me, I was pulled over 17 years ago and blew under the legal limit. Not satisfied with the result the a-hole took me into the State Patrol barracks (the a-hole was only a part time cop for a small village) where I again blew under the state limit. He charged me anyways and eventhough I was not convicted and had the charges dropped it is and will always be in my records as having been charged with a DUI.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email