BREAKING: CA Gov. Brown Bans More Handguns By Signing AB 1964

jerry_brown-thumb-320x430

Press release from CAL-FFL:

Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Handgun Ban AB 1964

Democrat-authored Assembly Bill 1964 will further criminalize the sale of handguns to law-abiding, background-checked Californians.

ROSEVILLE, CA (July 18, 2014) — In a Legislative Update issued earlier today, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he has signed Assembly Bill 1964 (Dickinson), a measure that will eliminate the “single shot” exemption to California’s Roster of “not unsafe” handguns.  AB 1964’s changes to section 32100 of the California Penal Code, which will go into effect on January 1, 2015, will make it virtually impossible for law-abiding residents of the Golden State to acquire a “non-Roster” handgun in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense . . .

In an October 11, 2013, veto message for Assemblyman Dickinson’s previous handgun ban attempt, Brown said, “AB 169 would close a loophole in the single-shot exemption. That makes sense.”

“I wish I could say that we were shocked by the Governor’s irrational decision to sign AB 1964,” explained Brandon Combs, president of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL). “Sadly, the status quo for elitist Sacramento politicians is to ignore the Constitution and act with blatant hostility towards our Second Amendment civil rights and sound public policy.”

“While we are certainly disappointed by Governor Brown’s support of AB 1964, we are also more committed than ever to fight every last attack on our right to keep and bear arms,” Combs concluded. “This is just one bill of many on our radar, and we encourage our friends in the firearms community to steel their resolve and focus on the upcoming battles in August when the Legislature reconvenes.”

To read CAL-FFL’s veto request and for more information about AB 1964, please visit http://www.calffl.org/2014/07/cal-ffl-asks-gov-brown-veto-handgun-ban-bill-ab-1964.

Gun rights supporters can oppose the remaining gun control bills by sending a letter to members of the California Legislature and Governor Brown at http://www.DemandRights.org.

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) is California’s most tenacious and complete advocacy group for Second Amendment and related rights, with over 100,000 individual supporters and members including firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.  CAL-FFL advances the interests of its members and the general public through direct lobbying, legal actions, education, and public outreach.

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I didn’t think one could go bigger than “full retard”.
    I feel bad for my southern neighbors.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      Thanks for at least feeling bad for us. Some TTAG commenters would just say “why don’t they just uproot their family, quit their jobs, and leave their friends and move already.”

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        Some folks just don’t realize how difficult that can be. I lived in the Bay area for many years, and couldn’t leave until I retired. Then I wasn’t dependent so much on 40+ hours a week.

      2. It’s tough. I did it, but I didn’t have a family to uproot. I probably couldn’t have done it otherwise.

      3. avatar BillF says:

        I know what you’re saying. After 2 years of planning and selling property and a whole life’s accumulations, I’m finally able to leave NY for Nevada in October. It wouldn’t have been practical before now. I’ll be semi retired and already have family out there, otherwise it would be a tough move.

      4. avatar Bob20 says:

        I moved to Arizona in February. I feared the move, but moved anyway. It was the best thing I have ever done for my career and my wish for my family to live free. Try this thought on for size. I can now talk to practically anyone about any subject – politics, religion, etc. – and they will not attack me for my beliefs. In a blue state, talking about guns at work would get me fired; now, I am giving my managers advice on shooting techniques. The blue states are going to get worse, so if you can, take the plunge. It is not that bad

        1. avatar S.CROCK says:

          Possibly, hopefully, and dare I say probably, I can move from arguably the worst to arguably the best in a few years. (ca to AZ).

        2. avatar Greg G. says:

          Moved to Phoenix at the end of April 2012 and never looked back. I miss my friends and family, as I moved out here alone and crashed on a couch until I got employment and a place of my own, but I don’t regret it one bit!

      5. avatar CK in CA says:

        I’m staying and fighting at the source. I spread awareness regarding how these laws have never reduced crime anywhere. I vote against the worst politicians. I do what I can to prevent this disease from getting worse and infecting the rest of the country.

      6. avatar Abad says:

        I moved to Florida with my fiancee. We recently returned to the SF Bay Area for a two week visit. Now we’re probably going to move back there. Why? Because we both suffer from arthritis which is vastly exacerbated by Florida’s humidity and because of better job opportunities for both of us. I’m a staunch 2A supporter and gun owner but that doesn’t do me any good when my health is an issue and I need to make more money.

        1. avatar Don Holmes says:

          Arizona is a lot better for your ailments than the bay area.

      7. avatar Sprocket says:

        We left last year. It was a great decision. My mortgage now is less than my monthly commute costs in the SF bay area. We live in a clean, low crime city with nice people and lots of cultural and recreational opportunities. Now that we’re out, California looks even worse than it did when we were there.

      8. avatar Nighthawk says:

        No one ever said it was going to be easy to move, but it’s something people in other countries do to flee oppressive regimes and conditions: it’s the history of America really, packing up and moving away from the tyrannical garbage trying to meddle with your life. There is arguably no chance for California to ever redeem itself, even if no new laws ever get passed, no one is going to repeal the old ones ever.

        1. avatar rosignol says:

          If California can be salvaged, it’ll be through court rulings at the federal level, not local activism.

    2. avatar Don Holmes says:

      I don’t live in Cali. or Ore.either and I don’t feel sorry for them. They not only allowed this to happen for years and years, they have given the Russians and Chinese just what they want. The California’s legislature spends almost all of its time making laws against the honest people that say ” oh, they can’t do that”. This isn’t something new that the next elections will fix, it will be the same ole, same ole and the gun owners don’t do any thing to stop it. This is happening all over America and if we Patriots don’t ban together we will be doomed as a nation. Check Bing or Google ” The Black Robed Preachers” or “The Black Robed Regiment,” AMrron , and FreedomWorks and join all 3 for your own good.

  2. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

    Once a kommie, always a kommie!

  3. avatar Vhyrus says:

    At what point do you decide its a lost cause, pop smoke and redirect funding and manpower to other areas?

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      …all I know is that “point” is getting closer and closer.

    2. avatar Xpunge says:

      I’m not sure you get it.

      If we abandon Cali., then it falls. It’s the domino theory. Next, Oregon, then Washington state. Along with the east coast falling state by state. Soon there would be a tipping point in Washington D.C. of prog. libtard elitist whos desire would be to ram national anti gun legislation down our collective throats.

      I recommend any and all 2a loving peoples across the nation to familiarize themselves with the groups fighting withing the east coast states and Cali. right now. Give money and support. We need to fight, push back, counter and fight more. A national effort to fight at the state and local level against the anti 2a foes.

      The left has given up trying to legislate at the national level for now, concentrating on the states. They have a long view right now. We, 2a freedom loving peoples need to up our game now!

      1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

        You nailed it on the head. Domino theory. It’s real and it’s happening right before us. The communism won’t be contained in the NCR, it will spread throughout the west, as the New England commies will spread it throughout the rest of the north and parts of the mid west. Eventually we’ll be fighting these groups at home so we’ve got to help the groups in places like CA, NY, and so on… That list is way longer now than it was just 2 years ago.

  4. avatar Burnout says:

    California. Democrat. Anti-gun. Anti-constitution. And tomorrow the sun will rise in the East. Any second now, the Democrats who frequent this site will come out and remind us that even though as a party they are staunchly against guns, there are a few Republicans here and there that are too, so it’s not a Democrat thing. So the parties are the same, and besides we aren’t supposed to state the obvious, and to do so is mean, racist, and generally hypocritical. Again. Still.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      more truisms: water is wet. Bloomberg is short. Shannon stole a happily married man.

      1. avatar Model 31 says:

        a couple more: vote third party, send a message, make a difference….(rolls eyes)

      2. avatar Gene says:

        Eirher he couldn’t have been that happy or Shannon is really talented with her “PR” skills.

    2. avatar Jamie in ND says:

      @ Burnout, that’s a fact!

    3. avatar John G. says:

      I’m not going to tell you that because frankly, tonight, I don’t care about what happens in California.

      I will say that after quite a few folks here saying that the anti’s are on the run perhaps some now realize that isn’t the case at all. They have just changed tactics and are, frankly, doing well.

      I will soon have my collection complete and for me, up to a point, really don’t care what happens to those younger or less lucky than me. In true conservative fashion I’ll have mine and screw the rest. But I will say that ranting about Democrats, or beating your chests about your “rights” and the supposed evils of liberalism isn’t going to do a damned thing to allow anyone to buy modern firearms. The lack of courtesy to those with a different viewpoint than yours is damning.

      A more reasoned approach with background checks, arguably sacrificing some gun owners that shouldn’t own in the first place, *MIGHT* extend the opportunity to privately buy modern weapons for several decades.

      Maybe.

      But there are no or few statesmen here that can work both sides of the aisle. So genuinely responsible gun ownership is a lost cause at this point in time.

      1. avatar JoshuaS says:

        That isn’t conservatism you described. That is the petty tyranny of a small soul. And actually quite opposite of traditional conservatism. Chateaubriand would be disgusted at such an attitude. So am I.

        1. avatar Matt in TX says:

          Josh pegged it. JohnG sounds like a typical, “I support gun rights… but.” liberal.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          I agree JS; John G sounds like a typical statist elitist; he believes in reasonable restrictions to our rights. Only “Gun freaks” would be unreasonable in refusing to compromise with the most important natural and constitutional right that we have.

          The fact that he uses the insulting pejorative against supposedly fellow gun owners says it all as to which camp John G belongs to.

        3. avatar John G. says:

          Have it your way. I feel strongly that your “all or nothing” attitude will inevitably lead to gun freaks having nothing in a few decades. But like I said, in true Republican fashion, I don’t care. I have mine.

          If you really think that owning guns is your most important right then it’s no wonder that non- gun freaks think you guys are diseased. Sheesh. There are other things in life and you should seriously consider getting that life.

        4. avatar Xpunge says:

          To John G. Who says “in true Republican fashion, I don’t care.”

          Your not a repub. Your a small minded libtard, attempting to sow seeds.

          Time to move on from the troll.

      2. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

        But you are wrong sir. You think they’re going to let you keep “your collection” ie, you “arsenal”. They’re never going to stop. Take a look at this last AWB. It was not a simple ban on the sale of assault weapons. It also required NFA style registration of the weapons, and also confiscation for certain items. But they’re just not going to stop with background checks and an AWB. After that they’ll come after ammo. Registration of ammo, ammo limits, increasing taxation, banning certain types of ammo. It’s just keeps getting worse. After that even fruther restrictions on guns and forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance. Then eventually they’ll get to outright confiscation. This isn’t just me ranting. It’s all thier play book and they’ll do it all if given the chance.

        1. avatar John G. says:

          I am in rural Texas. I am almost 60 years old. I have a gun trust.

          Like I said I have mine and screw those younger than me or living in other states.

          Now, once on a time I might have felt differently but the gun freaks have refused to meet the anti’s anywhere, and in a battle of extremes I clearly can see that the anti’s will win.

        2. avatar jerry says:

          Trying to reason with this troll brotherhood? Waste of time.

      3. avatar A says:

        Your “F- everyone else, ive got mine” is the other half of the problem you rail about. Enjoy your denial of that fact.

        And I’ll fight against your give gound tactics as well.

        Coward.

        1. avatar jerry says:

          A, is this the first post you have read from our resident uber troll johnny g? He does this shit all the time. No need to get angry, just mock him and move on.

        2. avatar jerry says:

          You will also notice A, that Johnny G lives in a red state. Many left-wing kooks who worship the likes of Elizabeth Warren don’t have the courage of their convictions and live in places like California.

      4. avatar Chuck in IL says:

        Let me boil your comment down for you.

        We should feed the alligator, in hopes that it eats us last.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Sort of what I was thinking.

      5. avatar Nighthawk says:

        So basically the cause, driving force, political clout, and people responsible for steadily eroding firearms rights in this country overall and heavily in a state by state basis are not to be held responsible for such an erosion? Also don’t confuse liberalism with a modern day American Liberal. The American Left is about totalitarianism and having the government inject itself into every aspect of your life, make every decision for you, and banning anything the oligarchy feels threatening to its supremacy. That has nothing to do with “liberalism” and everything to do with Left wing insanity. You know the one that says “outlaw something and it goes away from existence” a concept with a natural extreme end that always turns into “outlaw unhappy people and we can kill them off and all be happy” and is always used in such societies. So yes, it is the American Left, Democrats, Liberal Progressives responsible for the destruction of gun rights. That is the problem. Voting them out is a solution but only if the replacement isn’t another power mongering nutjob from the Right with a different agenda of control to push.

      6. avatar RetLEO says:

        Sorry, John G, Your statements about typical Conservatives or Republicans believing that ‘i’ve got mine, screw you’ is exactly how the typical progressive portrays them. But simply not a true representation of the significant majority of Conservative or Republicans. Didn’t you just call out those who are intolerant of different viewpoints? Irony?

        “A more reasoned approach with background checks, arguably sacrificing some gun owners that shouldn’t own in the first place, *MIGHT* extend the opportunity to privately buy modern weapons for several decades.”
        Like what, exactly? Is the fight for the second amendment about a few more decades? If that’s all it is, then we should cut our losses and give up now. What compromise would you propose? Can you point to any federal legislation in which the anti-gun crowd has given back a single thing to those who believe in the 2A? Even the FOPA, signed by Reagan, included the Hughes amendment…so compromise with the anti-2A crowd means giving up the right (why you put the word ‘rights’ into quotes is beyond me) to keep and bear arms a little bit at a time. If YOUR attitude is ‘it’s all about me’ and you are almost 60, I guess it makes sense…push them off for a few decades and it won’t matter to you. But isn’t part of our fight to preserve our NATURAL rights for our kids and grandkids?

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Gun control is give and take. Gun owners give and the statists take.

      7. avatar JoshuaS says:

        I am not a “gun absolutist” at least not in principle. There are some things I would support if they were practically effective and were not, in our political context, used as stepping stones for more by the other side. Frankly, when I see the most recent attempts, where am I to “meet” my opponents? The Colorado universal background check prevents me from lending my gun to a friend, or borrowing my dad’s gun. It even prevent gun buy backs! And prevents the giving back of goods to their owners (cops who recover a stolen firearm need an FFL to transfer it to the owner!). Heck even CA wrote its law better than that. But yeah, we are the unreasonable ones…at least we don’t write laws where the unintended consequences also hurt us!

        “”I will soon have my collection complete and for me, up to a point, really don’t care what happens to those younger or less lucky than me”

        This is what rankled me. We can argue about the fate of California, whether it is worth it to stay and fight here or not. But your attitude is revolting. Heck, even from a thoroughly egotistical ethos, it is in your best interest to join like minded people just to protect yourself. But I would go further. Conservatives, historically, at least claimed to be caring about community, tradition, etc. What you have stated is distinctly anti-conservative. Heck it is even anti-social liberal. It is the attitude a tyrant might have. Problem is you’re a member of a society, like it or not, and its good or its bad is something you will share in by being a member of it. United we stand, divided we fall is not just a catchy phrase.

    4. avatar Fred says:

      I’m a California democrat. I’m pro responsible gun ownership. I actually love guns. When the stuff hits the fan, i’ll feel sorry for the other liberals who haven’t gotten themselves armed and ready. I refuse to be enslaved by those on the “Right”,or the side that has the guns. Let’s go back to being We The People, not us and them, m’kay?

    5. avatar Fred says:

      I’m a California democrat. I’m pro responsible gun ownership. I actually love guns. When the stuff hits the fan, i’ll feel sorry for the other liberals who haven’t gotten themselves armed and ready. I refuse to be enslaved by those on the “Right”,or the side that has the guns. Let’s go back to being We The People, not us and them, m’kay?

  5. avatar Allen says:

    Just remember, they don’t want to ban anyone’s guns.

    1. avatar Full Cleveland says:

      The official party line is “We don’t want to confiscate your guns” but that is just another lie on the road to confiscating your guns. So watchya gonna do in California now that guns are being banned and SCOTUS has ruled that the individuals, not state or local police, are responsible for their protection? Sounds like a job for SuperJerry!

  6. avatar Allen says:

    Also, it’s not a cookbook!

  7. avatar ropingdown says:

    Is this bill aimed…at Thompson Centerfires?

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Looks like. It reads, break open or bolt action. Even semi-auto pistols that have been converted to fire single shot.
      Oh, unless it was manufactured before 1900.

      Wow

    2. avatar Felix says:

      I will make a semi-educated guess. There was a procedure for a few years where you could get the seller of a non-roster gun to modify it for single shot mode, which then exempted it from the not-unsafe roster. You would buy it, through an FFL as required in California, then modify it back to semi-auto. All steps and the end result were perfectly legal. It also was a PITA and not very common, but it got a lot of hoplophobes’ panties twisted, and so this bill.

      Like I said, a semi-educated guess; I was on the calguns forum for several years, until they banned me for not towing the lion and bowing to the internal political correctness, so I haven’t kept up with these kinds of shenanigans.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Your semi-educated guess is spot on. True single shot handguns are still exempt from the roster, but the procedure to modify a semiauto to single shot with a long barrel and a mag sled, thus making it exempt from the roster at the time of transfer (and then to convert it back after the transfer) is now going to be history.
        For those not understanding, the single shot exemption (or SSE) was a workaround that has become quite popular in the last couple of years for obtaining “off roster” handguns. California has a roster of “not unsafe handguns”; if a handgun is not on the roster, it cannot be purchased except in a person-to-person transaction (unless the gun is somehow exempted). The original purpose of the law was to require handgun sold in this state to be drop safe and reliable, and testing procedures were implemented that guns had to pass before they could be sold. Over time, the required safety features expanded from merely a sear block (e.g., the difference between a Series 70 and a Series 80 Colt 1911) to also include loaded chamber indicators and mag lockouts (because people are stupid and the Legislature didn’t want to hear “I didn’t know the gun was loaded). The most recent addition to the roster requirements is the microstamping law (with which no manufacturer today has the ability to comply) that is a “public safety” requirement on the theory that microstamped pistol casings will help solve crimes. This latter requirement, discussed on this blog before, has resulted in an ever decreasing number of “approved” handguns available to California (nonLEO) buyers. In a few years, unless manufacturers do not update any part of an existing model (all new models–which the AG has interpreted as including “major” changes such as different parts) all we will have to buy are revolvers and “antiques and curios”. Thus, since the law at least nominally was to prevent the sale of “unsafe” handguns, there was no way that the Governor could not sign it.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Good grief.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          For the first time ever I feel thankful to be living in Maryland. I need to go drink now.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          Thanks for the explanation.

  8. avatar benny says:

    *facepalm*

    I can’t say I’d be willing to stay in California any longer by this point…

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      You must remember, it’s for the children!

  9. avatar SleeStac says:

    How come the CA legal framework hasn’t been overturned by scotus. The roster seems like the definition of infringed.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      As far as I can tell, the U.S. Supreme Court will not get involved unless there is an all-out ban on all firearms in the home. Bans of some/most firearms in the home or de facto bans on all firearms outside the home are A-Okay with the U.S. Supreme Court.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Because the lawsuit challenging it is still in the trial court, if I recall, in the post-trial briefing stage. Personally, without having heard the evidence or seen any briefs–i.e., just off the cuff–I don’t see any real hope of eliminating the roster, other than the microstamping law.

  10. avatar Excedrine says:

    Glad I don’t live in Kommiefornistan.

  11. avatar Scrubula says:

    It’s just common sense! How can you guys not support it? People can still own guns so their second amendment rights are still valid! Even though infringe means to encroach or limit a right, especially gradually!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      These are not the guns you are looking for. [Or, you can have anything you want, as long as it is one of these….(currently 975 rostered handguns).]

  12. avatar Pascal says:

    My condolences to CA gun owners.

    Sometimes I feel like CA politicians are like my cat. They catch a field mouse and do not immediately kill them. Just slowly torture them to death.

    CA has enough problems, do not understand how this even a priority.

  13. avatar disthunder says:

    One day, Utah will go to war with California, and even outnumbered 10 to one, we’re totally gonna kick California’s ass.
    Force multipliers, muthaf*ckas.

  14. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Man now I feel bad for California’s gun owners… they just keep kickin yall in the nards then stompin you while you’re down. We all know when where and how all this will end eventually there will be no legal guns to blame the crimes on so they’ll have to actually look into maybe solving the actual issues… then again by the time that happens California may be an island in the Pacific

    1. avatar A says:

      Gun-fiscating Liberals fight for their right to be someones b*tch. They love the feeling and aspire to create it and/or entrench it.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nah. When there are no legal guns, they will blame neighboring states for their problems and try to force them to adopt similar stupid laws, as IL is trying to do now, somehow ignoring that surrounding states don’t have their laws OR THEIR PROBLEMS. They don’t understand the connection, there.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Indiana is to blame as usual.

  15. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Well the communist state of california gets worse. Why doesn’t this hypocrite go all the way and ban all firearms? As it appears that is where he is heading. However it is kind of brilliant. Banning them one at a time makes it harder for a second amendment challenge. Also to get the supreme court to hear it as well. As we all know the 9th circus will never overrule a gun ban.

  16. avatar DerryM says:

    I am not sure if anyone actually clearly explains what this bill does. I have tried to figure it out with no clear success. Between the “restricted handguns” list and the “not unsafe handguns” list, it now appears there are no handguns left that can be legally sold new in California. It is very convoluted and apparently deliberately made so.
    Meanwhile the handguns “allowed” for sale have requirements no manufacturer is willing to meet, so basically after January 1, 2015, it might just barely be possible to buy cap and ball or flintlock handguns, but I am not even sure about that any longer.
    I imagine there will be a frantic rush to buy-out existing stock before January 1, 2015, and prices are being raised as I write this.
    At this point even I would leave California if I could.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Let me try a few suggestions. First, see my earlier post above explaining the law. Second, any gun on the roster, unless it is changed “materially”, can stay on the roster as long as the manufacturer renews its registration. There are lots of guns on the roster that have been there for years. Third, it does not apply, pretty much, to revolvers, which are not subject to mag locks, LCIs or external safeties rules, nor the microstampting mandate, so those will all continue to be available as long as they pass safety testing for reliability, drop testing, etc. Fourth, the roster does not apply to intrafamilial instate transfers (Unclear if it applies to interstate intrafamilial transfer, but my best guess is that it does), nor does it apply to person to person transfer (e.g. a purchase from a LEO who is legally permitted to buy any handgun except full auto). Similarly. the law does not prevent anyone moving into California from bringing guns or selling them to anyone else, roster or not, as long as the gun does not have a +10 mag. Finally, the law does not apply to antiques and curios, so anything over fifty is fair game.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Thank-you very much for your several posts on this matter, Mark N. You clarified it for me (and hopefully others) very well. Much appreciated!!!

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    I can commiserate with Californians. I heard the same s#it about Illinois. Fight the power.

  18. avatar Mic says:

    Wife always tells me that she wants to live in Cali. I tell her no way. That place is too close to a 1930’s/1940’s Germany for my taste. It’s not just guns, they try control almost every aspect of a person’s life in Cali. I could not live like that. I will visit , but even then I can not carry my PPS, or even my pocket knife. So, what a shock I don’t feel safe in a state with some of the most constrictive gun control laws in the country. By the way how are all these gun control laws working out for you there Cali?……that is what I thought

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Actually, you can, with some limitations carry a pocket knife. By state law, anything under 4″ is not a “weapon” unless it is a balisong or a true switch blade, gravity knife, or similar. But assisted opening knives are specifically legal. There are some local limitations such as Los Angeles, which only allows, by ordinance, knives with a blade less than three inches. It is legal to openly carry a fixed bladed knife, but it is a crime to conceal such a knife–except, again, in LA which bans them (as I understand it–don’t live there thankfully). But no guns. California does not have CCW reciprocity with any state and does not issue nonresident permits.

      CCW issuance is very much a county by county issue. In my county, as is true with most rural counties, self-defense is “good cause”, and fortunately permits are valid state-wide. Los Angeles, SF, are definite nonissue counties, to name a few.

      1. avatar JoshuaS says:

        Actually there is no length limit on folding knives, or the open carry of long knives in California (state law). You can, under state law, carry a switchblade if less than 2″ (they made them, CA legal switch blades)

        The Los Angeles (county and city) law only applies to knives in plain view. I can carry and do carry my SOG Trident (3.75″) in LA county all the time. It is legal if concealed. The law effectively prevents the carry of fixed blades greater than 3″, as to conceal them may be construed as concealing a dirk or dagger which is illegal (court cases are vague in determining it….an open, but not locking folder does not become a dirk or dagger e.g., no a butter knife…)

        1. avatar bozo says:

          That carrying a knife just spurred a two paragraph discussion in regards to it’s legality is ludicrous.

  19. avatar GoodGuyWithAGun says:

    divided we fall

  20. avatar Jay-El says:

    KPBS dutifully described BOTH bills Brown signed today as “designed to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.” The reporter also described guns not on the Not Unsafe list (pause here as long as you want, but it still won’t make sense) as “firearms that fail to meet safety standards.” (No word on why police officers can still buy non-roster weapons that both are not-not-unsafe and fail to meet safety standards.)

    Guns like, you know, Gen 4 Glocks and a growing number of M&Ps.

    LA Times quoted the California chapter of the Brady Center as saying that greedy dealers are putting profits ahead of safety by exploiting the SSE loophole and selling guns that don’t incorporate child safety features.

    And so we go.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The “reason” officers are allowed to purchase nonrostered firearms, and this was actual testimony in a pending action challenging the roster, is the intensive and regular training that officers receive, and thus the officers can handle such guns safely. Ummm, yeah. The only true child safety feature is the mag disconnect. LCIs and manual safeties are for clumsy and stupid adults who don’t check the chamber to make sure a gun is unloaded.

  21. avatar falcon6455 says:

    There are always ways around all these stupid draconian laws. If you are dedicated enough to owning firearms in California it doesn’t take much to get a drivers license in a neighboring gun friendly state. Then you take a day trip and bring along a pocket full of money and shopping list from your friends. The fact that this can be done so easily just proves how useless and unenforceable all of these laws are.

    1. avatar Full Cleveland says:

      That’s exactly the kind of shenanigans that is ruining Chicago. If the neighboring 47 states would adopt Chicago’s gun laws the gangs could deal drugs peacefully like the gentle men and women they are..

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And gently and peacefully kill each other to their hearts’ content!

  22. avatar Joseph says:

    Simple fix, just put a 35 foot concrete wall around cali. and for pass port requirements to leave the state… Anyone who want’s to move there is welcome too…

  23. avatar ThomasR says:

    California is the perfect example of how democracy inevitably devolves into the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

    Especially when the nine tyrants in black robes supports the process. Yep; that has worked out so well; the USSC as the final arbiter of what are our civil rights and how much “state interest” can curtail those rights.

    Thomas Jefferson believed very strongly against having the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what is “constitutional”.

    “If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

    Prophetic.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1000

      Marbury v. Madison demonstrates how the tendency of government to usurp power happens over many generation; vast spans of time relative to an individual lifespan. IMHO, individual Liberty will never be safe in this nation if the usurped power of judicial review isn’t corrected. Tyranny can rise over long periods of time, step by step, but it can rarely be overthrown the same way since people simply don’t live long enough.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Yep; that’s how Rome went from a Republic led by two annually elected consuls in around 509BC to Julius Caesar appointed as dictator for life in 44BC.

        From Republic to Empire in almost five hundred years with a leader that acts as if the laws of the society that restricts even his power can be ignored with impunity.

        We only took a little over two hundred years to reach the same point

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          We may be decaying faster than ancient Rome.

  24. avatar $#!7 says:

    Waiting for my hi capacity sling shot to be banned… For the kids of course, its all for the kids

  25. avatar Tom RKBA says:

    Thanks for at least feeling bad for us. Some TTAG commenters would just say “why don’t they just uproot their family, quit their jobs, and leave their friends and move already.”

    I have no sympathy for California gun owners. They allow this to happen and are not demanding a constitution amendment. They know what needs to be done and refuse to do it. The legislature knows this and does what it wants.

    1. avatar Sprocket says:

      ” They allow this to happen and are not demanding a constitution amendment. They know what needs to be done and refuse to do it.”

      I’m fascinated… please outline for us how this process works.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Start by voting out all Democrats, the rest will come to you pretty easy. The only reason that can’t work would be that votes are not actually counted, the process is fixed, in which case devolve to “first, load your guns.”

  26. avatar Jay-El says:

    The “list of guns that have been determined to be not unsafe” (how can they even say that with a straight face?) is scary enough. But what’s downright shocking is the number of handguns that were once determined to be not unsafe (yes, you read that right) that are removed from the list of not-unsafe weapons, or “decertified.” Once this happens, a handgun model that was determined by the California DOJ to be not unsafe at the time of purchase can no longer be imported into the state, offered for sale, given or even lent.

    Yes, private party transfers are still allowed, but what purpose could it possibly serve to restrict a pistol that was 100% legal and even “not unsafe” when it was bought, and making it a crime to even lend it to someone to try out at the range?

    Wait, it gets worse: as of today, 251 handgun models have been removed from the list of handguns determined to be not unsafe since Jan 1, 2014.

    Ever hear the one about boiling a pot full of frogs slowly?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The DOJ only removes handguns from the roster if the manufacturer stops paying for that particular model, once listed, to remain on the roster. The usual reason for removal is that the manufacturer is no longer making that model and replaces it with something else, and thus stops paying to keep it listed. The more recent game being paid is when a manufacturer updates an exiting handgun, for whatever reason, be ti to change the composition of parts to make the gun less expensive to produce, or engineering changes e=intended to make the gun safer. If the change is “material”–and these days anything but a change in color is deemed by the DOJ to be “material,” a gun must be recertified. the problem is now to be recertified, a pistol (as opposed to a revolver) must incorporate microstamping technology, technology none of the manufacturer have. (There is an experimental process and the patent on that process has expired, which is the basis for the DOJ’s determination that microstampting technology is “available, and therefore manufacturers must comply, no matter how many millions it will cost or how unreliable the finished product.)

    2. avatar kbad says:

      It is truly a wonder of science and nature how not paying a yearly renewal fee will miraculously make a gun unsafe.

    3. avatar JoshuaS says:

      Where is it made a crime to lend it? It isn’t currently.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Well, it is and it isn’t.
        Under federal (and some state laws) a loan cannot exceed 30 days. Nor can you loan a firearm to a prohibited person. In California, with some exceptions (i.e. a gun range rental), a firearm can be loaned only to a person who currently possesses a Handgun Safety Certificate (this used to be applied only to handguns, but I think a recent legislative change has extended it to rifles). To get an HSC you have to pass a (ridiculously easy) written test and pay a fee of $25 every five years. (LEOs and CCW holders are exempt.)

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      251 in around 6 months? What is “slowly” about that?

  27. avatar Accur81 says:

    I just sent this in to TTAG Central. I plan on “celebrating” this law by purchasing a Smith M&P Shield 9mm. I may also write a letter to the governor, but I fail to see the point. The Mrs. responded by looking at real estate in Flagstaff, AZ. It’s pretty pricey.

    This state will go even further down the sh!thole by paying people who don’t work (welfare) and by welcoming illegals – excuse me – undocumented immigrants who will subsequently use whatever welfare programs they can find. Couple this idiocy with “homeless rights,” and you have a state that will utterly implode in the next 5-15 years.

    So the powers that be will tax the sh!t out of the middle class, pay those who don’t work, won’t prosecute illegal immigration, allows bums to sleep in tents on the sidewalk, and bans those who don’t have criminal records from owning quality handguns.

    This is what happens to a state where Democrats have complete control.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Lucky for you that the Shield is on the roster if you don’t mind the tictac sized manual safety, and it will likely remain so as S&W runs out of pistols to sell here.

    2. avatar jr says:

      add to what carb is doing to business owners and trucking co. with the requirement to outlaw pre 2010 med and heavy diesel trucks

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Don’t forget the drought. If estimates are correct, by the Fall LA and points south will have to desalinate water to have anything to drink. And the Imperial Valley will revert to desert.

  28. avatar Full Cleveland says:

    So now that California is banning guns and SCOTUS has ruled that the individual, not state or local police, are responsible to defend themselves whatya gonna do? Sounds like a job for SuperJerry!

  29. avatar Jack says:

    Get your off roster guns while you can, boys! For me = P226 MK25. How about you?

  30. avatar BunnyBunny says:

    LA resident. I’m moving to Oregon in six months though. I do believe the domino theory is possible, but OR won’t be next. Their democrats outside of Multnomah county are largely pro 2A. Washington above us has more gun control laws than Oregon does. I think Oregon would come after Washington, but Washington’s CPL doesn’t require any training. They just legalized SBR’s and suppressors have been legal for a while now.

    The virus will spread along the East Coast while CA creates so many laws they get ruled unconstitutional. The CA politicians just can’t stop with new and more ridiculous laws. They will be the demise of themselves. There was also an outbreak in Colorado, but it looks like we might have contained it.

  31. avatar Great Scot says:

    Get out of there Californians! Get out of there before they ban privately owned automobiles too! Run! Run for your guns!

  32. Hymmmn, DAMN!…[how’d i get to be 62, So Soon?…]. Getting my first single barrel, 12 gauge, @ about age 11,12; i grew up in Rhode Island, with plenty of places to hunt!…In High School,. i hunted before school, leaving my broken down shotgun, in my locker, along with whatever i shot!…Retrieving it after “Sports Practice”, @ about 5:30 pm. [my locker mate hated this!…]. Anyway, i’ve been an avid hunter; recently getting an N.R.A. Firearms Instructors Certification,[to promote Safe Gun practices., like i was Instructed!] I’m Not a Criminal, nor do i have Any type of Record!… Believing in my Right, to own & carry, Concealed! And, i do! Living all over this great country, i now reside in the Florida Keys!…. Where i can legally obtain, and Carry Concealed!!!! With all the unwanted violence, i feel Safer, this way. Believing in my Constitutional Rights, and, our Justice System, I feel Better, being “Judged”, by 12; than Carried, by 6!…

  33. avatar Gregory says:

    Oppose all of the gun bills in California that you want, they will pass anyway. If you believe in your civil rights, get the hell out of California and leave it to the socialists. The only real producers of wealth at the working class. If all of the working class leaves, there will be no one to tax to death and the state will fall. Ok, now that that dream will never happen. Sheeple of California, stop being victims of an oppressive government and do something to help yourselves.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      California will collapse as will other statist governments. All of the non-productive people will flourish and consume, while the producers will be taxed and hobbled to the point of just giving up and going on the dole. It will be a cross of Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged.

      1. avatar John G. says:

        And conservatives will apply for welfare, just like Ayn Rand did.

  34. avatar Sheepdog6 says:

    Live comfortably or live free. My choice would see me moving out of a deep blue state.

    1. avatar whmitty says:

      Absolutely! My wife and I will soon be moving out of California after living here for 66 years. Not only are the gun laws Draconian but the taxes and general cost of living are both sky-rocketing yearly. Regrettably the saying “as goes California so goes the nation” appears to be holding true with the exception of a few states like Texas, Alaska, the Dakotas, etc. California has well over 10% of the nation’s population and most of those people hold views I cannot live with so rather than living in a state where my vote is negated before cast we’re leaving. Our country is in quite a fix.

  35. avatar BobS says:

    Short-term, this means I can buy five more pistols (one every 30 days through December) off the Roster. I’m putting together my shopping list…

    Long-term, this adds another point to the argument supporting the Peña v. Cid lawsuit to abolish the Roster altogether.

  36. avatar OkieRim says:

    Being retired from the military I was able to sample a variety of states, which I consider a great overall experience. Being stationed in both North and South California was a blast, great friends & some great times. But between their anti-gun obsession, crazy-ass real estate market, crazy-ass driving (highways) and gangs staying there was never an option. How sad that a state can go so far into anti-liberty mode. If anything good comes from this its that people all over now can see what a broke-dick state looks like.

  37. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Gun laws are better here in SC but our COL & crime rates are getting close to CA. No unions but $7.25 is the average wage. The county I’m in unemployment goes down in Summer but not this year. The states economy is based on tourism & it’s in the toilet. I’m researching Dr.s and where my wife can transfer to. Cost of Living is cheaper behind the blue curtain than here.

  38. avatar Floyd says:

    Sorry to see California going this way. Not surprising, but sorry to see it nevertheless.

    For those who say “pack it up and leave”, well…our family did that about three years ago. We’re happy we did it, but it wasn’t easy. Left behind some family and some friends who are dear to us.

    That being said, it’s been a good move. We came to a very conservative and very 2nd Amendment-friendly state (Utah) with a pretty decent economy – lower wages, but coupled with a much lower cost of living. And the firearm I legally carry every day here in Utah would earn me a prison term in Cal. It’s a different life outside of California. And, frankly, it’s a better life with more individual freedoms. Not enough money in the world to get us to go back.

  39. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Gun rights are the canary in the coal mine for other rights and freedoms. California has lost a lot of business and industry as it has lost gun rights. Yes, there is correlation.

  40. avatar dan says:

    well past time for anti Constitutional politicians to feel the founders remedy of…Tar and Feathers…..imho

  41. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    Bottom line? Elections have consequences.

  42. avatar Navy Davey says:

    Alas and aLAck, it appears as if there is a huge behemoth, slow moving but inexorable, pushing more and more gun control all around the nation. Hollowing out the 2nd Amendment until it becomes nothing more than a hollow shell.
    I’d sent letters, written emails, made calls to my California legislators top to bottom, local, Assembly, State, Federal, D.C., Prez, and every anti-gun bill was passed anyway. Finally just gave up.
    Yes, California is doomed until the revolt, which I’d thought might be 100 years away, then 50, then 25, 10,5, now I believe it just might be triggered by that POTUS within the next 2 years of his rainy reign. It could easily be caused by one single Executive Action/Order or Administrative action with unintended consequences.
    The tre of Liberty must occasionally be watered by the blood of tyrants. And/or Bureaucrats.

  43. avatar Navy Davey says:

    Too bad the only remedies seem to be so extreme: leave the State, Revolution, vote them out, etc. All are so extreme.
    The anti-gun bans are still laws in force irregardless.
    Colorado recalled 2-3 Legislators but their laws are still on the books. Wish there were some easier and more immediate actions that could be taken to remedy bad laws. Courts take years. Even when a Judge like in Chicago forces a city to repay court costs, it’s like big deal, just give them a million dollars of taxpayer money, so what. Write a check. Pass more laws. Way too easy for them, tough for us. Losing battle.

  44. here in assachusetts we have a minority governor who cant control his own kind of tribal people,so he has the leggostinkers pass stupig gun laws,trust me I know what your going threw,by the way is that pot smoking governor scarydown getting FAT?

  45. avatar Dougded says:

    Does anyone believe the illegal Mexican gangs, the American gangs, the black gangs, the ultra rich spoiled Hollywoodenheads who have a gun hidden somewhere will give a sh*t about these laws? There has never been a gun control log that helped honest citizens, just criminals, mental cases and tyrants. This won’t stop one single rampage shooting, not one. But a lifestyle change to one of morals and family values might. But don’t ask politicians to make a law about that, they don’t know what it means and neither does Hollywood.

  46. avatar Paul says:

    The solution to all these California gun laws is simple: Get a list of every politician that is for restrictive gun rights and vote them all out wherever their name appears just like all those anti-gun politicians got voted out in the 90s for the same mess.

  47. avatar Tim C says:

    God only knows how many countless lives will be saved by closing the heinous SSE loophole. Just think of all those criminals no longer able to order their 4th Gen Glocks or LCP’s from out of state, pass the background check, pay the extra SSE conversion fee, and wait 15 days to receive their guns. Also, we all know that guns that would be on-roster, except they’re desert tan rather than black, are super-unsafe.

  48. avatar Tom G says:

    I guess my fellow Californians really don’t get it… These slick politicians are not trying to reduce crime at all. They are trying to increase crime. They are fully aware that a “carry” state has less crime. Just because someone plays dumb doesn’t mean they are. These guys are professional liars, they do this for a living.
    An unarmed citizen can now ONLY be protected by the government. More crime means more police, more police means more laws, more laws means more government and more government means more scum-bag politicians. Which also means more taxes. Oh yea, and more of the fore-mentioned means more media, better news stories that are intended to scare people into wanting more government.
    So, politicians really have nothing against guns, they just don’t want you to have one. I mean really, how many times would you watch the news if the featured story was “the good guy shot the bad guy”?

  49. avatar American Patriot says:

    My fellow Americans, Patriotism is near an all time low. Dilution of our Constitution, Illegal Immigration (Criminal Trespass), Dot Com bust, Wall Street and the Housing Bubble bust are but yet of an engineered plan to establish a “One World Order”. Prophecy predicts this.

    I will not suggest that you take up arms in a Revolution against a Tyrannical Government. A successful modern day Revolution is iffy at best. May I suggest that you look to the obvious, scripture.

    I expect to be chastised with ridicule. I would expect even my own family would offer comments of “hypocrite”.

    We are not flawless. I for one trespass upon common courtesy of the citizens of my community, on an ongoing basis. However, I am trying to adopt the iconic philosophy of the 1950’s of common courtesy to all I am in contact with. A “Yes Mam” or a “Yes Sir” provides a puzzled smile upon the recipient. An unexpected pleasure of “common courtesy”.

    So, in a nutshell, use “Common Courtesy” to gain the trust and confidence of those whom lack the knowledge of the impending future. Educate the masses with the knowledge of the Tyranny soon to be imposed upon us all. Save all that you can.

    Liberty knows no limits of self sacrifice. Become a Patriot.

    In God We Trust

    God Bless America,

    American Patriot

  50. avatar antisocialsecurity says:

    Never mind SCOTUS , what does SCROTUM say about it?

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