gavin-newsom300x200

“’Effectively, this measure will create a new class of criminals out of those that already comply with common sense practices that now exist,’ wrote President Martin Ryan, Amador County sheriff and PAC Chair Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County sheriff . ‘The focus of efforts to reduce gun violence in this state should be on those responsible for that violence, not those that have no intent to do harm.’” What the sheriffs apparently miss is the fact that that’s precisely the point of the proposed ballot initiative. Where California’s sheriffs see a bug the size of Burbank, Golden State gun grabbers like Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom see a feature more fantastic than Carmel . . .

If voted into law, Californians would have to undergo a background check just to buy ammo. But that’s just the beginning. As sacbee.com notes,

While California has some of the nation’s most restrictive firearms policies, including a 1999 ban on assault weapons, (the proposed measure) would expand that prohibition to high-capacity magazines grandfathered in by the law. If it passes, the owners would need to sell them to a licensed dealer, transfer them out of the state or turn them in to law enforcement to be disposed of.

You already know how the Second Amendment’s laughed at by those in positions of power on the left coast. They apparently have the same level of respect of the Fifth Amendment there, too.

The governor-wannabe‘s collaborating with most of the state’s usual civilian disarmament suspects to get this latest affront to the right to keep and bear arms enacted.

Newsom is working with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and their bid is backed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose and others.

Anyone willing to bet they won’t get the 366,000 signatures they need to put the initiative on the November ballot?

Recommended For You

123 Responses to CA Sheriffs to Newsom: Your Gun Control Ballot Measure Will Make Criminals of the Law Abiding

  1. Well how else are they supposed to make criminals of otherwise law-abiding people so that they can then selectively enforce the laws against those that annoy them while ignoring the politically powerful

    • There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.

      Atlas Shrugged

  2. Where is Leland Yee when you need a few crates of rocket launchers and AK’s to defeat this…
    Never mind.

    • Im sure Leland signed that petition…. It gets rid of the competition. He has the contacts and already knows how to traffic illegal guns and ammo in California. It gives him the edge he needs to run the “new” california gun market.

      Besides… Leland Yee and Gavin Newsom are close friends (from back when gavin was sf mayor and yee was on the sf board of supervisors). So im sure hes doing Yee a personal/business favor.

  3. “Anyone willing to bet they won’t get the 366,000 signatures they need to put the initiative on the November ballot?”

    You can get people to sign anything. Ever see that video of people signing a petition to abolish the freedom of speech?

      • ” di hydrogen monoxide.” Yeah, that was unbelievable……but explains why we’re such a screwed up country these days.

        • Penn and Tellers Showtime program aptly titled Bullshit. Great show. Check out the episode on The 2A. They get it right.

    • Agreed. If any of you not-Californians imagine for 1/1000th of a second there aren’t 366,000 Morons in this State who will sign the petition for this Ballot Proposition you are mistaken. It will get on the Ballot in November and we can only pray and work diligently to get enough Californians with actual good sense to vote against it. The opposition of the State Sheriffs is a good thing, but it is going to take bunches of money and dozens of TV ads to defeat it.

        • I believe you. It staggers me to think that in a State with a population of 39+million, it only takes 366,000 to put something so Draconian on the Ballot as a proposition.. That’s only .0093% of the population.

  4. WHERE ARE FEDERAL PROTECTIONS OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT? WHERE IS THE PREEMPTION???

    The C O N S T I T U T I O N – IS

    the Law of the Land

    IF YOU DON’T THINK SO – say it isn’t right the f now so we can have-at before I finish typing here – OR STFU AND SUPPORT IT ! ! !

    FU CA your dumb asses are not allowed to F-up my country nor take away my rights in your fng state.

    If it’s your country to f-up, it’s mine to take away from you.

    • well, all grammar aside, this California smart ass agrees with you – the constitution is the law of the land.

      Here is the money shot though – when are the rest of the country (that CA, NY & and DC are screwing up) gonna get fed up and push for a Sodom and Gomorrah option? Fire and brimstone will likely be our only option and there will be more than a few pillars of salt.

      ready when you are home boy, get mad and get active, we already are.

    • Hello, Joe R., I would consider it a great favor if you would train your unique style of commentary upon the annoying Trolls “Sam I Am” and “2Asux” if you have the time. They could both benefit from and have richly earned a good YELLING at and cursing-out as it looks like only you can get away with on this site. Read a few of their comments and you will see they only want to totally f-up everybody’s rights in the whole country.
      Thanks and best regards, Lyle.

      • Sam I Am constantly prods and pushes POTG to do something other than bump their cyber gums about constitutional rights. I’m thinking only people who lack political backbone come here and just wail about how “unfair” everyone who opposes them is. If pushing reality into your face is “trolling”, then fine with me. If forcing you to look at the illogical and vapid ramblings of so many here is “trolling”, then fine with me.

        The point of my comments is that we are losing the battle, and we lack a compelling message to override the majority image of us a a bunch of one-tooth yahoos who are always a split second away from a killing rampage. We need to be doing more than venting, we need to be more attractive to the so-called “undecideds” and the already anti-gun.

        But given the easy out provided by declaring someone a “troll”, maybe the anti-gun gang is right about us.

  5. If they do not get real people to equal the numbers they need, they will get the numbers with or without real people signing it.

  6. It is amusing that these sheriffs don’t realize the law is merely a system of categorizing things the government dislikes.

    • More like Patrick Bateman. You were one letter off there.

      He’s such a repulsive reptile. You could not imagine a sleazier, slick haired, sociopath political hack if you tried.

      • “I had all the characteristics of a human being; flesh, blood, skin, hair, but my depersonalization was so intense, had gone so deep, that my normal ability to feel compassion had been eradicated, the victim of a slow, purposeful erasure. I was simply imitating reality, a rough resemblance of a human being, with only a dim corner of my mind functioning.”

        – Patrick Bateman

  7. Why do we not like the idea of states doing things the majority of the voters think necessary? Democracy, representative republicanism, is messy, uncomfortable and down-right irritating. Now, there is case law that prohibits setting fees to exercise a right with the intent to simply make it too expensive to exercise that right.But…there is no case law that says a state cannot put a tax on the sale of an item (thus, ammo taxes).

    California wants to ensure that legal gun owners have not become “prohibited persons” between ammo purchases. If the voters like that assurance, how does the rest of the nation object to something that does not affect the rest of the nation. A federal court in Illinois ruled that a community can restrict gun rights if it makes the citizens feel safer. California is only doing what makes the citizens “feel safer”. In a free country, ammo and gun manufacturers have the right to refuse to do business where they cannot make a profit. And citizens can move to another state without paying an exit fee.

    Passing a security check for the sale of guns and ammunition is not an infringement because after the check, if you are not a prohibited person, you are free to purchase. If you are a prohibited person, you would be buying guns and ammo illegally.

    One curiosity about the California situation is whether the state can legally interfere with interstate commerce by banning online gun and ammo sales. Such law is not the same as produce inspection points on roads and at import points.

    • “because after the check”

      So you admit right there that what we have here is an infringement. Just want to be clear.

      The constitution doesn’t say ‘shall not infringe after certain state documents and clearances are processed.’.

    • The reason for creating the Bill of Rights was so that natural rights are protected from a majoritarian democratic process. If the gun-grabbers want to change the Constitution, there is a democratic process for doing so, but it requires significantly greater majorities across all states.

      • The second amendment was not created to ensure every citizen could have a firearm. It was created to prevent the central government from preempting state sovereignty over citizen actions within each state. We have forgotten what was what before the 14th amendment was stretched to force all federal law to apply to every state. The constitution was not designed to control the states, but only prohibit the central government from becoming as dictatorial and arbitrary as monarchy. There were many restrictions on all kinds of “rights” that were left to the states; actions not to be interfered with by the central government. So now we have a situation where we want sovereign states rights, and universal application of federal laws we like.

        • “rights”, or “Rights” have quotation marks to keep the words from being misconstrued as directions or correctness, that’s all.

    • “And citizens can move to another state without paying an exit fee.”

      Yeah … California tried that, actually, by demanding a fraction of retirement income from retirees who moved out-of-state when they retired.

      That got smacked down too.

      As to the rest, one small thing … the wishes of the many do not outweigh the rights of the few. Further, I should not be required to prove my worthiness to practice a Constitutional right.

      • Should clarify that was a tax for state employees. I think 1/4 of retired state employee move out of state after retirement. Instant 20% pay hike.

      • That attempt at getting part of my retirement almost stopped us from moving out of CA. When it was shot down we got out.

        Now we live in the Free State of Idaho, soon to be land of Constitutional Concealed Carry! (no permit to carry)

        • You gotta read the US constitution, me boy.

          Amemdment 10:
          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

          States have rights.
          (NOTE: Capital “S” states; listed before “the people. The States delegated power to the central government, the people delegate poser to the States.)

          If you are going to pontificate about “rights”, better know the truth. Ol’ Sam I Am does.

        • The 17th took away states say in federal management. That removed a major check on power. Now the Senate is a glorified house of Representatives . The 10th is largely ignored by agencies who write their own regulations

        • “The 17th took away states say in federal management. ”

          Doesn’t prevent a state from implementing confiscatory legislation, so long as the legislation doesn’t interfere with federal privilege.

    • Sam I Am,

      “Why do we not like the idea of states doing things the majority of the voters think necessary?”

      So, if 80% of California voters thinks it is necessary to confiscate ALL assets of people who own motorcycles and California enacts said law, that is righteous, correct?

      I think I speak for all of us when I say, “Hell no!”

      I think I also speak for all of us (except for you) that we like “the idea of states doing things the majority of the voters think necessary” as long as those “necessary things” do NOT infringe on our rights. Otherwise we have tyranny of the majority, as in the above example where a majority of people can vote away the assets of a minority class.

      • So, we actually like state’s rights until it involves something we don’t like.

        There is nothing preventing states from making moot the ownership of any asset. All it takes is properly crafted legislation. If the majority of voters support state legislation to tax all assets at 100% of its value, that would be legal. The minority in opposition would either comply or move. There is no constitutional right to be free of taxation (and if legislation is passed, it is de facto that representation was had).

        Whether or not we are pleased, courts are not going to overturn background checks on ammunition because you are not being denied a right; if you pass the check you can buy, nothing stopping you. If a state legislated the idea that ammunition must cost $10/rd (with all proceeds going to the manufacturer), where is the infringement? Just because something costs a bunch, and the price means many people cannot afford it, where is the constitutional authority prohibiting a state from setting such prices? Commerce clause? And what price is “too much”, for anything? Who decides ?

        California required all the emmission controls that appear in cars since the 70s. Other states did not. Yet, every car owner was required to buy all that stuff because the manufacturers decided it was too costly to build California-only cars. Under the environmental rubric, California could mandate that all ammunition must be bio-degradable (case and bullet). What happens then? Such regulation is not a second amendment infringement.

        Point is, the voters of California voted in the legislators, and the legislators are pressing the interests of their majority voters. There is no obligation, anywhere that the majority not rule. Even the entire constitution is subject to majority rule; large majority, but majority.

        What you are likely unhappy with is the fact that the majority of the public wants to get rid of guns, legislation favors that, courts validate it. When we don’t like what the majority is doing, we need to stop blubbering and become the majority. It is just silly to claim that the majority of the nation favors gun rights, when the majority of legislators, reflecting the majority of the voters, sponsors and passes anti-gun legislation over and again.

        • Those things may be LEGAL, but that does not make them RIGHT.

          I am not, and never will be, a “Law & Order” above all else person.

          You can make whatever damned law you please, but you can no more make me follow the new ones than you could the old.

          Civil society requires both the consent AND the assistance of the governed. There aren’t enough cops in all the USA to force every single Californian to do ANYTHING, if they don’t voluntarily comply.

          You might get a few, but you won’t get ’em all, and there WILL be casualties on both sides.

          If you think that folks will just sit around and say, “Oh, well they passed a law that says they get to come take all our stuff and kill us now, I guess we’ll just sit here meekly and wait to die. I’ll go get out the deed to the house and the car title so the cops can find them easily after they skrag us.”, you’re a loony.

          Push people too hard and see what happens.

          Hint: It won’t be pretty for anyone involved.

        • If “consent of the governed” means every voter, at every instance of legislation, the “consent” is never granted. “Consent of the governed” means they voted, in the majority, to propagate or allow whatever their representatives do in their name. “Consent of the governed” never meant everyone was a sovereign, equal or superior to the populace at large, with the “right” to ignore whatever one does not like (that is anarchy, pure and simple).

        • Sam,

          The U.S. Constitution precisely defines what/how the federal government can tax. It says nothing about how States can tax … other than forbidding states from taxing the products/services of other states at a rate any different from their own internal tax.

          It is stunning that you consider a state law (taking 100% of a minority group’s assets) righteous as long as a majority of voters approve.

          I will give it one last try to illustrate the fault in your thinking. Suppose 80% of voters in California demand a law which says any man can demand that any woman totally disrobe immediately, any time and any place, and women must comply or be sent to prison for 5 years … and the California legislature dutifully passes that law. Is that cool? Are women obligated to disrobe whenever any man demands it? Is that righteous? The obvious answer is “NO!” because such a law is an affront to the human dignity of women. Whatever “compelling government interest” or “public safety” rationale that the government used to justify that law does . not . matter.

          As you hopefully see, majority support of a government law does not legitimize any and every possible law that government may pass. Some such laws are dehumanizing, obscene, and should have no place in our society.

        • States can pass any law, requiring anything so long as no other laws (state or federal) are violated. Your example is not germane.

          For purposes of understanding how politics (as reflected in laws) works, forget standards of morals and character. You can stomp your foot all day and the law will not change. Nor will the opposition be deterred. People here seem to think that if some political act (law) violates sensibilities, mores then that action is invalid on its face and unenforceable. Not so. Simply declaring ones values are superior to one law or another does nothing to rid us of that law. Thinking that because something is morally reprehensible then laws will not be enacted to permit/justify those acts is simply foolish.

          The “law” regarding infringement of a constitutionally protected right pretty much requires almost total denial of that right in order for that law to be found “unconstitutional”. Courts may be morally wrong in their rulings, but morality will not change the decision. Morality will not prevent enforcement.

          If California citizen want to make it insufferable for people to live there, California citizens can do so, within existing laws regarding federal civil rights and federal law. From a political and legal point, I don’t care if a government becomes legally immoral, but legally correct. I do care about either taking action to reverse the law, or overturn the political system.

          Government’s purpose is whatever the majority of its voters and representatives say it is. What burns people like you and others here is we are constantly on the losing side and seem to have no hope of stemming the tide. That is politics. Face it. If we cannot find a way to reverse the perversity of the culture (and thence the law), it is possible we will one day be forced to choose between tolerating or destroying (the founders would have destroyed it decades ago).

        • The majority doesn’t want to get rid of guns, they want to take them away from people they don’t trust or like. Simple fascism

        • Sam I Am,

          Your last comment suggests that you are not advocating for the legal landscape in the United States. Rather, it suggests that you are simply trying to characterize the legal landscape in the United States. And, recognizing that legal landscape in the United States for what it is (however flawed it may or may not be), you are suggesting how to actually change the legal landscape — either regionally through a cultural sea-change in the region (leading to changes in laws to reflect the cultural sea-change) or personally through leaving the region with the laws that an individual finds reprehensible.

          Is that correct?

        • Sam I Am,

          I applaud your pragmatist approach.

          Friendly suggestion:
          When talking with gun-rights advocates, first tell them you are trying to help them develop an effective strategy for real change … and that you are NOT advocating for the way things are.

          For what it is worth, I am trying to generate real change with my comments as well … using pretty much the same strategy believe it or not. I am pointing out the destructive flaws in the current legal landscape — especially how the current legal landscape is wrong on principle — because people have to first understand that there is a problem before they develop any interest to solve it. Second, people have to know the specific nature of a problem and potential solutions before they can decide whether or not to support my proposed solution.

          So, in my own way, I am trying to inspire a cultural sea-change in order to rectify the current legal landscape. I am appealing to the inherent sense of honor and right-versus-wrong in people in the hope that they will demand change for the good.

          Whether or not that strategy is a wise strategy is entirely up for debate … and I would be the first to question the efficacy of such an approach.

    • Sam I Am,

      There is another problem with your position. If it is okay for California to require a background check before ammunition sales, then it is also okay for California to require a background check before condom sales, correct? After all, a person purchasing a condom could be a convicted pedophile/rapist getting ready to assault someone and wants the condoms to facilitate their crime and eliminate DNA evidence. Oh, and it is also totally okay that such background checks cost $20 and require registration of every condom purchase, right?

      Again, the correct response is “Hell no!”.

      And when violent criminals start using nylon stockings to conceal their identity and strangle thousands of people … and the people of California despise the ownership and use of nylon stockings … it will be okay to require expensive background checks before purchasing nylon stockings and registration of said sales? And the answer yet again is “NO!!!”.

      • You man not like reality, but yes, voters in California can establish the checks you mentioned. If legislation is of a type not acceptable, the proper response is to become the new majority and get what you want. This is the grown-up league.

        • Sam I Am,

          Wow. You really don’t understand the righteous role of government nor inherent human dignity, do you?

          The righteous role of government is to safeguard our rights and to punish evil-doers … to promote human dignity.

          Government has no righteous authority to interfere in someone’s life unless that someone has harmed a victim or is trying to harm a victim. Anything more denies our inherent human dignity and relegates us to mere State chattel. It is inherently obscene and an affront to my human dignity when government, without any evidence, brands me a violent criminal, by default denies my rights, and requires that I somehow establish otherwise before I can go about my life.

          Government is not God.

        • Not telling anyone what is “righteous”, simply what is. If you want to deal with “want to be”, you will be left standing on the corner. Right now, theory, theology, hope don’t matter. We need to understand what is, and what is likely to be. Without taking real life head-on, in stead of making things happen, one is left wondering, “What happened?”.

          People here too often seem to believe that strong statements of irrelevancies is some sort of talisman, fending off the bogeyman. ‘Taint happenin’. The law doesn’t care about justice or right or wrong. It just cares about the law. Control the law and you control the nation.

        • Did you know the USC was intended to prevent pure democracy AKA majority tyranny?
          Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner

        • The constitution was designed to stop what we see today: central government tyranny.

          The structure of the government, with three branches, representation of the public via Congressmen and Senators and democratic (little “d”) decision-making (voting). Except for House and/or Senate rules (which are not embedded in the constitution) requiring “super majorities”, simple majority holds. Voters elect representatives by majority or plurality vote, representatives then enact legislation via simple majority vote.

          The result is a representative democracy, or a republican (little “r”) form of government – “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”

          Barring the use of overwhelming force (military action), the “majority” of voters rule in our republic. It was not a minority vote that ended slavery, it was raw power of the Union government. If things had been let alone, slavery would persist in certain states until a majority of the people, and then the legislatures, voted to end slavery (or slavery simply proved too expensive to continue). Or, maybe the SC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional, and the slave states might have yielded, rather than rebel. Such a court decision would have overruled the majorities in the slave states, becoming rule of the minority of states.

          Simply put, there is no constitutional provision that specifically requires that the “majority” cannot pass legislation that is adverse to a minority of the voters on/for a given piece of legislation. There is nothing stating that the “majority” of voters in a given circumstance cannot prevail just because the issue is somehow inconvenient for the “minority” of voters. Else, nothing could be accomplished, because someone (or group of someones) will always object to something.

        • No, this is what unchecked illegal immigration and massive vote fraud applied to the over democratized process of selecting representatives looks like.

          Having your nation invaded and taken from you by gov’t collusion with 3rd world nations to dump their excess poor people is not a democratic process, it is a coup by other means.

          If you think that’s a valid method of governing a nation, I’ve got a newsflash for you.

          Many people still think that applying those “original means” is a valid method for rolling back an invasion and retaking the gov’t of our nation.

          Again, keep smugly pushing people around until you get them into a hard corner, and see what happens.

        • Whether we like it or not, the majority of voters in the country are not “conservatives”. Neither is the majority pro-2A. We have won a small victory here and there, but surface waves tell you nothing about the poser of water below the surface.

          Demoncrats figure out long ago that importing more dependents (larger support programs) meant more future voters (either amnesty or next generation citizen). Conservatives just kept doing what they always did. You can’t end voter fraud (real, potential, or imagined) without being in the majority (and squishes will continue to be subservient to the minority). But politicians have been allowed (by the majorities of both parties) to simply rule as they see advantageous (which means majority rule is probably worthless, anyway). This is the way it is. Accept it, change it, or overturn it. Screaming “foul” only works on the baseball diamond.,

        • No, this is what idiocracy, I mean democracy, looks like. Tyranny of the majority.

        • OK, as my old flying instructor used to say, “Follow me through.”:

          – Two candidates stand for the same office; one wins by majority of voters
          – Winning candidate goes to legislative office (whatever location, local, state, federal)
          – Issue at hand needs voting on by elected representative (so far, we have representative republicanism [little “r”])
          – The elected representative votes according to wishes of the majority of voters represented (or votes to follow party line; more on that later).
          – Elected representative continues to operate in that mode until time for the next election
          – Representative stands for re-election
          – Representative is re-elected by a majority of the voters
          – Representative republican form works as designed; but the minority now must accept, become the majority, forcefully overturn
          – Not liking the outcome does nothing to invalidate the process

          Now about illegal voters and party sycophants:
          – Elected representative follows party, lockstep
          – Representative stands for re-election
          – Representative is re-elected
          – Representative republicanism/democracy process works; majority will is reflected because the representative is not “thrown out”

          – Elected representative endorses, encourages, legitimizes fraud and illegal voting because majority of voters or party supports such
          – Representative stands for re-election
          – Representative is re-elected
          – Representative republicanism/democracy process works; majority will is reflected because the representative is not “thrown out”

          This is how representative republicanism/democracy works. If the majority of voters re-elect a representative, even a crook, the majority has political representation (there are no representatives of the minority in elections). The founders specifically rejected a parliamentary system where “proportional” representation is present.

          Accept, change or overthrow

        • Sam – Whether we like it or not, the majority of voters in the country are not “conservatives”. Neither is the majority pro-2A.

          Political events of the last few months are trending to show that you likely are wrong about the 1st. Note turnout for the demtard primary. HOWEVER on the GOP side a BUNCH of the “have never participated”/TV “reality” show viewers are deciding that a reprobate is the answer to the dysfunctional RINO problem.

          We don’t know conclusively if the majority is pro-2A but based on trend in sales and ownership and the newfound GOP primary turnout evidence is you are wrong.

          As note above, the presence of mass illegals is distorting all political issues.

        • Kinda out of sequence:
          – Gun sales cannot be construed as an increase in the number of gun owners. There is no central data source for who is a new buyer and who is buying more. We would like to think there is a one-for-one NICS ration of background checks to gun ownership, and a one-to-one new buyer to background check ratio; not prudent.

          – We have no data to support the hope that people newly involved politically are all “conservatives”, and that these new people will all vote, and all vote for conservative/pro-constitution candidates; not prudent

          – We have no data to support the idea that low voter activity on the Demoncrat party side means the culture is shifting to the right; not prudent

          – We have no data to support the idea that the dependency class will not vote in massive numbers

          – We should not be confident until about 75% of the voting public is strongly “conservative”, for an extended period.

          We are at an important moment in our history, but never underestimate the ability of honorable people to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    • The U.S. wasn’t conceived as a direct democracy. It’s a representative democracy — a republic, actually. Situations like this one in CA and the recent anti-gun initiative in WA are great illustrations of the reason why.

      As others here have pointed out, the civil liberties protected in the Bill of Rights are NOT subject to the ordinary democratic process. If the government is Constitutionally prevented from restricting those liberties, then my fellow citizens can’t vote them away either — especially considering they’ll be using government as the means of removing them.

      • You are seeing representative democracy. The voters picked their legislators, the legislators are representing the notions of the majority of their voters. System works. Don’t like the outcome, change the majority or change the system. Stamping of feet and thumping of chest is not a recognized political theory or practical political tactic.

    • ‘Passing a security check for the sale of guns and ammunition is not an infringement because after the check, if you are not a prohibited person, you are free to purchase. If you are a prohibited person, you would be buying guns and ammo illegally.’

      I’m fine with that logic on one condition; V-O-T-E-R I-D. It’s not an infringement because after the check, if you are who you say you are and haven’t voted already, you are free to vote. If you aren’t who you say you are, you would be voting illegally.

        • Something tells me the people pushing this bill would scream bloody murder about the unjust ‘infringement’ of voter ID.

        • illegal voters are a net plus for society; legal gun owners obviously a net negative.

          Had to use the lower case “i” because otherwise it looked like “3legal”

    • there is no case law that says a state cannot put a tax on the sale of an item (thus, ammo taxes).
      ——————
      Yes, there is such case law, and it’s quite substantial.
      A right cannot be taxed in a manner that other goods and services are taxed, unless the tax is specifically to aid in the exercise of that right.
      So, sales tax can apply to ammo and gun purchases because sales tax is a blanket tax that applies to most other goods.
      The Federal Tax going to wildlife preservation is Constitutional, because it is to advance firearm ownership.
      But, an tax could not be placed on buying guns simply to make it more expensive to buy them, anymore than a tax could be placed on obtaining an abortion.
      There’s a reason why States, where the majority of voters oppose legal abortion, simply don’t place a $10,000 tax on abortion in order to drive abortion providers out of business, and that reason is that it is unconstitutional.

    • Well Sam, I suppose I should be grateful. Here you are, inviting us to worship. Of course the States have rights! The State can, at will, impose whatever infringements and checks as deemed necessary. It is not our place to question the State. Many here think the Constitution is meant to limit the State, and that certain rights are unalienable. Of course Sam and the State know this to be false. For those missing the call to worship, I’ll describe the “wonderful” experience for you.

      -Atheists and Christians are welcome
      -The State has room for all
      -“Your” property is our property. We can confiscate it or tax it as we see fit
      -You are allowed to own guns only so long as we approve of it. We dictate background checks, where you can carry, and how you can carry…if we allow you to carry at all, that is
      -The right to vote is unlimited. It includes those who are too stupid to obtain an ID. No taxes can be placed on voting, nor any restrictions whatsoever
      -If you can pass a background check now, don’t think you have some right to your property in the future. We reserve the right to modify our checks as we see fit, and we change our minds. Often.
      -You may keep your other faith – for now – as long as it does not interfere with the rights of the State
      -You may not question climate change
      -You may not question Islam
      -You must celebrate every form of transgenderism with enthusiasm whenever we see fit. Boys may use girls locker rooms and showers whenever they see fit. We have deemed this so, and it is not subject to question
      -You must not gather rainwater. It falls from the skies and we own it
      -You must not question your elected officials in high office
      -You must not question your taxes
      -You must not question our laws
      -You must not question why our laws are selectively enforced
      -You must not question why illegal immigrants get more access to healthcare than veterans
      -You must not question the economic feasibility of our laws
      -You must ration your water, gas, and electricity
      -You must not question why we do not ration our water, gas, and electricity
      -You must not question why we send thousands of guns to other nations, with no background checks
      -You need not be concerned about armed cartels in Mexico
      -You have no right to privacy, including your cellular phones, x rays of your body at airports, etc.
      -The NRA is a terrorist organization
      -Gun owners are racists and bigots
      -Anyone who does not worship the State may be an insurectionist
      -You may not question the rights of the State, unless briefly and in jest, only to be followed by enthusiastic affirmation of the rights of the State

      There is a call to worship, and Sam gets it. The State wishes to make the transition from limited freedom and rights to State-designated freedom as painless as possible. Resistance is futile.

      • Thank your for saying “Sam I Am gets it.” But, apparently you don’t. Sam merely points out hypocrisy. On the one hand, POTG want to limit the ability of the central government to interfere with the people in the states, allow states to pretty much act according to the benefit of the people of a particular state. On the other hand, when an individual state takes action according to the benefit and wishes of the people of thate state, POTG get fired-up about how unjust an individual state action is to the rest of the nation. Can’t have it both ways.

        Either we adhere to the notion (based on the constitution) that states retain rights not delegated to the central government, or we don’t. It cannot be situational.

        • Horseshit. The states, and the laws they pass, are supposed to be limited by the Constitution. Guess why I, as a government agent not working for federal law enforcement, need a search warrant to search a cell phone. The 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment is supposed to apply to state and municipal laws. Sometimes it does.

          Of course it mostly really doesn’t. There are thousands of laws being put forth and passed that lack any sort of decency or constitutional restraint. They serve no purpose other than a politician’s fancy, or for the government to gain power at the expense of the people.

          History is quite clear what happens when governments become too large and powerful. Tyranny is not moral, even if large masses of useful idiots vote it in.

        • We are talking about two different things, here. States are free to enact whatever they like…so long as it does not interfere with federal privilege/law. Discussion about what a federal/central government can/cannot do is for a different conversation. A bullet sales tax of whatever amount is legal (state and federal) so long as sales tax is applied to all sales. California is not assessing a possession tax (taxing inventory), but only a tax upon sale. The fact that a minority of voters in California (and voters in other states) do not like the tax does not invalidate the tax. A federal bullet tax would be a whole ‘nuther animal.

          My point is that we cannot trumpet that the federal government is too intrusive into state activity, and also claim that a state operating independently is somehow unacceptable.

  8. “California wants to ensure that legal gun owners have not become “prohibited persons” between ammo purchases.”

    Bell squat. California wants to force gunowners to pay wildly inflated prices for ammo due to having to pay for a NICS check before each purchase. Count on later laws restricting you from buying more than one caliber at a time (NICS check), more than 20 rounds at a time, so on and so forth. Everybody knows the actual goal, it boggles the mind that so many people are actually PROUD of defying our laws, ignoring the constitution, forcing bullshit down the throats of their neighbors, all to save us from ourselves, because we are so helpless and they are so smart and all-knowing.

    We need a constitutional amendment to the effect that those who insist on intrusive restrictions like NICS should be the ones paying for it. If this Background Check crap were going to cost the CA taxpayers millions every yearit would not stand a chance, since it will have no positive effect. But since the costs will be borne by the hated gunowner, then hell yes, let’s do it twice!

    • The state wants to have a record of all ammo purchases so they know who has what and how much.

      Making the proles pay more for it and pocketing the cash is a bonus.

      • The guiding tenent of anti-tax supporters is that when you tax something you get less of it. This is the underpinning for virtually all opposition to new or increased taxation. California may not be so dumb. By taxing (literally and by burden) gun and ammo sales, making it so burdensome and expensive that only a few can afford it, California gets much, much closer to the goal of zero firearms for law-abiding citizens (no one cares about the criminal element).

        • Yes, there is that. It’s diabolically brilliant…and considering the Supreme Court seems to agree that the government has a virtually unlimited right to tax virtually anything to an unlimited degree, it just might work.

  9. First I thought Cali could be saved…

    After more and more BS (especially post Sandy Hook), I felt that Cali had become a lost cause…

    Then there was the ruling on carry licenses and it brought me back to thinking we could save Cali…

    Now the Governor says he will build a wall around Cali, if Trump wins, and I am thinking the Cali problem might take care of itself.

  10. And $XXXX.XX bucks in reloading supplies later, I don’t GAF. Newchump and Bloomfurher can’t stop me from having ammo when I want it. Remember the last component drought? Get ready for round 2, the Varget boogaloo.

  11. “The focus of efforts to reduce gun violence in this state should be on those responsible for that violence …”

    Hah! Gun-grabbers believe that lawful gun owners are, indeed, responsible for violent crime. Why? Because gun-grabbers are convinced that violent crime will drop significantly if they could just outlaw all guns in the hands of We the People. And since We the People insist on owning firearms and have blocked legislative attempts to ban all firearm ownership, that makes us responsible for violent crime. Thus they are on-board with anything that will stick-it to “lawful” gun owners.

    Does you head hurt trying to understand those verbal gymnastics? Mine sure hurt in the process of typing it.

  12. In my beloved NY state (I still have to live here for certain reasons) and I do love it for what it once was, the Safe Act was supposed to incorporate “nics on ammo”.After a 28 million dollar investment they have basically given up. How much of Cali peoples money is this haircut willing to squander? I think I know the answer

    • Same thought here and also living behind enemy lines in NY. Per my sources in Albany, the State Police tried to explain the math of ammunition checks vs. gun purchase checks, but Little Il Duce was having none of it. After the 28 mil, the state had gotten nowhere. Nowhere Not a working prototype system. Nowhere. This is not hard. I might buy one firearm every 5 years, but I’ll buy ammo 20x per year. Imagine the surge in the two weeks before major seasons open. Or as I pointed out to my local assembly critter (a through and through collectivist) all that will happen is normal people will stockpile if they have to pay a fee and go through a laborious process and there will simply be an active market in people reselling and trading to each other.

      • Another one situationally stuck in The People’s Republic on New York for now, speaking up.

        Oh, the cost, feasibility, or even long-term political consequences of passing the SAFE act were never considerations. It was just another element of Proconsul Cuomo-the-Younger’s positioning for the presidential bid his father never made (and in the event he won’t either.)

        – Get on the right side of gun control, for the base – check.

        – Get on the right side of education reform, for the base – check.

        – Get all “but I’m pro-business” as inoculation for the general with:
        — The NYS regional “hunger games” as an economic ministry initiative,
        — And the tax breaks / economic incentives, producing collateral for the $25million+ in-kind campaign contributions, in the form of out of state advertising “for the program”, positioning Cuomo as all economic development-y. Seriously, look at the positioning of NYS vs. “Governor Cuomo” in those ads. It wasn’t even subtle.
        – And muscle in on federal economic development money flows anywhere into upstate. Get your fingers on anything that moves. (Just follow Chucky around if you’re not sure.)

        The poor scion of the evolving permanent ruling class had three unanticipated problems.

        – DB-Hizzonor moved hard to the left while Cuomo can’t be seen taking this guy out & still have a shot at the White House.

        – Presumptive-nominee Clinton’s starting base is Manhattan / NYC, where the Proconsul’s is also. Once she carpetbags into NY, she has first call on that support. Since he can’t be seen taking her out, either, she has had to implode before he could move.

        – Couldn’t keep the lid on the Albany scandals and corruptions long enough. It made the national news.

        State developments in The Imperial State are perfectly predictable if you assume:

        – It’s about routing any movement through the Albany patronage machine, so they get their cut. These people elevated graft to a high art nearly a century before most of the rest of the country.

        – It’s about positioning for Cuomo-the-Younger’s presidential run. This would have been any of 2004, through to the present. He got preempted on the last three, so this one was it.

        At this point his hopes of elevation are slim. Even without the corruption boiling over, he’d have only been about 5th in line to be drafted if presumptive-nominee Clinton is disqualified by criminal proceedings. So, we’re stuck with him. Really, what else is he gonna do?

  13. “(the proposed measure) would expand that prohibition to high-capacity magazines grandfathered in by the law.”

    This, people, is an example of the LIE they tell when they say, “We’re not banning them, you just have to register them.”

    Nudge: The political theory of passing an unpopular law. Don’t try and pass the law you really want, just pass the smallest part that is politically viable. Later, when the furor has died down, pass another one, just a little bit more restrictive. Say condescending things like “Nobody is trying to take your guns (or magazines away!”

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Slowly ‘Nudge’ your way to your end goal of banning civilian gun ownership…

  14. Aww…so sad.. No carve outs for CA LEO’s or Corrections?
    Outrageous violations of 2A rights! (for the above..)

  15. Dianne Feinstein, one of her first acts as mayor was to revoke all pistol permits in S.F., except for one, hers.
    Need I say more?

  16. I have 3 siblings willing to host my M&P 15 if this measure passes in CA. 4 yrs until I can retire and move back to America.

  17. “…..this measure will create a new class of criminals out of those that already comply with common sense practices that now exist”

    Actually that what “the Left” intended to do when they crafted the bill ie. make “law-abiding citizens” into “criminals” it’s just another way they can later deny them their 2nd Amendment Rights because of a “conviction” plus “the state” gets the added benefit of financial penalties which increases revenue. Remember we are up against a diabolical bunch, their treachery knows no bounds.

  18. And Newsom was the youngest mayor in the history of San Francisco.

    Supported an immigration “sanctuary city” policy as mayor preventing city cooperation with federal immigration enforcement – apparently harboring some implicated in past and future criminal activity including gang homicides.

    Lives in a lovely 2+ million dollar home…no need for firearms himself as I guess he has a CHP security detail as Lt Gov…and the fact that he is distantly related by marriage to Nancy Pelosi is just icing on the “guns for me none for thee” cake.

  19. ‘If voted into law, Californians would have to undergo a background check just to buy ammo.’

    Hmm… No limits on how much ammo you can buy? No way to trace ammo back to the purchaser? I’m seeing a lucrative side business. Who says I don’t shoot 7000 rounds of 9mm and 5.56 every month?

    • See details of the bill below. You can buy all you want, and stockpile all you want, but all of your purchases will be reported to the California DOJ, along with your identifying information. Big Brother is watching.

        • What’s a misdemeanor when you are committing dozens of felonies every day? They’ll ship it in by the van load should the need arise.

  20. Gavin will win. I’ve heard him on the radio several times. He’ll win and he’s just as clueless as you would think based on the story above.

    He is a true believer in the all things democrat and could care less about actual results in his actions.

    • He is certainly the leading candidate at this point, with Kamala Harris #2. However, she is running to replace Boxer when Boxer retires at the end of her term, and if elected, Newsome will be virtually unopposed, as no one from either party has the exposure he does. (Though there are some indications Senator DeLe Loon may vie for the post.)

  21. Let’s add some detail to increase the ire. The bill requires:
    1. All buyers to obtain a California ammo license, with background check ($50.) I believe this license must be renewed every two years, again with a background check, and presumably for the same $50 fee.
    2. All sellers of ammo must be licensed by the state (with a license separate from their license to sell guns), as well as any employee who sells ammo to the public (and of course there is no need to say, “with a background check”). This of course is not free.
    3. All sales transactions must be video recorded.
    4. The seller must make a record of the name, age, address, date of purchase, number of rounds and caliber of all ammo sold. He must also perform a NICS instant background check on all purchasers before culminating the sale. (Amount of the NICS surcharge not specified.)
    5. All ammo sales must be completed in a face to face transaction.
    6. Internet sales are allowed, however, the ammo must be shipped to a licensed ammo seller who will complete the transaction, fulfilling all of the foregoing requirements. Presumably for a fee (not set by the proposed law) at least sufficient to cover the costs of the mandates of the bill. Probably more.
    7. ALL SALES INFORMATION (as detailed in 4, above) MUST BE REPORTED BY THE SELLER TO THE CALIFORNIA DOJ AT LEAST WEEKLY.
    8. Bringing ammo in from another state without complying with the requirements outlined above will be a misdemeanor.

    The bill will require the development of a computer infrastructure that does not exist, and an increase in the staff of the DOJ to process the background checks, but Newsome is convinced that with10 million firearms owners and enthusiasts, the system will pay for itself just through the licensing fees.

    This is a voter initiative under California law that, if the requisite signatures are obtained, will be on the ballot in November. Since it merely amends an exiting statute, it requires only a majority vote to pass. Given that it appears a majority of California voters believe that gun control is not just a good idea, but a GREAT one, it will likely pass. If passed, the law will not go into effect until January 1, 2018 (because no one will have a license to buy or sell until then), which will give us something of an opportunity to stock up.

    • As pointed out above, Little Il Duce here in NY thought the same, despite the efforts of the State Police to explain the simple math of gun purchase checks versus ammunition. $28 mil later the state had gotten exactly nowhere…one problem being that the NICs system is not designed to handle that volume of activity. They gave up after two completely futile years of effort. I also doubt that a punitive set of fees and taxes would stand up to legal test.

      • 10,000,000 purchasers at $50 a pop for the IDs means $500,000,000 to start. $24 million may mean (a little) something if it comes out of the general budget, but 40 times that much means nothing at all when it comes solely out the pockets of gun owners. And if center fire pistol ammo shoots up to $2.00 a round, and rifle ammo $4.00, when all the costs of the licenses, videos, record keeping, employee training, etc., are passed on to the consumer, so much the better. Of course, it means that most shooters (those who do not reload) will simply have to buy in bulk, which of course will freak out the legislative drones and the DOJ and Newsome no end.

    • Not just Newsom. It is the underlying belief for all lefties, liberals, statists. There can be no law-abiding gun owners because: just owning a gun makes you criminally inclined; a “law-abiding” gun owner is always a split second away from not being law-abiding.

  22. Turning everyone into criminals, literally, has been an ongoing project with the end goal that the PTB can subjectively prosecute whomever they want, because everyone is breaking some laws just to exist.

  23. We have lovely beaches on the East and Gulf coast from Maine through Florida and around through Texas. Except for MA through MD, the costs are lower, the taxes are lower, and the gun laws are friendly. If you want mountains, numerous Mountain States and states along the Appalachians (excluding NY and MD) provide the same. If for some odd reason you like the desert, just move across the state line. If you crave a large city, move to Atlanta or Northern VA or just over the NH line from Boston and you can have the city but also have the AR. The rest of the country has all the same industries as CA, whether computers, wineries, aircraft, ports, agriculture, etc. Maybe not movie production in a large way, but who the f*** cares. Why would anyone want to stay there and put up with the regulations and taxes? I left NY a long time ago for reasons that had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with cost of living and lifestyle opportunities, and like many of you who have left similar locales, have never looked back.

    • +1

      I’m in The Imperial State situationally. Whatever you like here, you can find somewhere else, better run. Once the situation plays out, I’m moving out, as the Poet Laureate of Long Island said.

      Interestingly, a more extreme crash n burn could make staying viable. Downstate surplus from being a financial hub funds their upstate meddling hobby. They start getting a little pinched, n the frission of fixing people far away gets swamped by latte deprivation.

      Not likely,, but it could happen. I, too, am sentimental for the once n possibly future N Y. Not counting on it.

  24. The Paradox of Gun Control

    “If you are for gun control. Then you are not against guns, because you will need the police’s guns to disarm people.
    So it’s not that you are Anti-Gun. Instead, you believe ONLY the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous and never corrupt…) should be allowed to have guns.
    There is NO such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership into the hands of a Small, Political Elite and their Minions.”
    Stefan Molyneux

Leave a Reply

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