California’s “Safety for All” Ballot Initiative (Magazine Ban) Qualifies for November Ballot

newsom-gavinIII

“Citing the failure of the state Legislature to act, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that he has collected 600,000 signatures of California voters, more than enough to qualify a gun control initiative for the November ballot,” latimes.com reports, without mentioning the fact that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg paid for agitators to collect those ballots. “Over 600,000 registered voters want to take some bold action on gun safety,” Newsome trumpeted. If approved, the “Safety for All” initiative (full text below) would . . .

. . . require background checks for purchasers of ammunition, ban possession of  ammunition magazine clips holding more than 10 rounds [ED: described in the initiative as “military­ style assault weapon magazines”], provide a process for felons and other disqualified persons to relinquish firearms and require owners to report when their guns are lost or stolen.

The initiative would also address an issue caused by the previous adoption of Proposition 47, which made thefts of guns worth under $1,000 a misdemeanor. The ballot measure would make all gun thefts a felony.

Problem? Who’s going to comply with a mandate to sell or surrender “high capacity” ammunition magazines (not clips) to the state government? Statistically speaking, no one. Unless there’s a major law enforcement initiative. Which would be inadvisable on a whole lot of levels. Here’s the penalty for importing, owning or coddling a “military style magazine”:

(c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large­capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large­ capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large ­capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

California. What you gonna do?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    I don’t know what they are smoking these AR magazines are clearly 10 round .50 Beowulf magazines. Pay no attention to the pile of 5.56 followers in the other drawer.

    1. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

      Pulling a Canada, are we now?

    2. avatar Jon in CO says:

      I actually sent Magpul an email requesting they send 10rd .458 SOCOM mags to people in unfriendly states. Never got a reply on that.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        According the Wilson Combat, the Lancer mags are better than Pmags for .50 Beowulf because of their steel feed lips. Might try contacting Magpul again, or Lancer or Hexmag?

    3. avatar Xanthro says:

      .458 SOCOM uses standard 5.56 followers in PMag, and holds ten rounds.
      I reload it as well.

    1. avatar Foster says:

      Nice to see Bill Cosby working again… 😉
      On a serious note… Whiskey tango foxtrot!? We need ballot measure that makes ballot measures in contradiction to the 2nd amendment a crime. I would like to see Gavin in the stocks on the capitol steps.

      1. avatar DrVino says:

        This is precisely why we don’t have a direct democracy.
        It allows a technical majority to vote away your basic rights.
        So when Trump and his minions start chattering about their “vote not counting” rather than understanding how the system of reprentative delegates and iterative ballottin works I really am nervous they will empower the National Popular Vote movement. And that would be the end of our republic.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        The question is, do the elected representatives (and LEOs) of California swear an oath to uphold the Constitutiton of California or of the United States, or both? If only California, they do not have an equivalent in their constitution to the 2A, more’s the pity.

        Seems like if (when) Bernie loses to Hillary he should maybe move to Cali and run for governor, he’s fit right in.

  2. avatar Bill says:

    Sadly, the people of my state will vote for this. We’re too fracking stupid.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      slight correction, THEY are too fvking stupid. Not us. I live and work in CA and consider myself a man apart from his fellows (likely correctly I assume).

      1. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

        BINGO! Gawd dam right. I am staying here until next year then I am gone like the doughnut tray at a 6yr olds birthday party. Finally the more vehement anti 2A members of my family are asking the correct question about these initiatives, “How are infringements on us (law abiding citizens) going to stop criminals with guns in their illegal possession?”

        Now if I could just push for more voters to not vote for Hildebeast and choose Trump or Cruz, then maybe we could start whittling away the bozos like Newsom.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          You do know Trump donated money to this Newsome ass, right?

    2. avatar No-one Special in SC says:

      Is the state of California holding you hostage? Don’t like being surrounded by non like minded people? Vote with your feet and move.

  3. avatar Robert Farago says:

    By the way, “military-style magazines” would be made of metal. Does the law mean to exclude polymer mags?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Doubtful. At various times, Glocks were .mil issue…

    2. avatar BDub says:

      Would “military­ style assault weapon magazines” exclude pistol magazines?

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      Don’t forget the 7-round 1911 magazines and 8-round M1 clips.
      Those two weapons were used by the military in quite a few assaults.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        In a confrontation with law enforcement armed with AR 15s and (exempted) 30 round mags, I do not think an M1 Garand will be all that effective. There is a reason they are obsolete – even an AK 47 outclasses them in pure firepower.

        1. avatar Ad Astra says:

          Obviously you have never been on the wrong side of .30-06 Springfield/7.62×63mm.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          You don’t have a clue, I would much rather be shot at with an AR 15 than anyone who knows how to use a M1. Honestly I would take a M14 over an M16 (and actually did when I was in the Air Force) as long as I was in a vehicle. Now if I had to hike with the stupid thing or had optics to mount on it, AR baby

    4. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      I hope that vague definition will help to speed it out via the courts if this nonsense passes via the voters.

    5. avatar The Dude Abides says:

      Pmags have been issued equipment before.

    6. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Several branches of the military specifically ban the use of polymer mags, you may be on to something there.

      The first case that gets heard on this technicality is likely to bankrupt the defendant, and then being Cali and all, either K Harris appeals and gets it thrown out like she did when Peruts didn’t go her way or they will call an emergency session of the lege to amend the law and ban polymer mags too.

      Lost cause, California deserves the government they have given themselves.

      1. avatar Clay says:

        But the American people that want to live there do not. California is a beautiful place that I would love to live in.

        1. avatar LongBeach says:

          It is beautiful. I love living here, but I wish the government was more freedom-minded. I’ll keep voting the right way, hopefully my neighbors join me soon… It’d be nice to have a 30rd mag in my AR right now…

  4. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

    The use of the term importation may make the initiative unconstitutional because only the Federal government may regulate foreign and interstate commerce. Despite being a liberal bastion the 9th circuit is known for protecting federal constitutional prerogatives. They would probably uphold the ban on possession but not importation.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      The article says import, the bill’s text (if that’s the complete text) does not.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        The last time I was in Arizona, someone told me of a sign advertising avocados for sale, “imported from California.”

        Indeed. I feel like I need a passport to go there.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        The issue is moot. It has been illegal to acquire 10+ round mags for ANY firearm since 1991, and only those owned prior to that date are excepted. It is also illegal to transfer such mags in this state, although sales out of state are permitted, but you have to take them out of state first if you wish to offer them for sale. Hence, whether or not importation affects the interstate commerce clause is irrelevant. The only change in this initiative is that it now bans those grandfathered mags as well.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          Correct on all counts. Since 1991, the law requires anyone with high capacity magazines to prove that the magazines were possessed prior to 1991 which is impossible if you did not keep receipts. In practice, this burden of proof is a de-facto ban. The proposition will pass because it simplifies the law and is no change in practice.

    2. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      Since when has unconstitutional stopped these men? SAFE act? Obamacare?

      On and on.

  5. avatar Binder says:

    Maybe Heinlein had it right, Honorable Discharge needed to vote.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      I have always wondered about that.

      Long term, IMO, would be a disaster, there would be plenty of cronyism to get lil senator jr thru the military system so he could be eligable to run for office somewhere.

    2. avatar John P. says:

      +1. “Starship Troopers” had the right idea when it comes to defining citizenship. If you want the benefits, you have to pay your dues.

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Being a property owner was once a requirement in this country to vote.

      Probably not a bad idea, either.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        Now THAT would go a long way toward solving our problems.

        Though I can imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth of inner city dwellers. You know, the majority of whom don’t vote now anyway.

      2. avatar SurfGW says:

        With property taxes being what they are in CA, requiring property to vote means most people could not vote.

  6. avatar Geoff PR says:

    What kind of work-around can California shooters use to minimize the impact of the BC cost on ammo?

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Components aren’t ammunition. Load your own, and save lots of money as well.
      For carry ammo*, just buy it on annual trips to Vegas or Phoenix (where it will be cheaper anyway).

      * Because it’s theoretically possible to carry legally in CA.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        The bill provides that the importation of ammunition into the state without processing the transaction through a licensed ammunition vendor is an infraction, and with an increasing schedule of fines for repeat violations that in theory make it cheaper to comply that flaunt the law. No one knows how much the BC will cost, since it is not the same BC required to purchase a firearm (processed by the State, and which costs $25), but only an instant NICS check. The proposition does not set a fee that may be charged. The unintended consequence is that the extra cost will encourage bulk purchases (all of which will be duly reported to the Cal DOJ). Unmentioned is that not only is the vendor (and each employee who sells ammo) be licensed, the vendor is required to collect identifying information of each purchaser, and report that to the DOJ along with the amount and caliber of ammunition sold on a weekly basis. All sales must be face to face.

        Also unmentioned in this article is that each purchaser must have an ammunition purchase permit, with a California background check, costing $50 (and I am pretty sure it must be renewed every other year). The fee is apparently to cover the expense of hiring thousands of new employees and creating a new computer system to process 10 million applications by January 1, 2018.

        1. avatar Sc says:

          I haven’t read the text of the initiative but if they are planning on using NICS for the BC for ammo they are out of luck. They tried to do that to us here in NY and NICS told our dear leader Andy to go pound sand, that it they are not permitted to utilize the NICS system for ammunition purchase.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          My guess it that they are going to give up on the background checks and recording and just end up with a FOID card

  7. avatar KenB says:

    indeed, people in this state are so damn stupid. I have plugged my std cap magazines,

    Now I just carry a 1911 and two reloads, single stack mags are nice and easy to carry.

  8. avatar Wynn says:

    So a violator might get a $100 fine and/or a year in jail. That’s like saying you might get a paper cut and/or impalement by a cross falling off a church spire.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      The days when a dollar was about equivalent to a day and a judge could sentence you to X dollars or X days and it really was up to you, are LONG gone. Now the ratio would be more like X hundred dollars or X days.

  9. avatar KenB says:

    time to stock up on reloading equipment

  10. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    If that isn’t going “full retard” I don’t know what is.
    And my personal opinion of Newsome is that he’ll be caught doing something very bad soon. I don’t know what, but he just looks like a crook.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      “Lt. Gov.” isn’t that the same as a bucket of warm spit,

      1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        just a half step ahead of Leland “gun runner” Yee.

    2. avatar Xanthro says:

      What do you mean very soon.
      He was fvcking his closes friend’s wife, who worked for Newsome. Then his friend confronted Newsome at a press conference.
      Yes, he’s got scummy in him.

  11. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    This is what happens when you allow the 3rd world to flood in and vote.

    1. avatar The Dude Abides says:

      Hardly. The central and south Americans aren’t responsible for the leftist momentum in the state. It’s all the white leftist yuppies who are motivated by emotion and ignorance.

  12. avatar Michael says:

    I am leaving. Having worked here for 30+ years this state is a complete mess.

  13. avatar gs650g says:

    I don’t think Gavin knows how a constitution prempts this. Ever since Kimberly left he’s been on his own.

  14. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

    It’s sad when entire states have to be off you list of travel because you might end up in prison simply for being there. I don’t even mean carry. I wouldn’t drive through that state with my guns locked in my trunk even. There or NY. Those states are for real no go zones.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Unlike NY and NJ, California seems to respect the FOPA. I haven’t heard any horror stories such as those emanating from the NY airports, etc. The only real issue is that if you plan to go to a range here, you’d better not bring in any 10+ mags. There may be an exception for competitions, but since I don’t compete, I don’t know.

    2. avatar The guy says:

      You can drive with guns in your car in California as long as they aren’t loaded. Pistols also have to be in your trunk or a locked container.

  15. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

    “Tyranny for All”….there….fixed it for you.

  16. avatar Ing says:

    “Citing the legislature’s failure to act…”

    Citing the legislature’s inexplicable failure to do something incredibly stupid, insert totalitarian’s name here announced a new plan to convince the voters to inflict that same stupidity directly upon themselves.

    Progressivism in a nutshell.

  17. avatar AMP says:

    Even in California they are still not strong enough for a frontal assault on 2A, so they are chewing it a little (or not that little) bit at a time, as to make it ineffective for all intents and purposes.
    Today is the “fuel”. Same as saying: “Of course you can keep your car, but you won’t get more than 1 gallon a month”.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Once the computer system is in place that will be needed to make this proposal work, it would be a simple matter to impose purchase limitations, since there is a record of every transaction, including caliber and amount, tied to the individual purchaser’s name.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      If for some reason suit cannot be brought to invalidate these laws under incorporation of the Second Amendment, could the 14th Amendment “…equal protection under the laws.” be used. It certainly seems to be the Liberal catch-all when they want something that they cannot find justification for elsewhere.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    This would never happen if California was still part of America.

  19. avatar b cosby says:

    This state is waging war against the U.S. Constitution and American values.
    Anytime a natural disaster strikes Kalifornia … I will sing “Allah Snackbar”.

  20. avatar Watts' Twat says:

    600,000 signatures? Are these “legitimate” signatures? Don’t those 600,000 signatories of the petition have to be actual registered voters and residents of California? Who wants to bet the number of legitimate signers is less than 100,000 and that pages are filled with Mike Hunts’, Amanda Hugnkisss’, Donanld Ducks’, Mickey Mouses’, Che Gueveras’ and Pancho Villas’?

    Best move is for the pro-2nd Amendment organizations opposed to this ballot measure to “challenge” each and every signatory of the initiative.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      pages are filled with Mike Hunts’, Amanda Hugnkisss’, Donanld Ducks’, Mickey Mouses’, Che Gueveras’ and Pancho Villas’?

      And let’s not forget Heywood Jablome.

      1. avatar cigardog says:

        Or Ruby Rippey-Tourk.

      2. avatar anaxis says:

        Something tells me Deez Nuts wouldn’t sign that petition.

  21. avatar Anonymous says:

    California could disguise any legislation they wanted under the guise of safety and the idiotic vast majority of California would vote for it.

  22. avatar Nynemillameetuh says:

    That’s what happens when illegal Central Americans, legal Central Americans, native leftists, and the lgbtbbq form a Democratic supermajority. I guess Californians with a martyr complex can “stand and fight” if they choose. Me? I’ll vote for immigration restrictionists to quarantine the area.

    1. avatar Watts' Twat says:

      Best to eradicate the parasites, most efficient means is to starve the “host” (state), cut off ALL of Federal funds. Liberals/Progressives (read; Democrats) will then have to rely upon the populace to finance their proposals, the taxpayers, well those that actually pay taxes on anything more than beer, plastic bags, and smoke,s will have three choices, to acquiesce, leave, or revolt and overthrow the tyrants.

  23. avatar John S. says:

    And here will be the first important 2A case under the new SCOTUS with an appointee placed by the next President. God help us if Hillary wins.

  24. avatar Wright says:

    Time to pull a star from the flag.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Haha. Now that’s funny!

  25. avatar BobS says:

    “California. What you gonna do?”

    I live and work in Silicon Valley.
    I’m in various stages of interviews with companies in Austin, San Antonio, Denver, and Kansas City.
    Because enough is enough.

  26. avatar TyrannyofEvilMen says:

    Now how are those gangbangers down in LA going to get enough bullets?

    Lots of gun store owners in Nevada, Arizona and Oregon are are going to get rich.

    1. avatar DerryM says:

      My understanding of the proposed law is that a California resident CANNOT go to another State, buy ammunition and bring it back into California. You could not have someone else bring you ammunition from another State, give or lend ammunition to anyone else or buy ammunition at a licensed shooting range and take any of it home, either.

      We’re screwed if this passes,

  27. avatar John S says:

    Procedural note (ignoring entirely the ridiculous content of this measure):

    It has not yet been approved for listing on the ballot.

    The signature gatherers have collected something over 600,000 signatures. To get on the ballot requires 365,880 VALID signatures.

    “Once the requisite number of signatures has been collected, the petition is filed with the appropriate county elections official(s). ”

    “If a random sample is necessary [[ that is, if the number of signatures submitted equals or exceeds the required 365,880 ]], within 30 working days of receipt of the Secretary of State’s random sample notification, the county elections officials will verify the validity of the signatures filed with their office using a random sampling technique of verification. (Cal. Admin. Code § 20521.) The elections official is required to verify 500 signatures or three percent of the number of signatures filed in their county, whichever is greater.”
    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-qualify-initiative/initiative-guide/

    I’m not suggesting the initiative will fail to qualify, merely that we cannot know if it will until perhaps 38 working days after April 29, the time that may be needed to complete signature verification.

  28. avatar Sprocket says:

    I’m a native Californian and only return to visit relatives too elderly to travel. For the Californians who express the “stand and fight” sentiment, I say vote with your feet. The sooner the country segregates politically, the sooner we can get down to business. There are plenty of much nicer places than California where you’re votes and rights count.

  29. avatar Frank in VA says:

    Apparently, part of the population of California doesn’t believe that they are living in what is legitimately part of the United States, and so are unconcerned with Constitutional issues when it comes to gun rights.

    MEChA and La Raza are both organizations with branches on many US college campuses that promote the idea of the reconquest of the legendary Aztec homeland of Aztlán, which involves bringing California and much of southwest United States under Mexican control. They hope to achieve this by first gaining a hispanic political majority. They seem to have a lot of supporters and apologists in the leftist academia and media.

    Clearly, having a lot of patriotic Americans with guns still living in these areas is a hindrance to their long term goal. They fear someone like Trump winning the Whitehouse would be a major hindrance also. There were a lot of Mexican flags at the anti-Trump protests in California recently, and a CNN camera caught at least one prominent sign held by a protestor that said “Welcome to Aztlán. Deport Donald Trump”. Another held a sign mocking Trump’s campaign motto, which said “Make America Mexico Again”.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChO4dtdVEAAPhhl.jpg

    https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2016/04/30/800_02-trump-terrikay-aztlan.jpg

  30. avatar Kevin says:

    This is why I “spoil” petitions by signing with a fake name and an out-of-district address. Often the whole sheet is thrown out because of that.
    It’s way past fair play time.

  31. avatar mas says:

    Did anyone read the last portion of it?
    “””SEC. 15. Proponent Standing.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the State, government agency, or any of its
    officials fail to defend the constitutionality of this act, following its approval by the voters, any
    33
    other government employer, the proponent, or in his or her absence, any citizen of this State shall
    have the authority to intervene in any court action challenging the constitutionality of this act for
    the purpose of defending its constitutionality, whether such action is in trial court, on appeal, and
    on discretionary review by the Supreme Court of California and/or the Supreme Court of the
    United States. The fees and costs of defending the action shall be a charge on funds appropriated
    to the Department of Justice, which shall be satisfied promptly”””

    Which to me, means if they next governor decides that this is retarded (it is), and decides not to defend it, then a DMV clerk can stand to defend this law, and CalDoJ is forced to foot the bill “promptly”

    1. avatar Bob in Calif says:

      And did anybody notice this….

      The initiative would also address an issue caused by the previous adoption of Proposition 47, which made thefts of guns worth under $1,000 a misdemeanor. The ballot measure would make all gun thefts a felony.

      This will be the bait that is used to coerce the uninformed to pass this. Probably how the people were sold on why their signature is needed. More often than not, the public does not know about the consequences of an entire ballot measure. As usual, the population centers of L.A. and S.F. will probably push this through.

  32. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    California voters voted for statist politicians who supported legal Marijuana and they voted for statist homosexual politicians to show how tolerant they are.
    But both groups of politicians were and still are against the civil right to own guns. They have never believed in armed self defense.
    You voted for these people. Now live with it.

  33. avatar Garcia says:

    To the vast tribe of idiots occupying the United States outside of California. You’re fools.

    California is not a homogenous body of liberal voters, far from it. It’s full of millions of gun owners, and is the 2nd largest consumer of ammunition in the United States, a hair behind Texas.

    You’re very lucky to live in a small state. New Yorkers not living in NYC also suffer the same fate that Californians do.

    Let me explain….

    If there were a state on the east coast that sretched from Boston, MA to Jacksonville, FL, you’d have an eastern version of California where the people in VA, GA, the Carolina’s votes would not matter. You’d get gun cuntrol shoved down your throats just like millions of Californians that dont live in the San Francisco Bay Area or the Los Angeles basin. If an area votes conservative in California, the Democrats see to it, that all the sex offender parolees, and immigrants of every stripe, legal or otherwise are resettled in the conservative areas. (Shasta County is a good example, it is the 5th most dangerous town for women in America, because the Dems make damn good n sure that it gets flooded with filth from the parole board).

    However when Los Angeles (which is really “Fancy Mexico”) and San Francisco vote, that’s what becomes law.

    The state assembly is the victim of the most disgusting gerrymandering you can imagine so that it is impossible for a conservative, pro 2nd amendment politician to get elected in most places. There are 58 counties in California, 35 of them always vote conservative, but it doesnt matter because the votes (and the money) are in S.F. and Fancy Mexico. 35% of the people living in the S.F. Bay Area (roughly 2.6 million people) would move out of the Bay Area if they could.

    The state assembly and senate are owned by one party. It is one party rule in CA. If you think you’re safe in your little towns and hinter lands, you’ve got another thing coming. They are exporting this to your state and your town – I grew up here, I saw it happen. First the immigrants came in ever increasing numbers while the academics and politicians told us we needed to celebrate diversity (meaning anything other that American traditions and values), then the illegals came and kept coming and nobody did anything, but said we should celebrate them and give them sanctuary. This is happening now in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, MT, UT, TN, KY, etc. etc., watch and see. You’re not safe from this. You can make all the stupid comments you want about Californians, our state was taken from us. Pelosi and Fienstein are not from here. Neither are any of the Judges on the 9th circuit court, they’re all eastern liberals.

    Anyhow, just this past week, there were three bills in the assembly that had cleared their committees earlier. These bills had nothing to do with firearms or ammunition. The contents of the bills were gutted, and replaced with anti firearms legislation, they don’t even vote on that shit.

    You’re watching CA burn thinking you’re safe from the fire. You’re not.

    It’s often been said, “As California goes, so goes the Nation” and its true. It’s already happening around you right now.

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