California Goes Full Retard on Gun Control: What It Means for America

Kent State riot (courtesy kentstate1970.org)

As we just reported, California has gone full retard on gun control. The Golden State legislature has approved a package of gun control bills which piss on the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment prohibition against government infringement on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. Assuming that Governor Brown or Lt. Governor Newsome signs some, many, most or all of these bills into law, we will have entered a new era of gun control. One where there are two Americas. One with gun rights. One without.

Now you might have thought that the Supreme Court would put an end to at least the most egregious of these measures. And you might have been right — if Justice Scalia hadn’t pegged it in Texas. But he’s gone and the Supreme Court is evenly divided on the meaning of “shall not be infringed” (go figure). Until and unless a pro-gun rights Justice replaces Scalia, there’s little chance that the nation’s highest court will strike down ANY of these egregious 2A infringements.

You might also think that Donald Trump could break the deadlock in favor of a gun rights-supporting Supreme Court justice. Not saying he would — I have no faith in Mr. Trump’s political inclinations — but he could. If he wins the presidency. With The Donald’s poll numbers falling both overall and amongst key demographics (e.g., Republicans), election victory is looking more and more like a pipe dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective).

Which, again, leaves us with a bifurcated America. The question is not whether or not this obvious and irreconcilable gun rights fracture will lead to a Constitutional showdown on firearms freedom. There’s no immediate practical political venue for that. Nor do I believe there’s a taste for some kind of outside-the-system popular uprising. (Not yet, anyway.) The question is: what next?

Gun rights are the proverbial canary in the coal mine: a liberty that not only defends other individual rights but represents them. In other words, if gun rights are degraded and destroyed, it opens the door for other rights to be infringed and removed.

For example, the about-to-be expanded Gun Violence Restraining Order law enables the removal of gun rights by an ex-parte judgement based on secret testimony by a gun owner’s co-workers and/or employers. If the government can remove gun rights in secret based on unopposed testimony, there’s nothing to stop them from jailing suspected “terrorists” on the same basis. A word whose definition can easily be extended to include anyone who [allegedly] threatens anti-government insurrection.

More than that, the gunpocalypse bills represent a dramatic and frightening cultural shift. They’re a democratically approved full-on assault on an entire class of people (gun owners). What’s next? Polluters? Wealthy people? Climate deniers? If California can legislate away firearms freedom, they can label other freedoms as anti-social — from eating what you want to saying what you want — and work the same game. All in the name of the public good.

I don’t know how this will end. But I do know that it’s the beginning of the beginning. And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will adopt the California model of unconstitutional mob rule. Will the Republican party be strong enough to resist the shift? Will “free states” oppose [further] federal measures that erode or eliminate Constitutionally protected rights? How?

As a child of the late sixties, I remember a nation at war with itself. Somehow, we climbed off that ledge. Here’s hoping we repeat the feat.

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    This does not bode well. Gov. Moonbeam will sign it/them.
    Wonder what kind of compliance we will see?
    I hope it’s zero.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Brown has a mixed record on gun control bills, signing some, vetoing others, so we will have to wait and see what he does. He has indicated that at least two out of three identical “bullet button” ban bills will be vetoed, but the big question is whether it will be all three. He has previously vetoed an essentially identical ammo bill before, so there is no saying what he will do now. He has signed the budget, which includes another raid on fees paid by gun buyers, for propping up the failing program to take guns from prohibited persons, and further authorized some fee increases so that there will be continued raids for funding that program. He has also been known to hold his veto on controversial bills until the last possible day, which I think is the last day of September.

  2. avatar RealityCheck says:

    Texit.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Calexit.

      1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

        More like Cal-it-quits

        1. avatar Siorus says:

          I’m in. Fighting this battle – any battle over personal freedom, in fact – in the Democratic People’s Republic of California is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

          I’ve been getting organized to leave for years, for a list of reasons longer than my arm-most of them relating not to guns but other things the state, country and city get into that they should not.

          I’m not willing to stay here and fight when it means not getting to do or have what I want any time soon, if ever. Sometimes a strategic retreat is the best policy. I’m going to miss cable internet, winters without snow and summers that aren’t so humid that I feel like I’m in my steam room with my clothes on whenever I go outside. Butt f-it. It’s a small price to pay for being able to do what I want and being left the hell alone. Rural Midwest town (well, unincorporated area of a county somewhere outside city limits) here I come.

        2. avatar BDub says:

          Noice!

    2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      And hopefully then a Nexit. Nevexit? Still working on the name…

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        This is what war looks like when you put it through an hour glass. At least like the French Revolution, the Junkers Party Movement, the MSPD, and USPD, . . . Just sayin’

        So, CA
        as long as we’re just divvying up America, and unilaterally pitching the Constitution from a big chunk of our country, from here on, it’s all Oklahoma-takeover. That’s right. The policy is simple, albeit strict: You can get out, if you can get out. We’d all like to help you out, but we don’t know how you got in. We were were going to devote some of our limited resources to developing a test to tell exactly which ones of you are/aren’t full-on pod-people [’cause all y’all are definitely not yourselves lately, but you stopped being “US” too long ago to remember], but your condition has advanced too rapidly to make that possible, and we’ve all seen old and rebooted Mad Max, and, no thank you. First one to stupid-crazy loses, and you’re the moving party so you don’t win.

        Don’t dally, pack light, and watch your step. Just remember:

        It’s all A-2-B, baby.

        A was OK, B’s ~ meh. It’s the big-ol’ #2 in the middle that finally gets ya.

        Single finger peace sign – out,

        /sarc (as far as you know, and at least as much as you are, I could’ve just said ‘hey idiots, someday we’re coming to take our country back [don’t be there], but why give you a warning? You’d probably just petition the UN to impose some stupid rules of engagement on the whole thing, blah, blah, blah’) ; )

      2. avatar CRF says:

        Nevoutta here?

  3. avatar Don says:

    Time for the NRA, GOA, NAGR, OFF, etc. all to start running ads advising that only advocates of disarmament visit California since it will be a “Gun Free State” which they all should love, and anyone with a working grasp of reality to spend their tourist and business dollars in a more civilized state. Not only does money talk, but the ensuing wave of violent crime ala Chiraq (Chicago for the unwashed) should quickly lessen the excess population of gun haters.

    1. avatar Jeremy says:

      That’s a good idea. Like some politicians did with states that passed gender bathroom laws. I don’t want to change the topic to bathroom laws I was just using it as an example of state boycotts.

  4. avatar Adam says:

    The Republicans?!?! Ooooooh yeah, I remember them. No, they’re loooong gone. They won’t be helping us.

    1. avatar PeterW says:

      Cali’s been taking it in the keister from both parties for decades.

    2. avatar SurfGW says:

      The Republican Party is all but dead, and if Trump carries them off the cliff, there will only be Democrats who will be strongly entrenched for generations

    3. avatar Pete Dee says:

      Dems have held majority in CA assembly since 1970 except for the 1997-98 term when Rs had a 2 seat advantage.
      Dems have held majority in the CA Senate since 1970 u interrupted.
      Currently dem need 2 RINOs for ⅔ majority in the assembly, 1 RINO foe ⅔ majority in the Senate.
      Since 1970 dos have held at or near ⅔ majority 73% of the time.
      It’s not that Californians wouldn’t like change, it’s that liberal media floods metro areas with “get something for nothing” BS, and Karl Marx’s “poor and ignorant” are kept poor and ignorant by Stalins “useful idiots” in entertainment and lying liberal media.

  5. avatar yet another Mike says:

    It sucks that I live in California and can’t move (family). But, a small part of me wants the bills to be signed…

    The bills that ban all semi auto rifles prevent all transfers of semi auto rifles. So, you you pass away, your guns have to be confiscated. It’s proof that confiscation is the end game, even if it takes small incremental steps.

    I hope every pro gun organization points to California and says: “confiscation is the end game, it is law in California, and if you’re not careful, it will be law in your state.”

    1. avatar Jeremy says:

      Only 1/3 of the population wants confiscation based on a recent “poll.” This small radical fringe segment of the population needs to be called out on their extremist views.

      1. avatar Ben says:

        I don’t know any statition that would call 1/3 a small fringe

        1. avatar BDub says:

          I think any time there is a second digit, you have moved away from fringe.

  6. avatar Ben says:

    Another sign of the begining of leftist endgame. The last chance for a popular movement in support of American values may be now. If not now, then soon.

  7. avatar Phil says:

    One thing appears more and more clear to me… When we often say that if we ban guns from the law abiding gun owners, only criminals will have guns, it seems like gun grabbers perfectly count on it.

    They’re trying to pass so many crazy gun laws to be sure that no regular gun owners could really follow the laws and will for sure become a felon, that will be another way for civilian disarmament. And don’t think it can’t happen. For instance, in France, you need an authorisation to have a semi-automatic rifles or handgun, but it’s also valid for any component and ammo of this rifle or handgun. Even a simple empty shell… Let say you go to the range, a friend of you let you shoot his new 6.5 Grendel AR or his .500 S&W revolver. You pick-up an empty brass and forget it in your pocket. If you get arrested, you did commit a crime (possession of illegal gun, component of gun and/or ammo) and you can end up in jail for 10 years.

    It’s making the life of law abiding gun owners miserable because it’s crazy… and sometimes some of them just get tired of it and think: “screw them!”. Some people don’t even know it… They bought legally a .22LR bolt action rifle 30 or 40 years ago, when it was perfectly legal for anyone to do so, just go to the closest store, and stored it somewhere in the house… but today, all guns need to be registered, with authorisation, paperwork (tons and tons of paperwork). Some people don’t even know it.

    So it’s a way to turn any law abiding gun owners into a felon, a criminal… and it will give even more weight for them to say that gun owners are potential criminals and terrorists.

    I know it doesn’t make any sense for us… but sometimes we have to try to think like them (I know, it’s scary and a real nightmare)!

    My 2¢

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Rifles and shotguns bought 30 or 40 years ago in California are not required to be registered. Only guns bought on or after 1/1/2014. And that component thing? Why that’s the law in D.C. this very day.

      1. avatar yet another Mike says:

        All centerfire rifles that are magazine fed must be registered.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Inaccurate. For one, .22s (as postulated in theOP) are not centerfire, so they are exempt. Second registration only applies to semiautomatic rifles with a detachable magazine and one prohibited feature. All three of the bills that were passed have the exact same language:

          Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
          30515.
          (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
          (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
          (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
          (B) A thumbhole stock.
          (C) A folding or telescoping stock.
          (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
          (E) A flash suppressor.
          (F) A forward pistol grip.

          (b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

          The law used to be any two prohibited features, now it is one. BUT, rifles such as the Mini14 and the M1 Carbine are “featureless” and do not have to be registered. So it is only EBRs that are subject to this law if Brown signs it.
          P.S.: There was a bill AB 1663, that was a “featureless” law that would have scooped up ALL semiauto rifles and shotguns, but it dies in committee.

      2. avatar DerryM says:

        “Rifles and shotguns bought 30 or 40 years ago in California are not required to be registered. Only guns bought on or after 1/1/2014. ” That’s interesting. Was trying to open a link to the Bill’s Texts but so is everyone else I guess. If memory serves “bullet-buttons” came about around 1994 or about two years after Roberti-Roos and enabled the “California Compliant” AR-15 to be sold legally. So that leaves a gap of about twenty four years worth of AR’s plus many other rifles like M1A’s, SKS and many, many pistols. like 1911’s, Glocks and a host of others NOT affected by these Laws, including any AR’s previously registered under Roberti-Roos?
        BTW- Thanks for your usual helpful clarification of legal matters, Mark N.. Much appreciated as I try to figure-out what these Laws mean and which of my guns will be lost in the boating accident I am having foreboding dreams about.

  8. avatar Mike Stone says:

    Expect no less from Commiefornia. Nuff said.

  9. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Gee RF we already have 2 Americas. I live in Illinois-a mile from Indiana. I’m screwed here-not like commiefornia but I get really pizzed off when I go there(often). Mayhap POTG can “make’em pay” by boycotting commiefornia(ala Colorado and the mag bans). I’ve heard many millions were lost from folks giving ’em the middle finger…so the NEXT moose-lim will just use a bomb instead of a gun in Cali?!?

    1. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

      I realize it may be unfair to ask this question of you, but is there any plausible chance you can make that jump across the line? At all?

      Your situation reminds me of a good friend I had back in the Ozarks a few years ago – went to school at Missouri – Rolla, got an engineering degree, got on board with the company he always wanted….in their Chicago office. He moved to Schererville, but still had to endure working in Illinois. Swore on his grave he would never spend a penny in IL if he could help it, and I’m pretty sure he held to that. Didn’t much care for Indy either – too many Yankees, he said. After surviving a couple years there he transferred to the Houston suburbs where he now fishes and shoots as much as he likes on weekends and has all the guns he wants.

      Tom

      1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

        Gee thanks for the concern Tom…I’m in my 60’s and like to bitch. Things are actually better In Illinois since I became a gun owner.But compared to the relative paradise of In diana it sucks. Right now we are in limbo living mortgage free-that may change. My kids in their 20’s are spoiled by the wife and un-employed. Don’t know if she’d leave ’em here(I would). The state is bankrupt(the WORST IN AMERICA)and I ain’t paying more so that would help. I already spend most of my money in Indiana(church,guns,food and gas) so there’d be little adjustment. Yeah it could happen…(I posted on my phone much earlier but somehow didn’t work).

        1. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

          Illinexit…you’ll feel so much better.

          It sounds like the house is paid off, so you’ve got some equity to work with towards property over the line. As for the kids, I wouldn’t let that stop you. If they’re that spoiled then they’ll sink or swim – either way you’re a free man. Once you make the jump you can send that asinine FOID card to the governor and tell him where to stick it. Or Rahmmy boy. Best of luck.

          Tom

        2. avatar Matt says:

          Come now, surely we here in CT have earned the distinction of being worst in America? If not, we will surely beat you out for it in no time.

  10. avatar slow joe crow says:

    California is a laboratory for bad ideas.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      lots of the stupid headed west, hit a ocean and piled up along the coast line….

  11. avatar Mike says:

    Isn’t Southern California supposed to fall into the ocean soon? Who’s in charge of that? I want a name.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Who’s in charge of that? I want a name.

      Saint Andrew. It’s all his fault.

      (OK, In Spanish, it’s San Andreas.)

    2. avatar Dave in Socal says:

      Lex Luthor. At least for everything west of the San Andreas fault, I believe.

  12. avatar Jeremy S. says:

    It constantly confuses me when people point towards “the Right” and political conservatives as fascists and “the next hitler” and similar nonsense when it’s so very clearly — both now and historically — the political left that has zero qualms about majority rule. The undesirable are squashed, killed, and exiled all in the name of “the greater good,” and our Rights that were specifically designed to protect the minority from majority rule — from straight-up Democracy — go out the window. They cheer when the Supreme Court overturns majority-rule laws such as gay marriage bans that passed democratic votes, but want to do completely the opposite when the Right or practice in question goes against their personal opinions of what’s best for the majority. Our Rights aren’t supposed to be subject to the Democratic process. This country isn’t supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But it’s the Left that wants this while all the while pointing at the Right and claiming they’re the danger of doing exactly this very thing. …Rules for Radicals, indeed…

    1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/11/political_ideology_is_a_circle

      Look at Limbaugh’s chart in this article, I think you can place the modern political Left somewhere between Soviet Union and lunatic fringe.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    “With The Donald’s poll numbers falling”

    Really?

    The latest Rasmussen poll shows The Donald UP nationally by 4 points over the Crusty Old Crook. That’s after Quinnipiac showed them in a dead heat.

    Nevertheless, if the courts won’t protect the Constitution and us any more than the police can, then we have to be our own first responders. By whatever means are necessary. Such means include electing Trump and keeping our powder dry.

    1. avatar Disthunder says:

      I was going to point that out as well. Kinda like his trailing 7 points in a poll with a 7% margin of error.
      While it might not make a difference in the long term, I’ll take danger over certain death anyday. So I’m not ready to anoint her royal bitchness.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Fox news has Trump down six percent.

      I don’t trust Rasmussen; if memory serves, they thought 2000 would be a blowout for Bush (instead of the all time squeaker) and that Dole would win in 1996.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Trump is “trailing” by a few points at best. Hillary, on the other hand, has a campaign staff of 700+ people and has reportedly spent between 43 and 48 million running against Trump . . . and the best she can do is stay, at best, a few points ahead of him. Meanwhile, Trump is coasting along behind her, always within a few points of her and sometimes out in front by a couple of points. But there’s a big difference between the two: She’s having to run flat-out and is spending huge amounts of money and political capital, while Trump is spending a fraction of what she’s spending and has only a few dozen people serving on his staff. Not only that, but Trump can command the news-cycle just about any time he chooses and—when he does that—he makes Hillary, despite all her money, simply disappear from view. Trump has proven to be surprisingly formidable without having to make a 100% effort. He’s just now gearing up to take Hillary on.

  14. avatar Mark N. says:

    “For example, the about-to-be expanded Gun Violence Restraining Order enables the removal of gun rights by an ex-parte judgement from a gun owner’s co-workers and employers.”

    This is not accurate. Only a temporary order could be obtained if Brown signs this bill. Judgments can be obtained only after a hearing with testimony under penalty of perjury.

    “If the government can remove gun rights in secret based on hearsay, there’s nothing to stop them from investigating and/or jailing suspected terrorists on the same basis.” Again, completely inaccurate. Temporary orders must be supported by admissible evidence, which usually constitutes declarations (or affidavits) signed under penalty of perjury and based on personal knowledge. Affidavits are not “hearsay” to the extent they contain admissible, non-hearsay evidence.

    “If the government can remove gun rights in secret based on hearsay, there’s nothing to stop them from investigating and/or jailing suspected terrorists on the same basis.” One has nothing to do with the other. ANYONE can be investigated, just like anyone can be sued. There is no evidentiary showing necessary for an investigation to occur; a mere suspicion is plenty. Terrorists are already subject to being arrested and jailed based upon “reliable” information of illegal conduct. As are any other wold-be criminals. Happens all the time all across the country.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Text amended.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘…declarations (or affidavits) signed under penalty of perjury and based on personal knowledge.’

      The problem is that in these cases perjury is never prosecuted.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Unfortunately true.

  15. avatar Sprocket says:

    “You might also think that Donald Trump could break the deadlock in favor of a gun rights-supporting Supreme Court justice. Not saying he would — I have no faith in Mr. Trump’s political inclinations — but he could. If he wins the presidency.”

    In a nutshell, why everyone who’s butt hurt their guy didn’t get the nomination needs to get over it. A presidential term is four years. Supreme Court justices sit for decades and decades. A couple of Hillary appointed justices and you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye.

  16. avatar Toad says:

    So much for celebrating Independence Day.

  17. avatar Gabe says:

    Trump is up in the polls as of today but whatever. There is no other choice people, you have to vote Trump. You throw your vote away, you let Clinton in and then say goodbye to the SC and your civil rights.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      If Thedonald announces his pick for SCOTUS and it’s a strict constitutionalist like Scalia was he’s got my vote. In the meantime I don’t trust him. If the Hildebeest is elected the Senate Republicans need to hold out, for 4 years if necessary until they get a conservative. Better to go 5 years with only 8 justices than to let yet another bad one through.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Trump posted a list of eleven potential SCOTUS picks. They were all pro-gun. I have my favorites, but I’d take any one of them over any nut that The Crusty Old Crook might nominate.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/ralph/breaking-trump-reveals-list-potential-scotus-nominees/

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Thedonald didn’t come up with that list all by himself, he just went to a conservative group (can’t remember which one right now) and they gave him a list and republished it. Then he immediately started backtracking on whether or not his nominee would even be from that list. I don’t want a list of candidates he may or may not nominate, I want a specific individual who IS the nominee. If he gives me that I’ll vote for him.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          @Gov, you probably won’t get a name from Hillary or Trump until after the election. Either candidate would be a dope to create another issue for the opposition to run against. It would be like having another running mate, except as a proposed SCOTUS nominee that running mate couldn’t campaign.

          And yes, Trump got the names from a right wing org. That’s a bad thing? Who do you think is drawing up Hillary’s list — the NRA?

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          If we weren’t talking about a man who’s sole reason for even running as a Republican is that he knew he could never tear away the super-delegates from Hillary, I’d probably give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he can come up with another reason to vote for him. Perhaps he’ll pick a really great VP and I can vote for him with the hope the 70 year old has a massive heart attack (last I heard he’s vetting Christie – not a good sign). So far, all I’ve heard is he doesn’t need my vote and doesn’t even want my vote.

      2. avatar otalps says:

        He put out a list of who he would chose from months ago.

  18. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘I don’t know how this will end. But I do know that it’s the beginning of the beginning.’

    The beginning of the beginning was the signing of the Declaration of Independence. That’s where the notion of a limited government that respected the rights of it’s citizens was born, but the concept is hardly immortal. Power hungry statists have been relentlessly chipping away at individual rights ever since. Occasionally an enlightened despot comes along (Reagan, Harding, Coolidge e.g.) and temporarily pushes back. Occasionally overwhelming public pressure forces the politicians to relent (Right to Carry movement). But ultimately the statists will never relent and will in the end be successful in stripping every last God given human right from us. Eventually the people will rise up, slaughter their abusers and the whole cycle will begin again.

    Probably not in my lifetime though.

  19. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Commiefornia is the noble Bolshevik experiment which is sort of like the movie Reds.
    It really is a Brave New World and an Orwellian nightmare rolled into one with a dash of Atlas Shrugged. Commiefornia is headed towards Venezuela.

  20. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

    If you’re relying on Rassmussen polls, you’re doing it wrong… The pros say he’s got a 20% chance… The state by state polls are a bloodbath…

    DTs ONLY rationale for running is deal making – he will use RKBA like a poker chip at the drop of a hat to make a deal, he will use a SCOTUS pick to make a deal, he will use UBCs to make a deal… The man has no guiding principles…

    The states are the only place where RKBA has a chance… DT has even put the GOP House majority at risk… Best move to a firearms – friendly state and hope your state and local officials tell the feds they won’t help investigate federal firearms laws when the inevitable AWB rolls out…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “The pros say he’s got a 20% chance”

      Pros like Nate Silver? Nate Freakin’ Silver? And you believe that crap? Mwahahahahah!

      The same pros, all Democrats and RINOs, predicted that Trump had a 5% chance of gaining the Republican nomination. The same kind of pros predicted that the Conservative Party would lose the UK elections (in case you missed it, they destroyed the Labor Party). The same pros also predicted that Brexit would lose by 10%. You do know that Brexit won by a million votes, right?

      You will make a fortune if you bet against the professional liars.

      1. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

        I want what you’re smoking… Read Nate Silver’s mea culpa where he admitted the polls indicated Trump would win the nom, and that his mistake was not trusting the polls..

        The man (Trump) gave a speech yesterday in front of a wall of trash… a perfect metaphor for his dumpster fire of a campaign… He has no money, no staff, no clue, and little chance…

  21. avatar AL Bing WI says:

    Is it possible that California will be the start of the new American revolution? Will gun owners finally say enough is enough and force these autocrats to pay for their assault on the Constitution? California leads the nation in many ways. The tipping point will come and the assault on our Rights will not be tolerated. God spare the righteous and save the slaves of autocratic rule for they do not know what they do.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Anything is possible, but no.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      If CA gun owners take up arms against the state they are also taking up arms against the nation. Unless freedom lovers in all 50 states rose up as one we would be steam rolled and used as an excuse to confiscate all civilian guns.

      I don’t believe CA gun owners can count on nation wide support. At least not from the “just move” crowd.

  22. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    And so it begins.
    There has to be a state to fall first. That state will teach the others to learn from that states mistakes.
    We will see if they stop at lever and bolt action rifles?
    We see if only five shot revolvers in 22 caliber are the only hand gun allowed?

    I suggest you publicly protest in support of California gun stores. If you live there. Empty holsters anyone?

    I will do my part by not voting for the proud open homosexual white man, Jim Gray, democrat, running to replace senator Rand Paul in Kentucky.
    Like all homosexual socialist progressive leaders jim gray has guns. He just does not want me to have mine.

  23. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    One note for Robert, California has introduced a bill to prosecute climate change deniers. They beat you to it!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Citations please.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Citation, please.”

        “The US Department of Justice has been considering whether people should be prosecuted for the offense of climate change denial.”

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

  24. avatar Brett harsanye says:

    Someone needs to tell the author that trumph is ahead in the polls

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      “Trump. It’s like Triumph, only shorter.”

  25. avatar Adub says:

    Never give up, and never surrender. This too shall pass. And if they attempt to go door-to-door, well, they will get more than they bargained for…

  26. avatar Chris Wolf says:

    California is an occupied territory by invaders from tyrannies that provide tortillas, to a tyranny that hands out housing, health care, cars, phones, education (for what it’s worth to them), and walking around money — all paid for by the tax dollars of working American citizens.

  27. avatar Nynemillameetuh says:

    What did Berthold Brecht say about electing a new people?

  28. avatar John Boch says:

    “With The Donald’s poll numbers falling both overall and amongst key demographics (e.g., Republicans), election victory is looking more and more like a pipe dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective).”

    What the flipping hell have YOU been reading? The MSM?

    Christ. Buy a clue next time Robert, instead of the latest Mercedes-Benz. You’re ALL wet on the quoted text above.

    Trump’s going to win this. The only question is does he win all 50 states or just 49.

    See Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan, 1980 for a better idea of what’s gonna happen.

    JOhn

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Most polls do indeed show him down.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2016/

      Now you may disagree with the validity of polls…but RF is not off the mark at all in stating Trump is down in the polls.

  29. avatar Paul53 says:

    Ever since the geologists predicted that “the big one” will knock CA into the ocean I’ve thoughtabout the implications. At first I was aghast. Slowly I’ve come around to wanting ocean fron property in Phoenix. The big splash would just eliminate so much stupidity.

  30. avatar Pg2 says:

    Last year special interests through SB 277, there was never any doubt special interests would pass control gun control this year…..tyranny in the name of public health.

  31. avatar Aerindel says:

    Personally, I say JUMP JUMP JUMP

  32. avatar Stratajema says:

    From the article: “With The Donald’s poll numbers falling both overall and amongst key demographics (e.g., Republicans)…”

    Oh sure, as reported by the same lying mainstream media that reported hundreds of people attending Trump rallies, while in reality, many thousands were attending and there was a line around the block to get in.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Unfortunately, it’s actually true, for all your chest thumping:

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2016/

      This site watches several major polls and Trump is down 4-10 percent.

  33. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    Well thanks for the concernTom.I’m in my 60’s and I like to bitch. It’s actually better in Illinois since I became a gun owner. But compared to the relative paradise of Indiana it sucks. Right now we are in limbo and are living mortgage free. I could easily see myself moving-the wife I’m not sure. I also have 2 layabout sons in their 20’s who don’t work(or try-mom spoils the hell out of them). Indiana has it’ s quirks-guns ain’t one of ’em…I do buy almost everything in Hoosierland so it wouldn’t be any kind of adjustment.

  34. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    It should not take very many professionals leaving California to destroy the state. About 35% of the state is already on some kind of welfare and this is 2016, not 1816. Most jobs are mobile. In fact, the telecommunications and software industries are paying people quite literally to move to other states. The reason? Regulation and taxation. I personally know about 10 people who have left California within the past 2-3 years who are now making the same money in Texas or in Georgia which equates to about a 10 – 15% raise due to the disparities in tax rates and general cost-of-living. If you factor in quality-of-life, the actual raise is much higher. Likely, it’s the best raise they’ve ever gotten.

    California is already becoming a good place to be from. The middle class is already starting the process of CA-EXIT. I assume this “gunpocalypse” will simply accelerate it.

    If you’re still there, the number of chairs will be dwindling fast and the music is about to stop yet again.

    Just FYI.

  35. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Somehow, we climbed off that ledge. Here’s hoping we repeat the feat.”

    Hell no. We keep experiencing this because we don’t resolve it once and for all. Apparently, a significant number of Americans no longer cherish their liberty. They no longer wish to be free. This needs to end. The states need to go their seperate ways and form up (or not) into their own confederations/unions/countries as they wish. It’s well past time for a divorce of the states from the federal government. This relationship has become unworkable, abusive, and downright dangerous to the individual. This house is irretrievably divided and can no longer stand.

    1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      “The states need to go their seperate ways and form up (or not) into their own confederations /unions/countries as they wish.”

      The nutty buckeye returns! Where’ve you been John? Discharge? Furlough? It’s been a while since you’ve contributed one of these infamous nutty rants calling for insurrection/ revolution/ civil war.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Whoops! I must have forgotten to read your troll comment again.

        Anywho…. Howdy, Teddy! Bless your little heart. <3

        1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

          Well John, if pointing out the idiocy of someone advocating insurrection/ revolution/ civil war is trolling, then I live under a red, white, & blue bridge.

          Even though your nonsense falls in the minuscule fringe category of opinions shared on any of the major pro gun blogs, it is exactly the sort of nonsense the anti gun left uses in propaganda to mischaracterize lawfully armed citizens as menacing nuts.

    2. avatar Jay Williams says:

      John, You’ve always been one of my favorite posters on here. Still are.

      Jay

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Thanks, friend. 🙂

  36. avatar Ozzallos says:

    You know I favor Trump in this election by now, so here’s the deal– He’s not going to rock the boat. He might advocate, but I doubt he’ll act for or against gun control because I don’t think he sees it as his personal torch to carry. Whether he should or not is an entirely different story.

    As bad as that may sound, I have faith that policy will trickle down from leadership like it always does. I’ve seen it during my time in the mil and I see it all day long in the presidency. People want to cozy up to power so they will take on the philosophy they believe will get them closer to that power. Or the President will appoint sympathetic people who will effect the same shift. My point is that Trump doesn’t have to enact policy for policy to be enacted or at very least, relaxed. I guarantee you just his stance contrasting Hillary and disarming America will have a trickle down effect should he be elected.

  37. avatar Grayson Z says:

    The language used in pro-firearm articles versus pro-firearm control articles is vastly different. Much less professional. Terms such as ‘pipe dream’ and ‘piss’ are not appropriate when trying to persuade intelligent people onto your side.

  38. avatar James69 says:

    It’s easy, TRUMP OR DIE. Click my user name to see why.

  39. avatar lionsfan54 says:

    Really wish TTAG would stop using that word. It’s insulting and derogatory to a lot of people. That being said, yes, California is making some incredibly poor 2A decisions, but who is really surprised here?

    1. Of course it is insulting. That’s the point.
      It’s like asking a woman if she is pregnant. It’s only insulting if she isn’t.

  40. avatar Ing says:

    Ah, the ’60s. Aside from the totalitarian reign of FDR (from which the polity still hasn’t recovered), probably the most poisonous decade in American history.

    The same people who shouted “question authority!” and said “don’t trust anyone over 30” are now septuagenarians, sitting in the halls of government telling others not to question their authority. Making back-room deals with their cronies in the establishment. Pillaging the economy of the richest nation the world has ever seen. Starting wars in third-world countries just for the hell of it. We have the peaceful hippie generation to thank for gun control, the Patriot Unlimited Domestic Espionage Act, and the rise of political correctness and the SJWs.

    California is just a harbinger. We’re all going to pay a heavy price in the not-too-distant future for the shenanigans of America’s most poisonous generation. How far will it spread and how bad will it get? Hold on tight, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

  41. avatar Seth says:

    This about sums up the non-democratic nature of what the legislature has done:

    “I think it’s too risky to put a lot of hard work — decades of hard work — before the voters of California,” [Senate President Pro Tem Kevin] de Leon [(D-Los Angeles)] expressed. “We don’t know if it passes or not. But if we can get it done in the legislative body, the question is, why not do it?”

    Don’t any one of us pretend that we don’t live in a _representative_ democracy, and our legislators DO know what’s best for us.

  42. avatar B.Zerker says:

    Each of the supporters of the these bills (the legislators and the Governor) have just committed two federal felonies punishable by ten years to life in Leavenworth for each offence. The laws that they’ve violated are the Conspiracy Against Rights (Title 18, USC, Sec. 241) and the Deprivation Of Rights Under The Under The Color Of Law (Title 18, USC, Sec. 242) codes in the United States Code. These laws both state that ‘ANY person’ that ‘conspires to’ and/or ‘deprives ANYONE of a right that is secured by the U.S Constitution is guilty of a felony’. Since the Heller decision confirmed that 2A is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution (that was the brilliance of Scalia’s opinion), governments are forbidden from “chilling” that right. CA has just done that! It is also a violation of Article I, Sec 9, Clause 3 because it criminalizes a previously legal item. It is therefore “ex post facto law.”

    So you Californians should get off you lazy asses and fight for your constitutional rights! Find a federal judge friendly to 2A and challenge these laws as unconstitutional under Article I. Then get mean and charge each and every one of the legislative usurpers that voted to enact these laws, and Gov. Sh*t brindle… uh, er… Brown for signing them, with violations of Title 18. Then have them arrested by the FBI. (I’d do it myself, but I no longer reside in CA so I’m not damaged by these unconstitutional actions.) Politicians are NOT above the law and the Constitution and the USC are the law of this land.

  43. avatar LHW says:

    Build a wall.

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