California is on the cusp of going full retard on firearms. Here’s the Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee’s summation of the gunmegeddon ballot initiative:

– BAN all standard (“high-capacity”) magazines…even those “grandfathered” in
– BAN online and mail order / catalog ammunition direct purchases
– BAN the importation of ammunition purchased out-of-state
– DESTROY virtually all small business ammo retailers with insane new regulations
– CRIMINALIZE the sharing of ammunition between friends who may be hunting or shooting together
– MANDATE a new $50 DOJ “ammunition purchase permit”
– REQUIRE that ammunition sales are recorded in a new gun owner database

Why should you care? Why wouldn’t you care? Especially after you see this:

They have the capacity to turn “this” around. Anyone want to guess what “this” really is? Anyone want to see “this” — meaning the degradation and destruction of citizens’ right to keep and bear arms — imposed on their fellow Americans?

Note: none of us live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional republic. Every last one of us.

48 Responses to Gun Rights Advocates! California Needs YOU!

  1. I’m not upset about this. What makes me upset is that people against this will comply. You shouldn’t have complied in 1990 Kalifornia, now it’s too late. And there is no one to save. No gunvernmin kourt will save you. No lawful means. You will have to shoot them and shoot them well.Good luck.

  2. I’m sure that California politicians will listen to a white middle aged guy from Arizona. Now if you’ll excuse me, my friend just told me that snipe season starts tonight and we’re going hunting. I have to get ready.

    • Good one! And sadly, all too true. California politicians don’t care what gun owners in their own state want, why would they ever listen to anyone from outside the state?

    • A lot of CA gun laws have been overturned….. The AG (Kamala Harris) is ignoring the rulings and doing business as usual. You are about to see an other blue state full of gun owners living in (not very hostile) rebelion against their government’s wishes a-la New York SAFE Act.

  3. It’s bad and getting worse. If Hillary wins, you can forget the Supreme Court as a possible remedy for the next 30 years.

    We’re going to have to suck it up this November. If you don’t like Donald Trump, tough. Vote for him. Send him money. Don’t like the house and senate Republicans? Me either. But you have to vote for them and send them money. They’ve sold us out a thousand ways, but have so far kept the anti-gun wolves at bay on the national front. (We’ll see how they do with today’s vote.) Don’t like the NRA? Tough. I have problems too. But join them. Or send them a donation if you’re already a member.

    Sit on our hands, then we get what California got. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year. But eventually. The anti-gun forces are infinitely patient. They will chip, chip, chip away until theres nothing left.

    People in California, short of a gun friendly supreme court after the election, your only option is non-compliance.

    • Indeed, non-compliance is a sticky thing, but, there is no other choice. We will see how many people are willing to give up their property when the Newsom squad comes calling for their guns. Most of us can’t blame a faulty fishing trip for the loss of all of our property.

      So, looks like I am gonna end up taking a shower and my entire collection simply falls into the toilet bowl and some how flushes away in a freak accident. REAAAALY weird.

    • Send politicians money? I’ll hold my nose and vote for them. But pay for their hookers, booze and blow? No thanks.

    • Wtf? You Trump supporters drive me nuts. If you gave two shits about the SCOTUS you would have voted for and supported Cruz. Instead you selected a populist piece of crap that is unelectable and doesn’t care about anything outside of himself. We already lost! I’m just looking toward dmg control…

      • I voted for Cruz. He lost. My choice is now Trump or Hillary. I know Hillary will do everything in her power to destroy gun rights. I don’t know what Trump will do. I don’t like the man, but given that Hillary is a 100% certain loss for our rights, I will hold my nose and vote for Trump.

        • Same here. I voted for Cruz in the primaries and sent his campaign money. He’s not around anymore and I’m not willing to risk Hillary picking the Supreme Court nominees. So Trump it is.

  4. What do you need me to do. I sent some money to FPC. What else can I do?

    Are you hoping I’ll move to California? What would I do with all my guns? Are they going to start using those agricultural check stations to look for guns ‘n’ ammo?

  5. Gavin Newsom is part of the Bay Area cabal of megamillionaires who plan to remake America in their image, which is to say as a coastally controlled globalist aristocracy.

    He’s been the butt boy of the super rich ever since his money daddy Gordon Getty bought him a winery in the ’90s. His owners run him on his looks. I lived in SF when he was climbing to replace Willie Brown. He is the ultimate establishment insider. Just rich enough to live like millionaires live in SF, just not rich enough to pretend he’s middle class.

    Take a look at this. This is who we need to unite against, not each other:

    http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Bay-Area-billionaires-make-2015-Forbes-400-list-6538173.php

  6. California as it currently exists is a lost cause. The smarter option is for gun owners / gun lovers in oppressed states to move to free states. This will swing the balance of Congress more in favor of the Second Amendment and will make federal gun control less likely. After that is achieved, then a concentrated effort could be made to retake oppressed states one by one. Any general worth a damn knows that spreading your forces too thin is a surefire recipe for complete failure.

  7. Here are the list of current bills being pushed.
    The bills are as follows:
    AB 1664 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
    AB 1673 (Gipson): Redefines “firearms” to include items that are not firearms.
    AB 1674 (Santiago): Bans buying more than one firearm within a 30-day period.
    AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms.
    AB 2607 (Ting): Dramatically expands who can request a Gun Violence Restraining order.

    Sadly these will pass. Newsom is pushing his own ballot initiative.
    Brown is going to be the firewall in all this.
    Our FPC representatives were sworn at and ridiculed.
    The only thing I can think of is if they are signed or allowed into law that we wind up with an Irish Democracy, with massive disobedience. That will be the only way to backtrack this garbage.

  8. Irish Democracy. The state will pass laws no one will obey and will, for a large part, be impossible to enforce. Can’t bring ammo into state? CHiPs going to stop every car coming in? Guess who owns these 30 Rd mags? Active and retired Leo’s. See NY and Connecticut for registering semi auto rifles. Cops going to hang out at ranges saying “show me your papers?” Judges going to write up to a million warrants to search homes of gun owners?

    • No, but they will certainly spot check at the fruit inspections, and when they catch you smuggling in ammo from vegas you will go to jail, have all your property confiscated, and have your life ruined. Good Luck, commiefornia.

      • Hmm… Private importation of ammo is banned. Checking for contraband at the ag stations. If they do that, how is that different from a blockade? Isn’t a blockade an act of war? Is California declaring war on the neighboring states?

      • No, the CHP and most county sheriff’s have alraedy said they will not enforce the ammo law (and they have signed a statement saying it is unenforceable; the same reason New York had to drop the idea) because their officers are already overwhelmed battling real criminals. Further assault rifle registration and bans on owning high capacity mags have already been tried, and compliance was around 5%; I suspect the same will be here in California. Democrats seems to miss the point that in a representative republic (or Democracy) laws need voluntary compliance, as there is no way to force millions of people with comply with a law if they don’t want to; in this case the government needs voluntary compliance from millions of California gun owners. We all need to pay attention becasue we are entering interesting times.

        • How will people not comply with the ban on semiautomatic long guns that take detachable box magazines? Unless one tries bringing one in from out of state, you’re SOL there. Also how does non-compliance help the small businesses being regulated out of existence?

  9. “We live in a Constitutional republic. Every last one of us.”
    While this might be truth, legally, in actual fact the republic, a nation rule by the Law, rather than whims, is long gone. Ben Franklin, when asked what kind of Government had been formed at the Constitutional Convention said: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
    I submit that we have failed to keep it, and so it has been taken from us. Such are the consequences when good men see evil happening, and do nothing.

    • The final nail was 1913, when we the people gave our nation’s money creation to private, foreign bankers

      • I see I’m not the only one who has read “The Creature from Jekll Island”! Might I inquire if you are also familiar with the documentaries from Bill Still; “The Money Masters” and The Secret of OZ”??

        • Secret of oz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sboh-_w43W8
          Money masters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4wU9ZnAKAw

          Money masters is from back in ’96. Secret of Oz is more up to date. The series “Hidden Secrets of Money”, from Mike Maloney is good also, and right up to date. In six parts, so far…
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyV0OfU3-FU
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdSq5H7awi8
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-IemeM-Ado
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQWMd_NPSBA
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GP87dgTqF8
          Chapter Five is my favorite, wherein he confirms everything said with a field trip to the money museum inside the Bundesbank.

        • “The Creature from Jekyll Island” is conspiratorial nonsense. The Federal Reserve’s creation was to deal with what had been a long-existing problem, and it is an imperfect solution to that problem.

        • Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go peddle your snake oil somewheres else. Or else choose to discuss the issue at hand like a sane, rational person. If you have read the book, and found a mistake, by all means say what you perceive it to be, and we shall discuss it in a rational way. Just blasting insults is the technique of a fool who knows nothing better. No reason, no logic, no sense. Just hatred for what they do not understand. No one is interested in your opinion, unless it has some basis in reason and facts.
          “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” -Harlan Ellison

        • Had a feeling you’d respond that way. But it has nothing to do with hate, it has to do with just pointing out what is conspiratorial nonsense. It is an age-old conspiracy that the Federal Reserve is some private banking cabal that controls the money supply of this nation. But that is not what the Federal Reserve is, nor do people claiming such ever give a sound alternative to the Federal Reserve, except “the gold standard” as the book suggests, usually ignoring the titanic problems that has (for one, all money is fiat including gold, and going to a gold standard means the money supply in the economy is tied to the supply of gold; that would be like tying it to the annual supply of oranges).

        • You state; “It is an age-old conspiracy that the Federal Reserve is some private banking cabal that controls the money supply of this nation.” So, turning back to the realm of reason, as opposed to useless rhetoric, IF the Federal Reserve is NOT a private entity, then why is it listed in the telephone books as a private entity in the private business section right next to Federal Express, a private package delivery service?

        • The Federal Reserve is a quasi-private quasi-public governmental entity. It is not a purely private corporation like Microsoft or Exxon. It has elements of both private and government control. It has “shareholders” in that every federally chartered bank is required by law to be a member of it’s regional Federal reserve bank (There are actually nine de-centralized regional reserve banks). These “shareholders” are not like corporate shareholders. They do not vote for board members or have any regulatory control. The board of governors is directly accountable to Congress and must be audited, issue annual reports, and report to Congress.

          Remember, since our country started, we have had three attempts at central banks. The first two were government-owned and run and were shut down because of corruption. The current Fed is the third attempt at getting it right. It is an imperfect solution however.

          The problem is without a central bank, who or what controls the money supply of the economy? Gold doesn’t make much sense because it is just a metal, and the amount of money the economy needs has no more to do with the supply of gold than with the supply of anything else. Congress would be a bad idea because then you have people elected for popularity instead of economic acumen in charge of the money supply. The President would be a bad idea because of the same reasons, and then of course one could imagine the political dangers of say Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, or President Obama, in charge of the money supply. But the Fed is a central planner as a result, and as such occasionally gets things wrong.

          The idea that the creation of the Fed introduced a “boom and bust” cycle to our economy ignores all the boom and bust cycles that existed before the Fed. After Andrew Jackson shut down the second central bank, we had a wholly free banking system, and a major problem was constant boom and bust. If anything, the creation of the Fed has to a great degree brought an end to that. The recent booms and busts we’ve been experiencing could be attributed to lack of sufficient regulation in the financial system.

          In addition, rather than giving control over to the money trusts as Griffin claims, the creation of the Fed removed it, as prior to the creation of the Fed, a very small amount of banks exercised enormous control over the financial system.

          A good summary of the flaws of the book is here:

          http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

        • No that you have chosen to actually list a source of information, instead of useless rhetoric, one need go further than sentence #1 of said source, provided by YOU, to prove your own self incorrect.
          “Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned” – http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
          No quasi anything about it…Now let us go to yet other sources, instead of taking connected insiders at their word.
          ” First off, the seven “publicly-appointed” governors are in fact NOT public. They are appointed by the Presideent and approved by the senate for 14 year terms! You call that publicly? No Congress, no elections?”
          AND
          “Finally, the nut said this:

          Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

          Cute. Here is Excutive Order 11110

          By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

          SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended –

          (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

          “(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,” and

          (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

          SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

          JOHN F. KENNEDY
          THE WHITE HOUSE,
          June 4, 1963”
          http://crusadeagainstbs.com/federal-reserve-facts-and-myths/

          Now, since this shows that your source is either a liar or a complete fool who knows nothing about the subject, do you have any OTHER sources of a specific problem with Griffin’s book? Or was that a single shot at random only, with no specifics other than; here read this? And it would appear you did NOT read even your own source, or if you did you did not bother to check its credibility, other than noting that the author had some letters after his name.

        • No that you have chosen to actually list a source of information, instead of useless rhetoric, one need go further than sentence #1 of said source, provided by YOU, to prove your own self incorrect.

          The “useless rhetoric” I provide shows the flaws in the criticism of the Fed and some of the ahistorical claims made by people like Griffin.

          “Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned” – http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
          No quasi anything about it…Now let us go to yet other sources, instead of taking connected insiders at their word.

          The information being provided has nothing to do with being a “connected insider,” it has to do with actual history and facts. It’s a convenient out to claim that anyone who disputes the conspiracy must be a “connected insider.” And did you bother to even read what I wrote? You think that the Federal Reserve banks being privately-owned means the Federal Reserve itself is a private entity? The banks are part of the Federal Reserve, yes, but the Fed as an institution is a private-public hybrid. It is accountable to Congress and answers to them, and even though it is on paper “independent” of them, in reality it has to take them into account because if it raises interest rates and that hurts the economy, Congress can pitch a fit and ultimately could revoke its charter.

          ” First off, the seven “publicly-appointed” governors are in fact NOT public. They are appointed by the Presideent and approved by the senate for 14 year terms! You call that publicly? No Congress, no elections?”

          Not sure what you’re getting at. Why would there be elections for the Fed Board? You want the average American electing such people? The President also appoints various court justices as well. The Fed Board appointments are staggered so as to prevent one President from stacking the Board with his cronies.

          AND
          “Finally, the nut said this:
          Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.
          Cute. Here is Excutive Order 11110
          By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
          SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended –
          (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
          “(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,” and
          (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
          SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
          JOHN F. KENNEDY
          THE WHITE HOUSE,
          June 4, 1963”
          http://crusadeagainstbs.com/federal-reserve-facts-and-myths/

          In what way does that refute what was said about Kennedy? In addition, so your response is mostly a copy-paste of a link of some random guy on the Internet, one who apparently thinks the appointment of the Fed Board of Governors should be done like a conventional election and who doesn’t refute any other parts of the article.

          Now, since this shows that your source is either a liar or a complete fool who knows nothing about the subject, do you have any OTHER sources of a specific problem with Griffin’s book? Or was that a single shot at random only, with no specifics other than; here read this? And it would appear you did NOT read even your own source, or if you did you did not bother to check its credibility, other than noting that the author had some letters after his name.

          Have read it. I would suggest you do the same because you can’t refute something you haven’t even read.

  10. What exactly does the author expect us to do? I live in Virginia, why would a California politician care what I have to say?

    What I can do it this, any good solid American Conservative gun owner who wants to move from California to Virginia, tell me what you do for a living and where in VA you’d like to go and I’ll tell you whatever I can about the state and the job market. Leave that scum hole to the Liberals, welfare rats and illegals and get out.

  11. They best way to affect change is with money. Always has been and always will be. Move out of the state and for those who don’t live there, don’t go there and don’t spend a dime there. Bleed their economy. Granted I know most people there are antigun so it probably will not matter, but at least you can look yourself in the mirror.

      • They have unlimited CURRENCY, not money. Because they can create it out of thin air in any quantity desired. When the sheeple wake up to the difference their scam will be all over. And they will wake up to the deception when the paper no longer has the power to purchase goods. They will then learn the difference between wealth, and a promise to delver wealth, LATER(maybe…).

  12. Just buy your ammo from your newly minted neighborhood blackmarket ammo dealer. He will probably be the next to or the same guy as the marijuana dealer. Good luck sorting the real criminals from all the soccer dads buying ammunition. Prohibition never works.

  13. Since we have no recourse to change their laws, and had no representation in enacting those laws, we have no responsibility to follow them. Right? That’s probably too harsh. But, what if every other state began legislation to block all payments and transactions with California until it resumed following the constitution? Either that, or just start investing in intrastate arms related ventures since the states want to escape federal controls. I know it sounds nuts. But, none of this posturing is about logic or safety or Hillary or democrats. This is all driven by money and greed and probably silicon valleys desire to be involved in securing contracts for a govt subsidized, ever more reaching background check system.

  14. Kalifornicationa is unredeemable. You don’t like, it move away. There are at least three dozen states that have better gun laws, better economies, less crime and less stupid politicians.

  15. California is lost. They are voting this on themselves. Strengthen the defenses elsewhere. Move out of state. Businesses,too. If you run a business, and believe in the Constitution, move. Not just gun business. Any business.

    Pull a John Galt talent round up and let the state rot.

  16. Have a friend who lives in CA, bit of a FUDD. I wonder what his opinion regarding these laws is.

Leave a Reply

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