Previous Post
Next Post

Out of Business (courtesy

Richard Thomson at writes [via]

AB 2459 is the scariest bill we have seen all year, and that’s not a fact to be taken lightly as there are already bills to ban most semi-auto rifles, ration your gun purchases, and ban all magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds at one point in time. AB 2459, authored by Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), could wipe out every single gun dealer in the state of California. In essence, if this bill passes, they may not ever have to pass another anti-gun bill again. You simply won’t be able to legally buy another gun in California. To start . . .

AB 2459 will ban all home FFL dealers. There are hundreds of them in the state, and they may serve areas where a traditional brick and mortar store wouldn’t prosper. Rural residents would be denied their right to defend themselves. They could not legally purchase a firearm unless they drove hours to a larger population area.

For traditional gun stores, the remaining two portions of the bill could drive them out of business.

  • AB 2459 would then force all gun dealers to video record all areas of their store wherever firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred, including, but not limited to, counters, safes, vaults, cabinets, shelves, cases, and entryways.
  • Adding to the Orwellian-ness, gun dealers will have to spend thousands of dollars on storing the high-quality data for up to 10 years on-site, turning each gun store that can afford it into a high capacity hard drive that most tech firms would be jealous of.

Assuming a gun dealer is still in business after the first two requirements, the last one will do them in.

  • AB 2459 mandates a first in the world form of insurance– an unobtainable policy that covers the criminal acts of second, third and fourth parties using a firearm or ammunition from the store in question, even if the retailer is in fact the victim of the crime or if the gun or ammo was stolen from the store.

Although it may sound like the anti-gunners’ fantasy bill that will never become reality, it is literally being lobbied in the State Capitol right now. They are seriously pushing for it.

Please sign our petition to STOP AB 2459 and forward this article to your friends and family so they can help beat this bill back.

Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a grassroots 501(c)4 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Ive said it before and I’ll say it until it sticks….. You can run from California but it will find you where ever you go. Stay and fight! Slay the beast from within!

      • My surfer friends loved their guns (Orange County). Got to pay attention to Cali, just look at Colorado, Oregon, Washington, the liberal disease does spread.

      • “You can run from California but it will find you where ever you go. Stay and fight! Slay the beast from within!”

        You’re so right! These asshats will stop at nothing. Call, email, write (registered so they have to sign for it). And do it repeatedly until they get bogged down. Tell every one you know what they are doing and have them do the same.

        • “Call, email, write”

          Will do exactly zero.

          Sorry, but this is the case. These people do not care what we think even a teeny little bit. Fact is, they already know what we think, and it deters them not at all.

          They do care about getting elected, and they seem to be fairly successful at this, by whatever means they seem to employ.

          I don’t have a solution to this, and civil war v2.0 is not a solution, nor is it happening anytime soon either.

          Go ahead and call, email and write letters all you want, they don’t give a FLAME DELETED.

        • No need to import; there is a near unlimited number of voters in reserve, waiting to be made legal.

      • Once they’ve successfully ruined California, they’ll move east. Arizona. Colorado. Nevada and all points further. Your wonderful gun-loving flyover states will only be safe for so long.

  1. That last one is f***ing insane. Hard to imagine that even a leftist judge would uphold that kind of craziness.

    • Just like it was unimaginable that anyone could file a “gun violence restraining order” eliminating part or all of a person’s 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendment protections. Statists gonna State.

    • It sounds insane but the democratic front runner is running on a very similar platform nationally. The left sees suing firearms dealers and manufaturers for crimes committed with their products as legit. They also speak of jailing banking executives at every single debate. Make no mistake, this election year is capitalism vs communism plain and simple.

    • Guns in california are going to get insanely expensive. Cant imagine what insurance like that would cost, millions a year. each gun would have to be sold for hundrreds of thousand for the shop to break even.

  2. Wow these statists are all about controlling us.

    I think they need to start controlling their own spending of our money, that is what we are concerned about. This bill does nothing to address that.

    These people need to shut up.

  3. “In essence, if this bill passes, they may not ever have to pass another anti-gun bill again. You simply won’t be able to legally buy another gun in California.”

    Unconstitutional. Full stop. Chicago tried that, it was shot down.

    “AB 2459 mandates a first in the world form of insurance– an unobtainable policy that covers the criminal acts of second, third and fourth parties using a firearm or ammunition from the store in question, even if the retailer is in fact the victim of the crime or if the gun or ammo was stolen from the store.”

    Hello, poll tax.

    Additionally, by that logic, the original purchaser of an automobile can be held liable if the car were traded in and the new owner commits DUI manslaughter.

    Being California, it may well pass and languish in the courts for 10+ years, thus making the antis happy…

    • “Hello, poll tax.”

      Already exists now in Chicago. Ammo is taxed 5 cents/round for centerfire, and 1 cent/round for rimfire. Blatantly unconstitutional…but what else is new?

      • They’ll always come up with new ways to screw over gun owners. Just gotta fight it in the courts.

      • Seattle too. But then the Piget Sound area is awash in an ever-increasing flood tide of affluent California transplants

      • Keep in mind, there is an Amendment to the Constitution specifically disallowing electoral poll taxs. Which implies that the government CAN impose such a tax on other ‘rights.’

        Nuts, huh?

        • But which does not seem to prevent states from requiring residents tontake a day off work to somehow get to a dmv with limited hours, hard if you don’t have a car, which is more expensive than a poll tax

          Wisconsin even put in the rule then Closed dmv offices in democratic districts

        • The bill of rights is not an exhaustive list of rights.

          I would argue that taxing a right (for example an excise tax on ammo) is an infringement of it, though.

        • “I would argue that taxing a right (for example an excise tax on ammo) is an infringement of it, though.”

          Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

        • I would argue that taxing a right (for example an excise tax on ammo) is an infringement of it, though.

          I would agree…IF it’s a tax over and beyond taxes laid down on other items. E.g., a 10 percent sales tax on ammo when the going rate for other things is 5 percent.

          Ideally, of course, we’d have a government that would except ammo and guns anyway, recognizing the benefits of citizens’ firearms ownership. But in this modern day and age that’s apparently too much to expect.

        • To clarify, an excise tax is definitely out of bounds, as it applies to specific items and by definition discriminates against whatever it is laid upon. (And let’s not even get started on $5 and $200 stamp taxes for weapons of frowned-upon configuration.)

    • “Being California, it may well pass and languish in the courts for 10+ years …”


    • The bill provision on insurance is as follows: “(a) Commencing January 1, 2018, a licensee shall obtain a policy of commercial insurance that insures the licensee against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises. The limits of liability shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each incident of damage to property or incident of injury or death to a person.”

      Technically, this is not as bad as it sounds. The policy must “insure the licensee from liability.” However, since gun sellers are immune from liability except for their own negligence in the sale of a gun, the actual liability is quite limited. This bill does not change the law on existing immunities or the rules of civil liability. If someone steals your gun, you are generally not liable. The only exception under California law is for a person who has minors in his home, who negligently fails to secure a firearms and a minor causes injury to him/herself or others. There is no liability for “offering for sale” any firearm for which there is a civil cause of action (although there is a criminal statute that bans the display of handguns or pictures of handguns in a store window). The bill language cannot be construed as requiring insurance for liability for subsequent sales of the firearm after it leaves the dealer’s possession and ownership. lack of ownership via transfer complying with the law would seem to be a complete defense to any liability fo the first sale, and the federal law immunizing manufactures and dealers for the criminal use of a firearm would cover the rest. And most commercial premises carry general liability insurance for all that is left.

      To the extent that the law would require insurance that is not offered by the insurance industry, noncompliance would be excusable, and the law arguably void to the extent it so requires.

      • You way underestimate the meanness of the left. The point of the insurance is that it cannot be obtained. Failure to obtain is a violation of the law. Dealers can be fined, put out of business or maybe jailed for non-compliance. The physical incapability to abide by a law does not make it moot.

        Even if the actual liability is small (but it is larger than you think), dealers will be required to spend money on a policy. But here is how the law is designed to work:
        -Dealer – sells or loses control of a firearm
        -Person obtaining (or person three or four removed) the firearm causes death or injury
        -Police put out the equivalent of an APB requiring all dealers to research and declare if the gun was ever in the possession of the dealer.
        -The lucky dealer is cited for a violation of safety
        -Dealer is held responsible

        Intent is to bankrupt dealers or convince them the cost of doing business is too high.
        That’s all, folks.

        • “But here is how the law is designed to work:
          -Dealer – sells or loses control of a firearm
          -Person obtaining (or person three or four removed) the firearm causes death or injury”

          Hence my pointing out that by that logic, a Chevrolet dealer (or the first owner) of a car could be held liable if a subsequent owner commits DUI manslaughter while driving it.

          Since guns are fully capable of killing (one would hope), and cars are *expressly* designed *not* to kill or maim, the analogy seems to hold up…

          • I think the analogy is close, but fails on one important point….guns. Guns are like no other tool. It is the extreme difference between a tool designed “not to kill”, and a tool specifically designed to kill. When it comes to automobiles, it is incredibly rare that someone sets out to use it to kill another. When it comes to guns, we have way too many examples where people set out to use the gun for its design purpose. It is intent where we come up short when taking on anti-gunners.

            For liberals and lefties, intent is everything. It explains away so much abject failure. “Nobody intends to grow up being a criminal, but conditions left them no alternative”. And such. Then they turnaround and claim that anyone who owns a gun intends to kill something/someone, it is only a matter of time. That reasoning puts us in a bind because anyone who owns a gun for self-defense has to come to the conclusion they are willing to go so far as to kill another person if that is what it takes to stop and attack. We can pussyfoot around with, “Shoot to stop the threat”, but truth is if one of us is required to shoot another person, and one shot, or two shots don’t stop the attack, we will not be saying, “Oh well, that didn’t work, guess I need to negotiate.”. Ultimately, we are committed to taking a human life if that is all that will save our own.

            Guns are a unique tool, like no other. We need to be prepared to successfully counter the gun-grabbers who will not let go of the fact that when guns are used to harm others, the tool is being used to its design. And tonight, I really don’t have anything that will answer the mail on that one.

            • Sam, I gotta ask: are you 2Asux? Your writing has that same feel about it in the way you direct and structure your arguments.

              • Nope. But I think he takes stuff from several people here ( I presume 2A is male). Maybe a lawyer also. Depending on your schooling, you learn certain writing techniques. Always best to be able to say the same thing different ways, based on subject matter. 2Asux seems to be tweaking our noses, and at the same time can be sincere. I believe him/her when declaring little interest in confiscation, more interested in actual safety. I do get the impression he is a “coastie”, left or right. You can catch him sometimes betraying the usual liberal slobber while trying to present an objective position on things. He/she has been awful quiet on this current line of discussion.

        • int19h,

          I went around with Sam I Am until I discovered that he is a pragmatist. He does not appear to oppose our right to keep and bear arms. He is pointing out the current political and legal realities of our landscape. And thus he is suggesting how we ACTUALLY eliminate hindrances to our right to keep and bear arms … versus complaining all the time.

          • 2Asux doesn’t oppose RKBA. He’s just role-playing a gun grabber in order to get you guys to actually answer relevant the questions in a way that doesn’t turn people off and immediately convince them that it’s impossible to have a reasonable conversation with “gun nuts”.

            He even spelled that out explicitly in one of the comments. Hence my surprise that people kept behaving as if it never actually happened, and kept engaging him.

            • I’d contest that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone regarding fundamental god given rights.
              That being said a “reasonable” discussion isn’t needed if both sides understand that the issue must be resolved and don’t leave the table until it is.

              • This approach (which inevitably leads to this right being denied to you completely by the majority, who doesn’t care about it, and has decided that there’s no point in trying to talk to you) is exactly what 2Asux is trying to deal with.

              • They aren’t the bastions of emotional self restraint either. A calm dispassionate discourse is biologically impossible for humans to engage in when the topic is of importance. What both sides need to come to terms with is that just because we can’t have a reasonable discussion doesn’t mean we can’t still have a discussion.

                As you might have guessed I’m Machiavellian with a hint of anarchist. So I would actually welcome the “majority” simply leaving the table to pursue further tyrannical measures at an increased pace, thus allowing us to have the moral high ground when we take up arms.

              • We only need the moral high for the first shot. After that it’s all out war and morality tends to go out the window until a victor has been chosen.

              • To borrow from the British SAS, “Who dares wins”. In a fight to the death, if you ain’t cheatin’, you’re losing. Outcome is too important to be embarrassed over the means.

              • You are correct. Like you have mentioned before recent history is replete with instances that an objective observer would deem as adequate contendors for the title Lexington 2.0, and yet the war drums are silent.

                The primary reason why I have not taken the shot is because I don’t want to be left on the hill to face down the RedCoats alone with naught but my dick in my hand.

              • “The primary reason why I have not taken the shot is because I don’t want to be left standing alone on the hill….”

                Now, what does that say about all the bravado that appears here? You cannot trust your own supporters to have your back?

                But you are not alone. I have seen a number of comments where people claim they are only waiting for some other believer to start the revolution. Not a real threat, is it?

              • I do not doubt for a second that they wouldn’t pick up their piece should shit land on their front yard.


                I am a unique individual. No one like me, no one cares what i do, or what becomes of me. Me storming capital hill and shooting every senator i see would not trigger the war.

              • I’m simply pointing out that there are a whole bunch of sunshine patriots on this forum. Which is ultimately to our great benefit.

              • Not sunshine patriots. I’m the exception to the rule.

                I am in the fandom but not of the fandom. I’m the weird guy at the back of the meeting. Noone knows who I am, noone cares whether or not I attend. I just sit quietly in the back hoping to be included by fiat

              • That is the universal truth of me. It’s not just here, it’s the reality i grew up with.

                Why do you think I’m the only one who doesn’t use a clever handle?

              • “Why do you think I’m the only one who doesn’t use a clever handle?”

                Because you are more clever than the rest.

    • Actually, by that logic, Larry H Miller Toyota is liable for damages caused by someone who stole a car from a third owner and crashed it into a building.

  4. One step closer to that ‘this is it’ moment where you have to choose if this is the cause you are willing to die for

    • I was trying to think of something to type along this thought.
      This law is draconian at best.

  5. Why? They upheld the ridiculous provision in Obamacare that mandates everyone in America must have health insurance. That certainly wasn’t something I expected. It isn’t like saying you must have insurance to drive a car. That is a choice. They actually ratified a provision stating you must have insurance to live. California is a beautiful state. But it is a state created by lawyers for lawyers to keep lawyers employed. Not at all unlike our federal government when you stop and think about it…

    • Well if government mandates everyone purchase a gun then the anti gun becomes sorta mute…don’t ya think?

      • Technically still tyranny, but I’d love it.
        It would be more palatable if instead of mandating that people purchase (i absolutely hate being forced to give my money to another citizen) a gun, but are simply granted the cheapest Hi-Point and a box or reloads when they turn 18 or 21.

    • You have a point. The proposed law was modeled on the San Francisco ordinance that forced the only remaining gun store in town to finally throw in the towel and cash in its chips. It simply could not afford to comply with the video camera mandate. Which, by the way, includes not just the inside of the store, but the perimeter and any adjacent parking lots as well. Yes, there is one and only one object of this bill–to force gun sellers in the state out of business. And to create a de facto ban on guns sales when all the dealers are forced out of business. And this may be its weak point.

  6. Behold: The ultimate goal of democrats. If you vote democrat, you’re condoning this behavior. But I must disagree, they WONT stop here. After this it’ll be, turn em all in or be a felon. And that won’t be the end of it either. Not until they are going door to door, and murdering the innocent in the streets.

  7. Well we can now count California out of the union, as far as firearm ownership. If you live there buy your guns and ammo now. As you will soon not be able to get them. Glad I moved out years ago.

    • I’m not from California, but spent many years there in military service. As soon as my final enlistment was complete, I packed up and headed east…and my time there convinced me to never vote for any Democrat. There are plenty of bad Republicans, but few as bad as the typical Democrat.

    • If Hillary wins, fleeing California will only be a temporary solution. The bar has been set for executive overreach by Obama, and the longer his executive actions/orders stand, the more used to the idea Americans become. If Hillary wins, expect a huge expansion of the Imperial Presidency, and you can be sure that firearms will be hit the hardest. Congress? Who needs them? The big question is when does the tipping point get reached?

  8. Every time I hear about California bills, I feel more like I’m hearing about another country.

  9. We should start a collection to raise funds to expand the wall Mr. Trump plans on building so we can wall off California as well. They clearly don’t care to be a part of this country as they continue to ignore/stomp on/use as toilet paper the bill of rights. And I don’t mean a piddly little fence, I’m talking a World War Z type of wall. 100′ tall, 20’+ thick, and secured with sniper posts on top.

    • No need, Moonbeam has already said if Trump is elected CA will build a wall to keep him out.

      • Yeah. He’s going to get California to pay for the wall by threatening to be their president. =P

        • You don’t need all that. Just tell them that people have guns over here and they’ll go running back to California.

        • Colorado tried that, and failed miserably. As much as many feel it’s redneck and uncouth, gun owners need to ramp up the belligerence big time, if they wish to scare the rabble back where they came from. Guns at every school, in every store. Everywhere one of those yahoos set foot, they should be staring at black rifles. Even better if police departments are reduced to virtually nothing, so that there is a genuine sense that unless you’re armed and know how to use them; who the heck knows if anyone will bother stopping by to clean up your remains after you’ve been victimized.

      • That could be a good thing. We have so many guns here that without fed help we should be able to take over the state in no time. For any spy agency watching this space for you guys its sarcasm.

    • you know what? kiss my ass. You lump all Californians in like anti gunners lump gun owners. for the millionth and last time.. the Liberal cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco push the agendas on the rest of the state. There are plenty of gun owners fighting back but the cities overrule us. every single day. the 9th circuit doesn’t help.

      Write us off if you want to, but these cities, like their east coast equivalent, are test beds for liberty constraining laws that WILL get exported to your state. Coming soon to a state near you.

  10. Much like the bottom line statement of Michael Corleone “Their gonna kill Pop. That’s it!” our reality is “They want all the guns, That’s it!”

  11. Please Support the Firearms Policy Coalition!!

    Although many of you say screw California the vast majority of Californians do not support this kind of legislation.

    All of these anti-gun bills that are coming thought the California legislators are based in San Francisco Bay Area. This is the most liberal part of the country and they are well back by liberal donations in that part of the state as well as from other parts of the country as well.

    The democrats are in full swing to pass these anti guns bills with the hope of not only passing in California but creating a domino effect in other states as well..

    Here is the list so for this year of new bills…

    SB 1006 – UCs to infringe on the Second Amendment
    SB 1446 – Ban on ALL Magazines that were Designed to Hold More than 10 Rounds
    SB 1407 – Retroactive ‘Ghost Gun’ Registration and Regulation
    SB 1037 – Making non-violent firearms related crimes “continuing offenses”
    AB 2459 – A Bill that Tries to Shut Down All Gun Dealers
    SB 880 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Rifles, Pistols
    AB 1663 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban, Adds “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Firearms and Curios and Relics
    AB 1664 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Firearms
    AB 1673 – Expands Definition of “Firearm” to Include Non-Firearm Materials
    AB 1674 – Expands the 30-day purchase limit to all firearms; deletes the “private party” exemption
    SB 894 – Mandatory Law Enforcement Reports for Lost or Stolen Firearms
    AB 1695 – Expansion of Prohibitions and Threatening Letters from DOJ to Gun Owners

    • “…the vast majority of Californians do not support this kind of legislation.”

      “All of these anti-gun bills…are coming though…California legislators…based in San Francisco Bay Area….”

      Are there enough voters in San Fran to completely override the rest of the state? Are there enough voters in the major cities of California to completely override the rest of the state?

      If the answer to either is “Yes”, then the will of the majority of California voters is expressed through these gun control spasms. If the population centers are not capable of out-voting the rest of the state, then the will of the majority of the population is still represented by the fact that those voters opposed to the gun restrictions ratify the legislation through inaction; again the will of the people is reflected through the actions of the elected officials.

      It is not enough to rely on well-funded pro-gun organizations. The only way those organizations can prevail is through the courts. Relying on the courts to do what gun owners cannot do through legislation is the same tactic used by those we despise.

      Signing petitions (just how much credibility do petitions signed mostly by non-residents of California have on state-wide politics?) doesn’t do the trick. The pro-gun voters in California must become the majority vote.

      If the numbers are there, but people do not vote, that is one campaign. If the numbers are not there even if every eligible pro-gun voter votes, the next campaign must be to somehow elect favorable representatives here and there in hopes of starting a wave. If neither campaign can work, mass exodus (thus stripping the government of financial support) is the only remaining action available. Unfortunately, we are all people, with families, careers, pensions, homes, whatever, to protect and prosper, we generally wind up just living with the intolerable.

      • “Unfortunately, we are all people, with families, careers, pensions, homes, whatever, to protect and prosper, we generally wind up just living with the intolerable.”

        Very true … so true that tyrants are quite literally banking on it.

        P.S. I will send you a PM tomorrow.

  12. If this passes, this will be like dominos. Oregon and Washington will follow suit. Maybe not soon, but they will.
    Sure, law suits will start flying, but those take time. In the mean time… Other blue states will see how it works, see the suits and craft their laws to not make the same mistake and avoid the specific suits.

    Lots of us here don’t live in California, but many of us live in blue states. We, close timely, need to fight this. Sign petitions, donate to outfits like calguns, etc…
    Just my 2c.

  13. “… gun dealers will have to stor[e] the high-quality data for up to 10 years on-site …”

    That alone is effectively impossible. Recording multiple video cameras 24/7 will create ginormous amounts of data that far exceed current storage capabilities.

    When I return, I will estimate how much storage that would require and how many 2 TB hard drives would required to store all that video.

    Assuming a store could cover every square inch of their space with one video camera recording at a modest bit rate of 2 Mbps, that single video stream would generate:
    (2×10^6 bits per second / 8 bits per byte) x (3,600 seconds per hour) x (24 hours per day) x (365 days per year) x 10 years == 78.84 x 10^12 bytes.

    Since a 2 TB hard drive is 2 x 10^12 bytes, that single camera recording for 10 years would fill 78.84 / 2 == 39.42 hard drives.

    • Since you cannot have a fractional hard drive, the hypothetical store in my example would need 40 hard drives. And since a real store would most likely need at least 4 cameras to cover all areas, a real-world store would need to keep at least 160 hard drives on site. At an average cost of something like $100 per drive, that would cost the store about $16,000 alone, not including the DVR unit and storage space.

      And how much space does 160 hard drives (in boxes to protect them) take up? Also a LOT.

      • In the data storage world that’s really not that large.

        Plus remember you don’t just store a bit on a drive. You need to keep it on more than one drive to protect against failure of one of the drives… and keep data offsite… and make tape copies… all of this needs to be managed.

        Makes one wonder if some of our data storage companies have some fingers in this law.

        One wonders, indeed.

        • Mr. 308,

          The proposed law, as they described it in this topic, does not require backup drives nor offsite storage. Of course such requirements would only increase the burden on gun stores.

          Also, gun stores are in the business of selling firearms, not storing Terabytes upon Terabytes of data. Storing something like 100 Terabytes of data may not be a big deal for a data storage company. It is for a gun store.

        • “gun stores are in the business of selling firearms, not storing Terabytes upon Terabytes of data”

          California loves to throw regulations and taxation upon businesses and people, it’s what they do for fun, and why we left there 20 years ago.

          Quickly running out of places to move to however.

          Of course you are correct. Just another camels nose in the tent is what it is.

        • It would actually be less onerous if it did permit off-site storage. E.g. Amazon has very cost-efficient data storage plans like Glacier, that they can make really cheap by making them non-real-time (i.e. when you actually need to retrieve it, it takes a while, because they store it on a tape in a vault, and need to physically dig that tape out to replay it).

          However, even then, 80 Tb is a lot. It would cost ~$900/month to store that amount of data in an Amazon data center in California.

        • “The proposed law, as they described it in this topic, does not require backup drives”

          Perhaps not explicitly. But it does require the licensee to maintain the images. Without backups, if any storage media fails during the data retention period, the licensee is no longer maintaining the images that were on that media.

    • Holy numbers batman. Yeh I think thats the point, cant be done , non compliance,,store closed owner sued

      • “… I think thats the point, cant be done , non compliance, store closed, owner sued sent to prison for violating that new law …”

        There, fixed that for you.

    • Here’s another requirement in the bill:
      “The licensee shall inspect the system at least weekly to ensure that it is operational and images are being recorded and retained as required.”

      How does a licensee ensure images are being **retained as required**, without actually going through every drive and checking its integrity? That seems like it would be somewhat time consuming. Every week, insert each of those 160 drives and perform some kind of data integrity check?

        • I’m still wondering how a licensee can comply with:
          “The video surveillance system shall visually record and archive footage of all of the following:
          (2) All places where firearms or ammunition are … carried”

          given that any business owner can carry, openly or concealed, a handgun anywhere within his place of business – including the employee restroom.

          And then:
          “the video surveillance system shall operate and record continuously, without interruption, whenever the licensee is open for business”

          So, if the licensee (business owner) uses the employee restroom while carrying, then the restroom is a “place where firearms are carried”, and he has to record that restroom continuously, without interruption, during his business hours. So he’s also going to record his employees when *they* are using that restroom.

          He can’t comply with this requirement without running afoul of Labor Code 435:
          “No employer may cause an audio or video recording to be made of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for changing clothes, unless authorized by court order”

          • So to remain in compliance the employer would have to mandate a disarmament policy regarding restoom usage.

            I imagine that too would run afoul of another law

            • It sounds like it also applies to carrying customers, not just employees.

              This raises an interesting issue. Suppose they put a sign on the restroom saying “no carry”, but a customer carrying concealed disregards it and carries inside. Is the owner of the shop liable for not recording such a customer? A plain reading of the text of the law would seem to indicate that they are.

              • Well businesses are not required to provide public restrooms, so that issue is easily side stepped.

            • You would need cameras at the doors to ensure the “no gun policy” was enforced.

              Don’t get bamboozled by wondering how to comply. The entire point is to make compliance impossible so violators can be prosecuted, and eventually no one wants to operate a gun store.

              • Agreed. However a law must have a means of compliance otherwise it is text book entrapment and even the most liberal would have to overturn it immediately.
                Granted the means of compliance does not have to be cost effective but it must exist at least in a technical sense.

              • “You would need cameras at the doors to ensure the “no gun policy” was enforced. Don’t get bamboozled by wondering how to comply. The entire point is to make compliance impossible so violators can be prosecuted, and eventually no one wants to operate a gun store.”

                “Agreed. However a law must have a means of compliance otherwise it is text book entrapment and even the most liberal would have to overturn it immediately.”

                No liberal judge would overturn a gun restriction; too many bonus points to be gained by being “the right sort of people”.

              • Except that entrapment is one of their babies. If they side against one of their own calling cards they will completely lose their constituency.

        • “So to remain in compliance the employer would have to mandate a disarmament policy regarding restoom usage.”


          It’s impossible for the business owner to comply with this new bill and Labor Code 435, while still exercising his statutory right to carry in his place of business.

          Imagine if this was to take effect **without** outlawing home FFLs. Since the entire premises is your place of business and you can (and probably do) carry anywhere in your home, you’d have to record every single room in your house whenever you’re “open for business”.

        • “Well businesses are not required to provide public restrooms, so that issue is easily side stepped.”

          But employers are required to provide access to restrooms for their employees (29 C.F.R. 1910.141). Since the business owner has a statutory right (PC 25605) to carry a firearm within his business (including the employee restroom), he has to record that restroom unless he’s somehow able to prevent firearms from *ever* being carried into the restroom.

        • I think you might have missed something here. Ensuring the images are being captured and retained is more than a data integrity check. FFLs will end-up needing to review the entire day’s video feed, everyday, then sign a self-incriminating certification that each image was personally viewed. Everyday.

          I think I am catching onto how these guys work.

          • No. If the camera failed during the day you wouldn’t catch it until the check but it’s too late to fix and therefore in noncompliance with the law.
            They would have to post an employee at the console to watch the monitor as it is being recorded.

  14. And this, folks, is why we don’t give in to “reasonable” “common-sense” gun control. It doesn’t work, and it won’t stop the next incremental grab. The good people of California have very little hope left. This bill is nothing less than the total elimination of gun dealers in the state, via mandating an impossible level of insurance, offered by no entity on the planet.

    • See my comment above. This is probably not true. But the video taping requirements (in HD no less) are onerous and hideously expensive. And accomplish exactly squat, since all legal transactions require the standard 4473, picture ID, proof of residency in the county where firearms are transferred (why I don’t know), thumprint, and DROS that is processed by the DOJ. It might cut down on thefts, but is that really a problem that can’t be solved by requiring stores to store their wares in a vault when the store is closed? [I haven’t been in a store yet where all of the employees/owners aren’t armed during business hours.] And how can they completely ban a legal business (tabletop FFL)? Why? No reason, since these FFLs have to follow the exact same rules as any other FFL.

      Of course, this law isn’t about safety or stopping straw sales. It is about stopping sales, and/or making guns too expensive for most people to buy.

  15. How about handing California back to Mexico. Their policies appear to be in alignment.

  16. My idea for a kickstarter named “Galt’s Gulch” is sounding more and more feasible….

  17. A very small part of me actually hopes that bill passes and finally provides enough incentive for the 6 million gun owners in California to finally act on their own best interests. And when I say “act”, I mean something far more substantial, meaningful, and impacting than signing an online petition.

    Enough is enough.

    • See the book Unintended Consequences by John Ross. It is available on the web in .PDF format. It’s the blueprint.

  18. Im still saying a 5million man march on the whitehouse lawn. Whats it going to take? grrrrrrr, this p!sses me off, gun grabbin, Constitution shredding,anti-American, politions. California is a litmus test.

    • Before someone organizes the 5 million man march, someone should do the following (adapted from the United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776):

      When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for We the People to re-affirm and re-establish our rights which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that We the People should declare the causes which impel us to assemble 5 million men and march on … (Sacramento, Washington D.C. or whatever).

  19. Sorry to hear this. Stand and fight. This is the future of America if Bury Soetoro gets his way. I even saw Pat Robertson on 700Club talk about a gun revolution. Perilous times indeed…BTW Chief Master I can easily buy ammo outside Cook co(NO gun stores in Chiraq) right over the border in Indiana(God’s country)…

    • So true; that’s the way to go when you live around here. But you know the gun-grabbers won’t stop with just the city or the county. It’s a disease, as discussed in the above comments on California.

    • Chicago is fortunate in having two other states nearby, as well as saner parts of Illinois to go buy guns.

      San Francisco has no gun shops, but one can fairly easily go somewhere else that still does…other places in the Bay Area will, and failing that, a somewhat longer expedition to rural CA will do the job.

      But if the whole state has no gun shops in it, you’re screwed because of federal law.

  20. If I lived in Cali, I’d of just started shooting the tyrants. I bet I could get 3 or 4 in an ambush before they got me.

    • It’s far more likely that you’ll actually learn some grammar. And that doesn’t seem to be very likely at all.

  21. Hey manufacturers, yeah you Glock and you Sig and you Heckler & Koch, you need to stand up now and support the dealers in California! Start by only selling through a local dealer to a governmental agency and not just some police supply store. Refuse all direct to agency sales for departments and officers alike. The same goes for ammunition manufacturers.

    The civilian market pays your bills, without it you’ll be out of business.

    • Bingo. All the manufacturers need to band together and refuse to sell to or service any law enforcement agencies firearms or ammo in CA.

      • gun and ammo manufacturers want to make money. reckon as long as they are convinced there is money to be made in californication, they will keep doin’ business there. you would think something like this would make them more nervous than we are.

  22. Why would I live there? It is socialists-liberals heaven state, let them be there and be happy.

  23. A small glimmer of hope exists yet for those of us in Ca. If I recall my details correctly the 9th circuit appeals court has overturned the ban on interstate firearms purchases. As I understand it, it will soon be legal for the residents of one state to purchase firearms at an ffl in another.
    Granted still a heinous law. But if it passes Ca can kiss my ass I’m gone to Arizona.

    • Ignoring court orders is a favorite hobby of lefties and liberal cabals. California can pass a law that restricts where federal firearms licensees are allowed to operate? Well, they will, and it will last however long (as will a ban on interstate sales of firearms and ammunition. However long such laws are not enforced by US Marshals, the lefties/liberals win. Remember when Obama said he wasn’t a king and couldn’t just do what he wanted? Well, someone put a bug in his ear and told him he could rule via executive orders and no one could stop him, and if they did, he would have established something too many people would object to having ended. So, Big O is ruling by fiat now. California can do whatever they like, tie it up in court for however long and then re-do the law and go through another round of trials. Meantime, the effect of the law stands. This is called “political hardball” and people on the right do not know how to do that (nor would they even if they did know how).

      • You speak incessant truth. However it is not Ca’s penchant for ignoring court orders (see Peruta v San Diego. Overturning the 10day wait whic went into effect last month) it is the willingness of Nevada, Arizona, or Oregon to obey the ruling and legalize the sale to CA residents.

        • Peruta had nothing to do with the 10 day wait. It was Silvester v. Harris, which was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just last month, decision to issue when the Court feels like it (no time limit). The effect of the trial court ruling in Silvester (finding the wait unconstitutional for owners of guns) was stayed pending appeal. Peruta was a challenge on the “good cause” requirement of the “may issue” CCW law. (That law sets no standard of “good cause,” that is up to the discretion of each County Sheriff, and of course that standard varies widely from county to county.)

          • I stand corrected thank you.

            I had read somewhere that the Silvester v Harris ruling originally did have a time limit, oh well.

    • No, it wasn’t the Ninth (banish the thought!), it was a trial court in Texas and that ruling is currently on appeal (Tenth Circuit I believe), so is not in effect anywhere.

      • Thank you for the correction but I know about the appeal. However positive vibes, it will soon (1-5yr) become law.

        • With UBCs (which did not exist when the law was passed) it would be pointless not to. As it is, every FFL transaction involves a background check, so yes, the law has become obsolete.

  24. Maybe we should put a wall around California instead of Mexico. I bet if we tell them it is to protect them from those unwashed masses in the fly over states, they will pay for it. Heck, here in Arizona, I am more angry about people migrating from California than Mexico.

  25. What is happening here today is heading your way, especially under a Clinton Whitehouse and Supreme Court. Never think it can’t happen in your seemingly pro gun state.

  26. I wonder if they keep proposing these bills to dissuade anyone who values freedom from ever considering a move to California.
    I never will. I’d rather be unemployed and homeless than take job in California.

    • Or the ICBM.

      If the Norks actually nuked the place, it’d be a double win for us. We’d be rid of millions of shitheads, AND we’d have an excuse to turn his whole country into glow in the dark green glass.