Previous Post
Next Post

Image courtesy Chris Dumm for TTAG

Just a little over two weeks ago the California Department of Justice dropped a bomb on the citizens of their own state. The DOJ suggested a new regulation which would require all gun owners to dispose of their standard capacity (10+ round) magazines prior to July 1, 2017. Students of Constitutional law might recognize this as an illegal seizure of private property without compensation from the state, something specifically forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. CA DOJ officials apparently didn’t think that the minor wrinkle applied to evil gun owners and their deplorable fetish objects. News comes tonight that the California DOJ has just withdrawn their proposal as abruptly as it was introduced.

From the FPC:

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has confirmed that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) has withdrawn their proposed “emergency” regulations on large-capacity magazines.

A December 29, 2016 Office of Administrative Law (OAL) memo, sent to Attorney General Kamala Harris today, states that “This notice confirms that your proposed regulatory action regarding Large-Capacity Magazines was withdrawn from OAL review pursuant to Government Code section 11349.3(c).”

This is good news for residents of California. For now, at least. There’s little doubt that what California lawmakers want most is to make gun ownership as onerous and complicated as possible in order to discourage and eventually eradicate the practice from their hallowed shores. To that end I would expect this issue to pop up again sometime in the near future, but hopefully there will be a Republican stacked Supreme Court ready to set these left coasters to rights.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If I was a betting man, I would wager that ms harris ran to far ahead and lost support from her camp, i suspect a slightly more watered down Constitutional infringement to come down the pipe within a few months. Maybe the state will buy them back for 2-3 dollars, of whatever the “market value” they come up with is.

    Ever vigilant.

      • Forgive me for being unclear, When I say the state will “buy them back” I meant the state will give you a pittance for your property that they deem “illegal”.

  2. The fact that 9 SCOTUS people have opinions and that those opinions affect the lives of millions of people, is the problem. Definitions for words, Use appropriate words, there is no opinion needed.

    It should be apparent by now what CA is doing and what the end game is. This is the reason for the 2A, and the reason why CA must erode and abolish it as much as they can.

    • “Definitions for words, Use appropriate words, there is no opinion needed.”

      An opinion is needed when the ruling class wants to pervert the actual wording of laws to suit their goals.

    • SCOTUS is not supposed to have personal opinions. They are supposed to rule based upon history and the Constitution, including the writings of the Founders. authors, historical records, etc. As Scalia said, the court has gone far afield of it’s charter to determine whether a bill written by Congress, and signed into law by a POTUS, complies with the Constitution or violates it.

      At any rate, any change to the rights of the people should be handled in accordance with the Constitution, just as it was with Prohibition. The amendment process.

      As Jefferson said, a change to a right of the people is not to be left in the hands of politicians but to involve the whole of the people.

    • “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
          “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
          “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

  3. It’s been said here before and we need to repeat it constantly for the next four or eight years: keep your eyes on the ball. There’s still no reason at all that Trump couldn’t double-cross us all and “make a deal” with our civil rights. Until the bills we want are signed into law, we need to keep all the pressure we can muster on Congress, the Senate and POTUS.

    • bLoving, you have that absolutely right!! I don’t trust “blondie” any farther than I can piss, and at my age, that ain’t far. He’ll sell us down the sewer. Hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

      • Suure. I’m sure that the shape-shifting reptiles have nefarious plans to sneak into your house via the sewer system and weld your receivers shut, as well.

        Trump is a concealed carry licensee. How about waiting to see what he does instead of sowing doubt and uncertainty based on your own paranoia. Keep in mind that Obozo has only three weeks left to ruin us, and start focusing on that. He seems to be trying to start WWIII with Russia at the moment. Maybe that’s a LITTLE more worthy of attention than some hallucination about Trump and magazine capacities? Hmmmm?

        • You are so freakin’ right brother, i have two boys, one just turned 18, i am a little more concerned by the crap obozo is pulling now, than being paranoid about what trump MIGHT do……. A Great man said “do not worry about tomorrow.” Today has enough problems, and our current pos potus has a scorched earth policy to make everything more difficult for trump. So lets pay attention to what is going on right now. Midnight regulation anyone?

        • Putin is not taking the bait. He didn’t retaliate on the diplomatic sanctions. He is going to take the ‘high road’ and wait for Trump to reset relations.

          I have a no illusions about Putin being a good friend to the USA down the line, but the Russians could be an asset against the ISIS-type jihadis with a little more cooperation and a little less dick measuring.

          • Russia (the old Soviet Union was Russia, with vassal states of minor consequence) will partner with anyone who will profit Russia, only for so long as it profits Russia. Without warning, Russia will turn on “allies” (not sure what to call the one-night stands Russia favors). Putin is KGB, through and through. He is not kidding about restoring Russian power as it was in the Cold War (only more so). But the Bear is insecure, a bully. Like all bullies, they back-up when popped in the nose.

  4. Aah. Kamala Harris, the next US senator from California.
    I really dug it when, as AG, her office demanded donor information from a conservative political outfit. Liberal fascism at its finest.

    • If they take their fair share of the national debt with them, and understand that all water rights and treaties with neighboring states must be renegotiated, sure.

      • If Cali was not counted in the last election, Trump would have won the popular vote instead of Hillary, by over 2 million votes.

        Dem. – 8,753,788

        Rep. – 4,483,810

        Cali being gone would make America a lot more Conservative…

          • It’s easy to say, but you should consider the ways your life will be changed without CA. The loss of agricultural products alone will hit your wallet. Research the CA economy. We export across the nation and overseas. Our economy is the 6th largest in the world, having surpassed that of France.

            Yes we have problems with our politicos and more, but there are a great many conservatives here, trying to keep the socialists in check. We have been here before when Moonbeam’s father was the governor. This led to a taxpayer revolt, and even the liberals turned on him and brought in Ronald Reagan who turned the state around.

            Practically every law enforcement agency and association in the state has stood for the 2A rights of the people. Sheriffs have openly stated they will refuse to enforce any law(s) which violate the rights of the people.

            It’s not a California problem, it’s a national problem when the rights of the people are being eroded.

            • Maybe the complete political destruction of California (like encouraging secession, or a trade with Mexico in return for them paying for the fence) will send a proper “message” to leftists, liberals (repetition), and Demoncrats.

              Utter destruction worked in Japan and Germany (so far)

        • I have the same response to that as I give to the Democrats whining about how Clinton won the popular vote: Az di bobe volt gehat beytsim, volt zi geven mayn zeide.

    • It’s really just the coastal stretch from LA to the Bay that is the problem. If they do secede they will see the area to the north of San Francisco and every place East of the mountains go West Virginia on them depriving them of their water and agricultural resources.

      I say prempt their secession by selling Coastal California back to Mexico, stripping the residents of their US citizenship, forbidding them entry into the US for 10 years and prohibiting their renaturalization.

    • Thing is, they’re NOT “high capacity” magazines, they’re “standard” or “normal” capacity magazines. The sorts of magazines that are sanctioned by the leftist gun-grabbers are “DIMINISHED CAPACITY” magazines – “diminished capacity”, just like the “minds” (such as they are) and (what passes for) “thinking ability” of those who advocate for them!

      • I would argue they should be called “RESTRICTED” capacity magazines.

        You know, because our rights are being restricted in this case to an artificially imposed limit.

        • They are also”restricted” because a 30 round magazine won’t hold any more than that. Bummer. I’d love to have a magazine like a California 10 rounder that will allow me to fire 150 time. 🙂

        • also, a question… does standard apply when the weapon was first produced, or now? The first ARs and M-16s only had 20 magazines.

        • A high capacity magazine is one which accepts more than one cartridge. Except Californica, where any magazine, regardless of capacity, holds too many bullets.

    • “nuff said”.

      Not quite. The final line is the payoff: “…and will get us all killed”.
      -M.Savage, radio host

  5. Trump should sell California to Mexico and after they miss a payment, flip it to Russia for a YUGE profit! ?

    (Hat-tip Ron White)

    • Why go thru all that? Anybody that wants to succeed just take away there citizenship and EBT cards (if they are on welfare) and tell them they have 30 days to get out of the country, if they don’t arrest them. The US isn’t going to give up California but we sure can make sure the ones that want to succeed leave the country, Mexico has stronger immigration laws than we do and they will get to live out their dreams in Canada.

      • What about all those ports and military bases? We’ve got a while to go before Arizona Bay becomes a thing, so we kinda need those.

        • Those would still belong to the US, and sold or closed; equipment and troops relocated inside the new US border.

  6. That’s exactly what they did in NY and it was not only passed but found to be Constitutional by the circuit court here.

    Which makes me surprised CA didn’t go through as well.

    • The Safety Act is one of the reasons I left NY that middle of the night law was disgusting. The confiscation of prior legally owned person possessions is unconstitutional. When it was okayed as constitutional in NY it was time to leave that dictatorship of a flawed state.

    • Yeah, the SAFE Act did away with previously grandfathered pre-ban magazines. You had to get rid of them. Sell them out of state or dispose of them. Nobody was compensated. Or compensated for the cost of bringing an “assault weapon” into compliance.

  7. “Students of Constitutional law might recognize this as an illegal seizure of private property without compensation from the state, something specifically forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.”

    So, does that mean New York State’s letter a while back informing gun owners their black rifles were illegal and must be removed from the state, surrendered to the police or be destroyed was itself illegal since no compensation for their value was offered?

    I’m willing to be reasonable. They may have my $45 stripped lower for $10,000.


    • The wiggle room that NY gave itself was the allowance that the items could be “disposed of” by removing them from the state. Now, I personally would argue that such “wiggle room” is bullshit in terms of Amendment V.

      I don’t know how successful they would be in arguing that in front of a judge but it’s clear that they’re going for the idea that the law has outs in it that don’t require surrendering something to the State without compensation (Article V) and is therefore permissible under the COTUS.

      The problem I think is still Article 1, Section 10 which explicitly prohibits any state from passing an ex-post facto law. They can make the sale or transfer of the item illegal going forward but if it was legally possessed before/at the time the law went into effect they’re not supposed to be able to do anything about it.

      I would further note that this would apply to some transfers. If you had, say, 50 magazines for your AR and they were all 30 rounders but you had them as part of your Will before the law went into effect I would argue that transfer cannot legally be stopped. You legally possess them and you legally willed them to someone before the state made it’s fascist little rule. Under a strict reading of the COTUS (OK, a simple and literal reading) they can’t touch you for the mags and they can’t stop the transfer of them because the mags were legally possessed before the law and the will was written as a legally binding document before the law as well.

      Even further, the government is prohibited from passing laws that negate legal contracts between private entities. You and your heir are both a private entity. I would argue that this means there are multiple grounds to defend your last Will and Testament transfer. Of course that hinges on the Will being a contract and I’m not sure what the legal deal is with a Will in terms of contract law.

      • “I don’t know how successful they would be in arguing that in front of a judge…”

        Based on the Safe Act’s treatment so far I know exactly how far it would go before a judge in NY.

      • Opinion follows:
        I think that you will find that in order for a will to be a contract, consideration must be made for each party.
        Otherwise, a will is just a designated donation.

        If, for example, Joe Sixpack wants to will his firearms to his son Jack, that would be a donation.
        However, if Jack is stipulated in the will to donate one of the magazines included with the firearms to the state, that would be a contract.
        Joe’s consideration would be the donation to the state, Jack’s consideration would be the rest of Joe’s firearms.

        Of course, I’m not a lawyer, and didn’t even sleep in a motel last night, but that’s my opinion.

        • As I said, I’m not sure what the legal status of a Will is in terms of being or not being a contract. Generally a contract requires both parties to agree to it and sign it. A Will does not.

          That said, you’re still on pretty solid 5A and Sec. 1, Art. 10 grounds.

        • A will is not a contract (in Texas and probably most everywhere else). It is arguable that it has one or two of the elements of a contract, but a contract has at least five elements.

          • A will does not contain an offer of something of value (labor, material, etc) and an acceptance with compensation (usually money).

  8. Never underestimate a politicians’ strongest ability – self preservation. Cali pols know full well what the election meant to them. All their electoral votes and ‘citizenry’ got them 1st Loser this election, and the man who beat them is an Alpha male and knows how to win, compared to the she-man that lost.

    Trump isn’t selling our 2A rights. I laugh when I read those wet noodle comments about him dealing them away. He said he won’t let the 2A be diced up back in Nov 13 (after the election)

    • And you believe that bullshitter???? I’m waiting on PROOF, not mouth out behavior. So, I reckon we’ll see, won’t we, O gullible one.

      • When we start getting into purely political discussions, the only facts are what happened in the past. Promises are pure fantasy, until and unless they are fulfilled.

        We don’t know what to expect from Trump; he’s not a politician, so he’s very unpredictable. He doesn’t know what being President means yet. Sort of like Obama, whose political experience on actually becoming President was woefully scant. He discovered that he just couldn’t do much of what he promised. All presidents have the same problem, except second-termers. And even they often have problems.

        Before we pass judgement, let’s wait for something to happen.

  9. I fought the mag ban through the Firearms Policy Coalition by donating money, sending letters of opposition, sharing FPC and TTAG on Facebook, and a few other things. This is a small victory, but I’m still glad to have it. I will help hold Trump to task on his Pro-2A agenda, and continue to pester the NRA to do so. Calguns is also involved, but the FPC was the heavy hitter in this one.

    Please, join and donate to the FPC if you have not already done so. Active and engaged gun rights advocates really can make a difference. The powers that want to ban guns are very aware that gun rights advocates are a problem. Sometimes I’m surprised that I still have my job as a police supervisor in such an anti-gun state.

    Meanwhile, I’m saving up and looking for land in WI. And I pick up another AR-15 and AR-10 lower from Rifle Gear in Fountain Valley. I’m keeping my standard capacity magazine. If I had 60 round D mags and 100 round dual drum mags, I would be keeping those as well. ??

    • It seems like a Pyrrhic victory. There were already two laws passed this year that call for the confiscation of magazines by the end of next year.

      • A “Pyrrhic victory” is not a futile, useless, or worthless victory. It is a victory that destroys the winner as much, or more, as the vanquished.

        Not sure I see Accur81 as more destroyed than the loser here. Is there more to this?

        • I donate to FPC as well. I didn’t donate specifically to this cause because it seemed like a waste of money. Seemed pyrrhic because OP spent more money fighting something that will be happening regardless unless both of those laws are overturned in some way.

        • The laws I am referring to as described by Wikipedia:
          In July 2016 several new restrictions were enacted. It became illegal to sell semi-automatic rifles with magazines that can be detached using a bullet button. The possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition is now prohibited; large capacity magazines lawfully owned before this date must either be turned into police or a licensed firearms dealer, or removed from the state. Background checks are required for the sale of ammunition.[86][87]

          In November 2016 California voters approved Proposition 63. The referendum outlaws the possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, requires a background check for the purchase of ammunition, and requires the reporting of lost or stolen guns.[14] Starting on January 1, 2019, a permit will be required to purchase ammunition and ammunition must be registered.[88]

          • Playing defense is only a winning strategy in football. In politics, the side that can produce the most onerous law the fastest will ultimately win through attrition.

        • Interestingly, as Nevada is discovering, the FBI will not be performing background checks for ammo sales.
          The FBI is federal, and don’t have any reason or legal basis to do such checks for a state.
          So, who will do them? And, who will pay for them?
          Will California need to set up inspection stations at every point of entry, specifically to check for incoming ammo?

          • This is too simple, folks. The state(s) can mandate that all transfers go through an FFL (FBI does not know whether a background check is accompanied by a sale of the FFL’s inventory). If so many FFL/dealers refuse to do “private” checks, the feds can mandate that FFL holders process all requests, or surrender the FFL.

            We are seeing only a temporary inconvenience to the government.

            • FFLs around the country only wish the Feds don’t know if a gun being sent through the NICS system is from the FFL’s inventory or not.
              The BATFE keeps very detailed records of any FFL’s inventory. They are open to a physical inspection at any time, and records had better be in order. It is trivial to make such a listing available to the FBI.

              • Yes, the feds “know” about inventory, and after the fact can manually match the records. The online check is a background check for the buyer, not the seller, not the inventory transaction.

              • It doesn’t need to be manual, Sam. Computer databases are wonderful things, and all kinds of people and agencies can know what’s in them. It is trivial to share data. The only manual part is actually changing who can see the data, and from then on, it’s all automatic. It’s only a matter of a few hours’ work. And who’s to say it hasn’t already been done?
                Personally, I don’t trust my government, because it has demonstrated time and again that it can’t be trusted.

              • Agree. “Manual” in this context means not having a data warehouse to search from wherever. But searching for sales transactions is not something the feds can do “on the fly” when it comes to FFL transfers. That is why some sales are put on hold while further research is done. Takes time to search multiple sources for hundreds of thousand transfers per day.

                Point being, the state can mandate all transfers be through FFLs, and those NICS checks don’t include inventory checks. My bud does several private sales each year (gets tired of one, then wants another), and he is in a state that mandates all sales/transfers go through FFL.

        • Yes, they already have state agricultural inspection stations and also federal immigration checkpoints. Back in the days of magazine rebuild kits, the CA DOJ were known to send undercover to gun shows in Reno & Las Vegas hoping to catch people with California plates buying stuff and bringing it across the border.

  10. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    All of these BS commiefornia regulations on ammo, background checks ,excessive waiting periods and costs sure sounds like an infringement of rights to me.

      • That is totally false. There are a great many “patriots” in California. We fight the good fight. We are like the defenders of the Alamo who, totally outnumbered, continued to fight to the death for what they believed.

        • The men at the Alamo delayed Santa Ana, but they did not defeat him. The Alamo was a sacrifice against orders that worked in the favor of the rest of the “patriots”. In the present situation, Santa Ana is winning in Califonicatia and related states. We do not have a Sam Houston waiting in the swamps to destroy a tired enemy army.

  11. I can only guess but I surmise the reason is a multi-pronged. I wouldn’t doubt that they got literally millions of emails saying…well essentially….kiss my ass, you want it, come and take it. I know that’s what I would have sent someone.
    Most certainly there is a multitude of sound reasoning behind the decision, for example the incoming presidential administration where likely down the road, a legal challenge would prove to be a losing and unpopular expense for the state.
    Let’s hope this just the beginning of wins for us all.

  12. I wish people would consider…

    A National Reciprocity bill is the first domino that will collapse this nonsense for good. The minute that I can legally walk in San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose carrying a loaded firearm is the Beginning of the End for this unConstitutional nonsense.

    There are over 7 million gun owners in California. When I walk into San Diego with a gun, and the California resident next to me says, “Wait, where is MY permit?” And then he applies and is denied as usual… this certainly is going to the Supreme Court. And much like the gay-marriage-is-okay-here-but-not-there nonsense (regardless of your beliefs about it…), there will be a baseline of equality established. There simply will have to be, because there is no alternative. Shall issue will emerge, then a run on permits, then the resulting political pandering from gun normalization in society… and the cookie crumbles. It won’t be overnight, it won’t be easy, and the court cases will drag on and flush buckets of money away… but in the end, there will be no choice but to capitulate to the “norm” of the rest of the nation– particularly if the other 8 resisting states are all being chipped away at the same time (like NY and NJ…).

    This is notwithstanding the holy hell that will be brought by state vs. citizen if non-resident permits are obtained by state residents, and California attempts to enforce their irreconcilable state laws on a resident taxpayer who is simply following the rules. Or even when an out of state family tourist is arrested in a high profile case having a 16-round mag in the normal Glock or Beretta he “carries everyday, so what’s the fuss??” The chaos will be too much for the state and the country to put up with. And things will eventually get better.

    But it has to start with allowing normal people to carry guns normally.

    One thing Americans have (and love) is Convenience. And for that matter, impatience. When those 7 million California gun nuts go for their new fangled permits, they will spill out into the real world… parents, sons, daughters, cousins, families… and the lie of “gun violence” becomes the real loved one you’ve known all your life… who is not a criminal, who doesn’t need to be the persecuted subject of millions of tax payer dollars thrown away on “enforcement” of hysteria and emotional ignorance. The propganda won’t make sense anymore, because it won’t be about “us,” when people suddenly realize the “them” is now “us.” The final call will be: Just get it over with, and move on.

    We truly need this bill… we need National Reciprocity for the win. In short, in order to fully normalize guns into California (and the other resisting states), we need to make it legal for essentially everyone to carry one around with them without fear of prosecution. That is the domino that knocks the whole stack of stupidity over. Because we already know, by hard data– nothing changes for the worse, and an armed society does not equal Armageddon like the antigun propaganda has insisted for far too long. When citizens can carry guns normally, consumer products like magazines and evil stocks and grips and semi-auto rifles will follow, and the unConstitutional laws will fall… it simply has to, it must because this is capitalist America.

    Call, write, and insist– pass National Reciprocity. At the utter least, it can’t hurt the rest of us. And it just might save California.

    Be safe.

      • It’s simple, we literally can not afford to leave.
        Wether it be because one is broke, or because one’s career simply doesn’t exist elsewhere, or because one’s sole reason for existence is here makes little difference. The result is the same, the freedoms gained do not outweigh the hardships required to obtain them.

        • I think you nailed it. Simple. But you can bet that all those who find it too difficult to make life-changing decisions in order to enjoy certain freedoms will definitely, without exception, rise up in civil war against a government.

      • The women, beaches, weather, DIVERSITY (it’s a great thing you should try it), jobs, schools , did I mention the women?

      • Why do we stay? It’s because, in spite of what’s wrong with the state, we happen to love many aspects of the state. It is “home” for a great many, just as MA, CT, NY, etc., are to many of you. I don’t see people running away from those states. I also don’t see a lot of people from other states suggesting we should dump those states.

    • National Reciprocity is a gun control bill. Any legislation that attempts to regulate, in any way, who and how a constitutional right is to be exercised, is gun control. If the government can, with all the enthusiasm of the pro-gun chorus, determine the limits of the constitutional right, then that same government can, via legislation, make an entirely different law. We cannot approve gun control that we like, and complain about gun control we do not like.

      BTW, for all who resist mandatory gun safety training, National Reciprocity can end up with that very mandate. National Reciprocity is simply saying, “The Second Amendment is inviolable, and this time we really, really mean it (but not enough to pass a constitutional amendment that does the same thing).

      • Yes. You are right, your points are valid. No question about it.

        But this is “the real world.” And in the real world, we have to deal and live with people who arbitrarily disagree, people who are ignorant, and people who are just plain stupid. And that necessarily means placating and compromising those who are ignorant of guns and/or the Constitution.

        I stress again– the clearest path, in my opinion, to the de-regulation of guns in California and like-States (e.g., NY, NJ etc.) is to allow normal, law-abiding people to carry guns normally, everyday. To reverse the trend of unConstituional crap like the absurd new Brown laws, we have got to get everyday citizens walking around normally with guns (as is our Constitutional right anyway). We can scream bloody murder about the principle of it all, but these people just do not care about that. California had to bend to a permit system– but in reality, “may issue” is just “won’t issue” unless you’re a specially connected individual. Chipping away at this by what is essentially a mass subversion of California’s unConstitutional laws is the practical way… but it is one way, and it is my opinion.

        In Arizona, we had open carry, then a permit system… what followed? In a few years, Constitutional carry became reality. Because the sky did not fall. People saw in real life that Chicken Little was dead wrong. The citizens demonstrated their general competency, people saw accepted this, and then we were willing to make carry Constitutional, not just by insisting on principle, but in actual fact. I think the only way to convince the non-gun masses (not antigun, but non-gun voters who align with antigun people because of the “common sense” propaganda…) that Constitutional carry can work is by first demonstrating that National Reciprocity works. That we can indeed all live and function safely with our populace being armed., and society will not fall apart.

        Again, I agree with you. Preach it. But I do believe most will not hear it. They gotta see it. And if it takes a gun control measure– one of compromise– as a stepping stone to Constitutional carry, then let’s do that (yes I just threw up in my mouth…). Because in reality, principles don’t change society– demonstrating the value of principles does.

        Truth? You’re damn right I find it idiotic that I’d be able to CCW in California, but only with an “approved” and “safe” pistol, with some nanny bureaucrat fool telling me “lives will be saved” if I have 7-rounds instead of 11. Yeah… we know that is dumb, the stupidity is astonishing, completely. But, just like the AWB will never happen again– because literally millions of people use AR-15s safely daily– it will take some real world convincing first.

        And so I think the way to end California’s stupid stuff is to first allow normal people from all over the USA to carry guns normally, first. We can play that same gun control game…. give us one bit of “common sense” regulation first, and in a couple years, we will be back for more.

        Be safe.

        • State laws regarding constitutional carry are different from national reciprocity. State laws once determined if, as, and when citizens could KBA within each of the original states (the federal constitution did not apply to the states except for one or two specific clauses). State-by-state “constitutional carry” is the essence of federalism as it was designed. National reciprocity will be the vehicle by which gun rights are strangled in the future. At that point, state constitutional carry laws will be struck down as conflicting with federal law.

          • I disagree. I feel a national carry law would be an effective way to keep the liberal states from violating the rights of their citizens. The important caveat here is that it would need to include a “least restrictive” clause. The federal law would override CA, NJ, NY, MA, etc, but would not override states with open carry or permitless carry (I refuse to refer to it as constitutional carry). While I have made it clear that I am opposed to permitless carry, I still support the rights of individual states to interpret the Second Amendment however they see fit in the absence of clear judicial interpretation at the federal level. What I do not support are state laws that clearly infringe on both the right to keep arms (magazine restrictions and selective weapon bans) and the right to bear arms (may issue, which we all know means won’t issue).

            • “I disagree. I feel a national carry law would be an effective way to keep the liberal states from violating the rights of their citizens.”

              I think this is where so many are misapprehending the situation. A full-on constitutional amendment (2d) did not, and does not, prevent any authority from “infringing”. Mere legislation is orders of magnitude easier to make and change than amending the constitution. If 2A wasn’t/isn’t enough to prevent “infringement”, how would simple legislation be more effective, more permanent.

              Approving of/supporting national reciprocity endorses the idea that government can make laws regarding the rights of individuals to have firearms. Once the pro-gun lobby agrees the government has the “right” to regulate, at any level, private gun possession, then all we are arguing over is price.

        • I do see your point, Sam. I really do understand the wary suspicion of instituting any “card-carrying” system of regulation on a federal level, and the onerous potentialities that can arise with that… such as making stricter education/training standards and making them mandatory (as you previously mentioned…), and then standardizing a system of arms registration (i.e., they’ll say why not since it’s “obvious” if-permit-then-gun-owner, so “how could it hurt?”), then eventually continually increasing the requirements of those standards… all it would take is one or two gun-unfriendly administrations & Congress… until one day the requirements become all but impossible to adhere to, and the arms & types become registered & restricted in quantity. And the vehicle eradicated our gun rights.

          It is a slippery slope argument.

          Thing is… we have had about 25 years of CCW permit history to examine now, existing through at least 16 years of Clinton/Obama administrations even, and exactly the opposite of what we feared has happened. In all but 8 states (basically), gun rights have become MORE accepted, MORE lenient, MORE popular. The flaw in the slippery slope is this: it assumes that the general “will of the People” and their saviours is to restrict our guns. And that is very fortunately not so… over the last 25years, nearly every state has relaxed its gun restrictions, accepted normalized CCW carry, accepted open carry, many accepting Constitutional carry, and for the first time in American history (well, topically recorded anyway), Americans– BOTH gun AND non-gun households alike, are more in favor of gun rights than gun restrictions (e.g., today, even a greater number of non-gun-owning households disagree with an Assault Weapons Ban…and it can be reasonably surmised that this is because they know real, normal people with AR-15s).

          2016… guns in America are more popular than ever, with sales decisively rebuking anti-gun rhetoric and gun control attempts. Why is this? Is it because we kept ranting and raving on blogs and walking around with ARs in front of our state capitols?

          It’s really because in addition to us regular shooters/sportsmen, over 15+ million people now legally can carry loaded guns in society– utterly flattening the lie that guns will erode and destroy “normal,” civilized society. And, all of those 15 million people have families, connections, real lives. Just about everyone knows a “gun nut” in their family now. The impact of permitted carry over 25years has been huge. Absolutely huge in popularizing firearms… mainstreaming them.

          What we keep fearing might happen… submitting fingerprints and our lives to the state, in exchange for that plastic card ratifying the rights that are rightfully ours anyway… it hasn’t. It didn’t. Just the opposite happened… having a permit is almost respectable, even trendy to some extent.

          That’s a whole other can of worms– I doubt all of those permit holders have a big picture view. Would they even grumble if the requirments were slowly strangled… alas, it’s speculation.

          What we do know for sure is, firearms and armed America has thrived under CCW mainstreaming. That is not slippery slope, it is fact. For the first time, we are even seriously talking about chipping away the NFA and its absurdly arbitrary suppressor rules, SBR rules, AOW rules… why not select fire even….

          I know what you fear. I surely did. (It took me until 1997 to get my CCW, as I watched suspiciously… but 20years later, it has only gotten better….) And, it is perfectly logical why you suppose that. Rational even. But what we have seen and are seeing just doesn’t realistically indicate that those fears will manifest in reality. Instead, we see desperate last-gasp, dead-ender lashing out like California’s idiotic new laws, and Massachusetts’ crazy arbitrary ban. This is a sign that we are winning, not losing. And yes, we could end up giving the whole store away with complacency– I would be dead suspicious if the Democratic Party suddenly started to weasel their way into determining the parameters of CCW carry by giving its “blessing” and “support” to National Reciprocity. They won’t, though– if history is reliable, they won’t figure it out… they think the normalization of guns is pathologically insane, not a natural right. They’ll fight it, and throw amusing tantrums, and make it a messy affair by kumbaya-ing and waving bloody shirts… and in the end, as usual, they will be their own worst enemy by demonizing us law-abiding responsie citizens.

          25 years of “track record” and trajectory seem reliable… the people are slowly and steadily normalizing our RTKABA. I don’t think there are reasonable indicators that the “worst case scenario” warnings, the “vehicle by which gun control will prevail,” will become reality.

          The winds seem to be blowing our way. And for decades now. National Reciprocity is the next logical step and should not be feared. It should be implemented with caution and foresight to protect our rights, as always… but not avoided because of slippery slope speculation.

          Thanks for a good discussion, also. Be safe.

          • National reciprocity is unnecessary, already. How in the world do pro-gun people accept that the constitution requires every state and local jurisdiction to accept driver’s licenses (a privilege) from other states as valid, but not exercising an enumerated right? How do we stand for that? Why are the national gun organizations not challenging the proposition that states can regulate gun permits, but not out-of-state vehicle driving and licensing permits? Solve that problem and no “national reciprocity” legislation is needed.

            I look at the near 50-50 split among the population regarding guns, and take no comfort in a “draw”. The improvement you believe is the wave of the future doesn’t bear out in reality. The improvement you believe is the wave of the future seems to be in “red” states. The majority of the physical population (and voting population) resides in the “blue” states. Court cases in “blue” states are not trending toward more possession, more carry. Peruta and Alameda in the 9th establish no right to carry in that circuit…not a small population group.

            Always bear in mind that statists consistently double-down their efforts when they lose elections. They never just accept adverse results. Legislation can be no more effective a protector of rights than the constitution itself. So far the constitution failed to completely protect so many of our rights. Legislation is subject to whomever is the majority political party. We are all so sure Trump will overturn 8 years of Obama, but fail to realize the next Obama will overturn Trump, completely.

        • As always, Sam, you make excellent points– concise, keen, and totally valid. Quite literally, I agree with you in principle. But instead of saying, “National Reciprocity isn’t necessary,” I would say, “National Reciprocity *should not be* necessary.” We agree one hundred percent on this, and the reasons why. How do we put up with it, indeed.

          Unfortunately, again we have to share this country… we have to live in a *United* States of America, with people who are adamantly, vehemently, zealously against the very idea of even owning a gun, much less exercising the natural right to bear one for self-defense. You are dead right about the concentrated population centers of people who, if given a sliver of opportunity, would literally confiscate our guns and spitefully punish us for owning them. So, in principle, your stand is correct– we cannot budge. As you mentioned above, to some extent, the very idea of accepting permits is a de facto relinquishing of Constitutional right and an endorsement of gun control.

          My own sister (2 years younger), a prominent physician in a Bay Area California VA hospital, says: “There is no fathomable reason whatsoever why any lay-person should be allowed to own any kind of assault rifle.” I asked her, “Well would you turn in your neighbor? Would you turn in your own brother?” Her answer… no hesitation– absolutely. For the “safety of society.” I know exactly what kind of people and disillusioned/misguided/whatever-rational-excuse-for-totally-insane-ignorance statist people we are dealing with.

          But this is the real world, again. We are sharing a nation with such people– and like it or not, we already begrudgingly accept all kinds of statist intrusions into our rights. And, taking it to its logical extreme, most of us also know that during the Civil War, family & brother often fought family & brother. There has to be a way that we can peacably co-exist and live with accommodations that share reasonable freedoms with one another.

          It just isn’t realistic to say, “Leave the state.” “Never go there.” “Never compromise.” “Rise and shoot back.” It just doesn’t work for everyone in reality.

          I am a textbook example of why National Reciprocity could be an acceptable compromise, if implemented correctly. I have lived in Arizona for over 20 years, and have been a regular shooter for longer. But I am the only shooter in my family. My kid goes to college in San Diego; her choice, and she has thrived there… her lifestyle is her own choice, and guns are not for her. My two sisters and their families live in the San Jose Bay Area– they are religiously antigun. I have to travel to California frequently. I travel alone, and by motorcycle. Being a small, sorta-old, self-reliant guy– there is no way in hell I travel unarmed. Doesn’t even cross my mind to be unarmed.

          But every time I want to see my kid, and every time I want to see my nephews and nieces and sisters, I literally become a criminal crossing the border into a state that is at odds with the rest of our country. I have never been in trouble with the law in my life, but suddenly I am an evil criminal simply because I exercise my natural right.

          Principles? Yes, it is absolutely wrong. But I follow the law– I empty the guns, lock the boxes, separate the ammunition. Are we going to change this nonsense by insisting *we and our principles are right* ? It is never going to happen like that. If I decide to exercise civil disobedience, and I am pulled over… is the officer going to be sympathetic to my principles? Is the lawyer who sends me the bill?

          For every principled person that is not affected by the interstate quagmire of firearms possession and state reciprocity laws… there is a citizen-at-grave-risk like me who it directly affects several times a year. I pay for a residence and education in California, but I cannot vote there. I literally risk my lifetime freedoms and gun rights just by entering the state.

          It simply is not realistic to say, “That’s your damn problem, so move.” For either me, or for the millions of shooters “behind enemy lines” in antigun states like California. We can hold our breath and be absolute in our principled convictions, but it does not change the mind of the antigun people living there (and voting there, whether from ignorance, spite, or whatever…). And it does not help the minority of shooters who still have equal, natural, Constitutional rights there… regardless of such rights being restricted and denied. There has to be a solution– a reasonable and practical solution– that can be implemented to solve this problem.

          And, like it or not, such a solution WILL involve some kind of compromise with people who not only hate guns, but quite obviously hate PEOPLE with guns. This might be painful, uncomfortable, an affront to our principles… but it is the only realistic way to move forward in the country we live in. This is not an academic classroom about the Constitution, Amendments, and its history. It’s the real world, with real polarized people dealing with real statist bureaucracy.

          It is only my opinion… but I will sum it up again: The recent history seems to show that the CCW system is practically effective in mainstreaming and relaxing attitudes towards guns and the RTKABA. If we can manage to bend the resisting states to our will, and force them to accept CCW national reciprocity, the history thus far suggests that Americans will accept it and eventually relax gun restrictions (as opposed to taking advantage of permit law as a vehicle to enable further, more restrictive gun control). The key seems to be the acknowledgement of normal, law-abiding citizens carrying guns in society everyday, normally.

          So much of the antigun fear and ignorance of those people in Democratic/liberal antigun states seems to be actual ignorance and a lack of familiarity with real world firearms. All they seem to know is, GUNS=deathmurderkill. National Reciprocity could be an important opportunity to realistically demonstrate that nothing significantly changes for them when normal people carry concealed firearms normally.

          I cannot stress enough: I agree with you in principle. But a real solution doesn’t happen by firm absolutism or by academic principle. It comes, as history seems to show, through reasonable compromises and acceptance of some regulations that pro-gun advocates can readily build upon (e.g., first National Reciprocity, next Constitutional Carry…). Again, I cite the AWB expiration and its failure to gain any meaningful support for its renewal… I surmise that a big part of the reason we are considering and discussing the dismantling of the NFA– suppressors, SBR, and AOW– is because the proliferation and normalization of the AR-15 rifle has demonstrated that normal everyday people can keep and bear such arms safely. This is clearly true, on a scale of millions of people, outside some hijacked-propagandized aberrant mass murders (and actually, maybe even more demonstrably true because of the reality of such murders’ rarity, proportional to the amount of “assault rifles” in citizens’ hands today).

          I hope you’re proven wrong… not just to see you be wrong, of course, but because I think we have an opportunity here to change the last remaining resisting states. And, because I believe if National Reciprocity can be successfully implemented and accepted, then further de-regulation will probably follow. I hope you’re wrong… but I can understand those concerns, because you are indeed right about statists (re: doubling down). I think that, ironically, this has actually helped us… e.g., few things are more ridiculous than crying wolf with bloody shirts, and being proven to be alarmist fools. People tend to believe what they see and “know” in their real lives, and California desperately needs lawful gun carriers walking around with a smile.

          BTW… I do believe my positions. It isn’t all just selfishness, because National Reciprocity will directly affect me in a big way. I tend to think empathetically about my predicament: if I have such hassles and problems, then I can’t even imagine what it must be like for say, a commercial truck driver who has to defend his livelihood.

          Thanks again for your thoughtful responses.

          We will see, hopefully! Be safe. And Happy New Year to you.

          • We seem to be differing primarily over tactics. Just a piece of legislation, or using the constitution instead. The constitutional requirement to honor marriage and other licenses among the states should be used to force national recognition of gun purchase/carry licenses (presuming we all concede that any license is constitutionally valid).

            The goals are the same.

  13. If ammo is registered what do you do after you shoot it? Return or retain the empty brass? Is there a serial number somewhere on the brass and bullet?

    • Well given the microstamping requirements that have been in place since 13, yes there would be a serial number on the brass.

    • Each bullet and casing would be stamped with a number, and recorded as part of the sale. The only need for returning the brass or bullet would be during a crime investigation. The casings and bullets are likely to be readily available for comparison with the data base.

      But you do present an interesting idea for further tweaking the registration law; prove you shot all your ammo in a non-criminal activity. Can’t prove it, you go to jail. At certain intervals, one would be required to account for every round fired, misfired, or ejected. Can’t do that? Surrender your gun, stop practicing (or hunting) with your gun, be prepared to go to jail if you use your gun and cannot account for every round. Yeah, that will make society safer.

  14. “Constitutional? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitutional!”

    Since when has the constitutionality of a rule or law ever deterred CA from trampling the people’s RKBA?

  15. If the government can claim the power to limit the magazine size that can be legally carried, then their is noting to prevent the government from banning everything but single shot pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

    Bernie Sanders openly declared he would ban all firearms not primary designed for hunting.

  16. if it’s illegal to buy them in California then the law makers should be arrested for buying them from us.

Comments are closed.