California is a strange state, to say the least. They cherish their image of openness, free speech and embracing diversity. At the same time they have one of the most restrictive and oppressive state governments in the country. Especially when it comes to gun control, California prides itself on that oppressive and now confiscatory – nature. Because obviously gun owners are criminals, right? At least, that’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the laws that the California Senate has approved and passed on to the Assembly. Obviously, punishing legal gun owners will stop criminals from killing each other . . .
From the Sacramento Bee, here’s a quick list of the bills the Senate has sent to the Assembly to consider:
SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco: bans so-called “bullet buttons” used to get around existing laws banning detachable magazines
SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles: creates new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition
SB 374 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento: bans detachable magazines in rifles
SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley: prohibits possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition
SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara: changes the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons
SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate
SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: increases the number of crimes – including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.
Naturally, these are all measures that would be considered reprehensible by the same people proposing them if they were directed against free speech, voting rights or gay marriage instead of firearms. But lawful gun owners are the favorite whipping boys for the civilian disarmers who hold that legal gun owners are the root cause of “gun violence.” Background checks for voter registration? Mandating a civics class before you get to the ballot box? Defining marriage as being between people with certain features? Yeah, somehow I don’t think that would fly in San Fransisco.