Quote of the Day – Criminalizing California Gun Owners

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them. We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.” – Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko in Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1 [via sacbee.com]


  1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    i’ve been bad.

    1. avatar Doktor says:

      “These include the controversial – but hugely popular – AR-style rifles.”

      Hmm. missed the memo in that one. So why exactly are ARs controversial? Or is it such general knowledge that no explanation is needed?

      Some of the best made ARs are built in Cali.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        It’s general knowledge. People freak out about AR’s. If they do it in front of me, I make it clear that their opinions are unacceptable … so controversy.

  2. avatar Fffghll says:

    “If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.”

  3. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    Would the last free American please bring the flag when leaving California. And somebody please start a huge forest fire in Berne California to the ground and then maybe take a big chisel and just chisel it off to let it drop right into the San Andreas Fault LOL. The people of California in these large metropolitan areas are ruining that state absolutely ruining it. I don’t even think they have a constitution they follow anymore.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Build the Great Wall of Trump around California, then push it into the sea.

      1. avatar CLarson says:

        If the Federal Government wasn’t a cucked, broke piece of shit a Sherman style “March to the Sea” would be in order. But since we are in a post-Constitutional era, where States are going there own ways, just pick the State that best suits you and move there.

  4. avatar Omer Baker says:

    To combat the diseases that come with obesity I say we outlaw all forks with 4 or more tines. The assault utensils are only useful when binge eating and will help save nearly a million people from dying from each year.

    1. avatar J says:

      Don’t give them any idea, they might actually do it.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Similar things have already been talked about in ways that usually means it’ll show up as proposed legislation in a decade.

    3. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      Well, Mike already tried it with ‘High Capacity Assault Beverages’.

      1. avatar Desert Dave says:

        Have you noticed that the new Coke adds have 12 Oz bottles?! Haven’t seen those on an add since the ’60’s when the GIANT 16 Oz bottles came out. Must be a sign … of something.

    4. avatar Green Mtn Boy says:

      They’re only allowed to eat with limited capacity chopsticks. No obesity epidemic in China now is there?? No shootings either, Right? RIGHT??

  5. avatar Mr.Savage says:

    what new law now? Oh California, poor souls, kinda.

  6. avatar NJ_Doc says:

    Hard to believe there is a state worse than New Jersey for firearms enthusiasts.

    1. avatar Somebody says:

      NJ, NY, and CA are all in a race to the bottom. NJ hasn’t actually enacted any recent legislation, so I guess they are leading while the others are playing catch-up, but needless to say they are all horrible states.

      I only hope that their competition hastens their inevitable throat punch by the Supreme Court

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “NJ hasn’t actually enacted any recent legislation”

        ‘Scuse me? Isn’t it NJ where they will put you in fucking PRISON for possessing a fired cartridge case? I cannot imagine any further unconstitutional laws they might even consider.

        1. avatar JPRich says:

          I’d hazard a guess that Somebody simply meant that NJ hadn’t enacted any NEW batshit crazy anti-gun laws, not that their current laws arent already batshit crazy.

        2. avatar Somebody says:

          JPRich has the meaning I was going for. NJ is taking a breather while it has the lead (and a nominally Rep governor)

          And no, NJ doesn’t concern itself with spent shell casings. MA and DC do, however, but at least MA issues CCW in its more rural areas. DC isn’t a state, so I group it with our territories and foreign possessions which are also universally terrible.

  7. avatar C.S. says:

    Democrats have twisted morality. They routinely break the laws when it suits them, and encourage everyone else do the same. The whole party is full of crooks and thieves stomping on everyone and cheating the system to get ahead. The biggest fools of all are the intellectuals supporting them thru social causes the vast majority of people in the world do not care about. For the children, my ass.

  8. avatar jwm says:

    And the 9th circuit doesn’t just cover CA. CA, backed by the 9th circuit has issued a challenge. They say the constitution is null and void.

    It’s up to America to respond.

    1. avatar million says:

      the denial of cert in Peruta was 7-2. it appears Roberts and Alito are done with advancing the 2A.. or playing the long game with another case knowing that Kennedy will be replaced next term.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I’d rather they took the cautious, long game approach and do it right.

        The truly frightening thing is, when the Left gets solid control of the Court in the future, they *will* gut the 2A.

        And be mighty proud of themselves when they do.

        “‘So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.”…

      2. avatar C.S. says:

        Gun control is literally fracturing the courts. IMO, SCotUS isn’t taking the case more in interest to protect their own power. Heller should have settled the matter but instead the lower Communist courts are giving a big FU with their “opposite readings” of what Heller actually stated. Should anyone be surprised at this outcome when everyone stops respecting the rule of law?

      3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        It could have been a 6-3 decision. All we know for sure is that Thomas and Gorsuch voted for cert.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      I’m afraid you’re right JWM. These aren’t esoteric questions about the extent of hardly embattled ‘rights’ of questionable legitimacy, scope, and impact. These are clear questions about core rights that are seemingly being denied in direct contradiction of the constitution and relevant precedent, and further, which have lead to both questionable maneuvers and even splits among the lower courts. What will it take for the Supremes to act?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Just an aside, is it spellcheckers that are responsible for the word “led” (past tense of the verb “lead”) constantly appearing (everywhere) as “lead”, which is a metal which is pronounced the same? Or are schools not teaching such basics any longer? I have not seen “led” spelled correctly in years.

        1. avatar JPRich says:

          I’d wager that it’s some of both. If the kid that programs the spellchecker doesn’t know the proper spelling of the word, how can he tell the widget which word is correct?

  9. avatar million says:


    Shasta in the north is a free county. The majority is hostile to base-level natural rights of the minority along the coast in that state.

      1. avatar Owen says:

        This State of Jefferson idea has merit. Some of the most beautiful land in the nation. Plus Corbin Manufacturing of swageing fame is in there.

      2. avatar Matt in SC says:

        While I like the Jefferson name, the Free State of Winston has historical precedent.
        I have an ancestor involved with the incident at looney’s tavern and was part of the county representatives at the meeting in Montgomery that’s referenced in the wiki article.

    1. avatar DaveW says:

      Our sheriff is one of the good ones.

  10. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

    That sheriff (and other LEO’s like him) should just come out and say “We’re not going to enforce this. Period. If we catch you with one we don’t care. You will not be arrested.”

    1. avatar Nick says:

      Which will no doubt soon be followed by the legislature passing a law requiring officers to arrest offenders or be fired/prosecuted.

      It’s all about control…

    2. avatar Owen says:

      Real “sanctuary” counties!

  11. avatar Ironhead says:

    Wow…. and i thought illinois was bad.
    Never again will i set foot in California. Been to LA, san Francisco and bakersfield.
    Bakersfield was alright. La and san fran residents are some of the most arrogant self righteous assholes i have ever met.
    Beautiful place… its unfortunate the crap that ended up living there.

  12. avatar SurfGW says:

    Compliance with this law is simple. Just turn in magazines or sell them out of state. Enforcement will not go house to house searching for mags. If anyone does hold on to their mags, just don’t take the mags to the range where off/duty cops often hang out.
    The law does what was already on the books in some cities and here was not a big felon population of magazine owners. Let’s focus energy on other more important things like GVROs without getting guns back

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      And later on, when the next unenforceable law comes along, let that slide, too.
      Don’t bother pointing out, again and again, that unenforceable laws promote scorn for all laws.
      See, that’s one of the left’s goals; ignore more and more bad laws, until you get caught. Then, you go to jail, your guns (and mags, and ammo) are taken, never to be seen again, just like you.
      Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
      In case anyone can’t tell, that’s sarcasm. Don’t let it slide. Speak out. These are your rights, demand them!

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        This law is as enforceable as sodomy laws were and there was not a huge move to get those repealed because people did it in their bedroom

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “This law is as enforceable as sodomy laws were and there was not a huge move to get those repealed because people did it in their bedroom”

          Perhaps you could quote to us the part of the constitution that says sodomy is a protected right?

        2. avatar Matt in SC says:

          This is in reply to Big Bill. First amendment. Freedom of association. I’m not a proponent of gay rights by any means, but the .gov shouldn’t have any power to restrict what you do with any other consenting person. So yeah, enumerated right.

  13. avatar Steve says:

    Massachusetts also. No AR’s on the shelves and any personally owned are in hiding. I’ve mentioned prior that our AG (Dem) created the ban with a memo. Yes, they will do and say anything as long as they can get away with it. Legal actions are in motion and most of us poor souls are waiting for the next election to come around. Hopefully to take out as much of the Democrat presence in MA politics as possible. We’ll see how that works out.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      My LGS in MA has AKs and ARs in the racks, but they’re all pre-ban and expensive.

  14. avatar penis_is_a_social_construct says:

    2A to US govt is like the Treaty of Versailles to Germany – they’ll keep encroaching on it as long as there’s no push back. Appeasement is not going to work. Nobody wants a war, so this will continue.

  15. avatar Ardent says:

    Didn’t we once fight a war and win independence over a bid to take our arms? As I recall it was the final act in a drama that included various abuses such as outrageous taxation and something to do with capricious and arbitrary rule…seems like there was a long list of these, endured since men are hesitant to sever familiar ties… there was something about the object of these abuses having the common aim, to reduce all under tyranny…or something like that.

    I also seem to recall something about those who forget history being forced to repeat it.

    As I recall, after that last go around, there was an attempt to avoid a repeat, by providing safeguards for liberty and peaceful means of resolving these things, including mechanisms for ensuring that the majority not oppress the minority…and that even then certain conditions had to be added, just in case the peaceful safeguards failed, and I’m pretty sure among these was an absolute protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

    Now, I’m a little fuzzy on all the details, it was a long time ago, and such ideas have been out of fashion the last 8 years or so, but it seemed to me that there was a prescribed method of correcting such situations, you know, when a state ignores the 14A to gut the 2A. I’m pretty sure we have a court just for resolving such situations.
    I’m also fairly sure that the framers had a plan for dealing with these sorts of things when the court couldn’t or wouldn’t act, and I think it involved one of the amendments in question.

    I suppose what I’m wondering is this: Does California no longer consider itself bound by the 2nd and 14th Amendments? Does SCOTUS lack the impartially, the will, or both to peacefully resolve these issues? Do either understand where such an impasse eventually leads? Does either find despotism or revolt more palatable than doing what they have already agreed to do? Do one or both think the situation can continue without some sort of resolution?

    Perhaps the federal legislature is remiss in not having clearly spelled out for the court what the will of the people is in this case, and the ire is properly directed at them?

    Perhaps the incivility of one side has the mechanisms of governance paralyzed, and the situation awaits incivility on the part of the opposing side to energize the court?

    Such intransigence has been encountered before. I believe the traditional remedy involves tar, feathers and a fence rail, and that for minor offenses, as I believe the traditional remedy for more serious charges involves ropes and gravity.

    Whatever the outcome, without definitive and binding rulings from the high court, these disagreements lead to divisions, and divisions to isolated violence. Violence often enough fuels it’s self, and in the current atmosphere, might well sprawl out of control. We need the court to act, one way or the other, so at least we know where we stand. As it is, one side argues common sense while the other argues oppression, and those who are tasked with deciding who is right are too often silent on the matter, to everyone’s detriment, and eventually, if silent long enough, to everyone’s peril.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      “Does California no longer consider itself bound by the 2nd and 14th Amendments?”

      Does the question actually need to be asked? California will do what it wants, when it wants, then use it tax base to fight you in court, which it owns up through the 9th Circuit.

  16. avatar Shire-man says:

    Hysterical to use the full force of government violence to restrict a little box and spring.

  17. avatar Accur81 says:

    Another unconstitutional law passed by Democrats, which will be ignored by some Republican and Independent LEOs and stringently enforced by others.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Well summarized, but from knowing LEOs, this law has support from Republican LEOs also. Most LEOs see this as another thing to charge criminals with when they cannot get them sufficiently on something else.

      1. avatar DaveW says:

        NO WE DO NOT! The majority of LEOs are conservatives. A good share of them are veterans. We believe in the Constitution as the law of the land, and especially in what are our rights, too. Most of us own the very firearms the state is seeking to ban. We support the citizens’ right to do so as well.

        In some parts of the country, LEOs will enforce such laws. In others, they will only act if forced to do so, such as someone flashing their cache of 30 rounders in their faces.

        SCOTUS has, again, rejected this case. However, we might be better off if we have another conservative on the court. Also, there is a line of litigations moving forward brought by several pro-gun associations.

        I am wondering why the US Attorney General has not acted to bring charges against those who would deny us our rights.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          I know many cops in SD and OC. All are veterans. Most like things that make their job easier which is why most don’t like concealed carry, open carry, assault weapons, etc. Many combat vets learned the lesson that if you can get positive ID and determine intent before you get too close, you have a better chance to go home. That is why if assault weapons and magazines are illegal, you can see the lawbreakers from far away and approach the situation differently this being close and getting surprised if this stuff is legal

  18. avatar W says:

    Liberals: We need to legalize illegal aliens in order to bring them out of the shadows and make them feel safe interacting with police officers. They won’t report crime if they fear interactions.

    Liberals again: We need to criminalize gun owners in order to make their interactions with law enforcement more tense and deadly.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      If they didn’t have double standards …

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

    That’s the plan, Stan. Turn all the honest people into criminals and all the criminals into politicians.

  20. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Keep pushing for the State of Jefferson.*

    *Yes, I know it’s a pipe dream but that area is beautiful and those people deserve representation from their state government.

  21. avatar kap says:

    Sell California back to the Mexicans, for building the Wall, Most of the Lefty’s in Ca do not want too be American citizens anyway! 3 bucks would cover the value!

    1. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

      NUKE this poo hole. Warning, commie kalifornia is like an STD. Infectious and spreads.

      1. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

        I have to ask, please don’t do that. I’m still here and I have a hell of a time trying to get these college kids to see that their fundamental rights are in the toilet, and they matter. I’m also trying my best to push back gun control, one person at a time. It is slower than Pelosi trying to make a cogent point, but it is still vital work to wake up new people from the CA Matrix of Liberal disregard for the Constitution.

        I appreciate the sentiment, hell there are times I want a little nuke to fall in certain big cities here, but instead I ask that you drop MOAB’s instead. They don’t have radioactive fallout. Just change from nukes to Moabs, please.

  22. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    One more step to the lefty progressive DemoCruds dream. A N Korea like rule over the unwashed serfs/cash cows. Obey little ones. We the political elites know whats best for you. FRACK FRACK FRACK. I truly hate living in this TYRANNICAL CESSPOOL.

  23. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    When I purchased my Mossberg 590 with a bayonet lug and the judge 410 revolver, I got them because if I had retired in California I would not be able to legally have. The 410 caliber represents the racist history of California. Because Mexican and Chinese gangs 120 years ago were a real crime problem in the state. The solution was to ban the gun most used by these criminal gangs. The 410 caliber firearm.
    Some one can correct me but I think it was the 1968 gun control act that banned import of rifles with bayonet mounts on them. I hear so many, so called gun experts say “there is no reason to have a bayonet at the end of your rifle.”
    Well it seems the government agrees with you, or you agree with the government.

    If I was doing an open rifle carry I would put a “Pig sticker” at the end of my long gun. And if asked about it I would resit the history of using cold steel to control crowds resulting in no one being shot or stabbed with a bayonet. But the riot was stopped.

    The racist state of California does not have the second amendment in the state constitution because they didn’t want Chinese Americans or Mexican Americans having guns. The Mulford ACT would later eliminate the Negroes having guns.

    But don’t worry you got sex in public on days designated by the government. You also got legal marijuana intoxication.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “there is no reason to have a bayonet at the end of your rifle.” – Becauseyou want one is reason enough for me.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email