Over at the LA Times, assault media journalist Robin Abcarian tells us What San Francisco is proposing to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. Specifically, the City by the Bay is planning on enacting a City ordinance requiring gun owners to lock-up their [unattended] guns in their cars. But before she unleashes a litany of stories of stolen guns used in crimes, Abcarian wants you to know she hates your firearms freedom and your “assault rifle” with a passion undimmed . . .
Count me — like most Americans — on the side of universal background checks, a closing of the gun show loophole and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines (all things we have done in California, which has a lower rate of death from firearms than states with fewer regulations). And sorry to all you AR-15 lovers out there, but bullet button or not, I wouldn’t be too sad to see your semiautomatic rifles melted down for scrap.
Setting aside the usual mischaracterization of firearms-related crime stats, Abcrarian reveals something we didn’t know about the new law:
To try to put an end to this craziness, San Francisco Supervisor David Campos has introduced a measure that would require anyone — off-duty law enforcement or civilian — who leaves a gun in an unattended vehicle to either lock the weapon in the trunk and disable any automatic trunk release latch, or store the gun in a lock box that is affixed to the vehicle. Breaking the law would be a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail or a $10,000 fine.
Click here for instructions on how to perform this trunk latch release disablement operation on a Mazda Miata, which only takes a couple of hours, some specialized tools and a lot of Yankee ingenuity. Of course, the easier thing to do is what Dan does: lock your firearm in a GunVault lock box with a cable attached to the seat mount. That said, a bad guy with a pair of bolt cutters and away it goes.
The wider point: punishing gun owners for someone else’s illegal activity seems like a dangerous precedent. Yes?
‘punishing gun owners for someone else’s illegal activity seems like a dangerous precedent.’
I’m not sure you could call it a precedent. They’ve been doing just that for 80 years now.
Yes. but at least it’s something. (/sarc)
It’s certainly precedent! Look at all the precedent! And look where it’s gotten us. 80 years ago, if you weren’t carrying, you would get the stink eye. European and commonwealth countries would happily let you roam the streets with a sidearm and a derringer for your backup. You could give a 12 year old their first rifle and not have to deal with a cavalcade of self-righteous, back-patting “But why does child need a gun?!” comments.
Well for one I don’t remember a lot of school massacres back then.
Maybe because you didn’t have to call 911 and wait 20 minutes?
The reason you don’t remember “school massacres” back then is because the media wasn’t feeding the perpetrators attention for their blood money ratings. Yellow journalism and muckraking, however, are as old as the press. It’s just the subject matter that has changed.
To be fair, yellow joirnalism and muckraking reallly had their Renaissance (or reverse Renaissance, if you consider that yellow journalism is the dark age) in the early twentieth century.
The largest school massacre in US History was in 1927: the Bath School Disaster. 38 school children and 6 adults were killed. The guy used dynamite, and he intentionally blew himself up in the explosion.
If only they required a background check to buy dynamite back then…
Worst school shooting disaster in US history was 90 years ago.
There will always be psychos, but I think today the attention that these incidences get turns psychos from all walks of life into this route.
Who said communism didn’t win…
Count me — like most Americans — on the side of universal journalist background checks, a closing of the internet loophole, and a ban on the sale of high-capacity social media (all things we should have done in California, which has a higher rate of biased ‘news’ reports than states with fewer regulations on individual rights). And sorry to all you opinion-blog lovers out there, but press pass or no, I wouldn’t be too sad to see your personal computers or tablets melted down for scrap.
What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Right, Comrade?
Is 54% against universal Back ground checks count as ” most” Americans ?. the NYT tells another story.
Agreed. And if you want to practice a religion apply for a permit at the sheriiffs office from a state approved list of religions.
You cant throw a dirty needle in San Francisco and help but hit an illegal or someone with zero common sense.
As far as California is concerned, I hope the good people leave before Climate change puts it under water were it needs to be.
I find myself thinking, “Was Lex Luthor really the villain in Superman Returns, or was he the real hero?”
The more liberal media has been combating the ” good guy with a gun” with the most unlikely of all scenerios; lamenting that an average armed Joe would only be a burden during a terrorist attack. Concealed and open carriers will likely never need to defend themselves against multiple armed threats. Defending yourself against a car jacker, mugger or home invader is far more likely, and would likely require less training and expertise. Perpetuating the notion that second amendment supporters want to be heros is laughable. I wonder if it`s more of a projection of their own desire to be on the nightly news, clad in white armour.
You are correct, in the 40 years I have carried a Firearm, I have never once wanted to use it on anyone or be a Hero, in fact I prayed that I never had to use it.
I suspect what we have here, is projection. Many anti-Gunners I have spoken to scare me to death, they are hot headed and no way should be allowed to own a firearm.
Isn’t it interesting how personal and downright nasty the anti-gunner’s attacks are. Someone told me that I was as bad as a child molester when I was trying to debate the facts. Another told me that they hoped my child was murdered “by a gun”. (Not a PERSON with a gun).
‘Another told me that they hoped my child was murdered “by a gun”.’
Not sure I could hear that without replying that I hoped they’re daughter was raped and strangled by a man twice her size.
Many years ago in Dayton, Ohio, I managed a movie theater that had been robbed more than once. As a result I carried an S&W revolver at all times while on the job. Sure enough, one evening my usher came running into the office shouting “We’re being robbed!”
By the time I got to the ticket counter the thief was gone, but being a gung-ho 21 year old I took out into the street after him. I got about two blocks into a very dark neighborhood street before I realized what a stupid idea that was and how many places this armed robber could be hiding ready to shoot my ass. Not much inclined to be a hero since then, but I hope I can be if the situation demands.
Sure, we have to give you a way to transport/carry a firearm, but we will make it so difficult to do and to use in an emergency that it’s unlikely to be of much use, and then we will say “see? Those firearms didn’t help!”
I think I can speak for must of us in saying that the last thing we want to do is to be a hero. The only thing we want less is to be lying on the ground next to others, bleeding out, because nobody even had the chance to fight back.
Alright… so when can I bring my vehicle in to the city garage so they can do that modification for me? I actually wouldn’t mind.
If we were to put an end to the craziness, what would we do with California and the country’s socialist city states? Anyone should have enough sense to lock up a vehicle, gun or no gun. Always be somebody that can get to it if they want to. Of course there are those law abiding criminals.
Well, in silent protest I will never spend another dollar in SF or take another out of state tourist there. They went past full retard.
While it is horribly wrong to require people to do what the San Fran gun law proposes, it is still good practice.
Every car I have owned since 1998 has had the ability to securely lock the trunk. In some cases the car came that way. (Subaru STi, Volvo S80) In other cases I needed to modify it to be that way. (VW Passat, Volvo V70 Wagon). In any case. I consider part of my right to keep and bear arms a responsibility to make sure others don’t get access to my firearms.
In several cases, I also created places to hide and with fast access to a loaded handgun. This would certainly not have been in compliance with the law. The secure storage was more important for trips to the range when I had particularly “killy” guns along with other items too big to hide effectively inside the car.
You do know that having a hidden stash compartment in your car can be a felony in certain states?
There is nothing illegal about having a hidden stash compartment. Could you please provide some citations.
What could be illegal, like in MA is possessing a loaded handgun that is not in your direct control. Also, when parking in a place like MA it must be in a locked container. The trunk is considered to be a locked container, the passenger compartment is not.
Under California law, unless you have a CCW, it is illegal to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle; transport rules are essentially the same as FOPA (unloaded, locked container, and the container cannot be the glove box or center console). Even if you do have a CCW, any loaded firearm must be under your direct control (i.e. within reach), or be unloaded and secured in locked container. Technically, a locked container can be a gun case or gun rug (or similar) or in your locked trunk. A CCW holder CANNOT leave a loaded and unsecured firearm in a vehicle.
So this proposed ordinance really changes very little about California law other than requiring your locked container to be secured to the vehicle, which pretty much anyone with any sense will do anyway, just to minimize the risk of theft. Second, this proposal really affects only LEOs and visitors to SF, since there are no residents (AFAIK) of SF who have CCWS.
Why is this “impractical”?
Here you go with links and everything:
Looks like California already has something on the books. No surprise there:
That gunvault cable is a lot sturdier than it looks. When I moved last spring I took a heavy duty bolt cutter to my cable attaching an unused large gunvault to a pipe in my basement. No joy. The cable is impervious to rapid detachment. The objective of a thief is not to spend five minutes breaking into your gunvault in a public place. If he can’t snip/pry in 15 seconds he moves on.
I also tried to cut a steel cable once: it was basically impossible. I tried wire cutters and bolt cutters as well as a hacksaw. None of them worked, at least not quickly and easily. I finally purchased a cable cutter. That goes through steel cable as fast as you can cut a 1/4 inch rope with sharp scissors (less than 2 seconds).
Unless thieves are walking around with cable cutters or you park your car in a remote location where a thief can spend 30 minutes working on your car without disruption, a cable through your lock box and seat frame will keep your lock box right where you put it.
Let’s melt down all the modern sporting rifles…Do the math, how many are there and what is the increase in the carbon footprint for the environmental lobby of melting the minimal amount of steel and the noxious fumes created by the melting plastic. An environmental disaster that we should take advantage of given the recent climate change stupidity. Heck, we could get the environmental groups on our side.
CA should have a “lock up your state rep in your car” law. The state would save a fortune just on Leland Yee.
Come to think of it, if NY had the same law, it would save a fortune on Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver. Think of it as payback for the SAFE Act.
A reminder, last year California reduced the possession of a stolen gun my a known felon from a felony to a misdemeanor.
In other words, the penalties are harsher for carrying your own legally owned firearm in California without a permit than for stealing and carrying a gun.
Moral people obey the law. They are a threat to those in power. The law breakers are not a threat to the powerful.
In the upside down world of San Francisco and california overall, people who are moral are to be feared.
Funny thing, the example she cites in her article are overwhelmingly LEOs. What are the odds that she nevertheless is of the “only the police are to be trusted with guns” mentality? Would seem to be the case vis-à-vis semi-auto rifles (at least she was honest and didn’t say “assault weapons”).
Oooh…more descriminitory “journalism”. So much hate speech…some one should enact some so common sense restrictions on her first amendment rights.
Letting her write this peice is like asking the KKK to write op-eds on minority rights.
(all things we have done in California, which has a lower rate of death from firearms than states with fewer regulations).
Doesn’t CA lead the country in firearm related crime, while having some of (if not the most) restrictive laws in the country?
CA had 1,169 deaths in 2014 per FBI UCR 2014.
VT had 6
all things we have done in California, which has a lower rate of death from firearms than states with fewer regulations).
Doesn’t CA lead the country in firearm related crime, while having some of (if not the most) restrictive laws in the country?
CA had 1,169 deaths in 2014 per FBI UCR 2014.
VT had 6
‘punishing gun owners for someone else’s illegal activity seems like a dangerous precedent.’
Sounds like what happens in an abortion.
Californians stood by and watched their state get dismantled and infected by illegal immigration and social justice warriors…. anyone who dissented was shamed by the PC police until they ended up hidden in the corner.
There is a silver lining though…. those of us in states Californians have been fleeing to in droves know what to look out for when you try to spread your corruption to us.
in texas we have seen the result of californicators migrating. looks a lot like immigrants from many foreign countries who come to the US seeking to re-create the same conditions they were escaping. i reckon too many people like living their lives in a rut. and the difference between a rut and a grave is depth.
austin, i’m talking to you !!
The homosexual power city of San Francisco like other communist governments fears even it’s own police force. In that respect they are just like the old USSR.
California doesn’t have a lower level of gun deaths because of gun control, it has a population that just doesn’t much favor gun ownership, and thus owns fewer guns, which means that the population sees less gun deaths and supports more gun control.
“Breaking the law would be a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail or a $10,000 fine.”
$10,000 fine is a misdemeanor in California?
Not according to this page:
Okay, there’s one exception: Assault with a Deadly Weapon has a penalty up to $10k.. Sounds like that should just be a felony anyway (serious crime against person, hefty punishment, etc…).
So, basically, they are, by fiat, defining not locking your gun in your car according to rules they dictate as an equivalent crime to Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
If the gun is stolen and NEVER used in any crime, much less assault (or worse), the VICTIM of that theft is to punished as if he committed Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
Good grief, that is one screwed up place. That something like this can be proposed and people think it sounds ok is very, very telling.
I got to say, calling them the ‘assault media’ isn’t going to help. It’s going to create more division and cause those on the fence as well as the antis to see us as fools even more. It may seem witty and a type of gotcha rhetoric but we need to be more mature than them. Especially coming from a site that claims to explore the ethics and morality (two aspects that require reason and logic in order to explore). Now, I know there are the reactionary “fuck ems” out there but take a breath, gather your critical faculties, learn a little logic and effective discourse and lets exercise the reason and intelligence that our Founders exercised when creating the 2A and our great country. Be more intelligent than them. Don’t meet ignorant rhetoric with ignorant rhetoric.
Our discourse, if you are the anti intellectual type with distrust of the intelligent than stick to your guns (so to speak) but you aren’t helping, needs to be more intelligent and logical than theirs. We need to understand and embrace the enlightenment values that shaped the Founding of our country. Divine right of kings to the consent of the governed. Spinoza, Voltaire, Locke. Conservatives need to reclaim these things from the evangelical charlatans that took over before the Reagan era, Offended? Oh fucking well, get over it. Evangelical fundies ruined the republican party and we are seeing the results of it right now. The republican party used to be full of free thinkers and inspired by ideas. Today, our representatives are elected by referencing, through personal interpretation mind you, a bronze age book. There’s another faith that does similar.
Individual autonomy, free thought, intelligent discourse, we need to grasp these things again instead of spouting back-atcha rhetoric like “assault media” in order to gain points with those who think just as simply.
If your insulted, good. Now’s the time for personal introspection.
Are you seriously convinced there are many people “on the fence” about gun control? Likely, the number is so small, and the individuals so spread among the population as to be negligible in any scenario. The lines have been drawn, and don’t change much. While “54%” disfavor whichever gun control you pick, that margin is on the bubble of “margin of error”; not a promising condition. The majority for or against more, greater or any gun control is so fragile that it will swing back and forth forever….until the SC gets its liberal majority, then gun rights are doomed; no constitutional amendment required.
It is pointless to try to persuade anti-gunners. Spend time and money supporting pro-gun, pro-America, pro-small government candidates, at whatever level.,
Why not just fucking say “you can only transport guns in a way that involves no stops between the range and home”? Because that’s what this is.
Not at all. You can transport guns anywhere in California in your vehicle as long as they are unloaded and in secure container (locked gun case or trunk). If you have a CCW you can carry your loaded gun anywhere in the state except gun free zones; but you do have to unload it and lock it up if you are in a public place and not in immediate control of the firearm.
California has raised a generation of sheeple you are “afraid” of guns, yet when they get into trouble, they always call someone who has one. The LA Times is nothing but a liberal rag full of hypocrite hack reporters. I ignore them like HuffPo.
“Count me — like most Americans — on the side of universal background checks, a closing of the gun show loophole and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines (all things we have done in California, which has a lower rate of death from firearms than states with fewer regulations).”
Only partly true. California is 17th in the nation, at 3.19 homicides committed with guns per-capita.
Florida is not included because it does not appear in Table 20 of the FBI’s UCR Data Tables.
Alabama is not included due to limited homicide and supplemental weapons data.
Alaska: 12 total for 1.63 per 100K || Ownership rate: 61.7%
Arizona: 184 total for 2.78 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.3%
Arkansas: 110 total for 3.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 57.9%
California: 1,224 total for 3.19 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.1%
Colorado: 88 total for 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.3%
Connecticut: 60 total for 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 16.6%
Delaware: 33 total for 3.56 per 100K || Ownership rate: 5.2%
D.C.: 81 total for 12.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 25.9%
Georgia: 411 total for 4.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.6%
Hawai’i: 6 total for 0.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 45.1%
Idaho: 15 total for 0.93 per 100K || Ownership rate: 56.9%
Illinois: 364 total for 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.2%
Indiana: 238 total for 3.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
Iowa: 18 total for 0.58 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
Kansas: 78 total for 2.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.2%
Kentucky: 111 total for 2.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.4%
Louisiana: 356 total for 7.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.5%
Maine: 12 total for 0.9 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
Maryland: 268 total for 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.7%
Massachusetts: 78 total for 1.17 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
Michigan: 440 total for 4.44 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
Minnesota: 60 total for 1.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 36.7%
Mississippi: 110 total for 3.68 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.8%
Missouri: 273 total for 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
Montana: 9 total for 0.89 per 100K || Ownership rate: 52.3%
Nebraska: 39 total for 2.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.8%
Nevada: 87 total for 3.12 per 100K || Ownership rate: 37.5%
New Hampshire: 5 total for 0.38 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
New Jersey: 291 total for 3.27 per 100K || Ownership rate: 11.3%
New Mexico: 59 total for 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 49.9%
New York: 362 total for 1.84 per 100K || Ownership rate: 10.3%
North Carolina: 315 total for 3.2 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.7%
North Dakota: 4 total for 0.55 per 100K || Ownership rate: 47.9%
Ohio: 309 total for 2.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.6%
Oklahoma: 127 total for 3.3 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.2%
Oregon: 43 total for 1.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.6%
Pennsylvania: 440 total for 3.44 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
Rhode Island: 18 total for 1.71 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
South Carolina: 224 total for 4.69 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.4%
South Dakota: 3 total for 0.36 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.0%
Tennessee: 223 total for 3.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 39.4%
Texas: 760 total for 2.87 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.7%
Utah: 31 total for 1.07 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.9%
Vermont: 5 total for 0.8 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
Virginia: 225 total for 2.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 29.3%
Washington: 86 total for 1.23 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.7%
West Virginia: 30 total for 1.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 54.2%
Wisconsin: 103 total for 1.80 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.7%
Wyoming: 9 total for 1.54 per 100K || Ownership rate: 53.8%
Most dangerous states, homicides committed with firearms
1. Washington, D.C. – 12.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 25.9%
2. Louisiana – 7.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.5%
3. South Carolina – 4.69 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.4%
4. Maryland – 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.7%
5. Missouri – 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
6. Michigan – 4.44 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
7. Georgia – 4.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.6%
8. Arkansas – 3.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 57.9%
9. Mississippi – 3.68 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.8%
10. Indiana – 3.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
avg. 5.35 per 100K @ 35.75%
11. Delaware: 3.56 per 100K || Ownership rate: 5.2%
12. Pennsylvania: 3.44 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
13. Tennessee: 3.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 39.4%
14. Oklahoma: 3.3 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.2%
15. New Jersey: 3.27 per 100K || Ownership rate: 11.3%
16. North Carolina: 3.2 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.7%
17. California: 3.19 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.1%
18. Nevada: 3.12 per 100K || Ownership rate: 37.5%
19. Texas: 2.87 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.7%
20. Illinois: 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.2%
21. New Mexico: 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 49.9%
22. Arizona: 2.78 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.3%
23. Virginia: 2.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 29.3%
24. Kansas: 2.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.2%
avg. 3.09 per 100K @ 29.01%
25. Ohio: 2.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.6%
26. Kentucky: 2.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.4%
27. Nebraska: 2.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.8%
28. New York: 1.84 per 100K || Ownership rate: 10.3%
29. Wisconsin: 1.80 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.7%
30. Rhode Island: 1.71 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
31. Connecticut: 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 16.6%
32. Colorado: 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.3%
33. Alaska: 1.63 per 100K || Ownership rate: 61.7%
34. West Virginia: 1.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 54.2%
35. Wyoming: 1.54 per 100K || Ownership rate: 53.8%
36. Washington: 1.23 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.7%
37. Massachusetts: 1.17 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
38. Minnesota: 1.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 36.7%
39. Oregon: 1.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.6%
avg. 1.69 per 100K @ 31.69%
40. Utah – 1.07 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.9%
41. Idaho – 0.93 per 100K || Ownership rate: 56.9%
42. Maine – 0.9 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
43. Montana – 0.89 per 100K || Ownership rate: 52.3%
44. Vermont – 0.8 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
45. Iowa – 0.58 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
46. North Dakota – 0.55 per 100K || Ownership rate: 47.9%
47. Hawai’i – 0.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 45.1%
48. New Hampshire – 0.38 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
49. South Dakota – 0.36 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.0%
avg. 0.69 per 100K @ 36.89%
National average: 2.54 per 100K
Interestingly, California is actually ahead of states like, say, Nevada, Texas, Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona, Virginia, and Kansas. They’re behind states like Delaware and Maryland, which have similar laws. In short, gun control laws have absolutely no correlation with homicide rates at all.
Suicide is completely means-independent, too, so there’s zero correlation there, either.
P.S.: Oh, and no, “most Americans” are not for “universal background checks” or another “assault weapon” ban, lady
” In short, gun control laws have absolutely no correlation with homicide rates at all.”
Very nicely done.
In fact, let’s make it more quantitative. Plugging in the data you’ve posted for Gun Homicide Rate and Gun Ownership Rate, I get a correlation coefficient of -0.0096.
Here’s the quick and dirty chart, with trendline.
Excellent work. Except that you have your x and y-axis labels reversed.
“Delaware and Maryland, which have similar laws”
I know it is nitpicky but California has worse laws than these states.
Delaware’s only restrictions are UBC’s, SBS’s, MG’s, DD’s, silencers, and CCW is May Issue but not impossible to get. No other restrictions on gun types, mag capacities, and you can open carry without a license.
Maryland bans only DD’s. All other NFA items are allowed including MG’s. 10 round limit only applies to magazines bought in state; you can possess higher capacity mags and continue to acquire them as long as they are out of state. CC is impossible. The AWB does not ban ALL. You can have all the “evil” features on your semi-auto rifle as you wish. The only restriction comes in when you can’t have a folding stock (not collapsible stock) and flash suppressor on at the same time. No sidefolders on semi-auto shotguns. The Maryland pistol roster is nowhere near as bad as California’s and you don’t submit money to get a gun on there plus they practically approve everything. The only thing they ban are derringers. UBC only applies to handguns; rifles and shotguns are cash and carry, out-the-door, like the rest of free(er) America. C&R handguns are exempt from FOID-like card process.
The only thing California has on Maryland is CC and the only similarity is a pistol roster but Maryland approves everything so it is basically a non-issue, otherwise Maryland and Delaware are nowhere similar to California.
Here’s a crazy idea: why not just make it illegal to break into people’s cars, and to steal their stuff?
We’re a group of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your web site offered us with helpful information to work on. You’ve performed a formidable activity and our entire group shall be thankful to you.