California gun laws: Jerry Brown signs major new restrictions on firearms owners, rejects others

[alp227]

Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: San Jose Mercury News

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Jerry Brown this morning took swift action on a sweeping package of bills designed to keep the state's residents safer from deadly gun violence, signing a series of new restrictions on firearms owners into law while vetoing others.

Brown endorsed legislation that will require background checks to purchase ammunition, ban possession of high-capacity magazines and close a loophole in the state's existing assault weapons ban by prohibiting long guns with "bullet buttons" that make it easier for shooters to swap magazines.

He also signed bills to strip a resident's gun rights for 10 years as punishment for knowingly filing a false report of a gun loss or theft and limit the lending of guns to family members who have not completed background checks. Together, the measures enhance California's reputation for having some of the nation's toughest rules for gun owners.

"My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law abiding gun owners," said Brown, a gun owner who has said he enjoys hunting.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_30080186/california-gun-laws-jerry-brown-signs-some-new

[jpak]

1. Every time you restrict gun rights

God kills a kitten

Thanks Jerry

[lame54]

35. With what?

[hunter]

37. I know, right? This thread is lacking in gun porn. We need pictures!

[sarisataka]

38. Obviously...

A shark

?1

[Iggo]

2. .

[Squinch]

3. Excellent! May it be contagious!

[scscholar]

4. Sad to see Brown is becoming a DINO

He is standing with the NRA in those hateful vetoes. He doesn't care about public safety.

[passiveporcupine]

7. I don't know about the first one, but the rest are bullshit vetoes,

And he is insane to veto this:

He also rejected Assembly Bill 2607, which would have expanded the group of people who may request a gun violence restraining order to include mental health workers, employers, co-workers and school employees

[scscholar]

10. With all of the constant workplace shootings that constantly happen so often...

that sucks that he stood with the NRA against our safety on that and doesn't allow us to report coworkers who want to kill us.

[sarisataka]

11. It is upside down day

I actually agree with you. I think most of these laws are security theater however 2607 is actually an intelligent and potentially life-saving bill

[happyslug]

17. It is the reinvention of the old "Peace Writs".

See my comments below about the old "Peace Writs", the courts will not accept such an expansion of who can get a Protective Order against whom, such an expansion of who can get a Protective Order against whom is unconstitutional.

[happyslug]

16. That sounds like the old "Peace Writs".

Peace writs were an order you could get from a Justice of the Peace against anyone due to being afraid of them. In the 1960s the US Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. The main reason was they were being used against minorities to keep them out of white neighborhoods. The legal reason was such laws imposed restrictions on where people can go, it interfered with freedom of movement, which the court ruled was a fundamental right and can only be restricted if such restrictions are narrowly drawn.

Thus in 1971, the first PFA, Protection from Abuse, law was passed. PFA laws were written to get around the above Supreme Court ruling. This was done by requiring some act of violence to have occurred AND limited to family members. The courts accepted PFAs for they were restricted as to time and who can get one against whom. As a narrowly written law to address a narrow range of the problems the courts said PFA laws are NOT the same as the unconstitutional Peace Writs. The law can not be used against someone down the street you happen to dislike.

Remember to get a PFA, just like the old Peace Writs, you only have to show it is more likely that the person requesting the order will be harmed by person the order is on. You do NOT need proof beyound a reasonable doubt of such potential harm, to obtain a PFA.

Under the vetoed bill, the expansion of such the class of people who can get protective orders would make such laws more like the old Peace Writs and make the whole PFA act subject to attack as being unconstitutional.

The expanded class of people are not people who have lived together and are not people who have a lot in common, unlike former family members. Thus this is converting the PFA laws to the old Peace Writs. Given the US Supreme Court ruling on the old Peace Writs, you want to avoided that situation.

Just pointing out why Brown vetoed this law, it is probably unconstitutional, to broad as who can get such a protective order against whom.

[passiveporcupine]

21. I understand what your concern is, but

It does not go into how you have to get a protective order. I don't see how you would without some kind of evidence, just like a domestic restraining order.

Teachers are sometimes targeted when there is a custody battle over a child. If the parent thinks there is a danger to the child and the parent by an ex, then the teacher who is in charge of that child in the daytime might for that child might also need that protection. I don't see that just saying these people can be justified in getting one means they will be able to get one without some kind of threat or evidence to back it up.

People have gone postal and killed bosses and coworkers. I am not saying it should be easy to get a restraining order, but if you have to fire someone and you suspect they are having serious mental problems and may be dangerous, how is it affecting their freedom to say they cannot come into the work place any longer. If they no longer work there, they shouldn't be there anyway.

There are reasons why these people have been added to this bill. Don't they have a way to protect themselves if they feel they really are in danger?

What does a person in a domestic situation have to do to get a restraining order? Don't they have to have some incident that the police had to intervene before they get the order?

I don't think this makes it any easier to get a restraining order...just adds some new potential targets of rage to the list. People who historically have been the target of this kind of rage.

I don't know what it takes to get a restraining order. I didn't think you got one by just asking for it.

[happyslug]

22. To get a PFA, you need to file with a court.

No filing fee is needed and most courts have ways to do this without an attorney. You do NOT need to contact the police nor do the police need to be involved.

A PFA is a CIVIL action NOT a criminal action. Thus all that has to be shown is the victim is a member of the group of people protected under the PFA law, AND that some sort of abuse occurred. You do NOT need to prove beyound a reasonable doubt that the abuse occurred, all you need to prove it is more likely then not the abuse occurred. Thus if you have two people, one saying the other abused the first person, the defendant saying no such abuse occurred, no other evidence is needed for a judge to enter a PFA order.

Sorry, the old Peace Writs were bad, and the courts will NOT permit the PFAs to be expanded to do what the old Peace Writs did, thus Brown's veto. It sounds like Brown does NOT want to spend the money defending the constitutionality of such an expansion, money California does not have to spend on a losing argument.

[passiveporcupine]

24. OK, so it may be technically impossible to get

Then why was the bill written in the first place?

And about PFAs,

Final PFA
After a hearing in which you both have an opportunity to tell your side of the story through your testimony, evidence, and witnesses, a judge can grant you a final protection from abuse order (PFA). A final PFA lasts up to 3 years and can be extended under certain circumstances.

If you can't get witnesses to testify on your behalf that the PFA request is not applicable...in other words, you are not a threat and here's why, but your accuser does have witnesses to testify on their behalf about your previous abusive behavior, then maybe you deserve the PFA.

I just don't think it's as easy to get as what you are describing.

[happyslug]

25. I do PFAs on a weekly basis, yes it is.

The only witness the petitioner needs is her own testimony, in most cases you have only two people who saw what happen, the victim and the person who harmed the victim.

The judge then has to decide who to believe and the law is written to protect victims so all the judge has to find is it is more likely then not the abuse occurred based on the victim' testmony. This is true even if the Defendant denys that as any such abuse occurred and there is no other evidence.

[JI7]

53. glad you explained this and yes, i can see how this would be used against minorities

You should post this in the African American group.

[former9thward]

50. He would have been insane to sign it.

It would have led to all sorts of false and anonymous reporting by co-workers with petty grievances against each other.

[passiveporcupine]

56. So what happens to someone today who has a valid complaint?

They just have to treat them like a stalker, if it gets that bad? Or are you only allowed to save yourself from a stalker if it is an ex from a relationship, or you are famous? I think you can get a restraining order now for stalking. At least in some states.

[Chicago1980]

12. Then run for office and do better.

[ailsagirl]

5. Great to hear

especially since California has had more than its "share" of mass shootings

[IronLionZion]

6. Glad someone is doing something

[liberalmuse]

8. I can almost hear...

my cousin and her wingnut husband burying their guns. They'd already started a mass burial after Obama was elected.

[Cryptoad]

9. I will support

any law that makes it harder for idiots to get their hands on guns and ammo!

[ansible]

13. Does this mean all semi-auto rifles are now also banned?

The law is really broad...

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1664

SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

[happyslug]

18. SKS semiautomatics are legal under that section

The SKS uses a Ten Round magazine that meets the definition of "Fixed Magazine" defined in section 8 of the law. Thus section 1 does not apply to the SKS.

The SKS has a 10 round magazine thus it does NOT under section 2 of the above law.

The SKS has a 20 inch barrel and an overall length of more then 30 inches. Thus section 3 does not apply to the SKS.

Section 4 and 5 applies only to pistols, section 6 and 7 apply only to shotguns.

Thus, unless another part of the law bans the SKS, it is legal.

[oneshooter]

19. As is the M1Garand. n/t

[happyslug]

26. I can contest that.

The M1 magazine consists of two parts, the parts inside the M1 AND the en bloc magazine holding the M1s eight rounds. The eight round en bloc clip does NOT meet the definition of a fixed magazine as set forth in section 8 of the new law.

Now the M1 as used in WWII, had none of the features listed in section 1, but many of those items were retrofitted to M1s starting in the 1960s. The flash suppressor was one, through in US service only for testing purposes. None of those additional features apply to the SKS for the SKS magazine is clearly fixed as defined in section 8 of the new law.

I was going to add the M1 as another example of a semi-automatic exempt from this ban, but the M1's exemption is not as clear as the SKS. Section 1 does not apply to the SKS without going into the addional features of Section 1, for the M1 you have to clear all of those features given the M1's magazine. The M1, as used in WWII, is clearly exempt but only if no one has retrofitted any of the banned items to the M1. You do NOT have to address those other features with the SKS.

[oneshooter]

27. I believe that you are refering to the BM59 from Beretta

Very rare in this country. All of my M1's are stock as issued. Even the Beretta built Danish model.

Even my .308 National Match is stock configured.

If they are declared illegal in California then I may get a few more at good prices.

[oneshooter]

29. You got it basackwards

" The eight round en bloc clip does NOT meet the definition of a fixed magazine as set forth in section 8 of the new law."

The eight shot en block clip is used to fill the internal magazine of the M1 Garand. It is automatically ejected after the last round is fired.

[happyslug]

31. Right, but that does NOT meet the definition used in the statute for "fixed magazine"

We have to use the definition used in section (b) of the new law, not what people call a "fixed magazine". Under the definition used in the stature, since the eight round clip is NOT fixed permanently to the rifle it is NOT A PERMANENT PART OF THE RIFLE, and as such NOT a fixed magazine as defined in section (b) of the new law.

Yes this sounds like legal technicality and it is but in this case it is an important legal technicality.

And I admit I wrote section 8 instead of section (b) which is the section that defines a "Fixed Magazine," in the new law.

[oneshooter]

32. Makes me glad I live in the free state of Texas. n/t

[CreekDog]

43. you must be white if you're calling Texas the "free state"

[oneshooter]

48. And you must be some sort of racist if you believe that. n/t

[ansible]

20. But the SKS has some features banned

It has a threaded barrel and a flash suppressor, doesn't that make it illegal?

[happyslug]

23. But those features only apply to rifles with detachable magazines

Read section one, it clearly exempts rifles with fixed magazines, thus those features, only apply to rifles with detachable magazines. The SKS has a semi detachable magazine, but that magazine is also fixed to the SKS and you have to take the SKS apart to remove the magazine. Thus the SKS magazine meets the definition in section 8 of having a fixed magazine.

Please note the SKS semi fixed magazine can be replaced by after market detachable magazines. If you should fit such a Magazine to the SKS, the Modified SKS would be illegal. It is not hard to make the change, all you have to do is remove the magazine that came with the SKS. Takes a few minutes but then the replacement detachable magazines will fit.

Thus my comments only apply to the SKS with its original magazine still attached to it.

[John Poet]

118. Where can I buy one of those semiautomatic, centerfire rifles

with a Grenade launcher? K-Mart or Walmart?

[Just reading posts]

131. Actually, you can. All current NATO rifles are capable of launching STANAG 22mm rifle grenades

from their flash suppressors without the use of an adapter. If the semiautomatic rifle in question uses the same flash suppressor (as many do), it is also capable of launching such grenades.

Of course, since these grenades are virtually impossible for civilians to acquire, it's yet another pointless restriction.

[Night Watchman]

14. Jer-RY! Jer-RY! Jer-RY!

Bill Maher was right: Brown should be running for President.

[Calista241]

15. So they've banned "possession" of high capacity magazines.

Are they confiscating them any time soon? Are they paying people for magazines that were formerly legal, but are now illegal?

[Travis_0004]

28. Since the law can not take effect immediately, I would sell the.

Im sure you can find a buyer willing to pay a premium for then.

What they do with it after the ban isnt my problem. It beats destroying them.

[CreekDog]

44. California requires you to sell them through a licensed gun dealer

complete with background check!

[Just reading posts]

34. I read that the law takes effect some time next year.

Are they paying people for magazines that were formerly legal, but are now illegal?

Not the slightest chance.

The owners of the tens of millions of soon-to-be illegal magazines have three choices, as I see it.

1) Turn them in to be destroyed.

2) Sell them or give them away to people in other states.

3) Keep them and hope they're never caught.

My guess as to the percentages for each choice:

#1: 1%
#2: 4%
#3: 95%

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. NY and CT have shown us that compliance with this kind of ban is between 5%-15%

CA will be no different. The magazine ban is essentially unenforceable. There are (literally) hundreds of millions of 10+ capacity magazines out there, and all or at least most of the components in a mag are easily 3D printed. Pure security theater that won't do a damn thing to make anyone safer (but will create a barrier between law enforcement and millions of Californians).

[CRH]

30. Over the last forty years, Jerry Brown has been, ...

one of the best politicians for principle, in the entire country. I'd match him up against any others. Perfect no, but always decisions with rational thought. Remember the 'Governor Moon Beam' slur the media blistered him with, while running for President? The man only predicted the integration of California business into a satellite coordinated technology. How dare him, predict the effective purpose of the internet, 20 years in advance.

[Just reading posts]

33. And to think I was annoyed by the ridiculous gun control laws passed in Colorado a couple of years

ago. It can always get worse....

[sarisataka]

39. Why isn't any credit

given to former Senator Leland Yee who originated several of these proposals years ago? As he put it,

"It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion."

[Heeeeers Johnny]

42. I agree...

poor guy was denied credit where credit was due...

Support for gun control

Yee has been a vocal advocate for gun control. In 2006, Yee was named to the Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll by the Brady Campaign for his efforts that included co-authoring a first-in-the-nation bill to require new semiautomatic handguns be equipped with ballistics identification technology known as micro-stamping.[2] In May 2012, together with Kevin de León, Yee proposed legislation to ban any semi-automatic rifle that used a bullet button that makes the rifle a "fixed magazine rifle." SB 249 would ban conversion kits and rifles. According to his press release, "Absent this bill, California's assault weapon ban is significantly weakened. For the safety of the general public, we must close this loophole."[40] Yee is quoted as saying, "It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion."[41]

Several groups have noted the irony of Yee's previous support for strict gun control laws, in light of his involvement in weapons trafficking.[42][43][44][45] Gun rights advocacy groups and others have labeled Yee's actions as "hypocrisy".[45][46][47] In the wake of Yee's arrest on corruption and weapons trafficking charges, gun control advocacy groups have expressed concern that the future of some of Yee's proposed gun control bills could be in jeopardy.[48]

Arrest on corruption charges and arms trafficking

An affidavit was filed on March 14, 2014, and unsealed on March 26, 2014, charging Yee with violating Title 18 United States Code Section 1343 and 1346 for honest services wire fraud by allegedly taking bribes from Well Tech, Ghee Kung Tong, and for medical marijuana legislation from undercover FBI agents in return for promises of official action; and Title 18 US Code Sections 371, 922(a)(1) and 922(1) for conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms from the Philippines by setting up an international weapons trafficking deal with undercover FBI agents.[94][95] Yee was named with 28 other defendants in the FBI criminal complaint.Yee is accused of dealing firearms without a license and illegally importing firearms. He is also accused of accepting "tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and cash payments to provide introductions, help a client get a contract and influence legislation." Yee and his campaign staff accepted at least $42,800 from undercover FBI agents in exchange for carrying out specific requests. Yee discussed the opportunity for an agent to get weapons worth up to $2.5 million from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines to bring them to the US. He told the agent, "There's a part of me that wants to be like you. You know how I'm going to be like you? Just be a free agent there." [96][97] Yee was arrested on March 26, 2014 and charged with six counts of depriving the public of honest services and one count of conspiracy to traffic guns without a license.[98][99][100] He was released on $500,000 bail.[101]

The FBI raided Yee's office at the California State Capitol and the San Francisco Chinatown office of the Ghee Kung Tong fraternal organization. This is linked to the arrest, on March 26, 2014, of Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow.[3][102]

Federal prosecutors on July 25, 2014 added charges of racketeering for trying to get campaign contributions from the owner of an unnamed National Football League team in exchange for supporting legislation favored by league owners and opposed by some players.[103]

On July 1, 2015, Yee pleaded guilty to charges of racketeering.[104] He was sentenced to 5 years in prison on February 24, 2016.[8]

As of March 25, 2016, Yee is currently incarcerated at FCI Ft Worth.[9] He has the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) register number 19629-111.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. Does this mean ammosexuals will be leaving California?

[sarisataka]

41. Would that be these folks?

http://oaklandpinkpistols.org
http://www.sacramentopinkpistols.org
http://www.meetup.com/San-Jose-Pink-Pistols/
https://m.facebook.com/CentralCoastPinkPistols/

What are the “Pink Pistols”?

We are a shooting group that honors diversity and is open to all shooters. We help bring new shooters into the practice and provide a fun social environment for all our members. We work to build bridges between the shooting community and other communities, such as those based on alternative sexualities. We advocate the use of lawfully-owned, lawfully-concealed firearms for the self-defense of the sexual minority community.

We teach queers to shoot. Then we teach others that we have done so. Armed queers don’t get bashed. We change the public perception of the sexual minorities, such that those who have in the past perceived them as safe targets for violence and hateful acts — beatings, assaults, rapes, murders — will realize that that now, a segment of the sexual minority population is now armed and effective with those arms. Those arms are also concealed, so they do not know which ones are safe to attack, and which are not…which they can harm as they have in the past, and which may draw a weapon and fight back.

The Pink Pistols are the ones who have decided to no longer be safe targets. They have teeth. They will use them.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/about-the-pink-pistols/

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. No. The mentally ill....

[hack89]

46. Those that belong to drug gangs will stay

laws don't concern them much anyway. The rest will most likely ignore the laws like they did in NY and CT. The state is not going to go looking for them in any case.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. Of course, the tired old "if you outlaw guns,.." canard.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. His statement was a straightforward prediction...

...and one that is almost certainly accurate. As other states' experiences have shown, compliance with outright bans of magazines and/or weapon types are generally very low (5-15%). California doesn't have anywhere near the resources necessary for aggressive, active enforcement (nor does any other governmental entity in the US, but that's another matter).

Not that there's going to be any political will for aggressive enforcement, anyway...this is pure security theater, and every politician involved knows it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. LOL!!! Oh sure. Gun bans mean only crooks have guns....

At least the ones on TV.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. You're completely missing the point.

Which is amusing in a way...but worth not a single moment more of my time.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. I know what your point is. To prevent anything from changing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

65. Nope. But thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Here, I'll relent and spell it out for you: the point is that the ban on magazines is nothing but grandstanding for the gullible since it won't be complied with in anything remotely resembling significant numbers. This is speculation backed up by the experiences of both NY and CT, who have seen extremely low rates of compliance with their similar restrictions. Local law enforcement has been notably disinclined to take enforcement steps in these cases, too. California gun owners, of which there are more than 8 million, and the majority of whom likely own an effected weapon (that is, one with a normal magazine capacity of 10 rounds or higher), are not going to obey these restrictions.

Security. Theater.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. A buy back preceding a full ban is how they got rid of machine guns.

[oneshooter]

73. Wrong, you can still purchase full auto weapons.

It will take you 6-8 months for the permit and the cheapest available will cost around $10,000. Also it will be at least 32 years old.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

82. Regular guns should be just as screened.

[oneshooter]

84. What, in your educated and informed opinion, is a "regular gun"? n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

88. A wooden stock bolt action hunting rifle.

[oneshooter]

89. You mean like this one?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

91. I supposed that's to determine if I know about bolts.

[oneshooter]

103. Like these?

http://www.agrisupply.com/grade-hex-head-bolt-yellow/p/53771/

[Spitfire of ATJ]

111. Now show us your nuts!

[Marengo]

126. Your use of the term "regular guns" does call into question your knowledge...

On the subject.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

140. Only to someone playing the game....

The one where you look for any sign of someone lacking knowledge about a particular gun to triumphantly declare that they don't know what they're talking about.

It's a tactic that doesn't work anymore.

(Not that it ever actually worked before.)

[Marengo]

143. Either one knows, or does not know, the subject matter being discussed.

It isn't a tactic, simply an indicator of credibility and the value of an opinion.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

147. Wrong. It's a deflection from the issue....

You want to make it about the specific definition of an assault rifle so you can pick it apart based on this feature or that feature and declare it isn't what it appears to be.

That's ridiculous.

[Marengo]

156. Uh huh. apply the same argument to the subject of women's reproductive rights

[Spitfire of ATJ]

160. Another deflection?

[oneshooter]

208. Actually it is to check you

Since you seem to have little knowledge of what you speak of.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

215. Number twos always play the same game. It's old.....

They see "wood stock" and produce a picture of a plastic one and then point and snicker.

It's childish.

The goal is to take away the ability of someone go into a store and buy guns and the next day stroll into a crowded public place and shoot 100 people. Or a movie theater and shoot 82 people. Or a school and murder 30 people including little kids.

And yes, the assault rifle is the weapon of choice for hunting humans.

[Just reading posts]

165. So a synthetic stocked bolt action rifle isn't a "regular" gun?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

169. I know this game....

It's been played to DEATH.

[Just reading posts]

172. So....no answer, then?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

178. It's not a game when someone shoots up a classroom.

[Just reading posts]

181. I don't recall asserting that it was. You said "regular" guns were wooden stocked, bolt action

rifles. I find it very odd that you would require a gun to have a stock made out of wood to be "regular".

Just trying to understand your point of view.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

189. LOL! Are you sure?

[Just reading posts]

191. Yes, quite.

[Lizzie Poppet]

80. There was a machine-gun buyback in the US? News to me.

Fully-automatic firearms were never at all commonplace in the US. They were, however, the media boogie man of the day, similar to AR-15s and such now. That is, not actually a big player in firearm violence, but made for great hysterical newspaper copy, due to their use by gangsters. Security theater isn't exactly new.

Let me once again be clear: all the bans in the world can be enacted, but when those bans are of an item that millions of people want, is already massively distributed, isn't prone to wearing out, is easily hidden, and is readily duplicated, those bans will fail.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. So you are saying current gun owners are willing to break the law. Got it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

92. A law like that? Absolutely. Millions of them, in fact.

If this is news to you, you're not up to speed on this subject.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. What we have and what we need at two different things....

One thing we need is a law that prevents assholes from owning guns.

That'll get a LOT of them off the streets.

[Marengo]

127. How would asshole be legally defined?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

141. That's easy....

Trump supporter.

[Marengo]

146. You would deny a constitutional right based on political affiliation?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

149. It would make for great theater.

[Marengo]

157. Sure, if theater is the goal.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

163. What's funny is the idiots running around in the woods playing army....

They don't think things through.

They actually believe they can take on the SWAT teams and the National Guard and WIN.

Then what?

Do they honestly believe they will stand on top of the pile of corpses of dead cops and guardsmen and be hailed by the general public as heroes of freedom?

[Lizzie Poppet]

170. You actually think the NG would comply with orders to confiscate guns?

You realize the military, active duty and NG alike, have become strongly tilted towards the conservative end of the spectrum and are, overall, staunchly pro-gun, right?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

177. I believe they will fight for the country against a bunch of anti-government idiots.

[Lizzie Poppet]

182. Depends on the scenario.

If that scenario is an attempt at widespread firearms confiscation, the NG will, in large part, be those "anti-government idiots."

That is, of course, the problem with confiscation advocacy: who's going to carry it out? The military is prohibited by law, but even if posse comitatus was dispensed with, the military is overwhelmingly pro-gun. Law enforcement, regardless of its position on such orders, is not adequate to the task (c. 800k LEOs with arrest powers nationwide...c. 85 million gun owners).

There is no plausible pathway to civilian disarmament in this country. Dealing with gun-related crime simply must abandon the banning methodology and seek approaches that can actually be carried out successfully.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

185. Most people with guns will turn them in. That's why there's total panic....

True, there would be a few scattered cases of guys claiming they can live like hermits but that'll end too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

187. I think you're enormously mistaken on that.

Bans have been enacted recently in both NY and CT. Compliance has ranged from 5% to 15%. I see no reason why this would be different elsewhere (and even lower in some areas).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

188. Thus fulfilling the "only outlaws will have guns" talking point.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

99. Want a gun? Get fingerprinted and photographed and pass a background check...

In addition all of your weapons should have their serial numbers recorded and registered like cars.

[Lizzie Poppet]

104. I have no objections to that sort of set-up.

Registration doesn't bother me as much as it does some gun rights advocates. Probably because I'm a socialist.

Many of the Scandinavian countries have systems of this type, and permit the same classes of weapons as here in the States. I'm actually an advocate of mandatory skill and safety training as part of the program. Legally-mandated secure storage, too...

[Marengo]

128. There was a buy back associated with the 1934 NFA?

[DustyJoe]

206. which way does the new law lean .. criminal or legal ?

gun owner lends a gun to someone not in his family = FELONY
gun owner does not immediately report a gun stolen = FELONY
one of the 'crooks' break into your home and steal your gun = MISDEMEANOR for the criminal.

I know they're trying to reduce prison populations due to 'inequity', but it seems the gun owners are being criminalized instead of the criminals themselves. Burglars and posession of a stolen gun banger now equals 'protected class' ? Doesn't make sense.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

217. Interesting construct....

It wasn't mine but it's interesting.

In the same way the "strawman" earlier was funny.

[Kang Colby]

233. It works so well for Chicago and Baltimore!

[hack89]

52. Why is CA different from NY and CT?

it is not like we don't have recent experience we can use to predict what will happen. And don't you consider felons part of the gun culture? They certainly seem to enjoy using them as they conduct "business".

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. Face it. Gun laws work everywhere they're used.....

Did you know it was once legal to own hand grenades?

[TeddyR]

57. Which gun laws?

The AWB didn't work. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country yet still has the highest gun murder rate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

60. A national ban will stop guns from coming in from outside.

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. There are c. 350 million firearms already in civilian hands in the US.

And that estimate is considered by some to be extremely low...

Moreover, the imminent rise of 3D printing as a commonplace technology means that even that massive extant supply isn't going to have to suffice by itself. AR-15 lower receiver plans are simple to find and already produce untraceable lowers (the lower is the serialized, ATF-regulated part...and 3D printing can also make about 95% of the rest of the weapon...to reach 100% in very few years/months, with materials advances). Banning is simply no longer a workable methodology.

[sarisataka]

67. Banning is simply no longer a workable methodology

Was it ever? Banning has not worked with alcohol, cocaine, heroin...
The idea that a national border can be made impermeable to anything is a Fool's dream; no matter how high the wall or who pays for it

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. Bad examples. Try machine guns....

What the #2s refuse to accept is that they are in the minority.

[sarisataka]

72. Bad example

machine guns are not banned. Nor do the current regulations keep them from coming in {illegally}. Not that they need to come in, the police seem to loose them quite regularly...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

78. LOL!!! Oh sure, let's go down to the gun store and buy one right now.

[sarisataka]

85. Gunbroker currently lists

a Ruger AC-556 Machine Gun for sale. It is selective fire, semi or full auto at the flip of a switch

All you need is $14k and some paperwork. $150 shipping charge.

Personal Check, Visa / MasterCard, American Express, See Item Description

[Spitfire of ATJ]

96. LOL! Do you KNOW what that "paperwork" is? Screening required by LAW.

[sarisataka]

98. I do know

I have a friend who is a class 3 dealer.

I am not sure why you are laughing having shown the statement that machine guns are banned is wrong

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. They are banned from the open market and off the streets.

[sarisataka]

102. Still wrong

But if thinking that helps you sleep at night, fine.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

112. It's not a war zone out there ya know....

I know the cops like to think so, but it's not.

[sarisataka]

113. I am quite familiar

With actual war zones. Thank you for your concern.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

114. So you agree with this...

[sarisataka]

115. Reagan is the proverbially stopped clock

in his case a 24 hour clock so he is only correct once per day. That he was good to gun owners is a complete myth. He signed more gun control legislation than any Democratic President ever has.

That graphic combines two separate quotes- The first,

"There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons"

is from 1967. It was in response to Black Panthers carrying rifles at the California capitol to protest the Mulford Act

It was racially motivated. Blacks were exercising their Second Amendment rights in California and that upset the powers that be. Reagan could have substituted 'black' for "citizen". California's May Issue system insured the right, i.e. white, people could still carry.


The second part is actually a misquote from 1989 after the Stockton shooting. What he actually said was,

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense," he said. "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."

This is from after his Presidency when his mental faculties had been seriously questionable for some time. New AK-47 machine guns were banned by the Fire Owners Protection Act, signed by Reagan three years prior. That froze the number of available civilian owned automatic weapons at ~175,000. The same Act also prohibits a Federal firearms registry and clarified what criteria identifies who is restricted from purchasing firearms.

I would agree a machine gun is a poor choice for hunting or home defense.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

116. It's times like this when I wonder about what people choose for a hobby.

[sarisataka]

117. For twenty years my job

was to be an SME on firearms. That evolved into counter terrorism where a broad familiarity of history and law is very useful. As terrorism is very fluid, learning to rapidly research key facts and information is essential.

My chosen hobby is model railroading, HO scale to be specific. I am currently trying to compress the essential operations of a mid sized brewery into an eight foot by sixteen inch area.
Something similar to this


or this

[Spitfire of ATJ]

119. I had a full basement in Michigan with floor to ceiling hardshell mountains....

Had to let it all go when I moved to California.

Who knows, I might go back when I retire.

[sarisataka]

153. Very nice

I find the Allen style scenery impressive. I don't know if I have the skill to ever do it justice even if I had the space.

Since my current situation only allows me a small area I'm trying a single industry shunting layout. I am loosely basing it the former Hamm's brewery near where I grew up. It is quite challenging to keep focused and avoid adding 'extras'.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

158. "Extras" make for good photography....

[sarisataka]

162. That's just mean...

Since an original 3M plant was just down the tracks and Whirlpool was on the westbound main.
(no- single industry )
(but the scrap yard would fit at the end of the team track )

[Spitfire of ATJ]

168. "Selective compression" is your friend....

Someone at the Battle Creek Model Railroad Club talked about building the Kellogg's factory and Grand Trunk facilities behind it to scale and discovered it would be four times the size of their basement.

[sarisataka]

174. So true

To make The brewery fit in my space I had to Loop the rail operations on top of itself and then compress that Distance by about 60%. If I were to model the entire industrial corridor I would need about 100 linear feet.

It is a lot of work for a lone person. I've run into a couple guys who do FREEMO. Unfortunately their location is about 45 minutes away. They say they are considering opening a subgroup that would be closer to my end of town.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

179. Point to point or do you have continuous run available?

[sarisataka]

184. Point to point now

Currently my 8-foot area is a hard limit. After I finish a couple of home projects I can renegotiate with management to see if I can get access to the laundry area. It would triple my main line and allow room for a return Loop to make it into backstage continuous run

[Spitfire of ATJ]

186. This is why coal country is so popular. You can have tight turns with lots of little hopper cars.

[sarisataka]

190. There are beautiful coal layouts

I love reading about the V&O and AM. Grainger railroading however is what calls to me. I have family connections to the Milwaukee Road and GN.

I did get a 2-6-0 as a gift about a year ago. There is something magically appealing about watching those drivers in action as it goes down the track. It would cost a bit but I could go the steam route. The 40's era cars take up less space than the modern ones do and I could keep my current project as a stub ended branch.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

192. The Reading was a good one with the camelback engines....

Note that in most of the pictures you see the doors and windows are open,...even in the snow...



Yeah,...let's have the cab straddle the boiler and not only cook the engineer but make it so he and the fireman can't talk to each other.

On the bright side it gives you a HUGE firebox so you can burn low grade coal.

[sarisataka]

193. Those must have been

A little ride in hell in the summer

[1939]

203. Not talking to the fireman was an inconvenience

Being on the other side of the boiler from the head brakeman was a serious safety fault. On a normal loco, the engineer and the head brakeman would call out light signals on their side of the track to each other and confirm each other for safety.

Actually the huge firebox was to consume "high grade coal". The railroads using the "camel backs" were the anthracite coal roads. Anthracite (hard coal) was used in home heating as it burns much cleaner and gives off less smoke and soot. The railroads serving the anthracite coal regions used that coal because they wanted to buy from their customers, the anthracite mines. Unfortunately, anthracite coal is not very good "steaming" coal and the larger firebox was required. Railroads, steamships, and power plants preferred the dirtier and more efficient (for steaming purposes) bituminous coal. The very best steaming coal came from the Pocahontas seam in West Virginia.

[Marengo]

125. If you lived in my neighborhood, you could. NFA dealer 15 minutes down the road.

And several more within a hour drive.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

138. Do you have a machine gun?

[Marengo]

142. I've been thinking of it, already have an FFL so have some familiarity with the process.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

148. I take it model railroading is out as a hobby.

[Marengo]

155. One may have more than a single hobby.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

159. Try fly fishing.

[Just reading posts]

173. Too pricey for me.

[DustyJoe]

205. yep just like those outlawed drugs have been kept out n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

211. Very good....

The first step towards recovery is accepting that you are addicted.

[hack89]

61. Like the 1994 AWB?

Pull the other one.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

63. The AWB was watered down and then repealed.

[hack89]

64. The AWB was absolutely useless as written

It was not repealed- it had a sundown provision. There was no pressure to extend after the DOJ reported that it had no impact on gun violence.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. Games. It's all games....

You ban something with a 3" thingy and the gun makers make the same damn thing at 2 and 99/100ths inches to get around the law.

The gun makers lawyers worked directly with the lawmakers to make sure they'd have lots of loopholes.

[hack89]

77. When you make up labels like "assault weapon"

That is the problem you run into when you have to write technically specific laws - you end up banning cosmetic features because we all know that military looking guns are super dangerous but we don't want to ban "civilian" weapons .

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. Face it. There is sheer panic in the air that the public is about to end the game.

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. You're dreaming.

The public isn't going to do a fucking thing. Some elements will bleat for bans and confiscations. The former will be meaningless, unenforceable gestures, and the latter will never happen.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

95. Don't say "never".

[Lizzie Poppet]

97. True enough. "Never" is a long time! (nm)

[hack89]

87. Rhode Island eemphatically rejected an AWB last week

Just like the three previous years. Not seeing much panic in this blue Democrat dominated state.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

94. Have you ever been there?

[hack89]

105. I live there nt.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. Maybe you can explain the smell.

[hack89]

107. What smell would that be? nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

108. The river in Providence.

[hack89]

109. Don't live in Providence so I don't knownt.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

110. It's like a mix of rotting vegetation and stagnant sea water.

[oneshooter]

74. It still is. The cost is tremendous and a tax of $200 per item goes to get you the stamp.

This will take 8-14 months to complete the background check.

[olddad56]

76. you can't own hand grenades anymore? WHat will we do for protection and hunting ducks?

[oneshooter]

79. You can, if you have the money and a clean enough background. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

101. ...

[pablo_marmol]

199. Liberal criminologists whose credentials FAR exceed yours and mine disagree that "gun control" works

As far back as 1983, James Wright and Peter Rossi informed Jimmy Carter that there was ZERO evidence that the Gun Control Act of 1968 reduced gun violence in the slightest. And the case for "gun control" has taken many more hits since then, given the dramatic drop in all crime starting in 1993 while the number of guns in the nation increased.

So it appears as though you'll just have to "face it". You have no evidence to support your faith-based assertion.

https://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Weapons-Violence-America/dp/0202303063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467621169&sr=1-1&keywords=Under+the+gun+james+wright+peter+rossi

[Spitfire of ATJ]

200. As if there are no other factors that reduced crime but guns....

Like most people don't have a wallet stuffed with cash anymore since the ATM card came into widespread use.

Never mind that. Put your faith in guns.

Right?

[pablo_marmol]

207. Never claimed that guns were solely responsible for reducing crime.

Unsurprising that you'd erect a dishonest strawman. I happen to believe - as the best available empirical evidence suggests - that guns produce a 'null' effect w/regard to overall violence......with the societal cost reduction of defensive gun use balancing the destructive offensive use.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

216. "Unsurprising that you'd erect a dishonest strawman."

Okay, THAT was funny.

[pablo_marmol]

218. "As if there are no other factors that reduced crime but guns...."

Your words. Suggesting a point I never put forth. Definition: Strawman argument.

I find you rather 'unfunny'. Done wit ya.

[TipTok]

120. Which part do you find hard to believe?

Genuinely curious...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

122. The part where people really believe it and it's not just a talking point.

[TipTok]

123. Well that was certainly vague...

Here... I'll help

Those that belong to drug gangs will stay

laws don't concern them much anyway. The rest will most likely ignore the laws like they did in NY and CT. The state is not going to go looking for them in any case.

Is it:

a) You don't believe that drug gangs will retain their weapons and arms

b) That this hasn't happened already in NY and CT

c) That the state will not go looking and confiscating?

Is it A, B or C or some combination that you are having trouble swallowing?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

137. "D"...

The part where someone is more concerned with victory in a debate by parroting talking points than they are with mass shootings and it becomes obvious they are against laws designed to restrict gun ownership based on a strict interpretation of "shall not be infringed".

[TipTok]

180. Ahhh..

You don't actually find factual fault in the statements. You just don't like to hear the words because you find them inconvenient and contrary to your position.

Much clearer.

Thanks

[Spitfire of ATJ]

183. Truth be told, I dismiss them utterly as decades old talking points.

[TipTok]

196. The fact they have decades of precedent...

... only increases their value as a logical point.

Up to this point, you haven't pointed to what is incorrect but just what makes you feel icky and uncomfortable.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

197. Actually they are assumptions accepted as fact....

They fall apart under actual examples from other countries.

It's time to ban the "Adult Male's Barbie Doll".

[TipTok]

198. Ooh.. progress...

Which one falls apart?

Is it:

a) You don't believe that drug gangs will retain their weapons and arms ( I would genuinely be interested if you could find a comparable culture , both political and social, that enacted similar rules that resulted in the criminal element giving up their weapons)

b) That this hasn't happened already in NY and CT (This precedent is American. sorry)

c) That the state will not go looking and confiscating? (Goes back to the first. I'm sure you could find a country where the police went raiding through private property of the general populace in search of contraband but I suspect it's nowhere I would like to live. Please keep your framework within American law and precedent)

Good luck...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

201. You keep citing NY and CT as if that is absolute proof that ANY attempt is futile....

Other countries would find that hilarious.

Let's say they ban the AR15.

All that would cause is widespread crying.

[TipTok]

202. Other countries are not the US...

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)

In any case, I was asking what you were so dismissive of in the original comment which specifically referenced American states and what you found to be untrue.

You may very well be able to get a near total ban of the AR15 in many countries but not in America. You are stymied by the culture, the foundational law and your own efforts as the expansion of gun rights over the last few decades has shown.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

204. You seem to labor under the impression that the government needs the NRA's permission....

It doesn't. How many more times do we need to see shooting rampages before we hurt the Gun Cult's poor widdle fewwings?

[TipTok]

210. This is an excellent example...

... of how the controller crowd is their own worst enemy and one of the top reasons gun rights have expanded across the country in recent years.

A mistaken belief in the seemingly godlike power of the NRA while absolutely neglecting the fact that its the voting population who drives the narrative. The NRA lobbying budget is a drop in the bucket compared to uncounted others.

A complete inability to address questions in a logical, respectful and satisfactory way and instead immediately running to deflection, some reference to genitals and kindergarten level insults aimed at the people you desperately need to convince.

The 2nd Amendment supporters thank you for your service.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

212. The reason gun sales have expanded is the idiots believing Obama's army from Kenya is coming.

[TipTok]

220. The fact you think that...

... let alone say it is why you are losing.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

222. Do you even know any right wingers?

[TipTok]

223. Look at my avatar...

Guess where I work...

The heavy majority of folks around me lean heavily right. They've got no love for Obama but that doesn't mean they think he is bringing his Kenyan army over either.

I'm not suggesting that those folks don't exist but they are in no way the political driving force behind the expansion of gun rights in recent years.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

226. It's fear of a ban that's driving up sales.....

Some dealers are buying in bulk hoping to cash in.

[Lizzie Poppet]

209. And widERspread ignoring of such a law.

Count on it, like you count on the sun rising in the morning.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

213. So do nothing because it will be ignored anyway.

[pablo_marmol]

219. When doing nothing is better than doing something stupid and counter-productive......

indeed ------ do nothing.

The best thing that Democrats could do at this point would be to stop ruining the dialog with lies about "assault weapons", "gun show loopholes" etc.

Discontinuing lying could honestly be described as an action.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

221. "indeed ------ do nothing."

That's where it always ends.

Meanwhile the Right Wing claims Sandy Hook was a hoax.

[pablo_marmol]

224. "That's where it always ends."

And where it always seems to end for Dems --- moronic knee-jerk bullshit that accomplishes nothing but alienate voters who may otherwise vote for Democrats.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

225. The common pattern is to hear Number Twos say "It's too soon"....

The idea being bad legislation gets passed in the heat of the moment.

Like the topic is brand new and people haven't sat down and written it during a time of cooler heads.

[Lizzie Poppet]

229. False dichotomy.

As I've already stated, banning as a methodology is unlikely to be effective because of extant supply (and 3D printing). Thus other methods of (further) reducing gun-related crime have to be focused on, concentrating on keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

230. Face it. There is a cult around the idea of urban warfare and they want their toys to play hero.

[Lizzie Poppet]

231. Irrelevant.

But feel free to wander off on that tangent if you like. But you'll be doing it without me (or anyone else actually interested in addressing the gun violence problem). Some like to find solutions; some like to feed their prejudices...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

232. And then there's the rest of the world wondering, "WTF??"

[TeddyR]

51. Two questions

First, can semi-auto pistols still accept detachable magazines? Second, how does the background check for ammo purchases work; i.e. Who pays for it and how long does it take?

[oneshooter]

75. Only if the magazine is not forward of the trigger.

That makes these illegal.

[Just reading posts]

171. At last, California will be free of the scourge of Red 9 Broomhandles.

[Lizzie Poppet]

175. After all, they can be made into blasters!

[Just reading posts]

176. A DL-44 Heavy Blaster Pistol!

Powerful, but overheats quickly. Han never seemed to have a problem with it, though.

[appal_jack]

58. Unconstitutional fear-mongering & security theater. nt

[jack_krass]

71. How is banning high capacity magazines anything but an empty gesture?

Two 20 round clips vs. four 10 round clips? A semi-automatic handgun can be re-loaded in a fraction of a second by an experienced operator.

Background checks for ammo? Same thing. Ammo can be easily made from spent shell casings with fairly inexpensive machinery.

Jerry got exactly what they want. A pat on the back, an "atta boy Jerry" for some relatively empty gestures.

[Lizzie Poppet]

83. All the more empty when you consider the extant supply.

There are literally hundreds of millions of magazines already in civilian hands. They are very durable items, so wearing out is something that will take centuries (modern metallurgy means even the springs don't wear out in anything less than geological timeframes). Compliance in CA with their ban will not exceed 15%, I'd state with complete confidence.

Oh, and 3D printing is on the cusp of becoming completely commonplace. Game over for banning as a viable methodology...

[mwrguy]

121. Good! It's a great start.

[Just reading posts]

133. If this is a "great start", what is your desired endgame on this subject?

[mwrguy]

194. A gun-free society

It will take a while, but we'll get there.

[Just reading posts]

195. So much for "No one wants to take your guns".

A gun-free society

In the United States?



There are something on the order of 400 million firearms in this country. Another 150 million are being made or imported every ten years. Thirty years from now, it will be around a billion guns in private hands. Then there's the minor matter of the billions of magazines for them.

Guns are durable. I've shot guns made in the 19th Century that work every bit as well as they day they were made. With minimal care, they can last for at least another century (or two...or three....maybe more). A well maintained AR-15 made in the year 2016 will still be functional in the 24th Century.

We will never have a gun free society.

[Sunlei]

124. proof of insurance to buy a gun, all guns listed on home insurance policy, require insurance for mor

more then 2 guns owned.

edited to add, no guns left unattended in cars, extra car insurance required if a gun in the car.

[happyslug]

129. Like dog bites, that is already covered by home insurance.

The actual cost of such coverage is so low, it is included in your home insurance today. A million dollar potential loss spread over a million people is just one dollar. The actual risk of a firearm kept in your home being used in a criminal act is so low that the actual yearly risk is measured in cents not dollars.

The risks of firearms and dogs in your home are so low neither is listed as an individual item on your home owner insurance and is included even if you do NOT own a dog or a firearm (the risks of both are so low, measured in cents not dollars, they are included to protect the bank holding any mortgage on the home more than any other reason).

Remember many firearm deaths are suicides, that rate has NOT dropped in decades. No insurance will cover suicides for the simple reason you do NOT want to put a person into a position that it is more profitable for his or her family for that person to shoot themselves then stay alive.

As to auto insurance, look at your coverage, hospital and medical care is the biggest single thing covered, damage to property is quite cheap. Adding a firearm clause will be measured in cents not dollars for compared to accidents with personal injury claim will be cheap. Today if something is stolen out of your car, you collect from your home owner insurance not your car insurance (subject to whatever deductible you have, such deductibles are high enough to exempt most such thiefs from being reported).

Sorry home insurance already covers the misuse of firearms.

[TeddyR]

130. What will that accomplish?

Criminals won't comply and insurance isn't going to cover a criminal act with a gun.

[Sunlei]

145. just like with a car, proof of insurance can be used to verify a gun holder in public is 'legal'

In the home, insurance companies should require proof of locking very secure, gun vault to provide (required) coverage.

[TeddyR]

151. A concealed carry license confirms

The gun owner is legal. Nothing more is needed.

[Sunlei]

154. If I was Governer, I'd regulate that Militia with easy to scan registration stickers.

like our cars

[Stellar]

132. Chris Rock had a point...charge for the bullets and let them have the guns..

[Just reading posts]

134. That would, of course be unconstitutional on the face of it.

[Stellar]

135. Really, I didn't know. Or are you talking about paying for bullets?

How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

http://www.businessinsider.com/second-amendment-bullets-2012-12

[Just reading posts]

136. Courts have ruled that ammunition bans are unconstitutional.

Washington D.C. Ammunition Ban Violates Second Amendment

The court therefore reasoned that although neither Heller nor the subsequent Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago specifically addressed ammunition, “it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use (their handguns) for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

[Stellar]

139. Then, that's got to change.

There has got to be a way that gun owners should only be permitted to have so many bullets at a time (in the home). IMCO.

[Just reading posts]

144. Unlikely, to say the least.

There has got to be a way that gun owners should only be permitted to have so many bullets at a time (in the home). IMCO.

What limit do you suggest? Bear in mind that a recreational shooter can easily go through a thousand rounds of ammunition (or more) in a month. Hell, when I order ammunition for one of my rifles I normally purchase a thousand rounds or so at a time. It's cheaper in bulk.

[Lizzie Poppet]

150. Why?

What positive thing would be accomplished by restricting the amount of ammunition an individual can possess?

Not that such a restriction would be obeyed anyway...

[Sunlei]

152. I'm all for a tax paid sticker on new guns and a registration sticker, similar to a cars requirement

A 5 year registration and sticker on each gun.

[drray23]

161. and the next day..

you can already find videos on how to modify your ar15 to circumvent the letter of the law and make it compliant...

[Just reading posts]

164. Making your AR-15 compliant with the law isn't "circumventing" the letter of the law.

It's following it.

[drray23]

166. yes in the same way

that those bump fire kits are a legal way (yes i know its legal) to make your semiauto behave pretty much like a full auto. Legal but right up to the line.

[Just reading posts]

167. Following the letter of the law, in other words.

[ManiacJoe]

234. That is what happens when laws are written by

people ignorant of the topic at hand.
For example, the 1994 "assault weapon" ban.

[youceyec]

214. Next time

a foolish person tells u guns dont kill people, people do; tell them by that logic access to airplanes after 9/11 should not have occurred because "planes don't kill people, people do".

[S_B_Jackson]

227. Lordy, lordy....

the Walmart northwest of Reno on I-395 at Lemmon Drive is going to be selling a ton of ammunition.

[hawkeyeman]

228. Exempted themselves from the new laws that made

Only the peasants are subjected to the laws not the law makers. I feel that they shouldn't be exempted from the laws they make!!