California is trying to undo all of its work to save the environment by printing more gun laws. How many trees will die this year?
As you can imagine, for those of us behind the Lead Curtain of California, the politicians in Sacramento are like Herpes, the gift that keeps on giving. The gluttony of anti-gun legislation in this state has had the California DOJ scrambling to try and figure out how to actually enact the laws. What happened with the whole bullet button ban? Well I can’t even register a rifle under the new law, because the DOJ doesn’t know how to actually do it. They now must to go back and introduce new legislation to try and fix their stupidity of last year.
So while perusing the 2017/2018 legislative session, I found some bills you might want to follow. I will place comments after each inline. If you really are masochistic, feel free to head on over to the California Legislative Information website and read all the mind numbing text yourself. You can even sign up for email messages based on key word searches.
SB 710, Silencers.
This bill would delete the felony prohibition on possession of a silencer and would authorize an individual in lawful possession of a device that will silence, suppress, or muffle the sound or natural report of a firearm when the firearm is discharged to use that device to hunt a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian.
Sounds cool, and I actually support this. Only issue is, unless you are a politician, or law enforcement, no NFA items for you. It is however a step in the right direction.
SB 620, Firearms: crimes: enhancements.
This bill would delete the prohibition on striking an allegation or finding and, instead, would allow a court, in the interest of justice and at the time of sentencing or resentencing, to strike an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by the above provisions of law.
So basically judges can strike a deal. The mandatory sentences go out the window. Any politician who said they are tough on crime, but voted for this bill are liars.
SB 536, Firearm Violence Research Center: gun violence restraining orders.
This bill would require the Department of Justice to make information relating to gun violence restraining orders that is maintained in the California Restraining and Protective Order System or any similar database maintained by the department available to researchers affiliated with the center, or, at the discretion of the department, to any other entity that is concerned with the study and prevention of violence, for the University of California, Firearm Violence Research Center.
So basically there is this virulent anti-gun research center that wants private information. Information, that would, and should be sealed from public view. The private information can then be transferred or otherwise disseminated to anyone the center feels is “worthy”. I flatly oppose this based on privacy.
SB 497, Firearms: transfers.
This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms.
If you can’t ban the guns, you can regulate how many you can purchase in a year, or a lifetime. So with a bit of good news this bill was pulled from committee. We already have a limit of one handgun a month. Rifles are rarely used in crimes, despite media hysteria to the contrary.
SB 464, Firearms dealers: storage and security.
This bill would instead require each of the firearms to be secured by storing the firearm in a secure facility, as described above. The bill would require the firearms to also be secured using either the method involving a steel rod or cable or the method involving a safe or vault, as described above. If a steel rod or cable is used, the bill would also require the installation of concrete or hardened steel pillars of sufficient strength, width, height, and spacing to stop a vehicle.
This does very little. For the store to yank its entire inventory off the shelves, and store them in a safe, does nothing. If it is a large store it could be darn near impossible, and would require employees being on site a couple of hours prior to and after closing. Additionally requiring pillars to block cars may or may not force the store to close. It may not be possible to put such pillars in front of their stores. This is only another piece of legislation to try and force gun dealers out of business. Of course this is what they want. They can make it impossible for a gun store to exist, but they haven’t banned firearms outright. This passed out of committee based on party line votes.
SB 459, Outdoor advertising displays: City of Upland.
(4) The advertising display does not advertise products, goods, or services related to tobacco, firearms, or sexually explicit material.
We already have a case in court fighting the ability for gun stores to advertise, by showing a picture of “GASP” a gun! Imagine that. I suspect many snowflakes might be triggered just by the mere paper image of a firearm.
AB 1525, Firearms warnings.
This bill, on and after January 1, 2018, would require a specified statement relating to the risks of firearms and the laws regulating firearms to be included in the warnings on the packaging of firearms and descriptive materials that accompany firearms and in the instructional manual developed by the department. The bill, on and after January 1, 2019, would also require additional specified warnings to be included at the premises of a licensed firearms dealer.
This bill, on and after January 1, 2019, would require a specified warning to be given to a person who takes the firearms safety certificate examination and would require the applicant to acknowledge receipt of the prescribed warning prior to issuance of the firearm safety certificate. The bill, on and after January 1, 2019, would require the department to update the testing material at least once every five years and would require the department to update a referenced Internet Web site regularly to reflect current laws and regulations.
You know all those regulatory papers you get with just about everything you buy these days? Well throw in some more. Roll them up, and it works great to start your BBQ. Really this is just more dead trees, and regulations which do nothing. If you haven’t figured out guns can kill you by now, just nominate yourself for a Darwin award.
AB 7, Firearms: open carry.
Existing law prohibits, with certain exceptions, openly carrying an unloaded handgun outside a vehicle while in or upon a public place or public street of an incorporated city or city and county or while in or upon a public place or public street within a prohibited area, being defined as any area in which it is unlawful to discharge a firearm.
Existing law also prohibits, with certain exceptions, carrying an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun, such as a shotgun or rifle, while in an incorporated city or city and county but does not prohibit the carrying of an unloaded firearm other than a handgun in unincorporated areas of a county.
This bill would prohibit the carrying of, and make it a crime to carry, an unloaded firearm other than a handgun while in or upon a public place or public street within a prohibited area located within the unincorporated area of a county.
Believe it or not there are still some free pockets in California where you can carry a rifle unloaded. This bill basically slams that door shut. We are still fighting to make California a shall issue state for concealed carry. Open carry only feels like a pipe dream.
We will keep an eye out for any movement on these bills or others which were already passed, and let you know what we know.