California Democrats Look To Ban All Semi-Auto Rifles W/ Magazines

[irishScott]

WTF only prohibit sale, aren't they going to seize the current guns.

Nope. At least I can take pleasure in your consternation.

 

[DCal430]

I should write and ask for a modification of the proposal. No grandfather, just seizure of all such weapons.

 

[irishScott]

I should write and ask for a modification of the proposal. No grandfather, just seizure of all such weapons.

Good luck with that. Seriously. Anything to speed this law's path to SCOTUS.

 

[DCal430]

I fail to see what is unconstitutional about seizures of weapons of mass killing.

 

[irishScott]

I fail to see what is unconstitutional about seizures of weapons of mass killing.

Then you need remedial history education.

Also it doesn't matter what you see (thank God). It matters what SCOTUS and thef rest of the nation sees. People like you are such an extreme minority you make the American Nazi party look huge.

 

[Matt1970]

Why would you fear inspection or searched if you are doing nothing wrong. Only criminals would need to fear.

Is there any part of the Constitution you do like?

 

[Fenixgoon]

is that crap getting signed by the governor of california yet, or did it just get out of committee?

i was really hoping california would keep its laws as-is, since moving from MD to CA would actually be an upgrade (D, but I suppose I should have expected CA to jump on the train as well.

 

[monovillage]

is that crap getting signed by the governor of california yet, or did it just get out of committee?

i was really hoping california would keep its laws as-is, since moving from MD to CA would actually be an upgrade (D, but I suppose I should have expected CA to jump on the train as well.

Gov. Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown. nuff' said.

 

[BoberFett]

Is there any part of the Constitution you do like?

The way it doesn't leave lint on his ass when he uses it to wipe.

 

[Howard]

Because they are extremely cool toys. It's like saying you sports cars from now on can only have V4 inline engines

 

[OverVolt]

You know uh, the V-shaped engine block is flattened out. Like a porche or subaru! (just kidding!)

 

[blankslate]

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/04/the-combat-lever-action-rifle.html

 

[irishScott]

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/04/the-combat-lever-action-rifle.html

I can't wait until they try to ban these and then realize the design pre-dates the modern "assault rifle" by about 50 years.

 

[OverVolt]

I fail to see what is unconstitutional about seizures of weapons of mass killing.

Definitions are important when making an argument. Changing the word "gun" into "weapon of mass killing" doesn't circumnavigate the 2nd amendment, which is what makes it unconstitutional.

It was put there because of British tyranny over the American colonies. If it weren't for guns we'd still be a British colony, where they extract all of our wealth. Think, poverty and India, also a British colony but wasn't able to wrest its own sovereignty until 1947 giving the USA approximately a 171 year head start that you enjoy today as a high standard of living.

But ya know bite the hand that feeds you, whatever. It was put there to prevent any future tyranny, nobody knows the future, its insurance for the countries sovereignty. You really just take the whole freedom thing for-granted while reaping the benefits.

 

[blankslate]

I can't wait until they try to ban these and then realize the design pre-dates the modern "assault rifle" by about 50 years.

It's not semi-auto and it's tube fed... what's the issue?

 

[OverVolt]

It's not semi-auto and it's tube fed... what's the issue?

Looks scary!

 

[blankslate]

Looks scary!

 

[Angry Irishman]

I should write and ask for a modification of the proposal. No grandfather, just seizure of all such weapons.

You'd have to un-tit yourself from Feinstein first. You've got to be trolling.

 

[_Rick_]

An interesting demonstration regarding magazine sizes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YmF2ULnlhA

I see so many false assumptions in this video, that it's mindboggling.

A) Assumption, that you're target shooting at stationary targets. This is almost never the case in self-defense or aggression scenarios.
B) Assumption that the shooter counts off his shots (and thus always has a round chambered, when changing magazine)
C) Assumption that you actually aim at someone instead of just covering your movement towards better cover.
D) Assumption that magazines are handily laid out at arms reach, and shooting from an upright position.

Essentially, he's claiming because at the range the mag size makes no difference, it makes no difference for somebody using the gun in a firefight. I don't believe this is the case, even when limited to semi-automatic weapons.

In an actual fire fight, an opponent could reasonably judge your magazine capacity and return fire safely, the moment you have to reload. Performing a reload while under heavy counter fire permits the opponent to maintain some tactical momentum. The larger the your magazine, the rarer the chance for your opponent to gain tactical advantage.

 

[Venix]

I see so many false assumptions in this video, that it's mindboggling.

A) Assumption, that you're target shooting at stationary targets. This is almost never the case in self-defense or aggression scenarios.
B) Assumption that the shooter counts off his shots (and thus always has a round chambered, when changing magazine)
C) Assumption that you actually aim at someone instead of just covering your movement towards better cover.
D) Assumption that magazines are handily laid out at arms reach, and shooting from an upright position.

Essentially, he's claiming because at the range the mag size makes no difference, it makes no difference for somebody using the gun in a firefight. I don't believe this is the case, even when limited to semi-automatic weapons.

In an actual fire fight, an opponent could reasonably judge your magazine capacity and return fire safely, the moment you have to reload. Performing a reload while under heavy counter fire permits the opponent to maintain some tactical momentum. The larger the your magazine, the rarer the chance for your opponent to gain tactical advantage.

The demonstration was about how magazine size limitations would affect a mass shooter's effectiveness against unarmed targets. The video noted several times that magazine capacity is critically important for self-defense (i.e. "firefights").

Since you apparently missed it:

"[Magazine size restrictions] don't create realistic opportunities to 'tackle' an active shooter during reloads.

They do make it harder for civilians to defend themselves from violent criminal attacks."

"If attacked while armed with a 10-round handgun, a civilian may miss with all ten rounds or hit with only one or two rounds and be unable to stop the attack in time to avoid death or serious injury."

 

[_Rick_]

The demonstration was about how magazine size limitations would affect a mass shooter's effectiveness against unarmed targets. The video noted several times that magazine capacity is critically important for self-defense (i.e. "firefights").

Since you apparently missed it:

"[Magazine size restrictions] don't create realistic opportunities to 'tackle' an active shooter during reloads.

They do make it harder for civilians to defend themselves from violent criminal attacks."

"If attacked while armed with a 10-round handgun, a civilian may miss with all ten rounds or hit with only one or two rounds and be unable to stop the attack in time to avoid death or serious injury."

I did not miss the statements - what I did miss was how the demonstration showed any kind of convincing argument for that case.

 

[Cerb]

I fail to see what is unconstitutional about seizures of weapons of mass killing.

That protecting the rights of the citizenry to be owners of, "weapons of mass killing," and having the legal ability to use them for morally acceptable purposes (including justified killing), was very important, and so was protected, as well as it could be, at the time. They just referred to them as, "arms," and did so for the clear reason that it is a fairly generic term. It implicitly included weapons of the time that were explicitly designed to maim and kill multiple people at a time, such as mortars and cannons. The SC's definition of weapons suitable for a militia is a sound modern interpretation, as well, since we do have distinctions that did not exist at the time, and easily includes a wide variety of weapons typically not targeted by most bans (FI, those lever-action rifles IrishScott is using as examples have been effectively used by state military, and guerrilla forces, for in excess of a century, and are still popular).

Fine no home searches, but nothing wrong with requiring you to have yearly or every other year evaluations with a government trained psychologist as well as having your weapons inspected for any illegal modifications.

The 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments may apply, depending on implementation and circumstance. So, yes, there is a lot wrong with it. Any tests of competence must be reactionary (IE, the person in question must have done something to remove right from them, and those actions must not be defensible as exercising of rights). The opportunities have been there, but the doctors keep getting ignored (though, in the VT case, there was a loophole that needed plugging).

These are only ideas, the point is to make gun ownership so obtrusive that it is a defacto ban, and only a few would own them.

So, you want us to have a second civil war? An effective ban would only serve to divide the populous in a potentially violent manner, turning upstanding citizens into criminals by legislation. That states can be moved out of may help with some more strict regulation, but so strict as to effectively ban are already being overturned, stand no chance of staying law, and may be political suicide for Dems in many states, no matter how much the R. v. D. tides turn.

 

[Genx87]

Good luck with that. Seriously. Anything to speed this law's path to SCOTUS.

Or get cops killed enforcing this ridiculous policy.

 

[Matt1970]

"If attacked while armed with a 10-round handgun, a civilian may miss with all ten rounds or hit with only one or two rounds and be unable to stop the attack in time to avoid death or serious injury."

Must be nice to be able to have 10 rounds in your gun.

 

[Venix]

I did not miss the statements - what I did miss was how the demonstration showed any kind of convincing argument for that case.

The video states several times that magazine capacity is extremely important in a firefight, yet you claim, "essentially, he's claiming because at the range the mag size makes no difference, it makes no difference for somebody using the gun in a firefight." Do you seriously not see the blatant contradiction?