Party of small government indeed.
The reason it's shrinking is because Manufacturers refuse to comply.
Republicans are really despicable people.
How many people in California has a flash hider or collapsible stock killed? When was the last time a firearm equipped with either was even used in the commission of a crime in the state of California?
Politicians are really despicable people.
ftfy
No idea.
If the point of the law is to save lives then it really is germane how many people have been actually harmed by them.
If on the other hand, the intention is to restrict the public's right (readrivilege [according to our well meaning betters]) to own these arms then primarily aesthetic or ergonomic accessories can easily disqualify an otherwise compliant firearm.
How do those things restrict ownership? How many gun models actually have those features? I suspect very few. I can think of a reason for the restriction off the top of my head, those 2 features are convenient for concealment.
When California added regulation on vehicle emissions, were they trying to restrict ownership of vehicles?
How do those things restrict ownership? How many gun models actually have those features? I suspect very few. I can think of a reason for the restriction off the top of my head, those 2 features are convenient for concealment.
When California added regulation on vehicle emissions, were they trying to restrict ownership of vehicles?
A long gun is only marginally more concealable with a folding stock, and a flash hider only attenuates the flash and doesn't do anything about the report. If you're trying to find a gunman by the flash then things are already well and truly pear shaped. However, if you're a recreational shooter, not having to stare through the muzzle flash is kinder on the eyes.
CARB takes it too far, given any sane logic they'd be concerned about what comes out the tailpipe - not whether or not this tube or that tube has a CARB EO number.
The reason it's shrinking is because Manufacturers refuse to comply.
Essentially, the law is designed to prevent doctors from performing abortions, not to prevent women from seeking access. It places a burden that doctor's find incredibly unreasonable and in doing so, most doctors will simply decide to stop performing abortions.
While I'm on your side in this argument, the exact same thing can be said about abortions.
"The reason the number of abortions is shrinking is because doctors refuse to comply".
It's a shitty argument.
Would I be correct to assume that recreational shooting isn't one of your hobbies? Perhaps that's why you don't see it as onerous.Still don't see how it is an onerous restriction though.
In what way does CARB take it too far? I don't know much about the program, but it seems all the regulations are to limit emissions. The program has always had its' critics, but time after time these stricter regulations have been adopted by other jurisdictions because they are effective.
More Republican diagnosing from the congressional floor.
Didn't Terry Schiavo teach them anything??
The reason it's shrinking is because Manufacturers refuse to comply.
They refuse to comply or legislatures have created regulations that are impossible to comply with? I don't know if you realize, but there is a big difference between those two. Take for example the 'admitting privileges' requirement: it is a nearly impossible barrier for many abortion doctors to comply with, thanks to local hospital rules for admitting privileges.And the reason the access to Abortion is shrinking is because Doctors refuse to comply with more regulations.
And the reason the access to Abortion is shrinking is because Doctors refuse to comply with more regulations.
And the reason the access to Abortion is shrinking is because Doctors refuse to comply with more regulations.
Good job completely avoiding the issue BTW... :thumbsup: