California lawmakers pass unprecedented package of gun control bills

[TurtleDude]

Saying "... i doubt you will answer." is an unnecessary emotiply. Nonetheless, Obama and Clinton. Both of whose foreign policies are disappointments. Hillary never met a military intervention she didn't like.

I don't know the answer to your "why" question. Actually, major cities gun control has no showed significant drop in violent gun crime.

Many conservatives, including a majority of NRA members support gun registration. I doubt they'd support all the bills California legislated.

I see more a correlation that state gun control legislation works enough to support that it should continue and studies of same, and of the opposite, should continue in depth. There are a number of very detailed studies that show gun control does not work. Then other articles that debunk those studies. Anyway, the pendulum is swinging the other way, and it might go too far.

wrong, most gun owners don't support gun registration.

 

[ocean515]

Well, Jerry Brown doesn't goose step and he singed those bills into law. He's a very smart guy and knows people well. Remember, he didn't even run a campaign last election and still beat the pants of of the Republican candidate. Brown knows what he's doing and the gang problem in California has got to go.

Laughable analysis.

Republicans have been effectively removed from California politics. He ran basically unopposed because there isn't a chance to overcome the liberal population centers of San Francisco, Los Angeles and central San Diego. When you've created the highest supplemental poverty in the nation, and turned the state over to the Public Employee Unions, it's not probable for any opposition candidate to win office.

Of course, I suppose the silver lining is that everything wrong, from education, unfunded liabilities, crime, and decay falls squarely on the backs of the Progressives who own the show and charge voters to suffer through it.

Like many other Progressive efforts, gut and paste was used to hide their gun control efforts, and keep voters from getting in the way of their plans. That is the liberal progressive way, so not unexpected.

 

[jet57]

Laughable analysis.

Republicans have been effectively removed from California politics. He ran basically unopposed because there isn't a chance to overcome the liberal population centers of San Francisco, Los Angeles and central San Diego. When you've created the highest supplemental poverty in the nation, and turned the state over to the Public Employee Unions, it's not probable for any opposition candidate to win office.

Of course, I suppose the silver lining is that everything wrong, from education, unfunded liabilities, crime, and decay falls squarely on the backs of the Progressives who own the show and charge voters to suffer through it.

Like many other Progressive efforts, gut and paste was used to hide their gun control efforts, and keep voters from getting in the way of their plans. That is the liberal progressive way, so not unexpected.

California has 40 million people and is the 6th largest economy in the world. Running Republicans out of the state is one of the best things that could've happened to us. I've told you gun guys what was coming, and here it is. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

[TurtleDude]

California has 40 million people and is the 6th largest economy in the world. Running Republicans out of the state is one of the best things that could've happened to us. I've told you gun guys what was coming, and here it is. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

yeah those gun guys are why your state is turning into a third world nation. and why are gun owners to blame for idiots in California passing stupid gun laws.

its all about Bannerrhoids not wanting voters around to vote them out of office

and with Jet, its all about hoping the rest of us are subjected to the idiotic laws he pretends he supports. its much like the Bannerrhoids from England who constantly whine about our second amendment rights. Some of them are gun haters and some of them are mad that they live under a nanny state and they want some company for their misery. I think Jet is the latter

 

[Lutherf]

California has 40 million people and is the 6th largest economy in the world. Running Republicans out of the state is one of the best things that could've happened to us. I've told you gun guys what was coming, and here it is. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

CA, with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, has 3.4 gun homicides per 100k population. VT, with VERY liberal gun laws has .3/100k. Do you really think all those laws are preventing gun violence?

 

[TurtleDude]

CA, with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, has 3.4 gun homicides per 100k population. VT, with VERY liberal gun laws has .3/100k. Do you really think all those laws are preventing gun violence?

given Jet's love of the ban on machine guns made after May 19, 1986 do you actually think CRIME CONTROL is what motivates his devotion to stripping other Americans of their second amendment rights? He also supports a reinstatement of the clinton gun ban that did NOTHING to decrease crime in the ten years that turd of a law was on the books

its pretty obvious that harassing gun owners is what motivates his support of those laws, not crime control

 

[bluesmoke]

wrong, most gun owners don't support gun registration.

Thanks for the correction. It's kinds of gun control that NRA members favor:

New Republic: NRA Members Support Gun Control : NPR

 

[Glen Contrarian]

CA, with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, has 3.4 gun homicides per 100k population. VT, with VERY liberal gun laws has .3/100k. Do you really think all those laws are preventing gun violence?

Correlation does not equal causation, guy...but it can provide a compass of where to look.

And there is a MUCH stronger correlation between poverty and gun homicides, all over the nation. The inner cities have many people in poverty all crammed together...and so the gun violence is higher than anywhere else. Of the states, the Deep South is among the poorest regions...and has the highest degree of gun violence among the states.

Vermont, on the other hand, is NOT a state where the population has a high degree of poverty. California's rich, but it has a lot of areas that are poor...and those areas are the ones where the great majority of the gun violence occurs.

That, sir, is the correlation that fits - not only here in America, but all over the world.

 

[Lutherf]

Correlation does not equal causation, guy...but it can provide a compass of where to look.

And there is a MUCH stronger correlation between poverty and gun homicides, all over the nation. The inner cities have many people in poverty all crammed together...and so the gun violence is higher than anywhere else. Of the states, the Deep South is among the poorest regions...and has the highest degree of gun violence among the states.

Vermont, on the other hand, is NOT a state where the population has a high degree of poverty. California's rich, but it has a lot of areas that are poor...and those areas are the ones where the great majority of the gun violence occurs.

That, sir, is the correlation that fits - not only here in America, but all over the world.

OK. Let's go with that.

Now, how will any of the gun laws CA has in place now and just adopted solve that problem?

 

[TurtleDude]

Thanks for the correction. It's kinds of gun control that NRA members favor:

New Republic: NRA Members Support Gun Control : NPR

LOL, complete crap that four year old article doesn't even mention REGISTRATION. It talks about background checks and keeping those with VIOLENT DV misdemeanors from having CCW permits

so you were being dishonest. You pretend that registration is the same as background checks or denials of carry permits to those with VIOLENT DV convictions>

are you aware that registration cannot even be imposed on criminals? so why would anyone claim it s a crime control measure

 

[TurtleDude]

OK. Let's go with that.

Now, how will any of the gun laws CA has in place now and just adopted solve that problem?

you're asking the wrong question. those laws were not intended to solve any crime problems. They were intended to solve the problem of too many pro gun voters in california

 

[bluesmoke]

LOL, complete crap that four year old article doesn't even mention REGISTRATION. It talks about background checks and keeping those with VIOLENT DV misdemeanors from having CCW permits

so you were being dishonest. You pretend that registration is the same as background checks or denials of carry permits to those with VIOLENT DV convictions>

are you aware that registration cannot even be imposed on criminals? so why would anyone claim it s a crime control measure

No. A mistake is not dishonesty. I believed I posted correct information. When you contested, I researched further. Finding what info I gave was not true, I admitted the mistake and corrected the information. It doesn't change the fact that a majority of NRA members believe in some kind of background checks that the NRA leadership disagrees with. What information do you have to refute that fact?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

OK. Let's go with that.

Now, how will any of the gun laws CA has in place now and just adopted solve that problem?

Let poor people get all the guns they want, and you WILL have a much higher homicide rate. Make guns MUCH more expensive - through taxes, preferably - and the homicide rate drops like a rock.

Look at Manila, Philippines - its metro area has about 15M people, most of whom are quite poor by our standards - the poverty's beyond anything seen here in America - and the population density is insane. But you know what? The stats are hard to find, but Manila has a lower homicide rate than Mississippi. And you'd see it for yourself if you lived in both places as I have.

What's the great, glaring difference? It's not corruption - Manila's law enforcement is MUCH more corrupt (I once bribed a judge to get my brother-in-law out of jail). It's not religion - both Manila and Mississippi are very, very religious, though Manila's mostly Catholic, as compared to Mississippi's protestantism. The poverty in Manila is much worse than in Mississippi. It's not that the culture can't be violent - just check the news as to the unrest in the southern Philippines.

The only major difference I could find is that firearms are very, very expensive there. Oh, anyone can buy a firearm...as long as one has the money. But they're damn expensive, and so beyond the reach of anyone outside the upper-middle class. And so it's safer to walk the streets at night there, IMO, than even Seattle.

 

[TurtleDude]

No. A mistake is not dishonesty. I believed I posted correct information. When you contested, I researched further. Finding what info I gave was not true, I admitted the mistake and corrected the information. It doesn't change the fact that a majority of NRA members believe in some kind of background checks that the NRA leadership disagrees with. What information do you have to refute that fact?

I don't disagree with that. many people think that a background check is a good thing. most of them are unaware of the Duke study that found that such things don't do much, if anything to control violent crime. Most NRA members really don't understand the mutation of the commerce clause which normally is something you understand if you study the constitution as I do. and thus a federal mandate to apply background checks to people who cannot engage in INTERstate commerce when it comes to firearms exceeds congressional jurisdiction even with the FDR expansion of the CC. Now I believe a state probably has the power to mandate such a requirement. but It won't do any good.

and few NRA members understand that the two main reasons for pushing UBGC are these

1) to pander to people who want SOMETHING DONE without paying too heavy a price. tell me how many mass shootings would be stopped by UBGC?

2) to create a demand for the holy grail of the Bannerrhoid movement-registration of firearms. FFL dealers are required (there's that interstate commerce nexus nonsense again) to keep thorough records of every firearm they

a) receive from a maker or distributer. those makers and distributers, in turn, keep records of every gun they sell to a retail dealer

b) every gun they "dispose of" meaning a sale to another dealer which requires a record of that dealer's license, or to a private citizen which requires a form 4473 complete with the Brady code. When you buy a gun the dealer gets a proceed notice from the clerk at the background check agency. and EACH transaction has its own unique code that the dealer or his agent has to write on the Form 4473. here is what usually happens

Sales clerk calls in the information on the 4473-name, race, sex, DOB, and often SS#. if there is a proceed, the NICS employee says that is a proceed and gives a number like OTC14321 which the dealer's agent normally repeats back to the NICS agent and usually requests the NICS agent's name to write on the form as well

so when the ATF inspects a dealer it can pretty well determine if a dealer is complying with the Brady law. If there are guns that say beretta USA or ELLET BROTHERS shipped Joe's guns but are not in his log of guns received or in his 4473 forms, that dealer is in deep excrement. Now a dealer might be able to get away with say buying a gun from a customer, not recording it, then selling it without a BGC but of course, if that happens and the gun ends up in a crime, the ATF can trace it to the first retail buyer and if that is the guy who sold Joe's guns the firearm and especially if he has a receipt, Joe's Guns is again in Deep excrement

but none of those rules apply to say ME. and if I decide to sell a gun to say one of my former DOJ colleagues (or in my case-give one of the attorneys a gun [something I did probably 5-6 times during my tenure there] there is no record that can be used to enforce a law unless it involves a gun I bought AFTER the law passed.

I have owned some guns for over 40 years and inherited guns that there is no current record of them existing. how can anyone prove when I sold or gave it to someone else? so to enforce UBGC, you need registration

and I guarantee if UBGC are passed, the Bannerrhoids will demand registration the second someone uses a gun that was bought from a private seller to commit a massacre. What we have learned from California and NY and Md is that gun banners use tragedies to push for more restrictions, even if the restrictions they seek would not have impacted the instigating tragedy.

 

[jet57]

CA, with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, has 3.4 gun homicides per 100k population. VT, with VERY liberal gun laws has .3/100k. Do you really think all those laws are preventing gun violence?

Vermont is neither a bastion of urban gang activity or transportation line for Mexican cartels. What would those stats be if California had very liberal gun laws?

Any guesses?

 

[MickeyW]

Times are changing guys…….
Given all the carnage of the once a week mass shooting…….
The public has now focusing on the problems with guns….
And demanding the state take action to enact some sensible and legal gun regulations
So forget all the BS arguments……..like it will steal mu freedom………. It is unconstitutional……My constitutional rights are being violated………the law will do no good…….criminals will still get guns…….It takes a good guy with a gun silliness…….
So yall better get used to the new normal………

Nothing silly about it...it's damn important and serious.....and most of all..... for you who know nothing of this kind of thing.....it works!

Michey my friend...........

The times are a changing.........

You will need to adjust to the new normal

I'm not adjusting to anything yoda......I will carry on as usual and ignore the liberal silliness.

 

[TurtleDude]

Let poor people get all the guns they want, and you WILL have a much higher homicide rate. Make guns MUCH more expensive - through taxes, preferably - and the homicide rate drops like a rock.

Look at Manila, Philippines - its metro area has about 15M people, most of whom are quite poor by our standards - the poverty's beyond anything seen here in America - and the population density is insane. But you know what? The stats are hard to find, but Manila has a lower homicide rate than Mississippi. And you'd see it for yourself if you lived in both places as I have.

What's the great, glaring difference? It's not corruption - Manila's law enforcement is MUCH more corrupt (I once bribed a judge to get my brother-in-law out of jail). It's not religion - both Manila and Mississippi are very, very religious, though Manila's mostly Catholic, as compared to Mississippi's protestantism. The poverty in Manila is much worse than in Mississippi. It's not that the culture can't be violent - just check the news as to the unrest in the southern Philippines.

The only major difference I could find is that firearms are very, very expensive there. Oh, anyone can buy a firearm...as long as one has the money. But they're damn expensive, and so beyond the reach of anyone outside the upper-middle class. And so it's safer to walk the streets at night there, IMO, than even Seattle.

wow, I love hearing this from a progressive. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE ONLY FOR THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD THEM. Poor people don't deserve to be able to protect themselves either.

 

[TurtleDude]

Vermont is neither a bastion of urban gang activity or transportation line for Mexican cartels. What would those stats be if California had very liberal gun laws?

Any guesses?

probably no worse. what you are saying its not gun laws that matter. which is what we have been telling you for years

 

[Lutherf]

Let poor people get all the guns they want, and you WILL have a much higher homicide rate. Make guns MUCH more expensive - through taxes, preferably - and the homicide rate drops like a rock.

Look at Manila, Philippines - its metro area has about 15M people, most of whom are quite poor by our standards - the poverty's beyond anything seen here in America - and the population density is insane. But you know what? The stats are hard to find, but Manila has a lower homicide rate than Mississippi. And you'd see it for yourself if you lived in both places as I have.

What's the great, glaring difference? It's not corruption - Manila's law enforcement is MUCH more corrupt (I once bribed a judge to get my brother-in-law out of jail). It's not religion - both Manila and Mississippi are very, very religious, though Manila's mostly Catholic, as compared to Mississippi's protestantism. The poverty in Manila is much worse than in Mississippi. It's not that the culture can't be violent - just check the news as to the unrest in the southern Philippines.

The only major difference I could find is that firearms are very, very expensive there. Oh, anyone can buy a firearm...as long as one has the money. But they're damn expensive, and so beyond the reach of anyone outside the upper-middle class. And so it's safer to walk the streets at night there, IMO, than even Seattle.

So THAT is the reason liberals promote poverty. I knew there must be a good reason and, by golly, gun control makes as much sense as anything else. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Lutherf]

Vermont is neither a bastion of urban gang activity or transportation line for Mexican cartels. What would those stats be if California had very liberal gun laws?

Any guesses?

So the CA gun laws are going to stop drugs and gang activity? I sure wish I was as smart as you guys so I could understand how all this works.

 

[MickeyW]

LOL the new normal.

Ain't yoda the funny guy today? :lamo

The post I was replying to boasted that many were leaving California, in response to Brown's approved legislation, to gun friendlier states. I'm fine with that. Though I don't believe it is statistically so true. Still, it would localize gunheads into fewer states where they would end up with less power than the becoming majority. The NRA won't change, but level-headed gun owners are willing to put up with "California" type law because they recognize Orlando was basta. "The table's turnin' now it's their (her) turn to cry".

Wrong!
That's one of the most stupid things I have seen. The California laws have nothing to do with stopping mass murderers. One has to be either really ignorant to believe that or just plain clueless.

that's one of the most stupid things I have seen. the california laws have nothing to do with stopping mass murderers. One has to be either really ignorant to believe that

I second that.

It's a visceral thing. Orlando is representative in nature. It is long proven that various laws regulating the sale and use of guns lead to lower violent crime rates involving guns. Such regulation would save more lives en toto than any singular act such as Orlando. You are suffering from egotistical igno.

You are out of your league here......

your first comment is a lie given Chicago and DC. and there are no credible studies that suggest all the Bannerrhoid nonsense the democrap party schemes to impose on people in various states, decrease crime. And we know both the brady bill and the clinton scary looking gun ban did squat as well.

You are suffering from having absolutely no understanding of this issue and sadly for you, you want to go head to head with someone who knows this subject inside and out.

All true....all the time! :thumbs::thumbs:

do you actually think that preventing another massacre is what really motivates the members of the Bannerrhoid movement?

Naww...it's their fear, lust for power over others........ and the Nanny State Complex! They are seriously mentally ill....yes?

that's really stupid of course. the californian morons in office get slapped down all the time. and its a good move during an election year to show why we don't want more democrap judges in office.

:applaud

 

[TurtleDude]

So THAT is the reason liberals promote poverty. I knew there must be a good reason and, by golly, gun control makes as much sense as anything else. Thanks for the insight.

the last thing the left wants to do is end poverty. Cutting way down on people sucking on the public teat would cost the Democrats lots of votes

 

[MickeyW]

1.) I didn't say Id support charging. If thats the case, I wouldnt support the charge nor the check if they dont remove the charge. Pretty simple. Charge = no support. No charge then Id support it.
2.) again, i dont support the charge but the ID doesnt bother me one bit, im my state required ID and others didnt, that would be meaningless to me
3.) if it induces an extra 15$ a sell then I agree its stupid. If theres no charge then im fine with it.

I think if there is a charge....all the people of California should have to pay for it!

Well, Jerry Brown doesn't goose step and he singed those bills into law. He's a very smart guy and knows people well. Remember, he didn't even run a campaign last election and still beat the pants of of the Republican candidate. Brown knows what he's doing and the gang problem in California has got to go.

Brown is a liberal douchebag, he was a liberal douchebag when I lived there....during his first Gov. fiasco. The fact that he came back is unbelievable, accept that California has gone to the dogs and the dogs are voting for him!

He's a ****ing Dipstick!

Brown and the liberal commies in Sacramento, have ruined the state!

 

[MickeyW]

Saying "... i doubt you will answer." is an unnecessary emotiply. Nonetheless, Obama and Clinton. Both of whose foreign policies are disappointments. Hillary never met a military intervention she didn't like.

I don't know the answer to your "why" question. Actually, major cities gun control has no showed significant drop in violent gun crime.

Many conservatives, including a majority of NRA members support gun registration. I doubt they'd support all the bills California legislated.

I see more a correlation that state gun control legislation works enough to support that it should continue and studies of same, and of the opposite, should continue in depth. There are a number of very detailed studies that show gun control does not work. Then other articles that debunk those studies. Anyway, the pendulum is swinging the other way, and it might go too far.

I live in a Blue State, only because the dopes in Portland out vote the rest of the state. My county is very Conservative, always votes 180 degrees opposite of the Portlanders and has nearly a 75% Concealed Carry citizenry. People hunt often and everywhere, kids have their own guns and hunt and target practice, there are about 20 firearms instructors, most households have multiple firearms of all descriptions, including hundreds of ARs and AK and many others, many gun safes are built into the homes and are the size of a large walk in closet. A family with say only 50-60 guns, are beginners.

We experience almost no gun crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think if there is a charge....all the people of California should have to pay for it!



Brown is a liberal douchebag, he was a liberal douchebag when I lived there....during his first Gov. fiasco. The fact that he came back is unbelievable, accept that California has gone to the dogs and the dogs are voting for him!

He's a ****ing Dipstick!

Brown and the liberal commies in Sacramento, have ruined the state!

it would be nice if Jet could tell us how those stupid laws are going to stop gangbangers