Behind California's Ban on Assault Weapons

You can also buy preban 30 round mags.

so inclined to skirt the spirit of the law.

If the gun culture, manufacturers, marketers, gun stores, "militias," etc., weren't so intent on pushing the envelope on these things, we wouldn't need more restrictions and more laws.

Sad fact is clear -- gun culture as a whole is unethical and immoral, cares little for society, and will never "police" themselves.

where would a broke CA get the money to reimburse the owners?

you shouldn't have made.

Hoyt wants to kill the Fourth Amendment as well as the Second.

He's such a paragon of freedom and liberty, that one...

However a ban on sales is not confiscation. You could keep your damn guns. You just couldn't sell them publicly or privately.

nt

Even a few in the Gungeon. We also have several regressive RW trolls who love to parade their agenda of "more guns on the streets". Enjoy your stay.

none of the Gungeon trolls fit your description. Most of them are of the "melt them all down" variety.

They label their wingnut agenda of being armed in the streets as "progressive" which is insulting and inflammatory. That's what trolls do. They post inflammatory bullshit to disrupt and smear liberals and they need to go find a new home. They have no place on a liberal progressive site such as DU.

Show me one post where anyone said "melt all guns down". I doubt you can and even if you can, I see nothing trollish about the suggestion. I disagree with the idea of melting all guns down, but I wouldn't shed any tears if every handgun disappeared from the planet tomorrow. It sure as hell would make it harder for those who consider killing others an option in life.

Like I said before, progressive means change. Relative to the past 90 years, it could be viewed as such. Beyond that, it is a wash. If it insults you, what can I say? I would not call it regressive. You can't regress to someplace you have never been for much of your history.

For example? All of the disrupting and smearing I see are from the "gun control advocates". According to the ToS I read, DU is a big tent for all Democrats, including those who are more to the center. To me, a true Democrat
puts people and planet above profits,
the People above the oligarchs,
and the individual above corporate and state power.

My side are true Democrats based on point three. I'm guessing your side uses point one.

Analogy. OK how about all gun owners are "racist, tbaggers, rednecks, etc"? It is certainly there, complete with regionalism and classism that goes with it. That is before we get to the "It's OK to machine gun children in the back as long as I don't like the parents" troll. Actually, it could make it easier for someone to murder another, depending on who does and doesn't have the gun.

It means moving in a positive direction as a country that addresses societal problems at the ground level, not at the knee-jerk level. It means progressing to a point where society as a whole comes before the fears and concerns of those individuals who put themselves and their own personal safety before all else. For me, public safety trumps personal fears every time.
I call it regressive because it takes us back to an old west mentality, when a fair percentage of folk wore sidearms on a regular basis. They were almost universally carried openly. They did not fare well in the town saloons and streets and banks and restrictions were imposed within city limits. That was progress. Recent CC and SYG laws, along with the fear mongering of the NRA have destroyed that progress. That is what I mean by regression.

"To me, a true Democrat
puts people and planet above profits,
the People above the oligarchs,
and the individual above corporate and state power. "

To me a true Democrat
puts people and planet above profits,
the People above the oligarchs,
and the individual above corporate power,
and public safety before individual rights.

which, as an INTP, means absolutely nothing to me.
evolve to what from what? Devolve to what?
Gun laws are almost always knee jerk reactions and almost never well thought out. None of them work as advertised. What is public safety? Can you show how "public safety" is harmed? Given the UK's violent crime rate compared to the rest of Europe, that is hardly a model.


But that is historically not true. They did not outside of Hollywood. So, your entire premise is wrong. Your entire understanding of history in my part of the country is wrong. That fact negates everything. Bonanza is not a documentary. Some places did have restrictions, but it was not customary. In Wyoming, Vermont, etc. it is legal, but not customary. It is probably more common in Bulgaria. Real working cowboys were not all white and clean shaven. About 1/4 to 1/3 were former slaves, even in Texas. Including this lady's grandfather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Elizabeth_Byrd
Her son currently serves in the State House. Her husband was Police Chief of Cheyenne from 1966-1980 before becoming a US Marshall and after serving as a police detective in Newark. but I digress.
Come to think of it, they still are not all white and clean shaven.

SYG is progress from the middle ages, from duty to retreat outside the home, which was English common law. Can't have that one, sorry. SYG began in the US as US common law during the progressive era by progressive justices like Oliver W. Holmes. Precedent from SCOTUS rulings from that era makes SYG the federal standard. The same is true of California's and Utah's SYG. Not being a lawyer, I can't tell any real difference between Illinois SYG law passed in 1961 from Florida's.

Since there is no evidence that CC or SYG does more damage to public safety than DTR, that individual right negates any claim to "public safety" because of no compelling State interest. I could argue that DTR does more harm to public safety than SYG. The problem I have with "public safety" is that it is a vague term that can be used for ill purposes.

So, how come you don't say anything about gun control advocates who are obvious trolls, who are OK with violating the rest of the BoRs, machine gunning fleeing children, and make false claims of racism?

That's what progress is all about - values. About valuing life over property, public safety over personal safety, altruism over egocentrism.

it is not about life over property, since you have no way of knowing their intent once they come through the door. The chances of leaving you unharmed are rather slim.
There is no evidence that the public at large is being in greater danger. An equally legitimate argument could be made that by having liberal CCW laws, a miscreant has no way of knowing who is and who isn't carrying, even if no one is. A predator will always go for the easy prey. Of course public over personal safety sounds nice and altruistic (I really don't think it is) unless of course, it is your personal safety being compromised.

I know a lot of you guys have stocked up on various guns and accessories -- not only to increase your weapons cache -- but in the hopes of someday making a "killing" selling assault weapons under another ban to those desperate to acquire them.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for that kind of unethical/immoral investment strategy. That kind of profiteering off lethal weapons is really disgusting, IMO.

in a free country, you have to pay fair market value. So where are you going to get the money to pay Fair Market Value?

The fact you invested in lethal weapons in the hopes of making a "killing" one day selling them to -- or like -- the randy weavers of the world, isn't going to make me feel sorry for your financial loss.

Maybe you ought to invest in things worthwhile to our society.

we have this thing called the 4th amendment, mean you just cant ban an item and not reimburse them for it.


ONCE AGAIN before you avoid the question once again, if a total round them up ban comes into effect you HAVE to give fair market value for the item. Where are you getting the money for it?

Sad fact is -- gun bans as a whole are unethical and immoral, proves little for society, and will never accomplish anything beyond making society less safe and less enjoyable for everyone.

Trying to inconvenience and intimidate people out of exercising a Constitutional right has been tried before, and it's failed before. See: Alabama Voter Application

possess. Learn to live without guns, would be my recommendation. If you can't, keep a few reasonable ones at home and stop playing into the NRA and other right wingers' agenda.

By the way, the TBaggers -- who are also gun lovers -- are passing voter disenfranchisement laws again.

"You (insert group) wouldn't have to worry about civil rights lawsuits if you just minded your own business."

Learn to live without labor unions.
Learn to live without voting.
Learn to live without demonstrating.
Learn to live without religion.
Learn to live without privacy.
&c., &c.

Guns have been used to deny those real rights you list, and are carried mostly by Tbagging, right wing hate mongers.

You're having a lot of trouble with the concept of tools, aren't you?

Violent demonstrations can destroy property and kill innocent people.
Fairly-elected legislators can attack minorities' civil rights (and be supported).
Corrupt labor unions can hold phony elections to keep crooks in charge.
Some religions seek to deprive women and homosexuals of their freedom (or more).
The right to privacy has led to countless acquittals of guilty people.
And so on, and so forth.

I have no right to use my guns to attack you, and I shouldn't I have no right to threaten people if I'm carrying a gun, and I shouldn't. I have the right to LAWFUL possession (and carry, though that isn't here quite yet) of firearms, and I must be held accountable for breaking the law with them. Exactly the same as the rights above -- the occasional (not that frequency is relevant) abuse of those rights does not void them.

It's a quest for fine firearms the whole family can enjoy.

Hoyt:
By the way, the TBaggers -- who are also gun lovers -- are passing voter disenfranchisement laws again.

No, they are just keeping voting out of the wrong hands.

Whoops, apparently poster was a TBagger and has left the group.

I've written that same subject line before, and I think it was in response to a post of yours. I am thrilled when an unjust law is skirted, mocked, and cannot be enforced. The only thing that would make me happier would be to repeal it.

Face it... what you really need to do, what your side needs to do, is simply say "ban semi-automatic long guns".

So do it.


That takes care of EVERYTHING your side throws a fuss about... AR-15s, all of them. AK-47s, all of them. SKSes, all of them. FALs, Garands, M1 Carbines, Stryker-12s, Mini-14s, Uzis... they all GO AWAY if you call for a universal ban on self-loading rifles. Americans become restricted to bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action, revolving-cylinder, and break-action firearms.



But you don't. Instead you try to draw some imaginary line between a "sporting" semiauto and a tactical (and thus forbidden) semiauto, and spends years crafting regulations and laws to define that line, then get all pissy and whiny when it doesn't work. You blame gun owners and gun sellers because your side is either too ignorant of what they try to ban, or too cowardly to come out and say what needs to be done.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Nationally, rifles account for only about 2.5% of murders, and about 3.3% in California. Probably not a statistically significant difference given the extreme rarity of rifle homicide to begin with (many states have zero rifle murders in any given year) but one can hardly argue that California's extreme rifle ban makes it safer than the 47 or 48 states without such bans.

The simple truth is that rifles of any description (including "assault weapons") are the least misused of all classes of weapons in the United States, and have been for decades.

The implication of the OP is that California's tougher gun control laws save lives. Why can't the anti gun people get it through their heads that gun control laws have the OPPOSITE effect? So why does California have a HIGHER firearm crime rate than Colorado? GUN CONTROL LAWS DO NOT WORK! THEY INCREASE CRIME!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

FIREARMS MURDERS: California
1,257 firearms murders in 2010
Handguns murders 953
Firearms, % of all murders 69.41%
Per 100,000 population 3.37
Firearms crimes, rate per 100,000 pop:
Robberies 48.44
Aggravated assaults 45.45


FIREARMS MURDERS: Colorado
65 firearms murders in 2010
Handguns murders 34
Firearms, % of all murders 55.56%
Per 100,000 population 1.28
Firearms crimes, rate per 100,000 pop:
Robberies 21.96
Aggravated assaults 38

That describes the ignorance bring displayed here in the OP.

Under California law, the Colorado killer could not have bought an assault weapon or a 100-round magazine. Assault guns are banned, and the magazine limit is 10 rounds. California also requires strong background checks and a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases. 

Hope the OP realized how silly this sounds when on the same page is also posted an example of how ineffective such laws are.

The author is a moron..



eta: And another..

I guess that's proof that california is doing something right?

and that anyone proposing simplistic causal relations is talking out of their ass.

Or those who argue that because Japan has lower crime and lower guns it must be the guns and nothing else?

The Espionage Act of 1917, which was amended with the Sedition Act of 1918, made it illegal to distribute flyers opposing the use of the draft during WWI. This was challenged as being unconstitutional because it violated the right to free speech while the government's position was that such activities presented a clear and present danger to the government's efforts to recruit men for the war. The Supreme Court ruled in support of the legality of the Act and Justice Holmes used the analogy of falsely yelling fire in a movie theater in support of that decision.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

The 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case overturned that view and "limited banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

The Brandenburg v. Ohio decision essentially prohibits the government from prohibiting anyone from falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. However, one still can be held liable after the fact for the consequences of their exercising their right to free speech.