#GunControl: California Democrats aim for de facto ban via stifling regulations

Posted by: Phineas on February 11, 2013 at 1:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

CA bear flag

“Never let a crisis go to waste” was Rahm Emanuel’s famous dictum from 2009, and California’s legislative Democrats, giddy at having a super-majority in the legislature, are showing they’ve taken that to heart. Last Thursday, they debuted a package of ten bills aimed at curbing a putative crisis in gun violence (1). As Josh Richman reports in the San Jose Mercury, these bills would create such barriers to firearms ownership that they would amount to an effective ban.

Put forward by a group lead by notorious progressive nanny-stater and State Senate President Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), these measures would:

  • Require anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check, as Los Angeles and Sacramento already do.
  • Ban the possession of a magazine holding more than ten rounds. (2)
  • Ban  the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacture of any semiautomatic rifle that includes a detachable magazine. (Are there any that don’t?)
  • Update the definition of a banned shotgun with a revolving cylinder to include the new technology of a shotgun-rifle combination.
  • Prevent unregulated gun loans, with some exceptions, including hunting, in order to keep weapons from those who haven’t passed background checks.
  • Require all handgun owners obtain a safety certificate every year, rather than the every-five-years requirement for purchases of new handguns.
  • Prohibit anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept and to expand the list of crimes for which convictions result in being barred from gun possession.
  • Let the state Justice Department use money from the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale system to eliminate the backlog of people identified as no longer allowed to own guns but not yet investigated and contacted by law enforcement.

I guess we can’t let New York have all the rights-trampling fun.

While I can see some point to the last item, I get the feeling most of these provisions would be overturned in court in the wake of the Heller and McDonald decisions for being so onerous as to be a violation of the Second Amendment. Surely, if passed, they’ll face court challenges and initiatives to overturn them at the ballot box.

And it should be obvious that none of these measures would have done a thing to prevent, for example, the Newtown school massacre. The Democrats are just standing on the graves of the dead of Newtown and elsewhere and waving a bloody shirt to claim moral authority. Disagree with them, and you must want people dead. The massacres are only an excuse, a cover for them to do what they’ve always wanted: advance the gradual disarmament of the citizenry in defiance of their natural rights. (3)

Senator Steinberg should ask General Gage how that worked out.

(1) Hysterical leftist shrieking about gun violence aside, here are some facts. Oh, and here are some truths about gun violence in California that I recommended to Senator Feinstein. Senator Steinberg might want to read them, too.
(2) Don’t worry, David Gregory. We’ll never prosecute you, either. Besides, you can always print your own.
(3) Some, I’m sure, have the best of motives, thinking that gun bans really work and falling for the logical fallacy of “if it saves just one life, we must do it.” These people are just well-meaning fools trying to drag us all down that road paved with good intentions.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

10 Responses to “#GunControl: California Democrats aim for de facto ban via stifling regulations”


  1. Conrad says:

    Why is every liberal “solution” always about more laws and regulations? It would be refreshing — and potentially even helpful — if events like Newtown prompted these self-styled organizers and activists to convene citizen groups to figure out ways to intervene in the lives of obviously crazy people before they go rampages such as we saw in Newtown, Arizona, or Colorado.

  2. This is just what they do:
    — Seize on an atrocity to use as a dramatic backdrop;
    — Strive to make all gun-related conversation their ideological monopoly;
    — Scream at the top of their lungs that “We’ve got to act now;”
    — Refuse to confront, much less admit, any objection to their claims.

    It’s really just a special case of the “crisis” paradigm Thomas Sowell pointed out in The Vision of the Anointed.

    What’s most galling about the tactic in this case is that homicides by firearm have been steadily declining, on a per capita basis, for decades. But just try to get that fact into a major media report on the subject.

  3. Tex says:

    Wow! If only they can ban those guns in California those criminals there with guns will all line up to turn in their guns to the police and the murder rate would go to zero there. It’s brilliant! Why didn’t we think of that sooner?

  4. Carlos says:

    If it “saves just one life,” would it be worth it if it costs dozens, even hundreds MORE, lives that would have never been taken had a gun ban not been instituted?

    Chew on that one, DiFi and Mr. State Senate President Steinberg.

    Or are the gun control measures not meant to control violence against schoolchildren but give more control to the state? Remember, at that point only criminals, including the state, will have guns.

  5. Dwiddle says:

    Ban the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacture of any semiautomatic rifle that includes a detachable magazine. (Are there any that don’t?)

    My first 22 that my Dad gave me when I was 14 or so had a small tube under the barrel that held the rounds. Could put 10 or so rounds there and the gun was a semi-automatic. My Dad also had a 22 with the same arrangement. What is interesting is that being active in Boy Scouts, they do not use semi-automatic 22’s. They are single shot 22’s which are hard to find.

  6. As stated above these legislative contemplations are merely “low-hanging fruit” and ripe for a Constitutional challenge and good old country a*s-whuppin’ all over a courtroom. The courthouse shooter yesterday in Wilmington,DE was a parolee, a convicted felon in possession of a weapon. Five will get you ten he never submitted to a background check in the first place, as criminals tend to ignore such niceties.

  7. Polly says:

    “If it saves only one life….”

    Yes, save that one life while millions of babies are murdered by sticking a scissors into their brain.

    I think the bear on Kalifornias flag should be replaced with a rat, cornered and with its teeth bared.

  8. Carlos says:

    Yeah, and there’s probably not ten Kalifornians (Phineas, of course, excepted) who understand the monster that has them cornered is themselves!

    The archetypal example of Pogo’s famous “We have met the enemy…” saying.

  9. Demonized says:

    “Ban the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacture of any semiautomatic rifle that includes a detachable magazine. (Are there any that don’t?)”

    M-1 Garand, SKS, and a buncha tube fed .22’s.

  10. Great White Rat says:

    I think the bear on Kalifornias flag should be replaced with a rat, cornered and with its teeth bared.

    HEY!! I demand an apology for such an insulting remark, you, you…..species-ist!!!