California broaches idea of gun Confiscation

PCShogun

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
583
Location
Hanahan, SC
California legislators are in the process of rolling out what will be the strictest gun control laws in the country. Democrat state Legislatures rolled out a list of proposals that will instantly criminalize most of the state?s law abiding gun owners.

The new law would outlaw all semiautomatic weapons, criminalize anyone who has more than 500 rounds of ammo, and require a permit to buy ammunition in the future. California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, is also looking at a proposal which would call for the immediate confiscation of 166,000 registered modern sporting rifles. This is why people are against Registration!

Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, unveiled the gun control package in a news conference Thursday at the state Capitol.

The package includes:

Banning the possession ? not just manufacture and sale ? of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Making possession of hollow point bullets and similar ?assault bullets? a felony.

Requiring anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check.

Requiring the registration and reporting of all ammo purchases. Limits the number of rounds anyone can have at one time to 500 rounds.

Requiring all gun owners will have to be licensed like drivers, and will be forced to carry gun liability insurance.

Banning any gun that has a detachable magazine, and requires a 100% prohibition of all fixed magazines greater than 10 rounds.

Making all previous grandfathered magazines become illegal, and it will become a felony if you keep one.

Prohibiting anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept

Expanding the list of crimes that would bar a person from gun possession.

Letting 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.
 

MCA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
286
Location
S.C.
This is flat out f***ing nuts! I am speechless as to how this can even be considered. Lemmings I tell ya. Commiefornia is full of mindless lemmings.

When I lived there my friends and family that lived out of state used to joke that they were waiting for "the big one" (earthquake) that would split California off from the continental US and it would float away out to sea. NOW I get it.....

I am so happy that I moved my family out of that hell hole last summer and came here to SC. This is sad and scary to say the least.
 

Tigerstripe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
2,304
Location
Upstate
where does it say that anyone attempting to nullify the constitution is guilty of treason?

we have a real problem if nobody can get that point across.

i knew that weed was bad for the brain. get them stoned and take their guns.
 

PCShogun

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
583
Location
Hanahan, SC
What is the big issue about liability insurance?

If I shoot someone who is breaking into my home or threatening my life, my insurance will pay for his injuries? Screw that. A paupers funeral is all they should expect, or donate the corpse to science.

If my gun gets stolen, my insurance will pay for any damage it causes while in the hands of the criminal who stole it? If I lose the gun, I will report it lost or stolen and drop the insurance on it. Who keeps insurance on property they no longer have? So, now I have no insurance on the gun I no longer own. How is that supposed to solve any violence?
 

armaborealis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
575
PCShogun said:
What is the big issue about liability insurance?

1) Insurance = Registration. They will require each item to be logged by serial number, make and model. And remember, say it together, REGISTRATION = CONFISCATION. Once they know where the guns are they can come take them.

2) Currently, you are liable for negligent or intentional acts with your firearm. For example, if you are attacked by a criminal, dump a mag into the guy, and accidentally send a round across the street into a bystander and wound them, you're liable for the neighbor. You may or may not be liable for the criminal's injuries (SC Castle Doctrine helps in the home, here). Most homeowner's or renter's insurance has a liability portion but it does not cover intentional acts like shooting a guy. Your homeowner's or renter's insurance would be much more likely to cover you if you have a negligent discharge at the range and wound someone or damage range equipment (unintentional act). Renter's or homeowner's insurance would likely cover the cost of your firearms if they are stolen, damaged in a fire, etc although individual policies vary.

3) You can get CCW insurance. The Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network and NRA offer such coverage. Mst policies protect you only for a good shoot where you are found innocent of criminal liability. It is expensive: NRA's runs $254/year/person for $250K in liability and $50K in legal fees.

4) California is talking about requiring insurance that covers the cost of any potential misuse of your gun ever by any person. For example, if your gun is stolen by a gang banger and used to rob a bank, California intends to hold you financially liable for the bank robbery. If a teenager breaks into your safe and then hurts themselves with your gun, you would be held liable. Moreover they are talking about "uninsured gunowner" coverage sort of like the uninsured motorist's coverage on your car insurance: because there are a lot of illegal drivers who drive without insurance, we all pay extra to cover ourselves and our passengers in case we are hit by an uninsured motorist. Cali wants you to basically cover the liability costs associated with "uninsured gunowners" like gang bangers, people who commit suicide, etc.

I am not aware of any insurance currently offered that would cover you for the intentional and unlawful acts of another person. It would likely be extremely expensive if it were to exist. If the current NRA coverage runs $250/person/year and it covers only lawful acts.... Covering unlawful acts of other people would likely jack the cost well north of $1000/year/person.
 

Wylie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
61
This happened in New York and the state got very little opposition from the people if any before they introduce the new law, they didn't get any opposition from the people of the state of N Y when they were passing the law, and after it was passed, then a protest in Albany. So basically people knew it was coming and did nothing the people knew it was being voted on and did nothing, so now they are crying their eyes out. The state of Connecticut is also proposing a similar bill, I do not hear anything on the news about people protesting.In California the people did not protest before, and there was no large protesting while it was happening, and now I still do not see any large groups of people on the news protesting this. Is this because people are now afraid to stand up for their rights. Years ago people used to love protesting save endangered lizard save the whales years ago people would protest about almost anything, and it was all over the news media. We are walking on a thin line, all it would take is to change the administration in the state and we could have the same problem here. So what can we do, we could do like every other state just stand by, watch, and do nothing. Do you remember that old expression only the squeaky wheel gets oiled? Only one thing that comes into my mind and that is to ((organized)), if the people in a state cannot get organized their voice will never be heard, and the people running that state will never know how many people believe they are entitled to this right and that they used this right and exercise their rights daily, and that they would be hell to pay if anybody tries to take the rights away. We already know that age old expression it could never happen here has been blown out of the water it has happened here and it will again if the people do nothing other than cry about it afterwards.
 

PCShogun

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
583
Location
Hanahan, SC
So my understanding is that the insurance is not so much to cover your guns, it is to cover someone else who uses their guns illegally. Since you cannot get them to buy the insurance (because they are illegal), then they want the legal gun owners to foot the bill, just like legal drivers foot the bill for paying for the illegal, and uninsured, drivers.
 

Tigerstripe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
2,304
Location
Upstate
[email protected]

get alerts to rallys and info here. we need more people to show up even though you wont see it in the media.

now if we had a few thousand it might be seen. i dont think they pay any attention to letters and e-mails. do you think they sit in an office and just read letters knowing which side they are on. hell they are only there Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. i learned that at a rally. that in its self says they are lazy sobs.

we need organization. ive been saying for years we need to vote out EVERY INCUMBANT. over and over, every election.

i dont think people know its coming. they dont believe or care. the media is against us. i have heard about every gun that has fired a bullet lately, in the news. 3 people shot on 2 streets in Greenville. the news camera was there before the sherrif and the corroner. Cali cop news on split screen with the state of the union address. even when the cops were wrong and shot up 2 trucks that fit the discription, one was 2 women delivering newspapers,not hurt, and the other didnt they kill someone? the media is on a gunfire blitz.

if obammy changes the constitution and the gov starts to come and get the guns what are we going to do? if we all get together somewhere, for what, looking for a fight? they wont come there, they will bomb us. if we each face them down at the door, what we get 1 or 2 of them and then we die? we will be looked at just like the cali cop on a rampage, all over the news, killing cops at the door.

the evidence was suppressed for 90 days from the shooting at sandy hook school. we will find out after the ban has hit that no AR was used or it was all a hoax.

we need a thousand people at the statehouse every week. each of them bring someone if its a baby the next week.
we write letters and a few make a showing at a rally, does anyone think it has made any difference?

im sorry, i just feel that we all are doing the same thing Wylie said was happening. its not enough and we are sliding down the hill toward the wood chipper. we know from the hacking there are almost 4 million people in SC. if only 1 million has guns we should get more than 2 or 3oo to show up where the "legislaters" work. its not like we have to ride a horse to Columbia. we showed weakness. i think we are going to lose.
 

armaborealis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
575
Wylie said:
This happened in New York and the state got very little opposition from the people if any before they introduce the new law, they didn't get any opposition from the people of the state of N Y when they were passing the law, and after it was passed, then a protest in Albany because the NY legislature passed the SAFE ACT in the dead of night under "emergency certification" procedures with less than thirty minutes to read the bill before voting and ramming it through. So basically people knew it was coming and did nothing the people knew it was being voted on and did nothing, so now they are crying their eyes out. The state of Connecticut is also proposing a similar bill, I do not hear anything on the news about people protesting because the main stream media does not report turnout of pro-2A people.

Fixed it for you.

NY SAFE ACT was rammed through in the dead of night.

CT has had HUGE turnout. They packed their capital until well after midnight to testify against gun laws. Google some of the testimony on YouTube; a father of a student at Newtown elementary told the legislators that they will take his personal firearms "from [my] cold dead hands." The legislators ignored them and literally played solitaire on their computers and mocked the pro-2A people on social media during the hearings.

Likewise, in NY, there have been large protests in Albany. When police reps visited the upstate, large crowds jammed public meetings held in the middle of the work day on short notice and blatantly talked about defying the law and forming militias with the support of their local sheriffs.

MD and even NJ have had huge turnout. NJ had to issue an emergency protest permit; they moved up the hearings on short notice in the middle of a snow storm and the statehouse was STILL packed with 2A advocates that turned out. MD had crowds of thousands; the anti-gun legislators were playing chess on their computers and refused to allow testimony from the pro-gun side once it was clear that people were going to talk until well after midnight as so many turned out.

To say that people are not protesting is just wrong. People in the occupied territories are fighting and standing up and their legislators do not care.

PCSHOGUN said:
So my understanding is that the insurance is not so much to cover your guns, it is to cover someone else who uses their guns illegally. Since you cannot get them to buy the insurance (because they are illegal), then they want the legal gun owners to foot the bill, just like legal drivers foot the bill for paying for the illegal, and uninsured, drivers.

The purpose is to make owning a gun so expensive and onerous that nearly all people except for millionaires like Dianne Feinstein will not be able to afford one. It is also a way to force back-door registration of guns allowing the state to later confiscate them.

They are mandating that people buy a product that does not exist, which has never existed, and which cannot exist at least as we know "insurance" today. Uninsured motorist's coverage protects YOU in the event that a driver without coverage hits YOUR car. The uninsured guy can't cover the damage to your car or the costs of injuries, so your insurance picks up the tab. Car insurance does not insure some random third party who gets hit by an uninsured driver.
 

wetdog1911

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
7
They should start in So Central LA.

THAT would make for some interesting "Film at 11". :?

Wet
 

John Canuck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
832
snip
Tigerstripe said:
i dont think they pay any attention to letters and e-mails. do you think they sit in an office and just read letters knowing which side they are on. hell they are only there Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Not to diminish the rest of what you said, but I've been thinking about this part for a while now. Does a representative read each e-mail and letter they get. Of course not, but they do talk to their assistants to get a general trend of the correspondence. How do I know they do this? That's what all the assistants I've talked with over the years have told me.

For some, it wouldn't matter if they got 100 pro-gun letters for every anti-gun letter, they would still hate guns. They aren't the ones you are sending a message to. There will be some that are on the fence, and those ones might just be persuaded by an abundance of emails and calls. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to supply some information they may not have, or may not have thought about. I wrote the letter below to a Senator who is against restaurant carry in the hopes it gives him something to think about he didn't already know.

In addition to corresponding with the legislators, you are sending a message to impressionable young assistants who may graduate to politics themselves one day. It would be nice if their only information about guns wasn't supplied by anti-gun terrorists. If they get enough letters like the one below, they might at least give pro-gun legislation a chance, rather than just being anti without thought.

As a side note, I think there is something else going on nationally. The PR machine of the president is messaging hard that there has been a change in America. They are trying to say that the people overwhelmingly support gun control now. I don't think he is messaging that to the people. I think he is telling Congress that it's ok to be anti-gun because there won't be any repercussions like after the Clinton AWB.

I think it's very important to bombard the phone lines and e-mail accounts at the national level to remind them that there has been no change and that there will be repercussions.

As for the organizing, yes it would be good. I noticed that absolutely nobody was listing and tracking bills in SC so I started. I hope that effort makes it easy for others to email or call about bills they feel strongly about. If the emails and calls aren't being made, I'm not sure there is anything one can do to force people to care. I posted an update about the restaurant carry sub-committee meeting. These meetings are important. I would have went myself, but I was at a funeral at Arlington National. Did anyone else go? There are going to be lots of these and they matter. If the room isn't full of pro-gun speakers, then no message is sent.

Anyway, I hope folks don't give up. The fight is lengthy.

My latest letter
\ /
\/

Senator,

In a recent sub-committee meeting regarding S. 308, you advised restaurant patrons to call 9-1-1 if they find themselves in danger. A bit of internet research returned some startling information you might not be aware of. The average police response time to a 9-1-1 call in Chester, SC is 5 minutes. In Greenville it's 6 minutes, but in Greenville County the response time is 15 minutes. That is a better response than other parts of the country like Denver, or Atlanta, or Detroit where the response times are 14, 11 and 24 minutes respectively.

These response times are still far too long when one's life is in danger. The ability of a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm in a restaurant is as important as the ability to carry to and from the restaurant. Robberies, rapes and other violent crimes happen in unpredictable places and at unexpected times.

The current law forces citizens who carry a gun for defensive purposes to disarm when they enter common restaurants. This requires the unnecessary handling of a loaded gun in a parking lot exposing everyone around to a potential accidental discharge, but also causes guns to be left in glove compartments where they are not secure.

In 2010, Virginia passed a similar bill into law allowing the carry of concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol. In Virginia, there is no difference between a restaurant license, and one that gets issued to a dance club, gentleman's club, or a bar. In the year after this bill became law, the violent crime rate in restaurants declined by 5.2%. Virginia restaurants and bars did not become shooting galleries as was predicted. The people of South Carolina can be trusted just as much as those in Virginia.

Guns save lives. Please re-consider your position on S. 308.
 
Top