California governor signs stringent new gun control laws

[SlyPokerDog]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Jerry Brown signed six stringent gun-control measures Friday that will require people to turn in high-capacity magazines and mandate background checks for ammunition sales, as California Democrats seek to strengthen gun laws that are already among the strictest in the nation.


Brown vetoed five other bills, including requirement to register homemade firearms and report lost or stolen weapons to authorities.

The Democratic governor's action is consistent with his mixed record on gun control. Some of the enacted bills duplicate provisions of a November ballot measure by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Some of the vetoed measures also appear in Newsom's initiative.

"My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners," Brown wrote in a one-sentence message to lawmakers.

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/07/california_governor_signs_stri.html

 

[MarAzul]

Another reason to vote for Trump.

This will go to the court, probably close to the time a new justice is confirmed.

Infringement, for sure.

 

[Minstrel]

Considering the Supreme Court didn't throw out Connecticut's new gun control laws, it's unlikely that California's will get nixed. There's nothing unconstitutional about these laws...they're ones that could be adopted federally if Congress agreed on them. States can certainly put them into effect on a state level.

The second amendment prevents complete bans on guns...it says nothing about things like background checks or what types of guns or magazines must be publicly available.

 

[Natebishop3]

Background checks on ammo.... so what if you reload your own shit?

 

[MarAzul]

Background checks on ammo.... so what if you reload your own shit?

Slippery slope isn't it! Do I need a background check to buy an RCBS press? I can reload or make fishing lures with it.
When you start infringing on rights, there is no end to

 

[MarAzul]

The second amendment prevents complete bans on guns..

No it does not. The words complete or guns is not mentioned. The words, Right and Infringed are salient though.

 

[Minstrel]

No it does not. The words complete or guns is not mentioned. The words, Right and Infringed are salient though.

What constitutes "infringement" has always been up to interpretation. The first amendment, for example, can be legally infringed to prevent dangerous actions (the classic example is that you are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire).

That's why I said that all it guarantees is no full ban on guns. That would be a negation of the right. Beyond that, what "infringes" is up to the courts.

(As for the word "guns" not being present, it's generally accepted, as far as I've seen, that the word "arms" refers to guns. Otherwise, it would require that there could be no restrictions on rocket-launchers, nuclear bombs, etc. Even the NRA's leadership doesn't go quite that far.)

 

[MarAzul]

Minstrel needs some basic training.

This is your weapon,
this is your gun,
this is for fighting,
this is for fun.

Arms are weapons.

 

[Denny Crane]

Welcome to the People's Republic of California.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Minstrel needs some basic training.

This is your weapon,
this is your gun,
this is for fighting,
this is for fun.

Arms are weapons.

I love that part of the Constitution.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel needs some basic training.

This is your weapon,
this is your gun,
this is for fighting,
this is for fun.

Arms are weapons.

Actually, the first line is "This is my rifle," not "This is my weapon."

So arms are rifles? How Canadian of you. Sounds like you agree that handguns should be restricted.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Welcome to the People's Republic of California.

california has a higher gdp than france, #6 in the entire world actually. pretty interesting to think about.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

actually they could pass the UK and become 5th any day now if they keep shitting the bed.

 

[Denny Crane]

california has a higher gdp than france, #6 in the entire world actually. pretty interesting to think about.

Kind of funny how they've driven much of the TV and movie industry out of the state and are working on driving tech out of the state, too.

Talk about killing the golden goose.

 

[blue32]

I fucking hate California, and they're all coming up here too... Blah

 

[MarAzul]

I love that part of the Constitution.

You mean the part that doesn't mention gun?

 

[MarAzul]

How Canadian of you

Canadian was not spoken on the Decatur grinder.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You mean the part that doesn't mention gun?

No.

I like guns. I own guns. And unlike you I respect guns.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So did anyone read the actual article? It was interesting the parts that the Governor vetoed. It was also interesting how instead of making one giant piece of gun legislation they instead broke it down into individual laws. I'm guessing this was done so if something gets overturned by the courts the rest of the legislation is still enforced.

So you guys really think these laws are bad?

The new law will require ammunition sellers to be licensed.

He also opted to require a background check before a gun can be loaned to someone who isn't a family member.

No need to answer, Marazul, we already know what you think about this.

 

[MarAzul]

And unlike you I respect guns

Do you find humor in this?

 

[MarAzul]

What constitutes "infringement" has always been up to interpretation.

It only has one meaning other than being a crime.

1. An act that disregards an agreement or a right

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Do you find humor in this?

Yes.

 

[Minstrel]

It only has one meaning other than being a crime.

1. An act that disregards an agreement or a right

I've already given you an example of what is considered constitutional infringement of a right.

 

[MarAzul]

So you guys really think these laws are bad?

No need to answer, Marazul

Aw, I thought I would give you the additional benefit anyway.

No, I don't think bad is the right word to describe these laws. Disregard for the rights of others and the Constitution that states the right would do it more accurately.

The one about magazine capacity of five sounds incremental. Prior laws have tried 10 and this make me wounder when they will try one.
This intern, makes me thing back in time to my youth, back in the 40s, when I like to read the yearly addition of the Stoeger Arms catalog.

It listed the arms available from around the world, and none were banned in this country, but some were in other countries and you could find that in this catalog.

It had a section in the back, listing the arms available for sale to the indigenousness populations in various places around the world, Africa, The Dutch East Indies, colonies mostly. All of the weapons legal to sell to these areas were single shot small caliber rifles and larger caliber muzzle loaded rifles. Of course these decisions on what
would be legal to sell in these areas was done in places like London, Brussels, Amsterdam, not locally.

It seems there is similar thinking today now among the left, about the people they would like to control and the worth of the Constitution that lists their rights.
I suppose elitist need games to play, it provides humor in a dull life.

 

[MarAzul]

I've already given you an example of what is considered constitutional infringement of a right.

Oh I think what you have given me is an understanding of the value you have for an agreement. But you had already done that sometime back.

 

[Denny Crane]

Minstrel always agrees with me. He's a reasonable guy and comes around to the right thinking.

Like, "see! there's constitutionally sound reasons to violate the constitution, so let's do it for unconstitutional reasons!"

 

[Minstrel]

The Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Connecticut law banning many semiautomatic rifles. The law, enacted in 2013 in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., made it a crime to sell or possess the firearms, which critics call assault weapons.

The decision not to hear the case, not long after the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla., does not set a Supreme Court precedent. But it is part of a trend in which the justices have given at least tacit approval to broad gun-control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them.

Link

You can keep insisting that any gun control law at all is unconstitutional, it's okay by me. But if Connecticut's more restrictive law wasn't overturned, it's pretty unlikely that California's will.

 

[MarAzul]

I can't figure out what would be the thing to do with the Browning carbine I have under this law. The magazine hold 11 rounds of .357 ammunition and 12 rounds of
38 special. Would this law require you to turn in the gun since the magazine is part of the weapon? Geez, it has a value of about $1000. Sure would hate to have to give it too them. Might move instead.

Are they really requiring people to "give" them magazines? Or are they buying them?

 

[MarAzul]

Link

You can keep insisting that any gun control law at all is unconstitutional, it's okay by me. But if Connecticut's more restrictive law wasn't overturned, it's pretty unlikely that California's will.

You misread the result.

This is another reason to vote for Trump. This ruling did not set a precedent, not a full court. Of course it is an infringement, any man that understand the value of an agreement would know this. So would a judge that gives a shit about agreements and rights.

 

[MarAzul]

These discussions are valuable, not because we will ever solve a thing are even agree on anything. It simple solidifies a principle that I have used quite sometime now.
Before you ever negotiate with someone to reach and agreement, you need to identify their character type. It is really not prudent to put any trust in and agreement with a person that is of the feeling type. While the commitment to the the agreement at the time maybe real at present time, the commitment will change when the feeling changes, without regard to the logic. So, it is most valuable to be able to determine a persons character type before you make any agreements.

It also lets you know whether to attempt persuasion or which type of arguments to put forth, feeling or logic. This may require you to hire a negotiator capable of doing the needed persuasion. Loggerheads is the result, handled without the understanding or quickly broken agreements. But all agreements with feeling types maybe broken when the feeling is in favor. However, many times this is good enough, longevity is not needed for every agreements to be useful. Not the case with the Constitution and rights.

Study and practice can provide the ability to determine character type, but it gets a little tricky to differentiate between some types. Time is need to prove consistency.
Other opinions from people that can do this are useful too.

This battle never ends, this is battle to staff the court. This is another reason to vote for Trump. One more feeling type on the court will not be good.