(California State) Senate passes series of gun, ammunition bills

[petronius]

The firearms bills passing the Senate on Wednesday included:

— SB47, which prohibits so-called bullet buttons and other devices that gun manufacturers use to circumvent the state's assault weapons ban and allow swift reloading. A similar bill, AB48, passed in the Assembly and bans conversion kits that allow people to modify their weapons.

— SB567, which changes the definition of a type of shotgun that is already banned in the state to include a shotgun-rifle combination.

— SB53, which requires ammunition buyers to get a permit, have a background check and pay a fee.

— SB396, which bans ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, including those that people already own.

— SB755, which expands the list of those prohibited from owning weapons to include people convicted of additional drug and alcohol offenses.

— SB683, which expands the requirement for a firearms safety certificate from handguns to rifle purchases.

— SB374, which prohibits the sale, purchase, manufacture, importation or transfer of semi-automatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines.

— SB299, which requires gun owners to promptly inform law enforcement agencies when a gun is lost or stolen. Failing to report within 48 hours would be an infraction punishable by a $100 fine.

— SB293, which requires that guns sold in the state be equipped with technology, such as biometric readers, that would prevent anyone but the registered owner from firing them.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Senate-passes-series-of-gun-ammunition-bills-4558332.php#ixzz2UnJSLwOl

Far too extreme, IMO, and clearly aimed less at crime prevention and more at simply discouraging firearms ownership in general. Hopefully common sense will prevail in the Assembly, Governor's Office, and/or courts...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Albert Einstein said it best:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

[upaloopa]

2. Not strong enough in my opinion

See in CA my adopted state we aren't bought and paid for by the NRA. We fought for a Dem Assembly and Senate and Governor so now the people are listened to and not the damned gun lobby. Might I add we are a leader. What happens here spreads east
Nobody will respect the gun lobby bullying tactics once they see what real democracy can bring.
By the way, we have a budget surplus which is going to public schools. Good for us!

[Starboard Tack]

4. +1. I'm with you all the way.

$100 fine is ridiculously small for failing to report a lost or stolen gun. Hopefully, all of these will pass and we will lead the way to sensible legislation throughout the country.

[gejohnston]

5. Is it democracy in action or

are they being bullied by Bloomberg? I think it is an honest question.
Out of the bills, some observers predict Brown will Veto three of them. One is a repeat of an earlier bill that has been struck down, another that is too badly worded to make sense. The third is mutually exclusive of one he is likely to sign.
While Brown agrees with stricter gun regulation, he is a gun owner himself.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Gov-Brown-hard-to-pin-down-on-gun-issues-4446908.php

[upaloopa]

10. I'm a gun owner too and a resident and a voter and

I do work for Dems during election campaigns.
What doesn't pass will be reworked and brought up again.
Californians support gun legislation that has as it's purpose to reduce gun violence. Even our gun owners support that.

[gejohnston]

19. I agree to a degree

When I was in CA, I was a Wyoming resident and in the military, so I couldn't vote by CA law and could not be active in campaigns by DoD regulation.

I support gun legislation that is well thought out and actually would reduce violence. If this were 1933 and the issue were machine guns, for example, we would be on the same side. But CA is banning the Ruger 10/22 and several guns that are not used in crimes. That to me seems like putting a band aid on someones arm when they have a broken leg.

[clffrdjk]

20. Your a gun owner and you say these don't go far enough.

Just what do you think should be allowed?

[upaloopa]

24. None of these laws will have any effect on me or my gun.

I hope to see laws that permit business and other organizations to not allow guns on their premises. There needs to be gun free zones.
We may already have that I am not sure.

[gejohnston]

26. Is there a law preventing businesses from disallowing guns on their premises?

If the answer is no, then they are allowed. Since it would apply to, or respected by, CCW holders I don't see how it would matter.
These laws are a "good first step" don't think for a moment that your Single Six won't be on a future list, but that would be after Brown leave office because he would veto a handgun ban.

[upaloopa]

29. I really doubt there will be bans on most guns

That is a scare tactic. We are not anti gun but are anti gun violence. Yes you can't write laws that will end gun violence and yes dishonest people will not obey the laws but they will have some effect on the number of gun deaths in the state.

[clffrdjk]

31. This is a ban on every

Semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine
And on every semi auto pistol with a mag larger then 10 rounds.
And you say it doesn't go far enough.
Just what the heck do you mean when you say they won't ban most guns

[derby378]

89. Sounds pretty "anti-gun" to me

They can say it's actually "anti-gun violence," but it's all so much Brainy Smurfing.

[S_B_Jackson]

98. Actually, this is essentially a ban on the sale of ALL firearms.

"SB293, which requires that guns sold in the state be equipped with technology, such as biometric readers, that would prevent anyone but the registered owner from firing them.

[clffrdjk]

28. Are you positive?

I don't know what you have so I can't comment for sure but if it is a hand gun I hope it doesn't fall off the approved list I hope the standard magazine is less then 10 rounds.

And I know of no state where businesses are baned from banning guns.

[Jenoch]

34. When was the last time

a Savage .410/.22 single shot combination rifle/shotgun or a Remington 742/7400 used in a crime in California?

[rdharma]

54. So what CA law is going to effect the Savage .410/.22 combo?

What are you talking about?

[Jenoch]

56. It was in the OP.

"— SB567, which changes the definition of a type of shotgun that is already banned in the state to include a shotgun-rifle combination."

[rdharma]

57. That has NOTHING to do with the Savage 24 Series.

They're talking about guns like the Saco "Crossfire Mk-1.

[Jenoch]

58. Does the bill list makes and models

of guns to be banned?

What about the Remington 7400?

[gejohnston]

59. Think Progress is reporting the same thing

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/08/1561281/california-democrats-propose-strictest-gun-regulations-in-the-nation/

http://www.remington.com/products/archived/shotgun-rifle-combo/spr94.aspx

The way I read it is that if there is a rifle/shotgun combo that has the same features as a banned shotgun, it is banned. Not, all shotgun rifle combos being banned.

[rdharma]

61. Think Progress is wrong on this......

"Shotgun Definition (Jackson): This legislative action updates the definition of a banned shotgun with a revolving cylinder to include the new technology of a shotgun-rifle combination.

EXAMPLE: The “circuit judge” with a rifled bore and revolving cylinder, capable of rapidly firing both 0.410 gauge shotgun shells and .45 caliber ammunition and has the same characteristics of the 1990s Street Sweeper."

Also the "Crossfire" can employ a bullet button.

[gejohnston]

63. That is what I thought

When it comes to firearms etc. TP doesn't have the best researchers.

[petronius]

67. The excerpt from the newspaper gets it wrong, I think

Here's a snip from one of the bill analyses:

This bill seeks to address the definition of an assault weapon as it pertains to the
current definition of a “shotgun”. Existing law defines a “shotgun” as a weapon designed
or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and
designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a
fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball
shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

Under existing law, the following shotguns are defined as assault weapons:

• A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following, 1) a folding or
  telescoping stock, and, 2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
  action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
  
• A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
  
• Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Smooth bored shotguns with revolving cylinders are classified as assault weapons
under current law. More recently designed shotguns are being sold with rifled bores. To
the extent these firearms with rifled bores come equipped with a revolving cylinder,
these firearms would not be classified as assault weapons under current law. Because
the current definition of a shotgun is integrated into the definition of an assault weapon,
these rifled bore shotguns are not technically defined as shotguns, and therefore, do not
fall under the current definition of an assault weapon. This bill seeks to update the
definition of a shotgun to address this issue.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml

So it's expanding the definition of "shotgun" so that the definition of "assault weapon" includes things that would be shotguns but for a rifled bore. It's not referring to rifle/shotgun combination.

But I'm not really sure how the shotgun definition now differs from a rifle, if a shotgun includes things designed to fire a single projectile through a rifled bore. Isn't that a rifle?

Maybe the distinction is that a shotgun fires a "fixed shotgun shell" and a rifle doesn't - and perhaps shotgun shell is defined elsewhere...

[premium]

9. Spreads east?

NV is going in the opposite direction than CA.

[upaloopa]

11. Just how many states are east of CA

[premium]

14. Just about every other state

and most of them are not adopting restrictive laws like CA, and most probably won't.

[upaloopa]

17. They will once the gun money is out of their politics.

What a lot of people do is mistake the power of the gun lobby for the will of the people.

[premium]

18. Yeah, ok.

We'll just have to wait and see, but I've been hearing the same crap about how, as CA. goes, the rest of the nation goes. Not on firearms issues.

[Politicalboi]

32. And not on Gay Marriage

The one thing one would think would be legal along with pot. I live in Ca and it's not perfect, but I do love gun laws. We need to be able to control the nuts who feel the need to carry their guns EVERYWHERE thinking they are protecting everyone. Thanks Barney Fifes, but we the people of Ca don't want it. Go to Arizona or Texas where your guns are welcome, and if you're white, straight, christian, so are you.

[premium]

33. Ca. must be feeling surrounded,

every border state has very liberal gun laws, I would never live in CA, and not just because of their gun laws, it's too damn expensive to live there.
On my pension, I live very comfortably in NV, their firearms laws are basically in line with my beliefs, much less populated.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Like Massachussetts, NY and CT. The squeeze is on.

[premium]

46. And everyone of those states are historically anti gun. nt.

[Starboard Tack]

62. What nonsense! Very few people are anti gun.

It's anti stupid that those of us who want sensible legislation are. Stupid people talk about gun rights . Well, guns don't have rights, people have rights. Guns don't have laws, people have laws. Sensible people make sensible laws. Responsible citizens act responsibly.

[gejohnston]

64. I hate weasel words

"sensible" and "reasonable" are two of the most meaningless words in the English language.

[clffrdjk]

66. Do you honestly consider this sensible?

Sensible people making sensible legislation got us male only voting and slavery, got us medication that only the ultra rich could afford, a system where the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. I would like to see what your definitions of sensible are.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Sensible, in this context, means putting public safety before gun nuttery.

You obviously have a very distorted idea about the meaning of the word "sensible", if you think slavery and the political oppression of women was sensible.
Sensible, to me, means enacting laws that improve the lot of all, not a handful of freaks who want to make the rules up as they go, as long as they get their toys and don't give a fuck about the rest of society.

[petronius]

73. I would define "sensible" differently: in any context, I would say that sensible

legislation is that which is intended to address a public need, is thoughtfully crafted to have a good likelihood of substantially addressing that need, and is carefully designed to minimize unnecessary impacts on other areas or activities.

Much of the legislation our Senate just passed fails the second two points, at least...

[clffrdjk]

74. O darn you beat me at every turn

"You obviously have a very distorted idea about the meaning of the word "sensible", if you think slavery and the political oppression of women was sensible."

O yes that is exactly what I meant

"Sensible, to me, means enacting laws that improve the lot of all, not a handful of freaks who want to make the rules up as they go, as long as they get their toys and don't give a fuck about the rest of society."

Right well keep up with your hooked on phonics and maybe someday you will reach that 6th grade reading level. Then maybe you will understand how the rule of the many can harm the rights of the rest. Enjoy American idol until then, maybe by WW3 you will come to embrace the entire Bill of rights.

[derby378]

90. Sensible, in this context, means "Whatever Dianne Feinstein wants"

Or Michael Bloomberg. Or Josh Sugarmann. Or somebody who wants to restrict Americans to antiques and Fudd guns because they they don't care about our rights as citizens and as human beings.

[Starboard Tack]

93. And what rights do they want to restrict exactly?

The right to an AR-15? The right to a 30 round clip? The right to be careless with your guns and their whereabouts, with impunity?

[gejohnston]

94. yes and no

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 12:54 AM - Edit history (2)

The right to an AR-15? The right to a 30 round clip?

Well, it does fit the common use standard. BTW, how do you feel about scary black rifle that are "section one" weapons in the UK? Brits can have 30 round mags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_Kingdom

The right to be careless with your guns and their whereabouts, with impunity?

Since I don't know anyone who advocates any such thing, one of the characters in the Wizard of Oz comes to mind.

[derby378]

95. What gejohnston said (n/t)

[premium]

79. What nonsense! Those states ARE historically

anti gun, you can deny it all you want, but the record is there for all to see.
Sensible people make sensible laws? Not in the CA legislature, these new laws are designed not towards the criminals, who would have no problem getting firearms, but towards the responsible citizen, making it harder to own a firearm.
These new laws will do nothing to reduce crime, all they do is punish the law abiding citizen.

I suspect you're going to see a lot of the border states do a brisk business of ammo sales due to CA's new dumbass ammo laws, but that's good for my state, NV, we'll get the revenue instead of CA., and there's not a damn thing the CA authorities can do about it, nothing in the new law makes it a crime to go out of state and purchase ammo and bring it back in.

I was kinda kidding about setting up an ammo store on the CA/NV border, but the more I think about it, the more I just might look into what the start up costs and regs are just to poke a stick in CA's eye.

[Starboard Tack]

82. There is a big difference between "anti-gun" and "anti-gun nuttery"

Where do you think the "bad guys" get their guns from? Right, the fucking "good guys" who are stupid enough to lose them, sell them or have them stolen. Enjoy your new business venture, cowboy.

[premium]

84. And CA is passing anti-gun nuttery.

You think these new laws are going to reduce the crime rate in CA? I'll venture a guess and say no, it won't.
These are just feel good laws, nothing more.

I probably won't start a business, I'm enjoying my retirement too much and I really don't want to leave the town I live in now, except maybe to move back to where I grew up, Lake Topaz, NV.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Well, you stay happy in NV

And let those of us who live in CA handle our own gun laws. How about that? Each to his own. BTW, if I lived in NV, I would most likely own a gun or two.

[premium]

87. Hunting is great out here.

I haven't hunted in years, but what with the price of meat, I'm seriously considering buying a .410 shotgun for game birds and a 30.06 for larger game.

I'll let you citizens of CA set your own laws, my problem is that when CA citizens move to NV and try to change our firearms laws to match those of CA., as happened recently.

[Starboard Tack]

92. If they move to NV, then they become citizens of NV

and the laws become their laws too. They have the right to vote wherever they live. That's how democracy works. We don't get to pick and choose our neighbors when we attach ourselves to a specific geographic area. That's one of the reasons I live on a sailboat and drop anchor where it suits me.
Happy hunting!

[gejohnston]

96. this is the ultimate in anti gun nuttery

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/cowboy-style-cap-gun-gets-5-year-old-ousted-from-school-in-calvert-county/2013/05/30/a3a8a178-c93c-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html

Absurd, and even moronic are understatements to describe this. This is where a profanity like completely fucking asinine is appropriate.

[Starboard Tack]

103. I agree. That is anti-gun nuttery

I was referring to anti gun-nuttery. Should've put the hyphen in the original, but wherever the hyphen, the "nuttery" label still applies.

[hack89]

50. Gun control measures just died in Rhode Island

turns out that this blue state has a lot of gun owners. The politicians backed down in a nanosecond.

[premium]

52. Same in N.H.

Tried to repeal SYG, killed in the Repub. controlled State Senate with the help of Dems.

The 19-5 vote to table the bill was bipartisan, with 13 Republicans and six Democrats in the majority. All five “no” votes came from Democrats.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Ah well, then there's Maryland.

Sanity will prevail.

[hack89]

65. And there is Illinois

Last edited Thu May 30, 2013, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

where finally it's citizens will enjoy the right of concealed carry that every other state enjoys.

[Starboard Tack]

69. Whoopee! That should reduce the death toll.

All we need is more idiots carrying guns around, under the illusion that they are somehow making the world a better place.
Not that Illinois should be deprived of any "rights" enjoyed by the rest of the country. The right to carry doesn't really bother me. It's the desire to carry that boggles my mind.

[gejohnston]

71. based on past experience

it will neither go up or down. Since it won't go up, let alone cause it to go up, there is no compelling State interest to not allow it.
Why anyone would want a jet ski boggles my mind. They are noisy, polluting, and annoying. I'm communing with nature in my kayak and some drunk asshole goes flying by and just barely misses me an a manatee.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Talking of jet skis

I think sensible and reasonable (weasel words, I know) legislation is needed. Unfortunately, it is illegal to shoot them, but I always keep an air horn handy when they're buzzing around. That and a stern ticking off usually does the trick, but that's in California. Not that we don't have our fair share of assholes, but I think you've got way more than your fare share in Fla..

[gejohnston]

76. there is regulation

but FWS and the game wardens are spread kind of thin.

Shooting them? Naw that's something that colonists from New Jersey do in Florida.
Wyomingites trapped behind the cornbread curtain are more imaginative. Oh, your ignition system is shot?

[Jenoch]

91. We have sensible

PWC laws in Minnesota.

[hack89]

78. CCW has never increased the death toll in any state that legalized it

I doubt Illinois will be any different.

But you knew that already.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Where did I say it did?

In fact, if it doesn't increase the death toll, then what is the point of it, besides putting money in the hands of gun peddlers and manufacturers? Oh, right, it makes you feel safer in church and at Walmart. How forgetful of me.
Seems like the quick fix remedy for paranoia is packing a gun to protect oneself from another nut who thinks the same. What kind of fucked up world is that?

[hack89]

83. "That should reduce the death toll"

sorry - thought you were being sarcastic. Didn't realize we agreed.

Why would you expect CCW to increase the death toll? Looks like another strawman to me.

Most people conceal carry because of criminals - not other gun enthusiasts.

In any case, if it does not increase gun violence then you have nothing to worry about, do you? I know the idea of people actually disagreeing with you about guns drives you nuts but your emotional stability should not be grounds for legislation.

[Starboard Tack]

85. I was being sarcastic.

I never suggested that anyone carries to defend against gun "enthusiasts", just other nuts who like to carry their guns in public, be they criminals or potential criminals. I never said it increases gun violence, but it definitely increases the potential for gun violence. Nothing about guns drives me "nuts". I find guns as interesting and fascinating as the next guy, and I enjoy shooting them. What I find disturbing is irrational human behavior, as demonstrated by those who glorify guns, or those who are obsessed with them to the point of feeling the need to carry them in public. My emotional stability is just fine thanks. I'll be checking it though, the moment I consider leaving home with a gun tucked under my shirt.

[spin]

13. If California is a leader on gun control ...

explain why 39 states now have "shall issue" concealed carry. "Shall issue" spread across the nation after Florida passed it in in 1987.

[premium]

16. And not one state with concealed carry laws,

whether may issue or shall issue, have any bills pending to repeal those laws, not even CA.
Now it seems that the last holdout, IL., is going to pass some form of CCL, and they're east of CA.

[gejohnston]

3. meanwhile in the UK,

some of their gun makers are eying a new market.
http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_Kingdom

[Howzit]

107. And Britons want their handgun ban repealed

[url]http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back[/url]


[img][/img]

[clffrdjk]

6. Will these apply to the cops and politicians as well?

Or just their subjects?

[premium]

12. Probably not.

After all, don't you know that only cops, military and politicians can be trusted with guns and ammo?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Excuse me but...

..."politician" and "trust" are kind of exclusive terms.

[premium]

22. Yeah, I know.

I was just being facetious.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Yeah

[premium]

25. I was just taking a dig at those that think only the cops and military

should be armed, I probably shouldn't have included pols.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. re: "...I probably shouldn't have included pols."

If civilians are excluded by the law, politicians should be excluded specifically.

[premium]

30. Agreed nt.

[sarisataka]

35. Chicago Aldermen

are considered LEOs and can carry if they choose. Go figure

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. Maybe by local ordinance...

...but an alderman/alderwoman is about as much a LEO as he/she is a mermaid.
Funny idea though.

[sarisataka]

43. One of those old powers

much like aldermanic privilige
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2197.html

IIRC about three out of the fifty exercise it but...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. did you say...

...alder.............MANIC privilege?

[premium]

7. I guess that the border states are going to see an increase in ammo sales.

A smart business person would set up shop on CA's borders and sell ammo, nothing in the bill says that they can't go out of state and buy their ammo, you only need a permit, B/C and pay a fee to buy in state ammo.
Hmmmmmmmm, I'm retired, maybe I'll move to Primm, NV and open an ammo store, should be lucrative.

[Jenoch]

8. It appears the California gun laws are

targeting guns not used in crime. My father has a single shot .410/.22 combination gun that will be illegal in California. He also has a Remington 7400 deer rifle that will be illegal in California. Why are guns such as these targeted?

[spin]

15. Such laws make some people feel good. (n/t)

[samsingh]

38. saving lives makes me feel good

[gejohnston]

39. they won't be saving any lives

just ask USVI how their gun control laws are working out.

[spin]

45. I support laws that reduce violent crime. ...

However I am not overly fond of laws that fall into the "feel good" category.

For example I support laws that criminalize carrying illegal firearms but wonder at the wisdom of New York State's new requirement that only seven rounds can be carried in a ten round magazine.

Often our law enforcement officers find an individual who is carrying an illegal firearm and arrest him but in many states he receives a light penalty. A year or so later he uses another illegal firearm to injure or kill. For example:

Mother's Day shooting suspect was out on too low of a bail, officials say
By NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
on May 14, 2013 at 7:55 PM, updated May 14, 2013 at 10:18 PM

The teen accused of shooting into a Mother's Day second-line parade and injuring 19 people was out on a $15,000 bail that Mayor Mitch Landrieu and Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro said was too low for the gun and drug charges he faced.

***snip***

At issue on Tuesday was how Scott managed to get what Landrieu and Cannizzaro agreed was a light bail amount on a charge of weapon possession while also in possession of heroin.

Scott has two prior arrests for possession of stolen guns with extended clips, one from March, for which he has been charged; and the other from last year, in which charges were refused.

A little more than two months before the second-line shooting, police say they arrested Scott on suspicion of possessing a handgun stolen from St. Charles Parish and a baggie of heroin.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/05/mothers_day_shooting_suspect_w.html

I seriously doubt the recent arrest of a citizen who had too many rounds in the magazine of his pistol will reduce gun violence.

New York man arrested for carting 2 extra bullets
Tuesday, May 14, 2013

A New York man has the dubious honor of being the first reported arrest for carrying two bullets too many in his otherwise legally authorized ammunition magazine — in violation of the state’s new gun control laws.

Troopers discovered the extra two bullets when they stopped him for a traffic offense: His license plate lamp wasn’t lit, a local newspaper covering New Lebanon, N.Y., reported.

During the course of speaking to the driver, Gregory Dean, 31, of Hopewell Junction, troopers saw a .40 caliber handgun on the front seat. It was registered and legal, but when troopers found its magazine was carrying nine bullets.

The recently passed Secure Ammunition and Firearms and Enforcement Act only allows for seven rounds per magazine, the New Lebanon paper reported.
Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/14/new-york-man-arrested-carting-2-extra-bullets/#ixzz2UoW0OlPu
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Since we are discussing new proposed laws in California I will mention one that might have some potential:

SB53, which requires ammunition buyers to get a permit, have a background check and pay a fee.

Unfortunately I see no requirement for proof of firearms safety training although it might be necessary to get the permit (I am not familiar with California law). When a SCUBA diver wishes to fill his tanks he has to show a card showing he has training and I personally feel anyone who wishes to buy ammo should have to show that he has attended a class on firearm safety training. This law may not reduce criminal activity but might save lives due to tragic "accidents" caused by untrained people handling firearms. Of course the cost of the permit and the course has to be reasonable so as not to be an impediment to good citizens who lack wealth or it is merely discrimination against the poor.

It's my opinion that many of our current gun laws would be far more effective in reducing gun violence if our legal system strongly punished those who break them. All too often elected politicians feel that tweaking existing laws and enforcing them lacks the impact with the voters that passing "feel good" laws generates. That's why we end up with a number of useless laws that largely target honest citizens who are not the problem.

I am aware that sometimes even honest citizens can run amok and shoot innocent people. Often such individuals wave numerous red flags which if not ignored can lead to effective intervention. Our mental health care system drastically needs improvement but I see little effort in this direction. Better and less expensive mental health care could also greatly reduce the rate of suicide in our nation.

One of the most effective ways that I feel would criminal violence with firearms would be to legalize some drugs such as marijuana. If you look at Chicago which does have extremely restictive gun laws you will find that most gun violence is the result of drug gangs fighting over turf. We lost our War on Drugs decades ago but our government seems unable to realize this.

Perhaps because I have a technical background I look for effective solutions to a problem.

[samsingh]

37. hopefully they'll pass even stricter gun control laws

[Straw Man]

40. How far would you go?

hopefully they'll pass even stricter gun control laws

Would you ban all handguns? Many would.

[samsingh]

68. no i would not

I would ensure there are controls so that guns do not get sold to the wrong people

[Straw Man]

70. How?

I would ensure there are controls so that guns do not get sold to the wrong people

What are the stricter controls you envision that would lead to that goal?

[samsingh]

104. they've been explained all over the internet

if would certainly have background checks that are more extensive, there should be liability costs, limits on certain types of weapons.

[gejohnston]

105. liability insurance

was first mentioned by an investment advisor in Forbes. No other country does it.
Do you see where I'm going with this? I don't want Wall Streeters and insurance companies making gun policy, or any other policy for that matter.

[Straw Man]

106. Many things have been discussed.

I want to know what you favor and why. Unless you believe that any gun control move is good.

What kind of background check do you envision? Why should there be liability costs and how much should they be? What kinds of weapons should be limited and why?

Please be specific. Otherwise you really aren't participating in the discussion.

[premium]

47. That's ok.

I'm retired, I just might set up an ammo store right on the CA/NV border in Primm, NV and sell ammo to CA residents who don't want to jump through the hoops that CA is placing in front of law abiding citizens, and guess what?
It's all legal, for myself and CA residents, no laws broken on either side of the border.

I'll bet I can make boo coo bucks.

[gejohnston]

48. Or on the Nevada side of Tahoe

It's like when Utah and Idaho banned fireworks. Go near a fireworks stand near Evanston, WY, and count the Utah plates.

[premium]

49. Oh hell yeah. I might even move back to where I grew up,

right on the CA/NV border off U.S. 395 in the little town of Topaz Lake.

[S_B_Jackson]

99. I love that area....

my uncle and aunt owned the general store in Wellington their son sold it in the 90s.

[premium]

100. I loved growing up in Lake Topaz,

easy, relaxed lifestyle, everyone knew everyone else, fishing, hunting, shooting with my late father.
When my parents passed, the house was bequeathed to us kids, but, my brothers and sisters didn't want anything to do with it, so I bought it from them and in the near future, my lovely wife and I are going to move back there.
I've been away from my roots for far too long. (sigh).

[Megalo_Man]

41. Shameful.

When are people going to realize that this isn't about reducing gun violence, or controlling "guns", but instead about controlling PEOPLE? I truly feel sorry for anyone that lives in that state, but it is just one of a handful of others that keep sliding increasingly towards authoritarianism.

[Swede Atlanta]

51. These are good, broad initiatives....

Some of them are overly-broad and will be subject to a Supreme Court smack down but some are probably within the permissible range of governmental interests associated with a protected right.

[NYC_SKP]

53. Like it or not, it sure looks like an incremental ban of all but the simplest of firearms.

Over-reaching and likely, some of these, to be subject to being overturned by higher courts.

[rdharma]

55. Getting rid of the "bullet button" was a no brainer! nt

[Serve The Servants]

77. What is the likelyhood of Brown signing this shit?

These Bills are fucking ridiculous, (even the poor little Fudds are going to get slapped). Many people will become overnight criminals and not even know it.

Lots of non-compliance if these Bills become law...

[jimmy the one]

81. shall issue violent crime rates

hack89 78. CCW has never increased the death toll in any state that legalized it

You leave a lot of wiggle room with what you say, but Montana enacted shall issue ccw 1991, & since then her murder rate went up for 7 years then fluctuated over & below siccw start year, & her violent crime rate near tripled & is now doubled, never once falling below siccw start year:
.. viol-crime ..prop.. murder (all rates)
1991 139.9 ..3,508.3 ...2.6 (Montana)
1992 169.9 ..4,426.2 ...2.9
1993 177.5 ..4,612.5 ...3.0
1994 177.1 ..4,841.7 ...3.3
1995 171.4 ..4,626.0 ...4.0
1996 161.0 ..4,332.7 ...3.9
1997 132.1 ..4,276.7 ...4.8
1998 138.8 ..3,931.9 ...4.1
2003 365.0 ..3,096.2 ...3.3
2011 267.5 ..2,319.7 ..2.8 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mtcrimn.htm

SDak 1986siccw: murder 4.0, 2011 2.5; violcrime 1986 125 -- 2011 254 DOUBLED since siccw
NDak 1985siccw: murder 1.0, 2011 3.5; violcrime 1985 047 -- 2011 247 FIVE TIMES HIGHER
WVa. 1989siccw: murder 6.5, 2011 4.3; violcrime 1989 147 -- 2011 316 DOUBLED
Pennsylvania enabled siccw 1989 & for 20 years the violent crime rate remained above 1989 start year, only falling below it, barely, 2010, 2011, perhaps 2012. The average of those 20 years would put violcrime rate in pennsy about 10-15% higher than si start year.
.. Indeed, the only states to see dramatic increases in violent crime rates since the national decline mid 90's, have been a couple progun states.
.. A different way to adjudge effectiveness would be to average violent crime rates for the same number of years prior to enacting shall issue ccw with the number of years after passage.
.. Observe how gunnut guru clayton cramer spins philadelphia's decline in murder rate to compensate for pennsy's increase elsewhere (philly has limited ccw): Yet the 1991-92 decline in Philadelphia, if it continues, suggests some benefit from the increased number of permits being issued elsewhere in the state. Does the knowledge that people walking the streets of Philadelphia might be from other Pennsylvania cities, where permits are readily issued, act as some sort of restraint on Philadelphia criminals? {COUGH, GAG} Has there been a dramatic increase in Philadelphia residents who have taken up residence elsewhere in order to obtain permits? COUGH GAG

Florida passed siccw 1987, but it would be 1997 when violent crime rate fell below:
...... pop ................ violent ... property .. murder
1987 12,023,000 ....1,024.4 ....7,478.7 ...11.4
1988 12,377,000.....1,117.7 ....7,819.9 ...11.4
1989 12,671,000 ....1,109.4 ....7,695.1 ...11.1
1990 12,937,926 ....1,244.3 ....7,566.5 ...10.7
1991 13,277,000 ....1,184.3 ....7,362.9 ....9.4
1992 13,488,000 ....1,207.2 ....7,151.0 ....9.0
1992 13,488,000 ....1,207.2 ....7,151.0 ....9.0
1993 13,679,000 ....1,206.0 ....7,145.0 ....8.9
1997 14,654,000 ....1,023.6 ....6,248.2 ....6.9

[gejohnston]

88. post hoc ergo propter hoc

can you show shall issue caused it? Why did the murder rate drop even without repealing shall issue? Your link doesn't back up your claim.
Were these increased murders by people with concealed carry permits? Would they have not murdered without one? I seriously doubt it since 90 percent of all murderers have fairly long criminal records, including felonies.

[LAGC]

102. I can't speak for WV, but the main reason Montana and the Dakotas' violent crime rate has shot up...

...has to do with the oil-boom surrounding the Bakken formation, and all the unsavory characters it has brought into those areas.

[S_B_Jackson]

97. All firearms mfg/dealers should adopt "NO SHIP/SALES TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA"

Let CA cops patrol with batons. When visiting the family home in CA, I'll make sure to stop in Reno to buy ammo.

[ileus]

101. Remember it's about control never about safety.

They need more victims to drive their agenda.