TexasCHLforum.com

I've been reading about California's new gun laws just signed by Jerry Brown, and some of the discussions on calguns.net. It's hard to swallow what's happening to the shooting community out there. The new laws are suffocating.

Assault weapons are banned, "assault weapon" defined as any rifle or semiautomatic pistol possessing one of: detachable magazine, folding/telescoping buttstock, flash suppressor, or a pistol grip (forward and/or rear). If you already own one, it has to be registered with the government by December 21 (I know, 2 days ago) or the mere possession of it is a felony offense.

The mere possession of a magazine capable of holding over 10 rounds is a felony offense. If you have any, you must turn them in or destroy them.

No ammunition through the mail. Ammo only sold be licensed dealers. You must have an ID and background check to buy ANY ammo, AND be added to a state ammunition owner database.

It's a foregone conclusion that the next California governor will be ultra-ultra-liberal Gavin Newson, who will happily sign any restrictive gun law that crosses his desk.

This is not to just whine about California's restrictive gun laws - that has been done - but to just remind everybody how lucky we are to live in Texas. Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton still got almost half the votes in Texas, and that right this very moment, as you read this, people are working full time to bring these kinds of restrictions to Texas.

Their 2A rights have been taken away. Sad thing is some good people are being punished by a majority of idiots.

Hildabeast won the popular vote but just under 3 million votes. She won California by 4 million. If this election was not the Poster Child for the reason behind the Electoral College, I don't know what is.

Ruark wrote:I've been reading about California's new gun laws just signed by Jerry Brown, and some of the discussions on calguns.net. It's hard to swallow what's happening to the shooting community out there. The new laws are suffocating.

Assault weapons are banned, "assault weapon" defined as any rifle or semiautomatic pistol possessing one of: detachable magazine, folding/telescoping buttstock, flash suppressor, or a pistol grip (forward and/or rear). If you already own one, it has to be registered with the government by December 21 (I know, 2 days ago) or the mere possession of it is a felony offense.

The mere possession of a magazine capable of holding over 10 rounds is a felony offense. If you have any, you must turn them in or destroy them.

No ammunition through the mail. Ammo only sold be licensed dealers. You must have an ID and background check to buy ANY ammo, AND be added to a state ammunition owner database.

It's a foregone conclusion that the next California governor will be ultra-ultra-liberal Gavin Newson, who will happily sign any restrictive gun law that crosses his desk.

This is not to just whine about California's restrictive gun laws - that has been done - but to just remind everybody how lucky we are to live in Texas. Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton still got almost half the votes in Texas, and that right this very moment, as you read this, people are working full time to bring these kinds of restrictions to Texas.

If the results of highly restrictive similar laws in Connecticut and New York are any indication, California may have just created themselves a much bigger problem than they had before. If California sees similar rates of compliance as those two states, what will they do with all those good, productive, tax paying citizens they just turned into felons? I haven't seen any articles on folks lined up to register their guns, so I expect there are substantial numbers of them. How will those noncompliant folks (and law enforcement) react to whatever the state decides to do?

In CT and NY it is effectively a stalemate with open defiance of the law by about 90% of the owners and almost no enforcement action being taken. What happens in CA remains to be seen.

There is another wild card in what would happen if a legal challenge is brought to SCOTUS after one or more Trump appointments to the court.

Keep stocked up on popcorn. This may be quite a show.

If you look a little deeper past the surface at all the extra stuff they tacked onto this bill it gets worse. Not only does buying ammunition require a permit (that costs $50 every 4yrs), it also requires the state to keep a registry of the people that have a "ammunition purchase authorization". The state must also share this registry with law enforcement agencies for "law enforcement purposes". They also included a section that allows agencies to seek and obtain a warrant to search and seize someones property(ies) in the event they have a registered firearm or ammuntion they are no longer permitted to have. Allegedly this was to allow courts to force people to get rid of firearms if they became a person that is no longer allowed to have one. /*Then they added a section that if you posses a "large capacity magazine" its only a misdemeanor however they can fine you and/or put you in jail for 1yr. I wonder if its a coincidence that 1yr is just long enough to lose your firearm rights?*/

I hate to go all conspiracy theory on this one but I would not be surprised one bit if they just outright ban certain/all types of guns within the next 5-10yrs and use that registration list as a good place to start looking for them. They have a perfect combination of laws in place now to allow them to legally seize weapons and know where to find them.

edited: It has been brought to my attention that the 1yr comment is wrong. The California statute states "up to one year" and the federal ban concerns convictions that hold a sentence of "more than one year". Sorry for the misunderstanding

mccloven27 wrote:If you look a little deeper past the surface at all the extra stuff they tacked onto this bill it gets worse. Not only does buying ammunition require a permit (that costs $50 every 4yrs), it also requires the state to keep a registry of the people that have a "ammunition purchase authorization". The state must also share this registry with law enforcement agencies for "law enforcement purposes". They also included a section that allows agencies to seek and obtain a warrant to search and seize someones property(ies) in the event they have a registered firearm or ammuntion they are no longer permitted to have. Allegedly this was to allow courts to force people to get rid of firearms if they became a person that is no longer allowed to have one. Then they added a section that if you posses a "large capacity magazine" its only a misdemeanor however they can fine you and/or put you in jail for 1yr. I wonder if its a coincidence that 1yr is just long enough to lose your firearm rights?

I hate to go all conspiracy theory on this one but I would not be surprised one bit if they just outright ban certain/all types of guns within the next 5-10yrs and use that registration list as a good place to start looking for them. They have a perfect combination of laws in place now to allow them to legally seize weapons and know where to find them.

It's more than 1 year to be a prohibiting felony and more than 2 years for State designated misdemeanors. Better than New York, where it's a "violent felony".

So does that definition mean a revolver with a flash suppressor could be considered an assault weapon? I wonder if they would stretch that to include compensators.

I have a single action revolver in 22 LR that holds 12 rounds. I wonder if they would consider the cylinder to be the same as a magazine.

ScottDLS wrote:

mccloven27 wrote:If you look a little deeper past the surface at all the extra stuff they tacked onto this bill it gets worse. Not only does buying ammunition require a permit (that costs $50 every 4yrs), it also requires the state to keep a registry of the people that have a "ammunition purchase authorization". The state must also share this registry with law enforcement agencies for "law enforcement purposes". They also included a section that allows agencies to seek and obtain a warrant to search and seize someones property(ies) in the event they have a registered firearm or ammuntion they are no longer permitted to have. Allegedly this was to allow courts to force people to get rid of firearms if they became a person that is no longer allowed to have one. Then they added a section that if you posses a "large capacity magazine" its only a misdemeanor however they can fine you and/or put you in jail for 1yr. I wonder if its a coincidence that 1yr is just long enough to lose your firearm rights?

I hate to go all conspiracy theory on this one but I would not be surprised one bit if they just outright ban certain/all types of guns within the next 5-10yrs and use that registration list as a good place to start looking for them. They have a perfect combination of laws in place now to allow them to legally seize weapons and know where to find them.

It's more than 1 year to be a prohibiting felony and more than 2 years for State designated misdemeanors. Better than New York, where it's a "violent felony".

Thank you for bringing that to my attention my post has been edited for clarity.

MechAg94 wrote:So does that definition mean a revolver with a flash suppressor could be considered an assault weapon? I wonder if they would stretch that to include compensators.

I have a single action revolver in 22 LR that holds 12 rounds. I wonder if they would consider the cylinder to be the same as a magazine.

I think (and think being the key here) that the cylinder is considered a "fixed magazine" so it would not fall under the ban (the larger than 10 only applies to rifles as far as I can tell), so I'm fairly confident that the revolver would be ok in that case.

Obviously the people in Commiefornia want these laws. They keep voting for these liberal politicians, they voted HRC, as my grandma used to say, "you make your bed- you sleep in it". I don't feel sorry for them or my 2 brothers who live there and vote the way they do. Of course they then ask me to send them AR-15 mags. No way.

The state is rapidly headed toward the scenario is Kurt Schlichter's book "People's Republic."

The only hope freedom loving people living in CA have is a SCOTUS that will strike down all of the laws and regulations as "infringement" of the 2A.

rotor wrote:Obviously the people in Commiefornia want these laws. They keep voting for these liberal politicians, they voted HRC, as my grandma used to say, "you make your bed- you sleep in it". I don't feel sorry for them or my 2 brothers who live there and vote the way they do. Of course they then ask me to send them AR-15 mags. No way.

Not everyone there wants the laws. California is largely controlled by the population dense counties whose votes totally over power the more numerous, but smaller, red counties.

Legislators who pushed these bills, along with that Governor Brown should be charged with violating their Oath of Office, kicked out and possibly thrown into a slammer they want to thrust law abiding citizens of State of California.


Treasonous Traitors.

http://www.dcaboardmembers.ca.gov/member_info/oath.pdf

jkurtz wrote: Not everyone there wants the laws. California is largely controlled by the population dense counties whose votes totally over power the more numerous, but smaller, red counties.

Pretty much the same as Texas, with heavy liberal voter numbers in the big cities dominating the elections. Regardless, at the end of the day, it's the final number that matters.

Don't look for a SCOTUS decision on California anytime soon. Such a case would first have to slog through the various levels of the state and federal court system, and it could be 7 or 8 years before the SCOTUS actually holds it in their hands.

And again, I'm focusing less on California more on how close Texas can come to this. Remember, Hillary got 43.2% of the Texas votes; that's almost half. The pressure is definitely there. How much longer will we hold them off?

bblhd672 wrote:The state is rapidly headed toward the scenario is Kurt Schlichter's book "People's Republic."

The only hope freedom loving people living in CA have is a SCOTUS that will strike down all of the laws and regulations as "infringement" of the 2A.

An excellent book, by the way, and I believe a fairly accurate portrayal of where California will be in 10 years from now.

This is really sad for me, as I came here from California in 2006. In the 10-1/2 years I've lived here, my youngest brother has never come to visit me here. My middle brother stopped by once for 45 minutes after I picked him up at DFW, because his band had a Dallas gig that night. My mother came once in early 2007 to see our home, and once again in 2012 when my son got married. But that's it. Otherwise, ALL of my contact with my family has been because my wife and I either drove or flew to California to touch bases with them. It's been very one-sided, and it breaks my heart because I love my family. If I stop going there to visit, it will mean that I stop seeing them pretty much entirely, but I don't know how much longer I'm willing to do that. It has been an enormous, and very one-sided, expense for me to do so. Whether it is airfare and hotels, or driving and an RV, it costs LOT of money to maintain that relationship, and I'm drawing near to the end of how long I'm willing to pay for that.

The formerly great state of California's recent forays into fascism has only served to cement my reluctance. I suspect that once my mom has passed (she's 92 now and quite frail), I'll give my brothers the message that some reciprocity would be nice, and see how they take to the idea.