TexasCHLforum.com

gun-control measures
Published May 19, 2016 Associated Press



The debate in the Senate comes as Newsom, a Democrat running for governor in 2018, is advocating a November gun control ballot measure incorporating many of the policies the Senate backed Thursday.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said he's also concerned that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's campaign will drive more right-leaning voters to the polls and imperil the gun-control initiative.

"I think it's too risky to put a lot of hard work, decades of hard work, before the voters of California. We don't know if it passes or not," de Leon said. "But if we can get it done in the legislative body, the question is, why not do it?"

The initiative isn't going away, said Dan Newman, a campaign strategist working on the campaign. The initiative takes a different approach to tracking ammunition purchases and also requires vendors to report lost or stolen ammunition.

So, to paraphrase, We don't think the voters will pass it, but to heck with what the voters say, we know what is best for the peasants.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

C-dub wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm actually driving to California on Monday and will be there for a couple of weeks, visiting friends and family. I'll be dropping by the gun stores I used to frequent to "take the temperature". Maybe I'll have a chance to pick up some 30 round mags for cheap to bring back with me.

Isn't it already illegal for them to be sold in Kali? Now they're making them illegal to possess for those that had them prior to them being made illegal to sell.

Yes, it is illegal for them to be sold, but if anybody has some and wants to unload them FTF with me for a price that satisfies both of us, isn't that better for them than simply turning them in for destruction?

How is this not a sale?

Outnumbered wrote:
So, to paraphrase, We don't think the voters will pass it, but to heck with what the voters say, we know what is best for the peasants.

The peasants have already voted in these buffoons in sufficient numbers that they can vote in whatever they feel like. They are just going through the motions, spooling up the base, etc. I'm surprised this hasn't passed already.

JALLEN wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

C-dub wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm actually driving to California on Monday and will be there for a couple of weeks, visiting friends and family. I'll be dropping by the gun stores I used to frequent to "take the temperature". Maybe I'll have a chance to pick up some 30 round mags for cheap to bring back with me.

Isn't it already illegal for them to be sold in Kali? Now they're making them illegal to possess for those that had them prior to them being made illegal to sell.

Yes, it is illegal for them to be sold, but if anybody has some and wants to unload them FTF with me for a price that satisfies both of us, isn't that better for them than simply turning them in for destruction?

How is this not a sale?

I would bet that since magazines do not have serial numbers that probably only the commercial sale is what was made illegal and that they cannot, therefore, be tracked. Thus making what TAM is considering doing not illegal and a private transaction that is untraceable.

C-dub wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

C-dub wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm actually driving to California on Monday and will be there for a couple of weeks, visiting friends and family. I'll be dropping by the gun stores I used to frequent to "take the temperature". Maybe I'll have a chance to pick up some 30 round mags for cheap to bring back with me.

Isn't it already illegal for them to be sold in Kali? Now they're making them illegal to possess for those that had them prior to them being made illegal to sell.

Yes, it is illegal for them to be sold, but if anybody has some and wants to unload them FTF with me for a price that satisfies both of us, isn't that better for them than simply turning them in for destruction?

How is this not a sale?

I would bet that since magazines do not have serial numbers that probably only the commercial sale is what was made illegal and that they cannot, therefore, be tracked. Thus making what TAM is considering doing not illegal and a private transaction that is untraceable.

It's not a commercial sale, so it's irrelevant. But even if it were an illegal sale, I hold California law in contempt. But beyond that, the law isn't in effect yet. Even if it passes, it has a date down the road in which it goes into effect. I am offering to buy the magazines after the law passes, but before it goes into effect. Yeah, it is a sale, but it will be totally legal.

That is certainly a novel, and imaginative, explanation.

In 40 years as a lawyer, in CA by coincidence, I never once ran across a theory that a "sale" could be only of serialized merchandise, or traceable transactions.

I am informed that Californians sell all sorts of goods, or think they do, maybe even including South American agricultural imports in what they hope are untraceable transactions. A man in my former neighborhood was apparently a large scale importer and seller of these unserialized, untraceable products and is in jail still.

The Annoyed Man wrote: It's not a commercial sale, so it's irrelevant. But even if it were an illegal sale, I hold California law in contempt. But beyond that, the law isn't in effect yet. Even if it passes, it has a date down the road in which it goes into effect. I am offering to buy the magazines after the law passes, but before it goes into effect. Yeah, it is a sale, but it will be totally legal.

I believe the prohibition about sales has been in effect for years.

From the DOJ FAQs:

Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California. However, continued possession of large-capacity magazines that you owned in California prior to January 1, 2000, is legal provided you are not otherwise prohibited. A person prohibited from possessing firearms is also prohibited from owning or possessing any magazines or ammunition.

(Pen. Code, §§16150, subd. (b), 30305, 32310.)

JALLEN wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: It's not a commercial sale, so it's irrelevant. But even if it were an illegal sale, I hold California law in contempt. But beyond that, the law isn't in effect yet. Even if it passes, it has a date down the road in which it goes into effect. I am offering to buy the magazines after the law passes, but before it goes into effect. Yeah, it is a sale, but it will be totally legal.

I believe the prohibition about sales has been in effect for years.

From the DOJ FAQs:

Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California. However, continued possession of large-capacity magazines that you owned in California prior to January 1, 2000, is legal provided you are not otherwise prohibited. A person prohibited from possessing firearms is also prohibited from owning or possessing any magazines or ammunition.

(Pen. Code, §§16150, subd. (b), 30305, 32310.)

Yeah......I don't care. If a friend in California ships his mags to me here in Texas, what are they going to do......extradite me? They have to find out first.

Yeah......I don't care. If a friend in California ships his mags to me here in Texas, what are they going to do......extradite me?

I'm pretty sure the Free Republic of Texas doesn't have extradition treaties with petty 3rd world dictatorships
:-)

JALLEN wrote:That is certainly a novel, and imaginative, explanation.

In 40 years as a lawyer, in CA by coincidence, I never once ran across a theory that a "sale" could be only of serialized merchandise, or traceable transactions.

I am informed that Californians sell all sorts of goods, or think they do, maybe even including South American agricultural imports in what they hope are untraceable transactions. A man in my former neighborhood was apparently a large scale importer and seller of these unserialized, untraceable products and is in jail still.

Oh, I could certainly be wrong. I was only theorizing that the prohibition on sales was a commercial thing, but not because of the lack of serial numbers. That part of my thinking was separate in the application because there would no way for any authority to track any particular magazine due to the lack of a serial number.

I have to ask a question just because, if you sell 30rd mags via mailorder to somebody in California can the State really do anything to you? If you live in Texas and the magazines are legal here, somebody there buys them, the buyer may have broken the law but the seller never steps foot in California!

In any case, I contacted my friend yesterday, and he told me he had already shipped all but one of his standard capacity magazines back to Texas (where he's from) for storage except one, which he is prepared to turn in for destruction if necessary. All of his other mags are compliant. He's a marine aviation ground crew chief at Miramar (I think) on a C130 if I recall correctly. But he's an E5 on his final enlistment because the Corps won't let him stay in any longer (budgetary reasons, I think). He's considering joining the Army because he likes military life, but he questions doing so under the current and potential future leadership climate. He's been in for 11 or 12 years now, so he may be headed back to Texas in the not too distant future anyway.

If it was me, I would say "I do not shop there because they discriminate against me for the sole reason that I do exercise my 2ndA"

Beiruty wrote:If it was me, I would say "I do not shop there because they discriminate against me for the sole reason that I do exercise my 2ndA"

Beiruty, I think you meant to answer in this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1080990

Kalifornia's leaders (and Liberals in general) are so hypocritical that it would be funny if not for the serious potential impacts.

North Carolina says that I can't go in a woman's restroom, thereby infringing on a right that I didn't even know I had, and they are an evil place. So evil that state employees should never ever travel there, or do any business with that state if at all possible.

Mississippi says that I can't get service from a private business if what I am asking them to do violates their religious principles. This infringes on my right to compel others to enter into commerce with me. Try as I might I can't find that right in the Constitution, but whatever, Mississippi is also evil. Don't go there.

Kalifornia says that I cannot exercise my right to keep and bear arms, by not recognizing my Texas LTC, and by outlawing most of my guns. This right is clearly stated in the Constitution. So using the same logic, Kalifornia must also be an evil place, right? No. Somehow this most egregious violation of my civil rights is just fine.

How demented must one be to actually have a Liberal mindset?