Categories
California Well I thought it was funny!

I could actually believe this one!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

Los Angeles County Creating ‘Buffer Zones,’ Demanding Gun Shops Keep Fingerprint Logs by S.H. BLANNELBERRY

 

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is moving forward this week with plans to enact various gun control measures that will chill the 2A rights of law-abiding gun owners and place an undue burden on responsible gun dealers.

Among the ordinances included in the motion authored by Supervisor Janice Hahn are:

  • A ban on the sale of .50 caliber handguns and .50 caliber ammunition
  • The creation of “buffer zones” between gun stores and “sensitive areas” (schools, daycares, parks, etc.)
  • To make all Los Angeles County property a gun-free zone
  • Require gun stores to keep a fingerprint log, submit sales reports and inventory reports in real-time to the county board, install security cameras, limit minors’ access and provide gun owners with information about the local laws.
  • Deny sales to individuals on the federal government’s no-fly list

“When I was in Congress, we responded to horrific mass shootings with little more than moments of silence and thoughts and prayers,” said Supervisor Hahn in a press release.

“I will not sit idly by when there is action that we can take to save lives,” she continued. “These gun violence prevention measures are commonsense and are under our authority at the County level to implement.”

Attorneys will be drafting up the details for each ordinance over the next three months.  Once finished, the completed drafts will come before the board for a final vote.

Hahn told Fox11LA that these “common sense gun regulations” are “just one piece of the puzzle.”

“If we move forward with implementing these “four common-sense gun regulations”, I hope others in our county will follow suit,” Hahn said.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Some Sick Puppies!

Just another reason on why I am a born again Cynic!

Categories
California Cops

Women trainees of the LAPD practice firing their newly issued revolvers, 1948

Women trainees of the LAPD practice firing their newly issued revolvers, 1948 : r/TheWayWeWere

 

https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF11JQ4JN

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Politicians Terrified of Responsible Gun Owners – Not Violent Criminals BY L.A. PAREDES

GOC has been hammering the point for years that our singular best remedy to the anti-gun garbage is going to be in the courts.  Thankfully, the recent SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA v Bruen set the stage in elaborate fashion for what’s to come down the legal road.

Until that time, however, the Left has made no bones about it:  they are out to do whatever they can to make sure that lawful citizens are as far away from guns as possible.  While this may sound like some far-right conspiracy rant, it’s very true.  Forget the ridiculous mantra of “I support the Second Amendment, but…”  – forget the BS that all they want is “reasonable gun reform.” These are lies, lies and damn lies.  The Left does not trust us – nor do they want us to be able to protect ourselves.  Neither do they want us to protect our families, our homes or our businesses.  Their real intent has become abundantly clear, especially given their antipathy for law enforcement:  No guns.  Nowhere.

Senator Anthony Portantino is especially keen on the no guns anywhere philosophy.  His SB 918 was obviously introduced in angry response to the recent SCOTUS decision because it legally established California a “shall issue” state, and that’s not on the Left’s progressive menu.

Senator Portantino must be driven by something besides anger – it’s quite possible he’s literally terrified of people who have a CCW because his bill stipulates that there are about 2 places in the entire state where one can carry a concealed weapon outside of their own home.  He has likely trembled with fear when going out for dinner with fellow legislators after work.  He may wonder who’s in the next booth, legally carrying a gun?  Gasp!

And what about when he heads to Whole Foods to pick up some organic asparagus to go with his grilled chicken dinner?  Uh oh!  Who may have a concealed firearm while testing the cantaloupe in the produce section?

What if he’s on a picnic or an outdoor concert with his family at one of Napa’s lovely vineyards?  Yikes!  There might be someone snacking on some crackers and brie who might have a CCW! The trauma!

Portantino is clearly fearful of safe and responsible people being able to carry a concealed firearm, but doesn’t seem too preoccupied with the bad guys that are plaguing his very own Los Angeles County.  Is he one of the privileged who can hire private security like so many celebrities? According to World Protection Group CEO Kent Moyer, because crime continues to rise in California, more celebrities are starting to hire private security. In Hollywood alone, homicides have jumped an incredible 75%, yet LAPD arrests are down by 20%.  It’s no wonder people want some ability to protect themselves. Evidently though, elected officials like Portantino (and those who share his politics) don’t believe this should apply to the rest of us.

SB 918 is chock-full of highly subjective criteria – from who can be granted a CCW to who is even permitted to apply.  Those on even the most benign prescription medications need not apply.

When SB 918 gets a thumbs up from the Legislature and Governor in the next few weeks, it will be interesting to see who on the Left will be shocked to learn their armed security detail won’t be able to follow them into virtually any facility in the state.  (Check out the list below of prohibited areas for CCW holders – especially those that are bolded).   The limitations are so significant, a CCW will be deemed useless.

Remember, no lawsuit can be filed until the law becomes operative; if the final version of the bill has an urgency clause, it will go into effect as soon as the Governor signs it.  If the bill passes without the urgency, it would become effective January 1, 2023.

With far too many Californians making bad decisions by repeatedly electing anti-gun politicians, the courts have become our best recourse.  While it seems as if we may not be successful in the short term, GOC is in it for long game and ultimately, we will come out of the mess with some significant wins.  But it’s going to take some patience, hard work and yep – money.  Rest assured, GOC will be involved the legal challenges to this legislation – and other bills that undermine the Second Amendment.  Please support us in these efforts – the costs are great but the rewards will be greater.

Section 26230 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

(a) A person granted a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, or 26170 shall not carry a firearm on or into any of the following:

(1) A place prohibited by Section 626.9.

(2) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a preschool or childcare facility, including a room or portion of a building under the control of a preschool or childcare facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the operator of a childcare facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm in the home if no child under child care at the home is present in the home or the firearm in the home is unloaded, stored in a locked container, and stored separately from ammunition when a child under child care at the home is present in the home so long as the childcare provider notifies clients that there is a firearm in the home.

(3) A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of the state government. government, except as allowed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 171c.

(4) A building designated for a court proceeding, including matters before a superior court, district court of appeal, or the California Supreme Court, parking area under the control of the owner or operator of that building, or a building or portion of a building under the control of the Supreme Court. Court, unless the person is a justice, judge, or commissioner of that court.

(5) A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of a unit of local government, unless the firearm is being carried for purposes of training pursuant to Section 26165.

(6) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of an adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison, or jail.

(7) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided.

(8) A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.

(9) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a vendor or an establishment where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises.

(10) A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.

(11) A playground or public or private youth center, as defined in Section 626.95, and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to the playground or youth center.

(12) A park, athletic area, or athletic facility that is open to the public and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to those areas, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through such a place in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.

(13) Real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife, except those areas designated for hunting pursuant to Section 5003.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 4501 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, or any other designated public hunting area, public shooting ground, or building where firearm possession is permitted by applicable law.

(14) Any area under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university, including, but not limited to, buildings, classrooms, laboratories, medical clinics, hospitals, artistic venues, athletic fields or venues, entertainment venues, officially recognized university-related organization properties, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas.

(15) A building, real property, or parking area that is or would be used for gambling or gaming of any kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, casinos, gambling establishments, gaming clubs, bingo operations, facilities licensed by the California Horse Racing Board, or a facility wherein banked or percentage games, any form of gambling device, or lotteries, other than the California State Lottery, are or will be played.

(16) A stadium, arena, or the real property or parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or a collegiate or professional sporting or eSporting event.

(17) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public library.

(18) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as those terms are defined in subdivision (a) of Section 171.5.

(19) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an amusement park.

(20) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a zoo or museum.

(21) A street, driveway, parking area, property, building, or facility, owned, leased, controlled, or used by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons, or development site or facility regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(22) A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.

(23) A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution.

(24) A police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or parking area under control of a law enforcement agency.

(25) A polling place, voting center, precinct, or other area or location where votes are being cast or cast ballots are being returned or counted, or the streets or sidewalks immediately adjacent to any of these places.

(26) Any other privately-owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.

(27) Any other place or area prohibited by other provisions of state law.

Categories
California

Hopefully soon for me & THE BOSS!

Categories
California

Back in the Glory days of Los Angeles!

The Motormat drive-in in Los Angeles, 1948. The food tray was sent out on rails right to your car. The little awnings provided a shade for your food.

HISTORIC LOS ANGELES
The Track
What could go wrong? One of the most intriguing L.A. architectural novelties we’ve ever seen was this take on the drive-in. It’s The Track, with “Motormat” technology, “Track” apparently a reference to racetrack—hence the striped service trolleys that were sent out to cars at 120 feet per minute, each unit named after a famous racehorse.
A theme, however, was not enough in the face of Rube Goldberg technology. You just know the crazy trolley system must have hit snags constantly, with burgers and fries and chicken wings and cokes flying all over the hoods of Hudsons and DeSotos…and yet at one time there seems to have been as many as three outlets in the Los Angeles area, for however long they lasted. Here’s a description of the operation from The American Drive-In, by Michael Karl Witzel:

“Debuted in 1949, a Los Angeles innovation promised total elimination of carhops. At a new drive-in called “The Track,” it attracted customers from as far as Santa Monica with its unique type of service. Like a group of horses at a trough [there’s a gracious image], cars ringed around a central building, forming a circular pattern. Twenty semicircular parking spaces bridged a center kitchen by means of metal tracks. Food and condiments rode the rails within carrying…compartment[s] each powered by a small ½-horsepower motor…. The mechanical setup was reminiscent of the wackiest Rube Goldberg device. Positioned in a pre-determined [?] parking space, the diner rolled down the car window and was greeted by a stainless-steel bin that could be made flush with the door. Inside the box were plastic cups, a water bottle, menu, order pad, and change tray. It was large, too. Food for six people could be ferried back and forth on the elevated platforms. Patrons would jot down their orders and with the push of a button, the unit scooted a return to the kitchen…. When the empty bin arrived at the kitchen, an attendant put through the order and added up the bill. As hamburgers and other entrées were prepared, the rail box made its second journey to the automobile to collect the money. By the time it returned to the preparation area, the food was ready to go—loaded into the compartment along with condiments and the customer’s change. According to inventor Kenneth C. Purdy, the spoke-and-wheel-track arrangement sped service 20-25 percent.”

Well, needless to say, we wanted to know where this madcap drive-in was. There was a 1951 phone-book listing for a “The Track No 3” at 3816 Sepulveda Boulevard in Culver City, now the site of a Carl Jr’s, but current visual cues there don’t jive with the vintage shots seen here. So we squinted at the pics, especially the one at top, and decided that the sign on the Herman-Something real estate office must have said “Herman Shrager”—who, it turns out, dealt in cemetery real estate, as in plots.

Anyway, after more digging we found that Herman had an office at 8152 Beverly Boulevard…and eureka! It all fell into place. Across from Herman’s one-time haunt, at the northwest corner of Beverly and Kilkea Drive, the distinctive Welch’s Candy building still stands…and so across Kilkea from Welch’s would have been The Track, at 8123 Beverly.
The mini-chain’s other locations may have survived longer, but with maintenance obviously a nightmare and profits hindered with what was clearly too much real estate given over to servicing too few cars, it was all over in a few years. Advertisements for an auction of the pieces of The Track appeared in the Times in February 1952.

The view from the kitchen, above. Below:
Assuming that the contraption made it out to his car,
the driver received his order in this box:

As seen in the Los Angeles Times on February 17, 1952
 Looking north today at Beverly Boulevard and Kilkea Drive

The Track
PLEASE ALSO SEE OUR COMPANION HISTORIES
FOR AN INTRODUCTION TO HISTORIC LOS ANGELES, CLICK HERE
What could go wrong? One of the most intriguing L.A. architectural novelties we’ve ever seen was this take on the drive-in. It’s The Track, with “Motormat” technology, “Track” apparently a reference to racetrack—hence the striped service trolleys that were sent out to cars at 120 feet per minute, each unit named after a famous racehorse. A theme, however, was not enough in the face of Rube Goldberg technology. You just know the crazy trolley system must have hit snags constantly, with burgers and fries and chicken wings and cokes flying all over the hoods of Hudsons and DeSotos…and yet at one time there seems to have been as many as three outlets in the Los Angeles area, for however long they lasted. Here’s a description of the operation from The American Drive-In, by Michael Karl Witzel:

“Debuted in 1949, a Los Angeles innovation promised total elimination of carhops. At a new drive-in called “The Track,” it attracted customers from as far as Santa Monica with its unique type of service. Like a group of horses at a trough [there’s a gracious image], cars ringed around a central building, forming a circular pattern. Twenty semicircular parking spaces bridged a center kitchen by means of metal tracks. Food and condiments rode the rails within carrying…compartment[s] each powered by a small ½-horsepower motor…. The mechanical setup was reminiscent of the wackiest Rube Goldberg device. Positioned in a pre-determined [?] parking space, the diner rolled down the car window and was greeted by a stainless-steel bin that could be made flush with the door. Inside the box were plastic cups, a water bottle, menu, order pad, and change tray. It was large, too. Food for six people could be ferried back and forth on the elevated platforms. Patrons would jot down their orders and with the push of a button, the unit scooted a return to the kitchen…. When the empty bin arrived at the kitchen, an attendant put through the order and added up the bill. As hamburgers and other entrées were prepared, the rail box made its second journey to the automobile to collect the money. By the time it returned to the preparation area, the food was ready to go—loaded into the compartment along with condiments and the customer’s change. According to inventor Kenneth C. Purdy, the spoke-and-wheel-track arrangement sped service 20-25 percent.”

Well, needless to say, we wanted to know where this madcap drive-in was. There was a 1951 phone-book listing for a “The Track No 3” at 3816 Sepulveda Boulevard in Culver City, now the site of a Carl Jr’s, but current visual cues there don’t jive with the vintage shots seen here. So we squinted at the pics, especially the one at top, and decided that the sign on the Herman-Something real estate office must have said “Herman Shrager”—who, it turns out, dealt in cemetery real estate, as in plots. Anyway, after more digging we found that Herman had an office at 8152 Beverly Boulevard…and eureka! It all fell into place. Across from Herman’s one-time haunt, at the northwest corner of Beverly and Kilkea Drive, the distinctive Welch’s Candy building still stands…and so across Kilkea from Welch’s would have been The Track, at 8123 Beverly. The mini-chain’s other locations may have survived longer, but with maintenance obviously a nightmare and profits hindered with what was clearly too much real estate given over to servicing too few cars, it was all over in a few years. Advertisements for an auction of the pieces of The Track appeared in the Times in February 1952.

The view from the kitchen, above. Below:
Assuming that the contraption made it out to his car,
the driver received his order in this box:

As seen in the Los Angeles Times on February 17, 1952
 Looking north today at Beverly Boulevard and Kilkea Drive
Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Desperate California Anti-Gunners Wreck Junior Shooter Clubs Lawmakers claimed they were just banning marketing guns to kids. by J.D. TUCCILLE

Organized youth shooting is disappearing in California as a result of a new law sold as banning advertising guns to kids but also potentially penalizes any promotion of firearms to minors. Rightfully criticized as a totalitarian attack on gun-oriented speech, the law is also an example of desperation on the part of those opposed to firearms, who lost big in the Supreme Court, see DIY firearms makers slipping beyond their grasp, and are now reduced to lashing out at an entire culture.

“A new California law that bans marketing guns to kids isn’t sitting well with some Glenn County shooting teams,” ActionNewsNow reported July 29. “Some parents and students say this law could end up costing them their sport.”

Glenn County families aren’t alone.

“Due to recent legislation from the California State Assembly, and signed into Law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the USA Clay Target League, DBA USA High School Clay Target League/California State High School Clay Target League, has been forced by law to suspend all operations within California,” USA Clay Target League notes on its website. “California Assembly Bill 2571 … provides for a civil penalty of $25,000 for any and each instance of firearm-related marketing to persons under the age of 18. That includes the ‘… use, or ownership of firearm-related products…’ as well as ‘…events where firearm-related products are sold or used.'”

The law’s chilling effect on shooting sports extends to simple speech involving minors and firearms.

“Due to California Bill A.B. 2571, Junior Shooters is no longer available to juniors (Under 18) from the state of California,” the youth-oriented publication warns online. “If you are a minor in California, please do not continue, otherwise, welcome to Junior Shooters.”

Understandably, the publishers of Junior Shooters are suing the state of California with the assistance of the Second Amendment Foundation.

“The broad-sweeping law applies not only to ‘commercial speech’ targeting children or encouraging them to engage in unlawful behavior, but to a great deal of political and educational speech, truthful commercial speech aimed at adults, and speech promoting activities that are perfectly lawful to engage in—even by minors in California,” warns their motion for a preliminary injunction, which will be heard in federal court on August 22. “Because the law is not tailored to serving a compelling governmental interest, it violates the First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and association.”

Of course, A.B. 2571 wasn’t sold as an attempt to prohibit passing an appreciation for shooting sports from one generation to the next. It was peddled instead as a restriction on marketing guns to kids, as if there’s a danger of tiny tots disguising themselves as their parents to get through the background checks at sporting-goods stores.

“California has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and it is unconscionable that we still allow advertising weapons of war to our children,” Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D–Orinda) huffed in a press release when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure into law on July 1.

But the actual law goes well beyond restricting targeted advertising. Its language could easily be construed to encompass youth shooting teams, firearms publications, and activist organizations. Arguably, A Christmas Story might not pass muster over young Ralphie’s hankering for a Red Ryder BB gun. That’s why legislators were warned by legal experts that their bill didn’t just tread into territory protected by the First Amendment, it stomped all over that ground.

“A gun magazine publisher, for instance—or a gun advocacy group that publishes a magazine—would likely be covered as a ‘firearm industry member,’ because it was formed to advocate for use or ownership of guns, might endorse specific products in product reviews, and might carry advertising for guns,” cautioned UCLA’s Eugene Volokh in testimony that dubbed the measure “unconstitutional.”

The courts will do what the courts will do, of course. But A.B. 2571 resembles a likely piñata for any judge who cares about protections for free speech, without even getting into the Second Amendment implications. So why would gun-hating California lawmakers waste time, effort, and taxpayer money on legislation seemingly doomed to go down to ignominious defeat?

Well, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bruen capped off a tough stretch for gun-rights opponents that began in 2008 with Heller. Many of their favorite restrictions now look legally vulnerable if not outright impermissible under the Constitution’s Second Amendment. On top of that, years of threatening to prohibit popular firearms helped launch a DIY culture of enthusiasts who make guns at home using techniques resistant to regulation. Anti-gunners target unfinished 80 percent firearm receivers only to have innovators respond with zero-percent receivers. And bans on using 3D printers, computer numerical control (CNC) machines, or traditional workshop tools to manufacture firearms are largely unenforceable against people who set out to evade control. So, authoritarians are reduced to desperation and overreaching.

“The problem with this bill is the same problem as the Texas anti-abortion law it mimics: it creates an end run around the essential function of the courts to ensure that constitutional rights are protected,” the California ACLU objected to the state’s recent application to guns of the ill-considered approach in Texas’s law, passed before Dobbs overturned Roe‘s protections for abortion. “Specifically, this bill creates a ‘bounty-hunter’ scheme that authorizes private individuals to bring costly and harassing lawsuits designed and intended to intimidate people from engaging in a proscribed activity without requiring—or even permitting—the government to defend the law the defendants are alleged to have violated.”

As with the Texas law it copies, California’s anti-gun bounty law is widely seen as excessive and dangerous even by many of those who sympathize with its intent. Likewise, a prohibition on “advertising” firearms to minors that criminalizes sports teams, censors publications, and targets an entire culture seeks to escape protections for established liberties in a sweeping attack that has already inflicted collateral damage.

Wounded animals are dangerous, of course, and that’s what anti-gun authoritarians resemble at the moment. With dwindling means to impose their will, and their prey escaping their grasp, anti-gunners are lashing out at more people and freedoms than ever before. They’re going down to defeat, but they’ll take some victims with them.

Categories
California

Sadly but this could be true!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

California Keeps Gun Ownership Lower by Overwhelming Citizens With Laws and Regulations By Grace Stevens

Gavin Newsom - National Governors Association

“One of the mechanisms by which California’s laws produce their effect is [that] we have a substantially lower prevalence of firearm ownership in this state than many other states do,” [UC Davis’s Garen J.] Wintemute says. “There are fewer of those tools in circulation…and no surprise, they get used less.”

Studies show that suicides account for more than half of U.S. gun deaths; and not to mention the casualties caused by mass shootings in schools, churches, supermarkets, and other public places. Recently, California also introduced a law that allows gun violence victims to sue gun manufacturers for the damages their products cause.

“Violence is a very complex health and social problem. There is no easy fix… the one right thing to do is a lot of things at the same time,” Wintemute says. “So that if one intervention doesn’t stop a particular sort of case, maybe another one will. To do one thing in a complex system is to simply allow that system to adapt and continue to produce what it’s going to produce.”

— Andrew D. Johnson in California’s Answer to Gun Violence Could Be a Model for the Entire Country