Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! California

Anti-Gun Researchers Want More Money For California Red Flag Law By Cam Edwards (& I am supposed to be surprised by this call for more $$$!?!)

AP Photo/Julio Cortez
California’s had a “red flag” gun seizure law on the books since 2016, but apparently it’s not being used often enough for gun control activists. The UC-Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, a state-funded anti-gun “research” center headed up by longtime gun control activist Dr. Garen Wintemute, is out with a new report calling on the state to increase funding for the implementation of Extreme Risk Protection Orders that allow the state to confiscate the firearms of anyone a judge deems to be a danger to themselves or others.

I wrote about the due process dangers and the lack of a mental health focus inherent in these red flag laws yesterday, so I won’t re-litigate those arguments here. I do find it interesting, however, that even in California these laws apparently aren’t that popular, and haven’t even been used in many counties. Wintemute and his colleagues chalk that up to a lack of information about red flag laws among law enforcement agencies and the general public, but I think they’re unfairly discounting the idea that in many counties, there’s not a lot of support for red flag gun confiscations.

In order to conduct their “research,” Wintemute and his colleagues conducted “semi-structured interviews” with ” 27 key informants, including judges, law enforcement officers, city and district attorneys, policy experts, and firearm violence researchers” to talk about how well (or not) red flag petitions are being implemented. No number crunching involved here, just subjective interviews with folks, the vast majority of whom have undoubtably already come to the conclusion that red flag laws are valuable and needed “gun safety” tools. In fact, the study authors admit as much:

Potential key informants were selected due to their experience with or demonstrated knowledge of GVROs (e.g., through published reports). They were identified through professional relationships with the authors, activity in the gun violence prevention community, public records indicating involvement in the service or disposition of GVROs, and by recommendation from other informants.

Was there a single stakeholder interviewed who has a knowledge of “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” but who thinks they’re a bad idea? Given the fact that (according to Wintemute) only 14 of California’s 58 counties had enforced a red flag gun seizure order between 2016 and 2020, it shouldn’t have been difficult to find a sheriff or D.A. with an opinion contrary to those writing the report. It sounds to me like these “researchers” simply weren’t interested in hearing another point of view. And why would they, if they already knew that the gist of the report was going to be “red flag laws are good, but here’s how they could be better”?

So the state-funded “research” center came to the completely unsurprising conclusion that more state funds are needed to improve how Gun Violence Restraining Orders are implemented. Any problems with the law (including the fact that in 50% of cases handled by one police officer, individuals refused to give up their guns) can be addressed by throwing money at it. Or rather, any problems that the gun control lobby and their political allies are willing to acknowledge can have more tax dollars thrown at it. Inherent defects like a lack of counsel for those who can’t afford to hire an attorney or a low legal standard for a finding of dangerousness, on the other hand, can be brushed aside and ignored completely.

If this sounds more like propaganda than research, I’m with you. Unfortunately, we can expect this same gun control advocacy disguised as objective science to soon be coming from our federal government, not just anti-gun academics in California, thanks to the CDC’s newfound interest in researching “gun violence.” Millions of dollars have already been appropriated to various academics around the country who’ll soon be issuing reports of their own that either lavish praise on gun control laws already in place in some states or warn of the dire consequences of not imposing those restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. It’s far more junk than science, and unfortunately its our tax dollars (well, more like our grandchildren’s tax dollars at this point, given how much we’re borrowing) that’s paying for it.

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

Don’t let California persecute gun owners by Washington Examiner

The Democrats’ assault on the First Amendment has been so brazen lately that it’s often easy to forget that they have been waging an even longer and more concerted battle against the Second Amendment.

In states where Democrats hold complete control, such as California, they can be counted on to do whatever they can to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns — or at least to harass them to the point that it is as difficult as possible.

When they aren’t trying to ban the most popular rifles (even though they are almost never used in crimes), they are filing dubious lawsuits against gun manufacturers for consumers’ misuse of their products. When they aren’t devising cutesy ideas such as ammunition taxes, they are trying to pass rules under strange pretexts, such as environmental rules supposedly designed to protect animals from eating the lead in bullets, but are really just trying to make it impossible to use bullets.

Another such cute proposal has just been signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure, AB 173, will soon give researchers at the California Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of California-Davis access to all the information that the state collects about gun and ammunition purchasers , including personally identifying information, although this is supposedly not to be “transferred, revealed, and used for purposes other than research.”

Although the media try to tell a different story, Democrats’ obsession with identifying and tracking gun owners has been the single biggest obstacle to reforms that would help keep guns out of the wrong hands at the federal level. The best such proposal , which would have dramatically reduced the number of transactions lacking background checks, was rejected by the Obama administration after the Sandy Hook massacre because it deliberately avoided creating databases that could be used to track gun owners.

More to the point, California’s state government already has the bad habit of using the information it keeps on gun owners to hound them in a way other states do not. In 2013, the state began a very expensive program of doubtful effectiveness to seize guns from purchasers who subsequently were rendered ineligible — for example, due to a criminal conviction or even just a nasty divorce.

Earlier this month, California Rifle and Pistol Association Legislative Director Roy Griffith wrote to Newsom , asking him to veto the bill. He correctly argued that gun owners deserve privacy just as much as all other consumers, who are protected in California from the dissemination of their personal information by Proposition 24, passed in 2020.

“The identities and confidential personal information of individuals should only be provided by … state entities to law enforcement agencies when conducting an investigation that has a specific need for it,” writes Griffith. “No other entity, not even research institutions, has sufficient justification to have access to an individual’s private information.

If government workers leak private IRS data despite felony penalties, California gun owners’ private data will be leaked too. It is not a question of if, but of when. This will not only violate gun owners’ privacy, but it will also give criminals a nice list from which to work when looking for guns to steal.

Even before that inevitably happens, there is simply no reason to send the personal information of gun owners to anti-gun academics. The federal courts must step in to preserve Second Amendment rights in the states.

 

 

 

 

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

California: San Diego County Considering Further Restrictions on Home-Built Firearms

California: San Diego County Considering Further Restrictions on Home-Built Firearms

On October 19th, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal to direct the drafting of an ordinance to further restrict the centuries-old practice of home-building firearms for personal use. You may click here to find details about the meeting. Please submit comments against the proposal by clicking the button below.

This proposal calls for the drafting of an ordinance to go beyond existing California law to define “’ghost guns,’ precursor parts for such guns and unserialized parts and guns,” ban the possession of unserialized parts for building firearms, prohibit making unserialized firearms or precursor parts specifically by 3D printing, and impose one-size-fits-all requirements for firearm storage.

California law already requires individuals to first apply for and receive serial numbers before assembling a home-built firearm and sets an allotted time for application. However, California law does not ban the possession of unserialized “materials” lacking the requisite milling to be considered a finished frame or receiver. In addition, it is already illegal under federal and state law for prohibited persons, such as felons, to possess firearms, regardless of whether they are factory, commercial firearms or home-built.

Such restrictions simply continue to cut off access to law-abiding citizens who wish to build their own firearm for personal use in accordance with federal and state law. By singling out 3D printing, it also tries to prevent hobbyists and tinkerers from exploring this emerging manufacturing process. There is no mention on whether it would similarly restrict making precursor parts by legacy manufacturing techniques, such as welding, milling, casting, or stamping, which are also widely available to consumers.

Again, please submit comments against this proposal.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Allies California Cops

Wyatt Earp: Legend of the Wild West

Categories
Born again Cynic! California

Long Beach, California in 1912 (In some ways we sure have gone downhill from then!)

r/LosAngeles - Long Beach, Los Angeles in the year 1910 (colorized)

Categories
Being Stranger in a Strange Land California

California Grossly Expands Legal Definition of ‘Assault Weapon’ by Ammoland Inc

California Flag NRA-ILA

The California Department of Justice announced recently that those small number of firearms covered by SB 118 would need to be registered. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Following the passage of Senate Bill 118 during the 2020 Legislative Session, the California Department of Justice announced recently that those small number of firearms covered by SB 118 would need to be registered.  The registration period for “Other Assault Weapons” will open on October 1, 2021, and run through the end of the year.  For those who intend to comply with this registration requirement, please see the below information:

Penal Code section 30900, as amended, requires any person who, prior to September 1, 2020, lawfully possessed an assault weapon as defined by Penal Code Section 30515 subdivision (a) paragraphs (9), (10), and (11), and is eligible to register an assault weapon as set forth in Penal Code Section 30900, subdivision (c), to submit an application to the DOJ to register the firearm before January 1, 2022. The regulations for Other Assault Weapon Registration that contain additional information regarding registration requirements are now available on the Firearms Regulations/Rulemaking Activities webpage.

What is considered an “Other” assault weapon?

Pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (c), paragraph (1), effective September 1, 2020, an “Other” assault weapon is defined in Penal Code section 30515, subdivision (a), paragraphs (9), (10), or (11), as:

  1. A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that does not have a fixed magazine, but that has any one of the following:
    1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
    2. A thumbhole stock.
    3. A folding or telescoping stock.
    4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
    5. A flash suppressor.
    6. A forward pistol grip.
    7. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
    8. A second handgrip.
    9. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
    10. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
  2. A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  3. A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that has an overall length of fewer than 30 inches.

For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

 


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

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

How California got tough on guns BY BEN CHRISTOPHER

Pistol and bullets laying on table

The modern American gun debate began in 1967, when 30 protesting members of the Black Panther Party marched into the California Capitol with loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles. In California there were few restrictions on carrying loaded weapons in public.

That soon changed. The Panthers’ efforts to “police the police” already had led Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford to propose legislation to ban the “open carry” of loaded firearms within California cities and towns. After the Panthers showed up in the Capitol, his bill sailed through and was signed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan. It’s hard to say which now seems more unlikely: that two dozen revolutionaries could legally stroll into the state Assembly chamber with semi-automatic rifles, or that a Republican governor would champion stricter gun control.

In the years since, California’s progressive politicians have layered on restrictions while gun owners and manufacturers continue to try to find their way out of them.

The latest: On June 4, 2021 — National Gun Violence Awareness Day — a federal judge deemed California’s ban on assault weapons a “failed experiment” and unconstitutional, although he stayed his own ruling to give the state time to appeal, which it did. And on June 21, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the judge’s decision while other gun cases are pending. The case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A 2016 ballot measure championed by Newsom required background checks to purchase ammunition, but that and another provision of the measure, banning high-capacity magazines have both stalled after a federal district court judge declared them unconstitutional. Both rulings are also being appealed.

The battle continues. Gov. Gavin Newsom denounces “a gun lobby willing to sacrifice the lives of our children to line their pockets.” A National Rifle Association spokesman predicts the Trump-altered Supreme Court means “winter may very well be coming for gun laws in California.”

How strict are California’s gun laws compared to other states?

California has a reputation for being tough on guns. That reputation is well-earned.

Researchers at Boston University have counted 111 California laws that in some way restrict “the manner and space in which firearms can be used.” They include regulations on dealers and buyers, background check requirements, and possession bans directed at certain “high risk” individuals.

By their count, no other state out-regulates California when it comes to sheer quantity of rules. And we’ve held that top spot since at least 1991, the year the researchers started counting.

The Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, awarded California one of only two “A” grades in its 2020 state gun law scorecard.

“There are not a lot of As out there,” said Ari Freilich, the organization’s California legislative affairs director. “California has driven the conversation nationally.”

In contrast, Guns and Ammo magazine labeled California the 5th worst state for gun owners. (Washington D.C. was the top jurisdiction, followed by New York.)

California’s pattern: tragedy, legislation, repeat

The story of how California became, according to many, the state with the nation’s most restrictive gun laws has largely followed a familiar pattern:  alarm or tragedy, then a legislative response.

Getting specific: What are California’s gun rules?

Guns laws cover the who, what, where, when and how of buying, selling, lending, leasing, storing and firing guns. By national standards, California law is strict on just about all of these points.

How does gun violence in California compare to elsewhere?

The United States is not an especially crime-ridden nation. Overall crime rates here are roughly on par with other high-income countries. Where the country stands out—way out—from its international peers is in gun violence.

The U.S. has a gun death rate (all causes of death, including suicide and accidental death) of roughly 11 per 100,000 people. According to research out of the University of Washington, that puts the U.S. in the company of Panama and the Dominican Republic.

Recently guns became the second leading cause of death of children and teens across the country.

At 7.5 gun deaths per 100,000, gun violence in California is much lower than the national average. But that isn’t particularly low by international standards. We have roughly the same gun fatality rate as South Africa. In 2019, 2,945 Californians were killed by guns.

Homicides and suicides by gun claim very different victims

As in the rest of the country, gun violence in California is not equally distributed.

Firearm fatalities are a disproportionately male tragedy. According to research from UC Davis, men are more than seven times more likely to be killed by someone else with a gun than women. Men are also more than eight times more likely to take their own lives with a firearm.

While mass shootings seize public attention, they do not claim the most lives. Half of gun deaths in California are suicides—a disproportionate number of them among white men over the age of 50. Most gun homicides, meanwhile, are not high-profile acts of mass carnage, but random outbursts of violence that strike communities least likely to draw news crews.

The geography of violence

There is some good news.

Over the last decade and a half, the average annual homicide rate has fallen nearly in half in California. That’s a steeper drop off than across the nation as a whole. According to a UC Davis study, most of that decline here has occurred in the state’s biggest urban areas. Contrary to the stereotype of gun-ridden big cities, there is now no significant difference in the rate of gun violence between rural and urban areas in California.

Do California’s gun laws work?

Supporters of California’s rigorous gun controls have a pretty compelling argument on their side: California has tough gun laws and it has relatively low rates of gun violence. And that’s a relationship that generally holds true across all 50 states.

But as with any thorny sociological question—particularly one where lives, livelihoods, deeply held values and constitutional law all hang in the balance—it’s probably more complicated than that.

Do tight gun laws lead to lower deaths? Or is it that states with less gun violence (due to different cultural attitudes about guns or varying economic and demographic patterns) are more likely to adopt tighter gun controls?

There seems to be relatively strong evidence that denying firearms to at least certain “high-risk” individuals leads to lower levels of violence. Three separate studies found that in states that keep guns away from those under domestic violence restraining orders, gun homicide rates between partners are 9 to 25 percent lower. California has such a law on the books. A similar study found that denying guns to those with misdemeanor violent crime convictions reduced their chances of being rearrested for another violent crime by 30 percent. California has this type of gun ban in place too.

Do comprehensive background checks keep guns away from those who shouldn’t have them?

One study concluded California’s law had relatively little effect—suggesting vendors skirting the rules and lax enforcement could be why. But another study estimated that when states require gun vendors to get licensed, conduct background checks and are subject to inspection, gun homicides can be expected to fall by more than 50 percent. An overview of the research from the RAND Corporation found suggestive but “limited evidence that background checks reduce violent crime.”

And concealed carry laws?

landmark economic study from the mid-1990s found evidence that making it easier for people to carry reduced crime, supporting the NRA’s “good guy with a gun” theory. But more recent research using the same statistical techniques but with a larger dataset claims to show the exact opposite.

“What probably has the greatest impact are a number of things acting together—just the pure volume of laws,” said Eric Fleegler, a pediatric emergency physician at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor at Harvard University. “We are studying legislation and not randomized control trials. But overall, when you look at systematic reviews of legislation on homicides and suicides, it is fairly clear that legislation designed to place reasonable restrictions on how firearms are sold or maintained or stored does lead to decreased fatality rates.”

The politics of California’s gun debate

Gavin Newsom’s first press conference as governor-elect took place on the morning of November 8, 2018, just eleven hours after a gunman opened fire at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks killing 13 people including himself. “The response is not just prayers,” Newsom said. “The response cannot just be more excuses. The response sure as hell cannot be more guns.”

A few days later he doubled down on Twitter, calling the National Rifle Association “a fraudulent organization” and “completely complicit” in the massacre.

No one familiar with Newsom’s career could have been surprised. He was the driving force behind Proposition 63, a 2016 ballot measure that put sweeping new restrictions on ammunition sales and banned high-capacity magazines (like the ones used in Thousand Oaks).

“We’re preparing for the worst,” said Chuck Michel, head of the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

Pro-gun arguments once resonated in California. In 1982, a proposition to cap the number of handguns* in California lost by 63 percent of the vote—taking the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Tom Bradley along with it. The reason, according to a Washington Post analysis from the time, was that “people who did not ordinarily bother with politics and politicians were coming out in droves to save their unrestricted right to bear arms.”

But that silent, well-armed majority failed to materialize in 2016 when Prop. 63 passed—also with 63 percent of the vote.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents in a recent survey from the Public Policy Institute of California said that gun laws should be “more strict” than they are now. Included in that group were 49 percent of the conservatives surveyed.

According to Craig DeLuz, the California director of legislative affairs for the Firearms Policy Coalition, those numbers reflect a misconception of what’s already on the books.

“If there are reasonable firearms regulation out there, we’ve already passed that point,” he said. “A lot of people are completely unaware that most of the things that the average voter believes to be ‘reasonable’ are already in place in California.”

Brave new world: The tech future of guns

California is often considered the innovation hub of the United States. Why should it be any different for guns?

The state’s tough firearm laws have led “many entrepreneurs to ‘innovate’ ways around the law,” said Ari Freilich of the Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence.

Consider the case of the bullet button.* In 2001, California expanded its ban on new “assault weapons”* to include any modern semi-automatic rifle* with a detachable magazine* and at least one of a handful of other features, including a protruding pistol grip* or an adjustable stock*. To get around the ban, many gun owners came up with a solution: install a small lock on the magazine that can be easily opened with a small tool (or the tip of a bullet). Legally speaking, that tiny bit of hardware would transform a contraband assault weapon with a detachable magazine into a perfectly legal rifle with an ever-so-slightly-less detachable magazine.

In 2017, California lawmakers caught on and amended the law. That prompted the development of yet another workaround device: the Patriot Pin. And so the arms race over arms design continues in California.

With so many regulations now in place on newly manufactured firearms, many gun enthusiasts are simply building their own guns—or at least, they’re putting together the final pieces.

One of the most popular firearm products in California are “80 percent” or “unfinished” receivers.* Receivers are the central frame of a firearm onto which all the other components are connected. “Unfinished” simply means it lacks a few cavities and holes. But legally, that makes all the difference. Under both federal and California law, an unfinished receiver is just an elaborately shaped piece of metal. Under a law passed in 2016, Californians with home-finished receivers were given until January 1st of 2019 to register their gun with the state. It’s not clear how widespread compliance has been.

Still, plenty of lawmakers are worried about the spread of unidentifiable “ghost guns.” In 2017, a man with two home-built semi-automatic rifles killed five people and shot up an Elementary School in Tehama County. In 2019, a man killed a highway patrol officer in Riverside County with a home-assembled AR-15-style rifle. A student at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita also used a kit-assembled weapon to murder two fellow schoolmates before killing himself. In 2016, a proposal to designate unfinished receivers as legal “firearms” passed both the Assembly and Senate, but was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

“By defining certain metal components as a firearm because they could ultimately be made into a homemade weapon, this bill could trigger potential application of myriad and serious criminal penalties,” Brown wrote in his veto message.

But with a new governor came a new approach. In 2019, Gov. Newsom signed a law requiring anyone hoping to purchase an unfinished receiver to undergo a background check. The law doesn’t go into effect until 2024.

And in 2021, newly-elected president Joe Biden followed suit. In early April, Biden announced three new executive orders aimed at curbing gun violence. One would require unfinished receivers to be etched with a serial number and subject ghost gun purchasers to a background check.

The gun fight in court

California’s Department of Justice is holding the line as gun rights advocates push back in ways that could have dramatic consequences for state law.

In 2016, state voters passed Proposition 63, which banned magazines with a capacity to hold 10 rounds or more. Though a 2000 law restricted the sale and manufacture of new high-capacity magazines, existing owners had been grandfathered in. Prop. 63 effectively un–grandfathered them. Five gun owners and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (the state branch of the National Rifle Association) sued. After the courts agreed to place a temporary hold on the Prop. 63 ban, federal district judge Roger Benitez issued a searing opinion, holding that the Second Amendment also applies to commonly-owned high-capacity magazines. “Without a right to keep and bear…the magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless,” he wrote. California appealed the decision. In August 2020, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal agreed. “Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” wrote Judge Kenneth Lee, a Trump appointee. “Firearm magazines are ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment.” The state has asked for another hearing before the entire Ninth Circuit.

Prop. 63 also requires Californians to get their ammo only from state-licensed vendors in face-to-face transactions. Out-of-state vendors hoping to get into the California cartridge* market are therefore required to go through a certified California vendor to broker the transaction. A lawsuit filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Association (NRA) and California-born Olympic skeet shooter Kim Rhode contends the new law puts an excessive burden on “interstate commerce” and that it violates the Second Amendment. In April 2020, the same federal district judge who slapped the state down in the Duncan case put a hold on the background check law writing that such checks “do not work,” that “every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear firearms and ammunition” and that Prop. 63 is “precisely what the Bill of Rights was intended to protect us from – a majority trampling upon important individual rights.” The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. In March 2021, three judges from the court put the proceedings on hold to wait for a ruling in the Duncan case.

Since 2001, California has only allowed handguns to be sold, imported, or manufactured in California if they are considered “not unsafe” by the state. The Department of Justice maintains a list of these approved firearms, known as the “roster.”* In 2009, gun rights activists sued, arguing that the roster impinges on gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and that the rationale the state uses to keep certain guns off the list is “arbitrary and capricious.” In recent years, as the state has placed more restrictions on new firearms, opponents of the roster have said it amounts to a “slow-motion handgun ban.” On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

In 2015, the U.S. State Department settled a case with the Texas nonprofit Defense Distributed, allowing it to publish its 3D-printable gun designs online. California joined a multi-state lawsuit filed by the State of Washington against the federal government. The states argue that allowing the release of those codes violated their right to regulate firearms within their own borders. In November 2019, a federal judge sided with the states. But this being the Internet, the files are out there.

The U.S. Supreme Court in early 2019 agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to a New York City law that did not allow most handgun* owners to take their firearm outside their homes unless they’re going to an authorized shooting range and barred them from taking their guns outside the city entirely. California has a lot at stake in the outcome. In 2010 the Supreme Court affirmed every American’s individual right to bear arms “in the home for the purpose of self-defense.” An expansive ruling on the case from New York, as some court watchers initially predicted, could find that the right to bear arms exists outside the home as well, potentially sweeping away California’s restrictions on both open and concealed carry in a single decision. “Winter may very well be coming for gun laws in California,” the head of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Chuck Michel, told NRATV. “We may be able to knock more than a few of those out.” But New York City has since repealed the rule and in April 2020, the Court dismissed the case as moot.

Pro-gun rights advocates, two 20-year-old gun enthusiasts and a handful of gun shops sued the State of California in July 2019, arguing that a new state law setting the legal gun-purchasing age at 21 unjustifiably “prohibits an entire class of adults from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” The law in question was authored by Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Cañada Flintridge, and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in late 2018. It extended the age limit from handguns to all firearms, but some exceptions remain for young police officers, members of the military and anyone with a valid hunting license.

Building off an early victory in Duncan v Becerra, when a district court judge held that the state’s ban on large capacity magazines violates that Second Amendment, gun rights groups from San Diego doubled down, challenging California’s entire “assault weapon” ban on the same grounds. The 19-year-old ban defines an assault weapon as any semiautomatic rifle with some combination of suspect features, including a detachable magazine. Because the court already froze the state’s large magazine ban, the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee argues, any law that forbids the purchase of a weapon based on its use of such a magazine must also be unconstitutional.

On June 4, 2021, Roger Benitez, the same federal district judge who struck down the state’s ban on large magazines, sided with the San Diego gun owners. In a lengthy and scalding opinion, he called California’s assault weapons ban a “30-year-old failed experiment” and ruled that the Second Amendment only allows firearms to be banned outright in “extreme cases,” such as “bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns.”

Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed, and on June 21, 2021, a federal appeals court blocked Benitez’s ruling.

How to sound smart about guns: a glossary

Guns are complicated. So is gun policy. Here are some terms and phrases to help you make sense of it all.

AR-15-style rifle: A particularly popular style of semi-automatic rifle, this one is based on the original ArmaLite AR-15, built for U.S. military in the late 1950s which relabeled it the M-16. Since the expiration of the AR-15 patent, many manufacturers have produced a wide array of similarly designed, modular semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 style is among the most popular in the United States. People who aren’t gun enthusiasts will likely recognize it as the weapon of choice for mass shooters at San Bernardino, California; Sandy Hook, Connecticut; Parkland, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.

Assault rifle: A rifle capable of fully automatic and semi-automatic modes of fire. Based on this definition, federal law prohibits civilians from owning assault rifles manufactured after 1986. However, other definitions are occasionally used. Adding to the confusion, an “assault rifle” is not the same thing as an “assault weapon” (see below).

Assault weapon: A nebulous, politically-charged term that dates back to at least 1980. California law offers a wide-ranging definition that encompasses any “semi-automatic, centerfire rifle” with a detachable magazine and at least one of a handful of other features, including a protruding pistol grip or an adjustable stock. This mix and match approach to defining a banned weapon has led to some creative workarounds from gun enthusiasts. But California also explicitly includes a number of makes and models in its ban, including the original AR-15 and other high-powered rifles. Gun control activists argue that the term “assault weapon” is a useful term to describe a weapon with enhanced killing power, while gun rights advocates dismiss it an imprecise catch-all designed to turn the public against any firearm that happens to looks like an assault rifle, regardless of its actual lethality.

Automatic: A firearm or firearm setting that will allow the gun to be fired continuously until the trigger is released or the gun runs out of ammunition.

Bullet: A projectile shot from a firearm. A bullet is one component of a complete round or cartridge. To reiterate: a bullet is not a cartridge.

Bullet button: A magazine release that can only be activated with a pointed tool or the tip of a bullet (hence the name). These devices were invented to convert a firearm with a detachable magazine into a firearm with slightly-less detachable magazines so as to comply with California’s assault weapon ban. California includes a detachable magazine as one of the components in its definition of restricted weapons. A 2017 state law effectively closed the “bullet button loophole,” meaning that any firearm with the device is still legally considered to have a detachable magazine and therefore, possibly, an assault weapon.

Bump Stock: An adjustable rifle stock that uses the force of the firearm’s recoil to allow the trigger to be repeatedly pulled. A kind of multiburst trigger activator, this effectively allows a semiautomatic weapon to simulate automatic fire. Bump stocks gained national attention after a shooter used one to kill nearly 60 people and wound hundreds more in Las Vegas in 2017. They are banned by both federal and state law.

Caliber: The diameter of a cartridge (or sometimes the bore of a firearm itself). Typically measured as fractions of an inch (for example, .22) or millimeters (for example, 9 mm).

Cartridge: A unit of ammunition for a firearm that often includes a bullet, primer and propellent (i.e. gunpowder) within a casing. Also called a “round.” To reiterate: a cartridge is not a bullet.

Casing: The metal container for a unit of ammunition. Sometimes called a “shell.”

Clip: A device used to hold multiple rounds together, which allows multiple rounds to be loaded into a firearm with an internal magazine at once. Clips are rarely used today except with older long guns.

Centerfire: A round-type that, when fired, is struck by the firing pin in the center of the back—used in most modern firearms as the rounds can accept higher power (as opposed to rimfire).

Concealed carry license: California is one of eight states that allow civilians to carry a concealed weapon only if local law enforcement agencies decide to give them a permit. This distinguishes California from “shall issue” states, in which concealed carry permits must be issued as long as an applicant meets the legally specified requirements, and “permitless” or “right to carry” states where no permit is required.

Gauge: A unit of measure for the diameter of a firearm barrel, typically used for shotguns. The origin is slight anachronistic: a gauge refers to the number of lead balls that one could snuggly fit inside the barrel of the gun if only drawing from one pound of lead. In other words, the smaller the gauge, the bigger the gun.

Gun Show Loophole: Under federal law, individuals can sell firearms without a license as long as they don’t make a living off the trade. These amateur sellers are not subject to federal requirements—namely, that they must conduct background checks on their purchasers. In California, all sales must be conducted through a licensed vendor, closing the “loophole.”

Handgun: California defines a handgun as “any pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.” Also sometimes a “short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun.”

Handgun Roster: California law bans the sale or manufacture of any handgun that doesn’t meet state safety standards. According to data compiled by the CalGuns Foundation, a gun rights organization, the number of firearms on the list has declined each year since 2013. As of the end of January 2019, there were over 700 models on the list.

Magazine: A spring-loaded device used to hold multiple rounds designed to load each round into the firearm’s firing chamber with a spring. Some firearms have internal magazines into which ammunition must be manually loaded, while others have detachable magazines which allow for quicker unloading and reloading.

Microstamp: Any technology that stamps a unique identifying mark on the round casing when the gun is fired. In theory, this acts like a fingerprint, allowing law enforcement to track an empty shell at a crime scene to a particular gun. California law requires all new semi-automatic pistols sold in the state to include microstamping technology. Gun advocates argue that the technology is untested and prohibitively expensive for manufacturers to implement and that the law is effectively a “backdoor ban” on an entire class of newly manufactured firearms.

Multiburst trigger activator: Any enhancement that allows a semi-automatic weapon to fire multiple rounds with each pull of the trigger simulating automatic fire. A bump-stock is a notable example. Other devices use recoil, a crank, or internal mechanisms to the same effect.

Pistol: A handgun in which the chamber that holds that ammunition is part of the barrel. This is opposed to a revolver.

Pistol Grip: A grip that extends beneath the receiver allowing the shooter to hold and fire the weapon like a pistol (with a straight wrist). Under California law, a “pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath” the weapon can be one of the defining features of an “assault weapon.”

Revolver: A handgun in which the chambers holding ammunition revolve around a cylinder.

Rimfire: A round that can be fired by striking anywhere on the back of the round—rarely used today except for low powered firearms. As opposed to centerfire.

Receiver: The frame of the gun that houses the firing mechanisms. Under U.S. federal law, this is considered the firearm and regulated as such. As of January 1, all receivers in California must have a state-issued serial number.

Semi-automatic: A firearm that will fire a single shot and then automatically load a new round into the chamber each time the trigger is pulled.

Stock: The rear portion of a rifle or shotgun that is often held to shoulder for support.

Unfinished Receiver: The frame of the gun that houses the firing mechanisms, but which lacks a channel or pocket for the gun’s firing mechanism. Once those modifications have been made with a drill press or another tool, the receiver is legally considered a firearm (though only legally; additional components are required before it can shoot). Also called “80 percent lower receivers.” As of January 1, all finished receivers must be serialized under California. A bill requiring unfinished receivers be registered was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU

Want to submit a guest commentary or reaction to an article we wrote? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact CalMatters with any commentary questions: [email protected] .

Ben Christopher

Ben covers California politics and elections. Prior to that, he was a contributing writer for CalMatters reporting on the state’s economy and budget. Based out of the San Francisco Bay Area, he has written

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

How to get a California concealed weapons permit

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

California: Registration for “Assault Weapons” to Re-Open

 

AR-15 NRA-ILA
California to re-open so-called “Assault Weapon’ registration. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The California Department of Justice has announced that they will reopen the registration period of “bullet button assault weapons” from January 13, 2022, until April 12, 2022, due to a federal court order. This time period is reserved for gun owners who had wished to comply with the original registration period that ended in 2018 but were unable to do so due to technical difficulties.

Click here to view the official announcement.

An individual’s firearms will only be registered if all of the following requirements are met:

    1. The person would have been eligible to register an assault weapon under subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 30900;   
    2. The person lawfully possessed each assault weapon they seek to register before January 1, 2017;
    3. The person verifies under penalty of perjury that they attempted to register the assault weapon prior to the original registration deadline of midnight on July 1, 2018, but they were unable to do so because of technical difficulties during the registration process; and 
    4. The person timely registers the assault weapon between 9 a.m. on January 13, 2022, and 9 a.m. on April 12, 2022.”

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.​


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

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

California: Registration for “Assault Weapons” to Re-Open Posted on September 13, 2021 by NRAHQ

AR-15 NRA-ILA
California to re-open so-called “Assault Weapon’ registration. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The California Department of Justice has announced that they will reopen the registration period of “bullet button assault weapons” from January 13, 2022, until April 12, 2022, due to a federal court order. This time period is reserved for gun owners who had wished to comply with the original registration period that ended in 2018 but were unable to do so due to technical difficulties.

Click here to view the official announcement.

An individual’s firearms will only be registered if all of the following requirements are met:

    1. The person would have been eligible to register an assault weapon under subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 30900;   
    2. The person lawfully possessed each assault weapon they seek to register before January 1, 2017;
    3. The person verifies under penalty of perjury that they attempted to register the assault weapon prior to the original registration deadline of midnight on July 1, 2018, but they were unable to do so because of technical difficulties during the registration process; and 
    4. The person timely registers the assault weapon between 9 a.m. on January 13, 2022, and 9 a.m. on April 12, 2022.”

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.​


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org