California Supreme Court Upholds ‘Impossible’ Gun Control Law
FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images
The Supreme Court of California upheld a micro-stamping requirement for semiautomatic handguns Thursday — even though the technology does not exist to allow manufacturers to comply.
The Associated Press summed up the court’s ruling: “The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.”
Juliet Williams
✔@JWilliamsAP
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In ruling on bullet-stamping law, California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.
The microstamping requirement, or “bullet stamping law,” as it is sometimes called. Requires that semiautomatic handguns sold in California have a special, one-of-kind marker affixed to their firing pins so a special fingerprint is left on each spent shell casing.
The idea is to give law enforcement a means to take shell casings from a crime scene and trace them back to the firearm’s owner.
Many problems exist with this proposed scenario. First, the technology does not exist. No manufacturer who is importing guns into California makes a firearm that puts a special mark on spent shell casings.
California Authorities Seize 500 Firearms From Convicted Felon
Posted at 4:00 pm on June 20, 2018 by Tom Knighton
When you talk about states with the most strict gun control laws in the country, only a fool would exclude California from that conversation. The state prides itself on its gun control, and firearms are difficult for even the law-abiding citizen to obtain. There’s no way a felon could amass a pile of guns, right?
Right?
Oh, wait, that’s right. Criminals don’t follow any law they don’t want to obey. That includes gun laws, which is probably why this happened.
Authorities in California acting on a tip swept into a rural home and seized more than 500 guns from a convicted felon, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said.
The tip indicated Manuel Fernandez, 60, was “in possession of a large arsenal of firearms,” the department said in a statement. On Thursday, a team of state and local officers raided the house in Agua Dulce, about 45 miles north of Los Angeles. Authorities immediately seized 432 guns, the department said.
…
The next day, another 91 guns were found hidden at the Fernandez’s home, authorities said. Detectives also seized computers, cellphones and hard drives believed to be involved in the illegal purchase of firearms, the department said.
Another 30 guns were found at the home of a female associate of Fernandez.
Needless to say, Fernandez was arrested. He’ll probably spend a whole lot of time behind bars.
While authorities believe Fernandez was involved in the illegal gun trade, it’s important to remember something. This one individual was able to get his hands on more than 500 firearms despite his status as a felon. This despite the numerous laws designed to prevent him from doing so.
In fact, it’s almost like the laws did precisely nothing to keep guns out of Fernandez’s hands.
Nothing at all.
This individual was able to amass a massive arsenal for whatever purpose in spite of the countless laws explicitly meant to prevent just that. But criminals, by their very nature, don’t obey laws. Fernandez went around the law in some way, shape, or form to obtain all those weapons. This should illustrate the fallacy of gun laws keeping firearms out of criminal hands.
However, anti-gunners are experts at ignoring the truth.
They’ll look at this as evidence that more laws are needed. They’ll see this and be absolutely convinced that at least one more law is required. One more measure to pass and all of this could have been prevented.
The thing is, even if we learn precisely how Fernandez got these weapons, there’s little that will stop a determined criminal from getting guns. As noted yesterday, there’s a gun in this country for every man, woman, child, and infant. We have more than enough guns already in circulation that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a fool’s errand.
Yes, we should enforce the laws on the books. We should enforce them vigorously. But we should also make sure the law-abiding have the means to defend themselves from predators.
California sucks on that count.
Meanwhile, they can’t stop a felon from amassing a real arsenal of guns regardless of what the law says. Funny that.
Law-abiding Californians’ right to buy and sell AR-15s and other popular semi-automatic rifles shrank this week after a judge upheld state rules targeting “assault weapons.”
The National Rifle Association’s state affiliate had challenged rules, set to take effect on July 1, that expand the existing definition of “assault weapon” to include centerfire rifles with “bullet buttons,” plus a slew of handguns and shotguns. Those rules, the group’s lawsuit argued, extend far beyond what a 2016 state law authorized.
“The legislature has found and declared that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of the citizenry of California,” Superior Court Judge Mark Snauffer, a Democratic appointee in Fresno, wrote in an little-noticed opinion published Wednesday. “The challenged regulations appear to carry out the intention of the legislature.”
Snauffer’s decision underscores how hostile to gun owners the California judiciary has become. Just as the state is trying to nullify federal marijuana and immigration laws, it’s also trying to effectively nullify the federal Second Amendment. And unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, California’s anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats might get away with it.
“We’re disappointed but not surprised,” says Sean Brady, an attorney at Michel & Associates who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association in the case, known as Villanueva v. Becerra. “These complex technical cases are usually challenging, particularly when you’re up against the state.”
The technical question arises from a fairly straightforward law. In 2016, the California legislature expanded the definition of so-called assault weapons to sweep in ones outfitted with a bullet button. A bullet button is a quick release system that allows magazines to be swapped in and out by using a bullet tip as a tool. The goal of the law was to restrict removable magazines.
But the state Department of Justice seems to be targeting more firearms—and requiring their registration by July 1 upon pain of criminal penalties—than the law actually authorizes. The plaintiffs argue, convincingly, that the department “has promulgated and is currently enforcing a whole host of regulations that go far beyond the registration process without adhering to the [Administrative Procedure Act’s] requirements.”
For instance, the regulations reclassify certain shotguns as assault weapons (assault shotguns?), move up the deadline for obtaining a serial number for 3D-printed or homemade firearms, and limit the definition of “family member” for joint registrations of affected firearms.
Under California law, probably the most Draconian in the country, so-called assault weapons are heavily restricted. They cannot be rented at gun ranges. They cannot be inherited. They cannot be sold to another California resident. They cannot be imported. And owning one is a crime unless it’s registered with the government. Officials appear to hope that the number of Californians with fully functional AR-15s or equivalents will keep shrinking and eventually, with time, drop to zero.
In addition to this administrative challenge to the 2016 Assault Weapons Control Act, the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed a constitutional challenge invoking the Second Amendment. It had no more success. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, an Obama appointee, sided with the state a few weeks ago, saying: “Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right.”
A third lawsuit challenging the Assault Weapons Control Act on both constitutional and administrative grounds has been on hold since it was filed in November. Plaintiffs in this case, Holt v. Becerra, include the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
“We’re very disappointed in what I think is a very wrong ruling by the court in Fresno,” says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “We’re reviewing it and reviewing options. We’ll do the best we can to give gun owners a fighting chance.”
Given the political leanings of much of the California judiciary, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. Instead, this week’s decision will embolden government officials working diligently to turn the Golden State into a Second Amendment–free zone.
Now I know that this one is going to get a lot of folks fired up. I include myself on this one also.
As frankly I think that this law and the laws about Gold Ownership and taking the US off the silver standard. Were the starting point when the United States started its decline as a Freedom Loving Nation.
Since it allowed the Federal Government to stick it long nose into Folks business that it has no business with. Also it give all of Governments both State & Federal. A nice bit of tax money.
But here is a couple of things that is never mentioned by anybody.
It’s too late to ban guns. As there is just too many of them & nobody really knows where or who owns them.
Even if they were outlawed. A lot of folks will not turn theirs in no matter what.
Most guns in the US of A are very seldom used in any kind of crime. Criminals have a rent a gun program These guns do most of the killings.
Almost most guns used in killing are stolen & either used by the Crazy folks, gang bangers, suicides, drunks or drug users. Or it’s in the heat of the moment.
We as a nation just do not want to pay for serious mental health programs. Especially since so few of the programs actually work.
The 1st gun laws were used to disarm the newly freed slaves after the Civil War / Reconstruction.
I am convinced that a lot of powerful folks want us disarmed. So that they can do whatever they want to us.
There is a very old Anglo Saxon Tradition of shooting at Government folks that get way out of line. So I think that it’s a good thing that the Government is a little afraid of the taxpayer instead of the other way around.
Yes there is a lot of fear mongering out there! As since we all know that besides Sex. That fear is a highly motivational tool.
Here is some more information to chew upon!
Now I know that California has a very long history of trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. As shown here:
A Timeline of California Firearms Laws
Based on a post from Librarian, of Calguns; subsequent additions by Sean Newton.
California’s first concealed carry permit law. Very hard to find data on – requesting further input!
1923?
???
???
1-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1924
???
12025
Concealed carry permits updated to a ‘uniform’ may-issue system; all permits under 1917 law invalidated. Goal: to disarm Hispanics and Chinese (see below).
1956
???
???
3-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1965
???
???
5-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1967
???
PC12031
Prohibitions enacted against loaded weapons carried in public, regardless of concealment / openness. This was an emergency bill passed after the Black Panthers stood around the state legislature with loaded weapons.
1976
???
???
15-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1 Jan 1990
???
12275
Roberti-Roos, original ‘assault weapon’ list
1 Jan 1991
???
None
All firearms purchases and transfers, including PPTs and at gun shows, must go through DROS.
1 Apr 1994
???
None
‘Basic Firearms Safety Card’ enacted; required to buy handguns. Ended 1 Jan 2003
1994
???
None
Federal Assault Weapons Ban begins.
1997
???
???
Handgun waiting periods were reduced to 10 days from 15.
1 Jan 1998
???
12001
Mandatory registration of all handguns acquired out of state.
1 Jan 2000
???
12276.1
Perata’s SB23 ‘feature based’ AW ban takes effect.
1 Jan 2001
???
12131
“Safe gun” list mandating drop tests for handguns.
1 Jan 2003
???
None
BFSC replaced by ‘Handgun Safety Certificate’; added ‘safety demonstration’ and ‘proof of residency’ for handgun purchases
2004
???
None
Federal Assault Weapons Ban ends. CA rifles may once again have bayo lugs + threaded muzzles. Some California AW’s are allowed new features (MAK-90s may use normal stocks, etc)
1 Jan 2005
???
12280
50 BMG rifle ban passed
1 Jan 2006
???
12280
50 BMG rifle ban active; no new 50BMG rifles
1 Jan 2006
???
???
Pistols must have LCI or mag disc. safety to be added to ‘safe handgun roster’
1 Jan 2007
???
???
Pistols must have LCI and mag disc. safety to be added to ‘safe handgun roster’
1 Jan 2007
???
???
AB2728 removed Attorney General’s ability to add onto the ‘assault weapon’ lists, and added alternate ‘infraction’ prosecution route for assault weapons (instead of felony prosecution)
1 Jul 2008
???
???
CFLC system requires all dealer-to-dealer transfers to use a CA DOJ verification number for all transfers.
???
2010 SB1080 / SB1115
CPC
Reorganization of California Penal Code, including renumbering of most firearms related sections.
???
2011 AB819
???
Allows DROS fund fees to be spent at DOJ’s whim; paved road for APPS squad.
1 Jan 2012
2011 AB144
???
Banned open carry of unloaded handguns.
???
2011 SB610
???
Requires “good cause” to be evaluated before CCW applicants pay for training; prohibits mandatory liability insurance policies.
1 Jan 2013
2012 SB1315
???
Authorized LA County to enact laws on replica guns as an exception to state firearms pre-emption.
1 Jan 2013
2012 AB1527
???
Banned open carry of unloaded long guns.
1 Jan 2014
2011 AB809
???
Long gun registration passed into law.
1 Jan 2014
AB48
32310-32311
Acquisition of new magazine rebuild kits banned
1 Jan 2014
AB231
25100, 25110, 26835
Crime of criminal storage of firearm in third degree created, basically banning loaded, unlocked guns anywhere a child ever goes. Unclear if the prohibited person language made it into the CPC or not.
1 Jan 2014
AB711
DFG regs
Require the Department of Fish and Game to mandate non-lead ammunition for all hunting activities. Timeline of actual prohibition taking effect is unclear, but prior to July 1 2015.
1 Jan 2015
SB683
CPC 16535
Replaces the Handgun Safety Card with a Firearms Safety Card, as all new gun purchases – including long guns and C&R – must be registered.
1 Jan 2015
AB1964
CPC 32100
Alters the ‘Single Shot Exemption’ to no longer apply to temporarily altered semi-autos, as well as most bolt action, and break-action handguns.
1 Jan 2016
SB1014
???
Adds “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” to the list of ways to become a prohibited person in California.
1 July 2017
Prop63
2008 saw the passage of a bill which mandated micro-stamping for all new handgun purchases made in 2010(?) and beyond, when the technology is available from multiple vendors and without patent encumberance. This last bit is significant in that it is unlikely to happen, thus this provision is unlikely to become active.
Perata’s SB23, the ‘aw’ feature test bill, was effective 1 Jan 2000. It also includes the threaded barrel on pistols and the large (standard) capacity magazine language, same date. PC 12276.1
‘Basic Firearms Safety Certificates’ were required from 1 April 1994 to 1 Jan 2003, when it was replaced by the ‘Handgun Safety Certificate’. That’s also the date for the ‘safety demonstration’ and the ‘proof of residency’
Contributor Credit
In addition to providing the entire initial content for this timeline, Librarian also wrote to the DOJ about FFL sales – their answer: “Effective January 1, 1991, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process.”
Redhorse, of Calguns, placed the handgun waiting period reduction (15 days to 10) in 1997. Previously it was thought to have happened in either 1991 or 1997.
1917 handgun law: Excerpt from http://www.crimefree.org.za/Role-players/Criminologist/Kopel/RTC-history.htm – “At least one state, California, replaced an existing statute with the Uniform Act. See Statutes of California Passed At The Extra Session of the Forty-First Legislature, (San Francisco, Bancroft-Whitney: 1916), p. 221, to see the differences and similarities between the 1917 California concealed handgun statute, and the Uniform Act adopted by California in 1923.”
Sources
[quote=San Francisco Chronicle, July 15th 1923]NEW FIREARMS LAW EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 7
Existing Licenses Inoperative After Dec. 31 1924; Uniform System
IS AIMED AT LAWLESS
Possible Unconstitutionality of Clause Provided for in Drafting
Stringent regulations against carrying concealed firearms or explosives, and prohibition against possession of other deadly weapons become effective on August 7, under the Hawes bill signed by Governor Richardson.
The new measure will install a uniform licensing system for carrying concealed weapons. Licenses now in existence will become inoperative December 31, 1924.
O. K. URGED
Aimed at disarming the lawless, the bill provides exemptions and exceptions to preserve the rights of those using firearms for competition or hunting or for protection in outing trips. It was largely on the recommendation of R. T. McKissick, president of the Sacramento Rifle and Revolver Club, that Governor Richardson approved the measure.
McKissick classes it as a measure that introduces “an element of sanity into firearms legislation, so as to provide adequate punishments upon an increasing scale for the habitual gunman and, at the same time, permit law-abiding citizens to continue to own firearms for home defense and other legitimate uses.”
BILLS SIMILAR
The bill, according to McKissick follows almost literally one offered in the United States Senate by Senator Capper and advocated by associations interested in the manufacture, sale and legitimate use of pistols and revolvers, as a model for a uniform bill to be introduced in each State. “It is frankly,” he says, “an effort upon the part of those who know something about firearms to forestall the flood of fanatical legislation intended to deprive all citizens of the United States the right to own and use, for legitimate purposes, firearms capable of being concealed upon the person.”
The new measures change existing law by making the carrying of barred weapons such as blackjacks, a felony instead of a misdemeanor. The provision against carrying explosive also is new.
ACT EXPLAINED
Possible unconstitutionality of the provision against possession of weapons by non-naturalized residents was admitted in McKissick’s letter to the Governor urging signing of the bill, but he pointed out that if this clause should be held invalid the rest of the act will not be affected and that if it can be sustained that it will have a “salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent.”
The provision for additional sentences where weapons are used in committing a felony is one with a sliding scale. The first time the added penalty is from five to ten years; the second from ten to fifteen; the third from 15 to 25 years, and only on the fourth offense it is possible to add more than 25 years to the sentence imposed for the crime itself.[/quote]
— SeanNewton – 28 Aug 2006
A Timeline of California Firearms Laws
Based on a post from Librarian, of Calguns; subsequent additions by Sean Newton.
California’s first concealed carry permit law. Very hard to find data on – requesting further input!
1923?
???
???
1-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1924
???
12025
Concealed carry permits updated to a ‘uniform’ may-issue system; all permits under 1917 law invalidated. Goal: to disarm Hispanics and Chinese (see below).
1956
???
???
3-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1965
???
???
5-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1967
???
PC12031
Prohibitions enacted against loaded weapons carried in public, regardless of concealment / openness. This was an emergency bill passed after the Black Panthers stood around the state legislature with loaded weapons.
1976
???
???
15-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.
1 Jan 1990
???
12275
Roberti-Roos, original ‘assault weapon’ list
1 Jan 1991
???
None
All firearms purchases and transfers, including PPTs and at gun shows, must go through DROS.
1 Apr 1994
???
None
‘Basic Firearms Safety Card’ enacted; required to buy handguns. Ended 1 Jan 2003
1994
???
None
Federal Assault Weapons Ban begins.
1997
???
???
Handgun waiting periods were reduced to 10 days from 15.
1 Jan 1998
???
12001
Mandatory registration of all handguns acquired out of state.
1 Jan 2000
???
12276.1
Perata’s SB23 ‘feature based’ AW ban takes effect.
1 Jan 2001
???
12131
“Safe gun” list mandating drop tests for handguns.
1 Jan 2003
???
None
BFSC replaced by ‘Handgun Safety Certificate’; added ‘safety demonstration’ and ‘proof of residency’ for handgun purchases
2004
???
None
Federal Assault Weapons Ban ends. CA rifles may once again have bayo lugs + threaded muzzles. Some California AW’s are allowed new features (MAK-90s may use normal stocks, etc)
1 Jan 2005
???
12280
50 BMG rifle ban passed
1 Jan 2006
???
12280
50 BMG rifle ban active; no new 50BMG rifles
1 Jan 2006
???
???
Pistols must have LCI or mag disc. safety to be added to ‘safe handgun roster’
1 Jan 2007
???
???
Pistols must have LCI and mag disc. safety to be added to ‘safe handgun roster’
1 Jan 2007
???
???
AB2728 removed Attorney General’s ability to add onto the ‘assault weapon’ lists, and added alternate ‘infraction’ prosecution route for assault weapons (instead of felony prosecution)
1 Jul 2008
???
???
CFLC system requires all dealer-to-dealer transfers to use a CA DOJ verification number for all transfers.
???
2010 SB1080 / SB1115
CPC
Reorganization of California Penal Code, including renumbering of most firearms related sections.
???
2011 AB819
???
Allows DROS fund fees to be spent at DOJ’s whim; paved road for APPS squad.
1 Jan 2012
2011 AB144
???
Banned open carry of unloaded handguns.
???
2011 SB610
???
Requires “good cause” to be evaluated before CCW applicants pay for training; prohibits mandatory liability insurance policies.
1 Jan 2013
2012 SB1315
???
Authorized LA County to enact laws on replica guns as an exception to state firearms pre-emption.
1 Jan 2013
2012 AB1527
???
Banned open carry of unloaded long guns.
1 Jan 2014
2011 AB809
???
Long gun registration passed into law.
1 Jan 2014
AB48
32310-32311
Acquisition of new magazine rebuild kits banned
1 Jan 2014
AB231
25100, 25110, 26835
Crime of criminal storage of firearm in third degree created, basically banning loaded, unlocked guns anywhere a child ever goes. Unclear if the prohibited person language made it into the CPC or not.
1 Jan 2014
AB711
DFG regs
Require the Department of Fish and Game to mandate non-lead ammunition for all hunting activities. Timeline of actual prohibition taking effect is unclear, but prior to July 1 2015.
1 Jan 2015
SB683
CPC 16535
Replaces the Handgun Safety Card with a Firearms Safety Card, as all new gun purchases – including long guns and C&R – must be registered.
1 Jan 2015
AB1964
CPC 32100
Alters the ‘Single Shot Exemption’ to no longer apply to temporarily altered semi-autos, as well as most bolt action, and break-action handguns.
1 Jan 2016
SB1014
???
Adds “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” to the list of ways to become a prohibited person in California.
1 July 2017
Prop63
2008 saw the passage of a bill which mandated micro-stamping for all new handgun purchases made in 2010(?) and beyond, when the technology is available from multiple vendors and without patent encumberance. This last bit is significant in that it is unlikely to happen, thus this provision is unlikely to become active.
Perata’s SB23, the ‘aw’ feature test bill, was effective 1 Jan 2000. It also includes the threaded barrel on pistols and the large (standard) capacity magazine language, same date. PC 12276.1
‘Basic Firearms Safety Certificates’ were required from 1 April 1994 to 1 Jan 2003, when it was replaced by the ‘Handgun Safety Certificate’. That’s also the date for the ‘safety demonstration’ and the ‘proof of residency’
Contributor Credit
In addition to providing the entire initial content for this timeline, Librarian also wrote to the DOJ about FFL sales – their answer: “Effective January 1, 1991, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process.”
Redhorse, of Calguns, placed the handgun waiting period reduction (15 days to 10) in 1997. Previously it was thought to have happened in either 1991 or 1997.
1917 handgun law: Excerpt from http://www.crimefree.org.za/Role-players/Criminologist/Kopel/RTC-history.htm – “At least one state, California, replaced an existing statute with the Uniform Act. See Statutes of California Passed At The Extra Session of the Forty-First Legislature, (San Francisco, Bancroft-Whitney: 1916), p. 221, to see the differences and similarities between the 1917 California concealed handgun statute, and the Uniform Act adopted by California in 1923.”
Sources
[quote=San Francisco Chronicle, July 15th 1923]NEW FIREARMS LAW EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 7
Existing Licenses Inoperative After Dec. 31 1924; Uniform System
IS AIMED AT LAWLESS
Possible Unconstitutionality of Clause Provided for in Drafting
Stringent regulations against carrying concealed firearms or explosives, and prohibition against possession of other deadly weapons become effective on August 7, under the Hawes bill signed by Governor Richardson.
The new measure will install a uniform licensing system for carrying concealed weapons. Licenses now in existence will become inoperative December 31, 1924.
O. K. URGED
Aimed at disarming the lawless, the bill provides exemptions and exceptions to preserve the rights of those using firearms for competition or hunting or for protection in outing trips. It was largely on the recommendation of R. T. McKissick, president of the Sacramento Rifle and Revolver Club, that Governor Richardson approved the measure.
McKissick classes it as a measure that introduces “an element of sanity into firearms legislation, so as to provide adequate punishments upon an increasing scale for the habitual gunman and, at the same time, permit law-abiding citizens to continue to own firearms for home defense and other legitimate uses.”
BILLS SIMILAR
The bill, according to McKissick follows almost literally one offered in the United States Senate by Senator Capper and advocated by associations interested in the manufacture, sale and legitimate use of pistols and revolvers, as a model for a uniform bill to be introduced in each State. “It is frankly,” he says, “an effort upon the part of those who know something about firearms to forestall the flood of fanatical legislation intended to deprive all citizens of the United States the right to own and use, for legitimate purposes, firearms capable of being concealed upon the person.”
The new measures change existing law by making the carrying of barred weapons such as blackjacks, a felony instead of a misdemeanor. The provision against carrying explosive also is new.
ACT EXPLAINED
Possible unconstitutionality of the provision against possession of weapons by non-naturalized residents was admitted in McKissick’s letter to the Governor urging signing of the bill, but he pointed out that if this clause should be held invalid the rest of the act will not be affected and that if it can be sustained that it will have a “salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent.”
The provision for additional sentences where weapons are used in committing a felony is one with a sliding scale. The first time the added penalty is from five to ten years; the second from ten to fifteen; the third from 15 to 25 years, and only on the fourth offense it is possible to add more than 25 years to the sentence imposed for the crime itself.[/quote]
— SeanNewton – 28 Aug 2006
——————————————-
Have you ever stopped to think about the history of “gun control” laws in the United States? If not, you should. Why? Today’s oppressive gun control laws have their roots in racism. That’s right, “gun control” in the United States, the darling of the liberal Democratic Party and their allies in the media, began in the 19th Century and was directed primarily at blacks.
Prior to the Civil War, virtually all “gun control” laws were enacted in the slave states principally due to the fear of firearms in the hands of free blacks and slaves who might rebel against their masters. After the Civil War ended in 1865, “gun control” expanded as a result of the enactment of the so-called “Black Codes” or “Jim Crow” laws intended to continue to oppress the newly-freed slaves.
A few decades later, in the early 20th Century, racism was again the catalyst for calls for new “gun control” laws. New York’s infamous Sullivan Law was passed. If you read the newspapers from that time period, you will find articles about the perceived “dangers” of allowing access to firearms by the then-current wave of immigrants, the Poles, the Italians, the Jews, etc. Isn’t it ironic that today’s liberals support a doctrine rooted in racism and prejudice?
A generation later, a movement for more “gun control” again arose and took a dangerous, expanded approach that continues to the present day, the media campaign of fear. Remember your history. In the early 1930’s, the news media reported on a rash of Mid-Western bank robberies by the likes of Bonnie & Clyde, John Dillinger, etc.
What happened next? “Gun control” expanded from the states to the Federal level. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (the “NFA”) was passed virtually outlawing machine guns, silencers and short- barreled rifles and shotguns. disturbingly, the original proposed version of the NFA, also included handguns.
Let’s move ahead 30 years, to 1963. Here we find the real root of today’s “gun control” movement, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The news media explodes with calls for “gun control” and a ban on mail order gun sales.
In 1966, a madman climbs a tower at a Texas college and starts shooting. There are renewed media calls for “gun control”, but the pro-gun forces keep their finger in the dike until 1968 when there’s a double whammy, the assassinations of Martin Luther King in April and Bobby Kennedy in June. The media goes wild and the end result is the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, greatly restricting the interstate transfer of firearms.
Now fast-forward another 20 years to 1989. The pattern repeats itself when Patrick Purdy shoots up the schoolyard in Stockton, California, killing and injuring young students. The media goes crazy and the California legislature follows. The end result…three big losses in California: The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989 is enacted, certain misdemeanor convictions now impose a 10 year ban on firearms possession, and the waiting period is expanded from handguns to also cover rifles and shotguns.
This same pattern of high profile murder followed by the immediate calls of anti-gun politicians and the media for “effective, reasonable gun control” repeated itself just recently. Just remember the “news reports” following the tragic shooting at Columbine High School and the Valley Jewish Community Center.
Madmen engage in mass killings and the liberals and their allies in the media urge new laws to disarm the citizens whom the police cannot protect, all the while ignoring our cherished Second Amendment rights. This is why I label the history of “gun control” in the United States as shameful.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sent a clear message to millions of gun owners in California: You’re living in a Second Amendment-free zone.
In an order on Monday, without explanation or comment, the Court rejected a civil rights lawsuit brought by the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation. Those groups had hoped the justices would rule that the Second Amendment continues to apply even in the progressive enclaves of the left coast—and that law-abiding California residents possess the right to buy and sell firearms.
Instead, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, a decision that underscores its willingness to let California legislators and judges evade the Second Amendment within the borders of the state.
“There are no significant Second Amendment obstacles to local and state gun control at this point,” said Don Kilmer, an attorney in San Jose, California, who is representing the gun rights groups. Also representing them is Alan Gura, who has taken two Second Amendment cases to the Supreme Court before.
Their lawsuit challenges a decision by Alameda, a California county that includes Oakland and other east bay cities, to enact a zoning law so onerous it effectively bans gun stores. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Alameda in 2017, saying that “no historical authority suggests that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to sell a firearm.”
At least Monday’s decision serves one useful purpose: It exposes the federal judiciary’s willingness to elevate some constitutional rights over others.
If a city enacted zoning laws that effectively outlawed abortion clinics, and a federal appeals court had permitted it, the Supreme Court would have stepped in a heartbeat later. Under precedents going back to Maher v. Roe (1977), any law representing “direct state interference” with abortion is evaluated using strict scrutiny, the most exacting standard of legal review. Few such laws survive. (The 9th Circuit did not apply strict scrutiny to Alameda’s law.)
In today’s California, even adult movie theaters enjoy greater legal protections than gun stores. In a 1986 decision, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment allows municipalities to restrict such theaters (apparently they were a thing before the Internet) only if zoning laws provide a “reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city.”
The current lawsuit arose when three entrepreneurs, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaza, formed a partnership called Valley Guns and Ammo and started to look for potential locations in Alameda County. They planned to open a specialty shop that, in addition to selling firearms and ammunition, would have been the only store in the area to offer firearm safety training and certification, gunsmithing and repairs, and consignment and appraisal services.
Finding a location was difficult. An Alameda County zoning ordinance singles out gun stores by imposing extraordinarily strict rules. The location must be 500 feet away from any residentially zoned area, from any elementary, middle, or high school, from any preschool or day care center, from any other firearm retailer, and from any liquor stores, bars, or restaurants where liquor is served.
Alameda’s true motive, of course, was to outlaw gun stores. But the three men managed to find a location that complied—it was over 500 feet from the store to the front door of the nearest home—and Alameda’s zoning board approved the application. After complaints from anti-gun activists, however, the county changed its policy to require a distance of 500 feet from the store to the nearest area that was zoned for residential use. That made the distance from the store to the nearest home 446 feet, which the county said was not far enough.
The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees sued on behalf of the three entrepreneurs, but the outcome before the 9th Circuit was predetermined. This is one circuit that has never seen a Second Amendment violation and, unless President Donald Trump fills the current vacancies with reasonable picks, likely never will.
In theory, after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008, the Second Amendment right to self-defense joined the pantheon of constitutional rights including the right to worship, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the right to speak freely. After the court’s followup McDonalddecision in 2010, it was supposed to be another fundamental right for all Americans to enjoy.
Alas, the Bill of Rights is not self-enforcing; our judiciary is entrusted with upholding and defending it. But the unfortunate reality today is that many federal judges, including a majority of the 9th Circuit, have creatively defined away Americans’ right to self defense. And a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court have shown themselves, repeatedly, to be unwilling to do anything about it.
“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent from his colleagues’ decision not to intervene after the 9th Circuit upheld another California anti-gun measure in February. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court… The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.” (Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in a separate dissent last year that made a similar point.)
Kilmer, the San Jose attorney representing the gun rights groups against Alameda, says: “The problem with the 9th Circuit’s activism, and the refusal of the Supreme Court to cabin in their abuses, is that the California legislature and local municipalities will feel free to do whatever they want.”
Exactly so: the Second Amendment has been effectively repealed inside California. I suspect that California’s millions of gun owners, who are subject to intrusive new registration requirements starting in July, are beginning to wonder: If federal judges routinely ignore the law, why can’t I?
Around San Diego County, a hot, salty, buttered controversy has popped up.
Should hardware stores offer free bags of freshly popped popcorn?
While that may look like a warm, welcoming treat, free popcorn is a threat to public health — or so argue county officials. Last month, health inspectors raided La Jolla’s Meanley & Son Hardware, warning that its old-fashioned red popcorn machine is a germy outlaw.
“They explained we didn’t have the proper permits,” said Bob Meanley, whose shop had handed out 30 to 40 bags every day for about 25 years.
To comply with the 1984 California Uniform Retail Food Facility Law, Meanley & Son would need to install a three-basin sink to clean and sterilize the popcorn popper. Also required: regular inspections, just like a restaurant.
Meanley declined and instead rolled the offending machine into storage. Thus ended a tradition he had started 25 years ago.
“I hate to take away something that our customers really like,” said Meanley, whose grandparents founded the hardware store in 1948. “On the other hand, this whole thing has made me more aware of our liability.”
While closely associated with movie theaters, popcorn is also tightly linked to neighborhood purveyors of hammers and screwdrivers. The connection is seen in shops from Cambridge, Mass. (Tags Ace Hardware) to Lakeside (Payton’s True Value Hardware).
“The little kids get a kick out of it,” said Dianne El-Hajj, co-owner of Payton’s, where the free treat has been a staple since 1997. “They come in for the popcorn and dad comes in for the tools.”
The county Department of Environmental Health, for its part, has a long tradition of cracking down on these scofflaws. Three years ago, inspectors cited Encinitas’ Crown Ace Hardware and San Carlos True Value Hardware.
“The Health Department came in,” said San Carlos True Value manager Danielle Matheny, “and told us if we wanted to continue giving away free popcorn and coffee we’d have to install a bigger vent system, a bigger and better sink in the break room — a lot of rules and restrictions they put on us.”
In both Encinitas and San Carlos, the stores dropped the practice. Inspectors so far have ignored Payton’s, but El-Hajj figures it’s just a matter of time.
“I feel sad,” she said, “that some of the old traditions we have become so regulated.”
Grimy fingers
At the oily heart of this tale, there’s a hard kernel of concern. Food-borne illnesses annually sicken an estimated 48 million Americans, leading to 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths.
Food poisoning, the Department of Environmental Health warned, is just one potential problem with free popcorn.
“Potential health hazards include but are not limited to risk of foodborne illness, cross contamination, improper storage of equipment and foods, unsanitary equipment, and vermin,” a department statement maintained. “According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, cross contamination of food through unclean equipment and improper food handling or hand washing are major contributors to foodborne illness.”
Yet, none of the hardware store proprietors contacted for this story had heard of customers falling ill after partaking of popcorn.
Still, some worry that this is unsanitary.
“We had a customer complain,” said Martin Lopez, a salesman at Hillcrest Ace Hardware, which abandoned free popcorn a few years ago. “I guess it was because people were not wearing gloves. Anybody could stick their hands in there and take the popcorn.”
Meanley & Son’s fate was sealed with an anonymous tip phoned into the authorities. Employees popped the corn, but the rest of the operation was self-serve, with a scoop and bags set out for patrons. The tipster claimed some folks stuck their bare, potentially grimy, fingers into the machine, plucking out crunchy handfuls.
On a recent afternoon, though, the focus was less on public health than on the public’s loss.
“Because one guy complained,” said Joe Guiney, a regular customer at Meanley & Son, “it was ruined for everyone else.”
“People are very upset,” said Cathy Jones, head cashier at Meanley & Son. “Even if they didn’t eat the popcorn, they appreciated the aroma.”
End of an era
Hardware stores aren’t alone in seeing the customer-pleasing potential of free popcorn. When Rough Draft opened in Miramar in 2012, the brewery’s owner sought — and obtained — official clearance.
“I called the health department and said, ‘Hey, we’d like to serve popcorn but we don’t have a kitchen,’” said Jeff Silver, Rough Draft’s owner and brewer.
“They said, ‘We don’t really consider popcorn food, so you’re fine.’”
Rough Draft now has a kitchen, and the popcorn machine has been transferred to the brewery’s pub on the UC San Diego campus. The machine is still popping, but for a price.
“Our days of free popcorn,” Silver said, “are over.”
Mor Furniture for Less’ four outlets across the county all offer free popcorn. But this chain obtained the proper health certificates and posts its “A” rating, like a restaurant.
San Diego libraries, too, sometimes offer free popcorn at in-house movie screenings, a practice that has gone unquestioned.
“We have not been contacted by anybody either way,” said Shaun Briley, manager of the La Jolla/Riford library branch. “How about we have everybody sign a waiver?”
Briley paused. Then he said, “That was a joke.”
How about the end of the free popcorn era? Is that a joke, too?
“People say, ‘You’ve got to be kidding,’” said Meanley & Son cashier Jones.
Juliet Williams
