California Senate to vote on sweeping gun-control measures

[The Legion]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-senate-to-vote-on-sweeping-gun-control-measures/ar-BBtegwc?li=BBnbcA1

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Democrats in the California Senate plan another attempt to outlaw the sale of assault weapons with easily detachable ammunition magazines known as bullet buttons as part of a wide-ranging slate of gun control bills scheduled for votes on Thursday.

Nearly a dozen measures would significantly reshape California's gun laws, already among the strictest in the nation, following last year's terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The debate comes as Democratic legislative leaders rush to head off a ballot measure advocated by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, which would ask voters to enact many of the same policies the Legislature is now set to debate.

Under California's assault-weapon ban, most rifles must require a tool to detach the magazine. Gun makers developed so called bullet buttons that allow a shooter to quickly dislodge the ammunition cartridge using the tip of a bullet or other small tool.

Outlawing bullet buttons is a priority for gun control advocates, who hope that making it harder to reload would limit the carnage a mass shooter can inflict. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013 vetoed the Legislature's last attempt to ban bullet buttons, saying it was too far-reaching.

The debate has fallen along familiar lines, with Democrats advocating a crackdown on guns in the name of safety and Republicans complaining that gun laws only hinder people intent on following the law.

"We raise our children in communities, not war zones," said Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael. "Military assault weapons have no place on our streets and gun violence must not be tolerated."

Limiting access to firearms and ammunition is dangerous at a time when the Legislature and voters are easing some of the strict sentencing laws from the 1980s and '90s, said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber.

"We're going easy on the real dangerous people. Now with these bills we're criminalizing the law-abiding people," Nielsen said.

Aside from the bullet button ban, senators plan to consider 10 other gun control bills. They include regulations for homemade firearms, background checks for ammunition purchases, a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, a mandate to report lost or stolen guns, a ban on loaning firearms to friends, and funding for a gun-violence research center.

The debate in the Senate comes as Newsom, a Democrat running for governor in 2018, is advocating a November gun control ballot measure. Some Democrats worry the initiative will fire up gun rights supporters, potentially increasing turnout of conservative voters.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, wrote to Newsom last month asking him to hold off on his initiative and allow lawmakers to tackle the problem. He declined.

[mikegideon]

Another must read thread for those that think Democrats are the same as Republicans.

[Raoul]

Or that Californians are the same as Americans...

[Mindless-Focus]

From the uproar I see on social media, it must have all passed. 

[Dennis1209]

I don't understand the liberal / democratic way of reasoning, logic and critical thinking. Do you suppose they really believe their agenda will limit or prevent criminal / terrorist behavior? Or are they afraid of law abiding Americans capable of defending themselves against government tyranny, socialism and intrusion of individual liberty?

California and parts of New York resemble the former Soviet Union IMO. 

[Randall53]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

I don't understand the liberal / democratic way of reasoning, logic and critical thinking.

It's easier to understand when you realize their complete lack of all three.

[krunchnik]

Just reading thru several different news sites about California's new gun control initiatives really makes a person wonder where in the name of St.Peter can these so called representatives of the people actually call themselves that-because in my case they wouldn't be representing any of my feelings.I think they need to fire every politician that so boldly defies the second amendment this way.

[Garufa]

 

45 minutes ago, krunchnik said:

Just reading thru several different news sites about California's new gun control initiatives really makes a person wonder where in the name of St.Peter can these so called representatives of the people actually call themselves that-because in my case they wouldn't be representing any of my feelings.I think they need to fire every politician that so boldly defies the second amendment this way.

I think the following speaks volumes not only of California's Kevin De Leon but all politicians in general:

Quote

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

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

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/california-senate-approves-sweeping-gun-control-measures-39236497

[Volphin]

Inside the mind of the crazies!

 

[i1afli]

On May 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Dennis1209 said:

Or are they afraid of law abiding Americans capable of defending themselves against government tyranny, socialism and intrusion of individual liberty?

This.  It's not about reducing crime, it's about disarming the people...they simply use crime as the reason to do it. 

[JAB]

On 5/19/2016 at 11:08 AM, mikegideon said:

Another must read thread for those that think Democrats are the same as Republicans.

Don't forget who was instrumental in getting the ball rolling on California anti-gun laws - the same laws which likely later lead to and even served as a model for federal anti-gun laws - in the first place.  Who was that?  Yep, the Lord High Priest of Republicans, Governor Ronald Reagan who unabashedly supported an act - introduced by another Republican, by the way - which made it illegal for the average citizen to carry a loaded firearm in public.  This was the same Ronald Reagan who wrote a letter passionately supporting the Brady law.  Reagan supported gun control.  I suspect that many other Republican politicians support gun control they just know better than to say it out loud.  In our own state, Haslam and Harwell obviously support gun control.  It seems to me that most politicians are elitists who don't believe that the common rabble needs to be able to defend themselves - especially against over-reach by those very politicians.

It is just like professional wrestling.  One side are the 'baby faces' while the other side are the 'heels' except here which is which depends on which line of B.S. a person is willing to buy.  Neither side is on our side.

Edited May 24, 2016 by JAB

[mikegideon]

30 minutes ago, JAB said:

Don't forget who was instrumental in getting the ball rolling on California anti-gun laws - the same laws which likely later lead to and even served as a model for federal anti-gun laws - in the first place.  Who was that?  Yep, the Lord High Priest of Republicans, Governor Ronald Reagan who unabashedly supported an act - introduced by another Republican, by the way - which made it illegal for the average citizen to carry a loaded firearm in public.  This was the same Ronald Reagan who wrote a letter passionately supporting the Brady law.  Reagan supported gun control.  I suspect that many other Republican politicians support gun control they just know better than to say it out loud.  In our own state, Haslam and Harwell obviously support gun control.  It seems to me that most politicians are elitists who don't believe that the common rabble needs to be able to defend themselves - especially against over-reach by those very politicians.

It is just like professional wrestling.  One side are the 'baby faces' while the other side are the 'heels' except here which is which depends on which line of B.S. a person is willing to buy.  Neither side is on our side.

One declares gun owners the enemy, and the other claims to be on our side. I will agree that neither gives a #### about us. Doesn't mean that they won't try to stick up for the ones that brung them. I will put my money on the one that wasn't brung by the anti-gun party. I'm done with this thread.

 

[Grand Torino]

Quote

"We raise our children in communities, not war zones," said Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael. "Military assault weapons have no place on our streets and gun violence must not be tolerated."

Idiot. Didn't stop the terrorists in San Bernadino and won't stop anyone else. Just like Seattle these stupid laws are forcing people out of town. I believe idiots like this know exactly what they are doing under the guise of "Save the Children".  I hate these people.

[JAB]

20 hours ago, Grand Torino said:

Idiot. Didn't stop the terrorists in San Bernadino and won't stop anyone else. Just like Seattle these stupid laws are forcing people out of town. I believe idiots like this know exactly what they are doing under the guise of "Save the Children".  I hate these people.

I agree.  The problem is that, as I mentioned in my previous thread, laws that originate in Kalifornistan often metastasize until they spread throughout the nation via the feds.  Just as none of these politicians on either side give a tinker's damn about We the People, none of them give a hairy rat's posterior about 'the children'.  It is all a bunch of propaganda designed to cast people who argue for our rights in a negative light as if we want children and others to be killed by criminals.  That way they can argue emotion and myth rather than fact and logic because logic is not on their side.  For example - and this is a variation on an example I use a lot, I doubt that some maniac is going to say, "Well, I'd really like to kill my entire family and then go out and randomly murder fifty or sixty people but, darnit, having that gun would be illegal and I wouldn't want to break the law so I guess I won't massacre anyone, today."  I think that the laws against committing a massacre are just a bit more serious than a law against owning a particular type of gun or a magazine with a particular capacity.  I think the politicians realize that, too and maybe even some of their disciples.  Still, they use that same, old, tired argument to try and justify taking rights away from people who aren't going to commit a massacre and manage to convince a certain segment of the brainwashed (or simply brain dead) general public that it makes sense.

It is kind of like trying to prevent teenage sex by outlawing back seats in cars - it will have no impact on the problem and removes the ability to have something that is legitimately useful for many people.  Yeah, I pretty well hate them, too.

[JAB]

21 hours ago, mikegideon said:

One declares gun owners the enemy, and the other claims to be on our side. I will agree that neither gives a #### about us. Doesn't mean that they won't try to stick up for the ones that brung them. I will put my money on the one that wasn't brung by the anti-gun party. I'm done with this thread.

 

That logic hasn't worked out so well with Haslam or Harwell or even Ramsey, really.  The difference is that one party says, "Get ready - we are your enemy and we are coming for you," while the other says, "We are on your side so while we stand side by side with you don't mind that knife we are sticking in your back."  Personally, I find both reprehensible.