California is in a hole but can’t seem to stop its compulsive digging. Schools, universities, prisons, pensions, cities and towns: the state has lost the ability to manage even the most basic elements of communal living. But foie gras is now illegal there, grandiose plans for white elephant fast trains built with borrowed money waft through the air, and the state continues to boost the self esteem of affluent and cause-oriented gentry liberals by scattering scarce resources to the four winds, hunting unicorns when the cupboard is bare.
Oh, but there’s more. Scary, stupid much more:
Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has introduced a bill that would prohibit semiautomatic rifles or kits with features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool.
“No one will convince me it’s anything other than a joke to say that having multiple clips in a semiautomatic weapon that shoots a hundred or more bullets at a time is necessary in this state and in this country,” Steinberg told reporters at the Capitol. “It’s ridiculous.”
[Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris] Harris said her office is ready to implement the proposed new rules. “In recent years, the gun industry has developed a loophole that undermines California’s assault weapons law,” Harris said. “I applaud the Legislature’s interest in addressing this problem and support efforts to pass legislation needed to restore the law’s original intent.”
StopSB249 notes that if the bill becomes law — a very unconstitutional law — it would cost California a billion dollars or more to implement. And that money will come from…?
“No one will convince me it’s anything other than a joke to say that having multiple clips in a semiautomatic weapon that shoots a hundred or more bullets at a time is necessary in this state and in this country,” Steinberg told reporters at the Capitol. “It’s ridiculous.”
Yes, yes it is.
Which is why no such thing exists.
I am a CA resident and own a number of semiautomatic rifles. All clips used are limited to a maximum of 10 rounds….not hundreds of rounds, so this situation is based on misinformation and propaganda. One of my rifles is a Ruger mini-14 which fires the 5.56mm round. Same ammo as the AR-15, which is also limited to a ten round clip. Both rifles have the same rate of fire (as fast as I can pull the trigger for each round fired), but the AR-15 has more regulatory controls becasue it is “scarier looking.” I kid you not.
I also own a Ruger mini-thirty which fires the AK round, 7.62mm. Same as with the mini-14, I am limited to a ten round maximum clip. It fires at the same rate as the AK-47, but again has less regulatory limitations because it is not as “scary looking” as the AK-47.
These legislators are fools and demagogues. Nothing else to say, really!
Yeah — the “less scary looking” was one of the reasons I bought my Mini-14. Less likely that I’ll be turned a criminal for daring to own it.
Ohio caps magazine size at 30 rounds, though just today I had Midway refuse an order for 25-round magazines for a 10/22 because I have a Cincinnati address and they have some old legal data in their system.
But all those rifles allow for an “easy release” of the magazine. (Who would buy one that’s hard?) And there is nothing built into your rifles that would prevent them from accepting 100 round drums (which are already illegal there). So you are screwed.
I can’t imagine what would prevent such a drum magazine from working – it would be like requiring my garden hose to work with gasoline. It’s simply impossible, which is the point. They want your guns and they are going to try to take them.
Good luck out there.
The law was written to eliminate what we call “mag locks, or bullet buttons”. See in order to have the so called SB23 “evil features” (pistol grip, flash supressor, forward vert grip, flare launcher, detachable mag, folding/ telescoping stocks) the gun cannot have a detachable mag. The way the case law was determined was if you need a tool to remove the mag, it is then not detachable. Think of the SKS. Also that mag cannot hold more then 10
If you have a so called “featureless build” then your able to use any legally owned hi cap mag. This is pure B.S. and even with the federal courts forcing the release of thousands of felons back onto the streets, Yee and his ilk would rather go after law abiding people than deal with the real problems. California has some of the worst schools in the nation, we’re over run with illegals, by far the worst business climate with companies leaving everyday, sky high taxes and only getting worse, a crumbling infrastructure, and out of all of that. They want to steal my damn AK and toss me in jail because I use a tool to drop the mag.
Just out of curiosity, how deo you keep those “clips” from falling out through the magazine well?
LaLaLand
It’s a magazine, not a clip.
Leave it to the “leaders” of a broke, failed, state to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. The way this law is written, every cop I know will be a criminal along with everybody else.
We’re fighting this but we need help.
In less repressive Red States you can buy higher capacity magazines. There are places where you can buy 50 and 100 round magazines I just don’t really see the point.
If it weren’t for the Second Amendment, I’d say let California go ahead and ban guns. Even with the Second, I would be OK with them banning guns IF they also legalized all drugs. That way, addicts and criminals from elsewhere in the country would flock to Cali and the rest of us could get one heck of an object lesson in the failure of liberalism.
“There are places where you can buy 50 and 100 round magazines I just don’t really see the point.”
There doesn’t need to be a point.
Where there’s truly no point is in outlawing magazines above a certain size. Chicago has a 12-round max law — how’s that working out for them?
“Even with the Second, I would be OK with them banning guns IF they also legalized all drugs. That way, addicts and criminals from elsewhere in the country would flock to Cali and the rest of us could get one heck of an object lesson in the failure of liberalism.”
Good idea. The only thing I would add is that they need to add generous welfare payments to all those addicts with no work requirement and no residency requirement.
Implementation? We’ll just seize… er, tax… the money from the little people! Let ‘em eat cake… without their “assault weapons”!
Does that idiot Yee not know the difference between a clip and a magazine???
Of course he does…. a clip is what he puts his hair up with when getting in his bubblebath and the magazine is what he reads
– Whitman we would be less free and they were right.
The purpose of these arms, and the meaning of the second amendment, is to keep politicians from taking away the people’s rights. Of course the politcians want to start with the second amendment — once they have taken away our ability to keep them in check, they can do anything they want.
..in Sac they use the word “revenue”. Always a big take is expected, but never ever is the amount reached. I don’t happen to own a gun or rifle,but I sure do want the Right To.
As someone with a vested interest in California’s economic implosion all I can say is “Go Team”.
Monetizing economic collapse due to Democrats = Winning…
“…notes that if the bill becomes law… it would cost California a billion dollars or more to implement. And that money will come from…?”
Why, from Obama’s stash, man. Same pot Peggy Joseph said he was gon’ use to pay her mortgage and put gas in her car, man. That stash. Big one. Magic, cuz it neva run out, see.
No, wait…Unicorns!! Was that it? No, wait! They’ll raise taxes on the rich, cuz, like, they gots all the cash. And that’ll pay for *everything*!
Was that it?
Also included in the bill is a provision for additional penalties if a perpetrator is caught clenching a cigar in his mouth a saying “you dirty rat” as he sprays bullets from these magazine clips.
“Of course the politcians want to start with the second amendment — once they have taken away our ability to keep them in check, they can do anything they want. –Cecil @ 7
Seems t’ me pols pretty much do anything they want to NOW. From Obozo both erasing and making laws by executive order to a city manager in Bell, CA gifting himself a million-dollar compensation package for a town of 30,000 people, to this yahoo wanting to ban mags larger than ten rounds (or whatever), they all do as they like, without any fear of jail or any penalty whatsoever.
Then they retire on a generous pension, courtesy of the people they’ve been screwing for decades!
California is the perfect example of what not to do. If/when California implodes, we will get a good view of what is in store for the United States in a few more years. Then we will be able to more finely tune our preparations for the implosion of the United States.
i’m still trying to figure out how they think they are going to round up the weapons…
other than whoever was silly enough to register under the original “assault weapon” ban, i don’t think they have a list of owners, unless they built one illegally…
which i wouldn’t put past them either.
Registered assualt weapons aren’t effected by this law. Possession of an unregistered AW is a felony in california. CA does have what’s called the DROS system. (Dealer Record Of Sale) but that info is supposed to be destroyed after 30 days. There is no info other then a firearm was purchased. Any info is recorded on the 4473 form, and too many FFLs hand those over to the state inspectors when asked. They asked my and I refused, federal documents have nothing to do with a state inspection.
If you people in CA let this pass, you are totally screwed.
What “loopholes” are they speaking of? CA has strict gun control already.
This is nothing more than political posturing by clueless politicians. If it passes it will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. The criminals don’t abide by these laws.
This is why I ran away from CA and never looked back. I would move to Mexico before I moved to CA! I’m serious!
“No one will convince me it’s anything other than a joke to say that having multiple clips in a semiautomatic weapon that shoots a hundred or more bullets at a time is necessary in this state and in this country,” Steinberg told reporters at the Capitol. “It’s ridiculous.”
People who saw the helplessness of the L.A. Police Department during the 1992 King Riots or the looting and violence in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina know that citizens need guns to defend themselves