Yes, Virginia: Gun Registration Leads to Confiscation
One of anti-rights propagandists’ greatest pieces of compost material misinformation is that registration is a benign program to ensure only the law-abiding have guns. (As if criminals will register their guns. But then again, California has almost legalized marijuana, a powerful hallucinogen.) The dark truth of registration is how easily government can use the database to confiscate your guns.
California requires gun owners to obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate, which places personal information into a database (gun owner registration). This certificate allows Californians to buy guns.
The following email came from Paul Payne of the California NRA Members Council:
SB 249is California’s Worst Gun Confiscation Threat in 20 Years!
Contact your state Legislator TODAY!
Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco now trying to ban and confiscate more so-called “assault weapons.”
Originally, Senate Bill 249 was a quiet agriculture bill that passed in the California Senate back in May. With sneaky back-door tactics, Senator Yee turned the bill into a gun ban monster.
SB 249, as amended, would make a small but profound change to the definition of what constitutes a detachable magazine for a semiautomatic firearm. By doing so, hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles, which were legally sold in California over the last decade, would become illegal on July 1, 2013.
The existing definition of detachable magazine was used by Governor Brown’s administration for the four years he served as Attorney General.
Senator Yee’s bill has no provisions to allow permitting, licensing or reimbursement for the loss of valuable property. Worse yet, the bill doesn’t require a public notice program to advise owners of this change in state law.
Thousands of owners could be arrested for inadvertent violations. If you own an affected firearm, your only choices would be to destroy it, surrender it to a law enforcement agency, sell it out of state or have it confiscated at the time of your arrest! Which option would you prefer?
Call AND E-mail your state legislators TODAY and urge them to OPPOSE SB 249
Contact information for your state Senator can be found here.
Contact information for your state Assembly Member can be found here.
Also, contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to tell the state Legislature that he stands by the existing definition of detachable magazine, just as he did when he was Attorney General.
Governor Brown can be reached at 916-445-2841 and by e-mail at: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners across California and urge them to do the same.
California is going to need EVERYONE to help fend off this attack!
More information is available at: http://www.calguns.net/249/
Riverside Sheriff Stan Sniff sent the following letter to the legislature. http://www.calguns.net/249/SheriffSniff-OpposeLetterSB249.pdf
California.
I don’t care.
I’m a Life member in the NRA and I wouldn’t send a nickle to California to help my fellow gun owners there. Sometimes a state’s role in life is to be an example to others of what not to do. California seems to be a fine example of such a situation.
CA expat myself. Grateful for the ex part. The NRA Members Council has done a great job in halting most anti bills and even reversing the trend. Without them, who knows?
I find exSNNcrew’s sentiments regarding not helping fellow gun owners in other states tedious and counter-productive.
California MC’ers, state personnel and activists have been fighting ammunition bans, including lead ammunition, in California, Arizona, Iowa and a number of other states since 2002. We never thought for a moment that our activities should have stopped at the Colorado River, because regulations can weaken us all nationwide.
exSSNcrew should rethink his lack of dedication to the Second Amendment, or he will not be able to stand tall with other RKBA activists in the future.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
U.S.Constitution, 2cnd Amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” — What part of “infringed” is not in the dictionary?!
Same document, Article. VI., 2cnd paragraph: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” — Which word, phrase, or clause above is beyond State Senator Yee’s reading comprehension? Did he, or did he not, take an oath to uphold both Constitutions? Is this latest of his acts not a blatant refusal to abide by his most solemn word?
No need to refer, in this case, to the 9th and 10th Amendments, nor to any other, or any other part of the U.S.Constitution. Plain language! Simple!
Wait . . .
California passed a law banning detachable magazines.
Someone invented a device to circumvent that, covering up enough of a normal magazine release button so it required an object to press it instead.
And now California is being “evil” by trying to close up what is not even a loophole, but a direct subversion of the letter and intent of their original law?
Maybe if people weren’t so eager to circumvent the law in the first place they wouldn’t face losing their weapons now.
And if you want governments to just enforce existing laws rather than make new ones, don’t make efforts to subvert those laws in the first place.
“California” – that is, the progressive Democrats that control the state government of California, is trying to register the personal information of gun owners to provide a database for confiscating the guns of private individuals. They will do it en masse, if they can pass it, or class by class (incrementally) if they have to do it in steps.
If you claim not to know that or not to believe that, Sam, you are lying to us and/or lying to yourself.
As Roger said, what part of “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Or perhaps it is the Constitution that you “hope” to “change”?
“Sam” is not totally correct in stating that California banned “detachable magazines”.
What California did was ban SOME semiautomatic firearms with certain features. Things like “conspicuously protruding pistol grips”, “bayonet lugs”, and the ever-popular (but extremely rare in civilian hands) “grenade launcher”. The common element of the regulation is that the firearm has to be a semiautomatic one capable of accepting a detachable magazine.
Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are limited to those in possession by residents prior to a stated date around 1993. Magazines capable of only holding 10 rounds or less are totally legal to this date.
While AR-style firearms generally fall afoul of this “furniture list”, Springfield M1A’s and Ruger Mini-14′s or Mini-30′s generally do not unless installed in the wrong kind of “features”.
From a functionality standpoint, the Ruger or the Springfield rifles are arguable at least on par with AR platforms. For those who favor the “bigger is better” line, the M1A is actually the “go to” gun for practical defensive semiautomatic rifles in the Fool’s Golden State. And if you can “live” with a muzzle break in lieu of a flash suppressor, M1A’s can go for around
$ 1700-1800 at Bain & Davis in San Gabriel, California (shameless plug alert…).
What the market did, in reaction to firearms activists discovering that the California Legislature does not know how to write firearms laws without shooting their own precious organs off, is meet the demand of individuals that would purchase semiautomatic firearms that could meet California’s legal requirements and regulations.
Now, in a fit of pique over that the free market figured out how to sell such restricted semiautomatic rifles that people also would buy, members of the California Legislature are tring to write an ex post facto ban on thousands of articles of otherwise lawfully obtained private property.
If that to does not make the average citizen (let alone firearms activist) mad, then perhaps citizenship classes are not what they used to be. And if they can do it in California, politicians in other states might just get the idea that it can be done in other states as well, without opposition.
Just some food for thought…
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales