Gunpocalypse Passes in California

There is no 2nd Amendment in California, anymore.

The following were just signed by the governor:

All semi-autos with detachable magazines are assault weapons that must be registered, cannot be transferred, and can only be handled under highly restrictive conditions.

All >10 round magazines are now illegal to possess and must be surrendered or removed from the state.

Ammunition can no longer be purchased over the internet or from out of state. You also have to get a background check to buy ammunition.

And a bill working its way through will formally close the door to CCW in the half the state where it's possible to do so.

I'm done with this state. I am officially looking for a new home elsewhere.

Well, time to load up a crate of AR-15's and head west, I'm thinking $30,000 per rifle, $300 per 30 round mag and $10 per bullet.

I just ordered a case of 5.56mm. I'll order a case of another caliber next month. And so on until the law takes effect.

I had an opportunity to buy a S&W M&P 10 a month or so back for about $1400. I'm really regretting not buying it now. I bet it's going to be over $2K now.

Well, tyranny is here. Let's see how many gun owners stand their ground.

Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk

And the gun crime rate will plummet! Al the gang-bangers and car- jackers and store armed robbers and all manner of violent felons will stop their evil ways. The police will take to carrying billy-clubs because without these specific weapons the bad guys are out of business and safe as newborn kittens! Oh what a glorious day! All Californians can live in peace & harmony from here on out! Garamet & Dinner can put away their sack-cloth and ashes now, their time of tribulation is over now!

Really? I thought this meant that all freedoms are immediately abolished and the government has turned into a fascist tyranny. I'm surprised we even got a report from California; they can't still have a free press there, can they?

An even more free press than they had before! They can say what they want without fearing retribution from those racist rich old gun owners with their 10,000 round drum magazine fed fully automatic elephant rifles that fire 80 rounds a second!

Paladin, you're a wonderful Tame Conservative. You act like if you compromise and act civil enough, the Liberals will leave you alone. This is false. Compromise and civility are signs of weakness to lefties--just like they are to commies and Islamic radicals. If Bill Maher or whoever wanted to have a "forum" to "discuss" something, they could bring you in to sit next to Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and Bernie and you'd politely make your case and then politely sit there while they all beat you bloody with big sticks. The Writing had been on the Wall for California for years. Although it is to your credit that you're looking at getting out. WF's other Tame Conservative, Forbin will be a happily boiled frog before he gets out of New Jersey.

On an semirelated note, during the Clinton Gun Ban, I bought an M-14. Because I bought it during the Clinton Gun Ban, it had a [-]sporter[/-]bastardized front sight assembly, with the compensator and bayonet lug ground off. For my birthday, my Dad put a proper front sight assembly onto it. My Dad, the retired Postmaster, Scoutmaster, and general upstanding human being, was technically a felon because he believed in the Bill of Rights and his vow to defend our country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

(And I may have made that last bit up--or misremembered it. Who's to say?)

^
I roundly ignored the provisions of the 1994 AWB and would do the same should another one come around.

I don't feel compelled to obey laws that I don't agree with, whether they're about guns or pot.

So, riddle me this! What does a bayonet lug have to do with making an M-14 illegal?
When was the last bayonet-charge convenience store robbery anyway? The reason I want to know is I want to party with that dude!

Well...every cloud has a silver lining.

"Gunpocalypse", would be a great metal band name.

Or, a dystopian science fiction novel title.

OR a dystopian science fiction novel about a gunpocalypse where a gun toting metal band called Gunpocalypse brings their own form of law and order to a disarmed nation.

or as I like to call it "Tuesday."

taking no stand either way on these restrictions, the 2nd Amendment says you may keep and bear arms. Even with this law, whether it is wise or not, you can keep and bear arms - just not any amount of arms. The 2A doesn't say "keep and bear unlimited arms"

True but only laws that can survive Strict Scrutiny are supposed to be made regarding arms.

The 2nd prohibits the government from infringing on people's right to keep and bear arms so that the people can fight tyranny. Arms that are suitable for that purpose must be protected.

The last time we discussed this, you didn't consider plausible defence against government interference a valid standard for the 2nd.

Thus the problem - people who don't know shit about guns (but plenty about how to pull those emotional triggers!) are trying to tell you the gun owner what is or is not the necessary weaponry to defend yourself. If they had their way we'd be limited to muskets. Of course their paid security would be able to carry any hand-cannon made, because they are "professionals" and can be trusted (or some such bullshit reasoning). They want to turn the US into Europe, where only the "elite privileged class" can bear arms. All I can tell them is buy a one-way ticket and catch the first thing smoking out of here.

So do you want all weapons needed to defend against the US government to be freely available under the 2nd, or do you agree with nuclear anti-proliferation?

You wouldn't use nukes to defend against the government because you don't nuke land you intend to occupy.

Nothing prevents a Californian from going out of state to buy ammunition. Just use a Passport, passport card, or non-resident carry permit if asked for ID.

Also, Californians can still buy ammunition online. Give the retailer your Nevada UPS store mailbox address, and have that UPS store forward all mail on to you.

I grow tired of this absurdity, but I suppose I'll respond to it once again.

The 2nd is about small arms, of the kind that would be suitable for a militia.

Nukes and VX gas aren't required. A few thousand Iraqi insurgents showed that.

Huh?

The people have the right without qualification. The 2nd forbids the government from infringing on that right since the militia would be necessary to resist a tyrannical government. The right does not depend on being a member of the militia; however, militia arms must be protected as that purpose is explicitly stated in the 2nd.

Perhaps they have laws about transporting ammo over state lines (as in buying ammo in Nevada). Nothing physically stops you from driving from driving across the border from Philly into Camden, New Jersey but if you are caught in New Jersey with a gun in your car you are fucked like chuck. That's the double-edged sword of "states rights." It would be simpler if we had unified gun laws, but that would come at a cost. If all our eggs were in one basket and the whole country had FUBAR gun laws nowhere would be safe - for law abiding citizens of course: criminals would continue to not give a fuck as sane people already know.

Seems a wobbly claim to me; I don't see everyone in agreement that Iraq can never be held by an oppressive government such as Saddam's or Daesh. You in turn think the parallel claim just made by California is wrong. So it boils down to this: Who gets to make that call?

Won't stand up in court and will be challenged almost immediately.

Well, one can only hope so.

On second thought...let's not go to California. It is a silly place.

No one says they couldn't. I'm just pointing out that the claim that it's useless to have arms to resist a tyrannical government (because the government is so powerful) is easily refuted. A few thousand Iraqi insurgents were a big problem for the U.S. military's best combat forces. A few million armed citizens acting as insurgents? Forget about it. Even the U.S. military can't defend against that.

There's no call. The Constitution acknowledges the right of individuals to own arms, and the limitations on the government in the 2nd show that the right extends to arms suitable for militia use. It would be non-sensical to say "A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the governement has the authority to deny the militia suitable weapons for that purpose."

But what qualifies as suitable militia use? Small arms? Military level arms? Canons?