Tag Archives: California

Rep. Mike Honda Introduces Bill Banning Civilians from Buying Body Armor | NBC Bay Area

Posted on by
Reply

Based on one of the latest Democrat proposals for “safety,” it is obvious that at least some of these people not only want to get rid of the Second Amendment, they want to eliminate any and all forms of self-defense, including body armor. By itself, body armor serves a purely defensive purpose. It does not launch bullets. It cannot be used directly to harm anyone except perhaps as a blunt object with which to beat someone. It’s only real purpose is to protect the life of the person wearing it. None of those facts stopped Rep. Mike Honda of San Jose, California (Yes, the land of fruits and nuts) from proposing a ban on the purchase of body armor by civilians.

Honda claims that shootings by armored criminals is a new trend. He further claims that experts say, “access to military-grade body armor emboldens criminals and mass shooters to act.”  He is quoted by the local NBC affiliate saying:

“This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands,” Honda said. “It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor.”

“We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

Never mind that the act only bans the sale to otherwise law abiding people. As is always the case, those with the intent of doing harm or otherwise committing a crime, can and will continue doing what they do, regardless of the law.

GM

 

Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Handgun Ban AB 1964 | CAL-FFLCAL-FFL

Posted on by
Reply

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Handgun Ban AB 1964

 

Democrat-authored Assembly Bill 1964 will further criminalize the sale of handguns to law-abiding, background-checked Californians.

 

ROSEVILLE, CA (July 18, 2014) — In a Legislative Update issued earlier today, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he has signed Assembly Bill 1964 (Dickinson), a measure that will eliminate the “single shot” exemption to California’s Roster of “not unsafe” handguns.  AB 1964’s changes to section 32100 of the California Penal Code, which will go into effect on January 1, 2015, will make it virtually impossible for law-abiding residents of the Golden State to acquire a “non-Roster” handgun in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense.

 

In an October 11, 2013, veto message for Assemblyman Dickinson’s previous handgun ban attempt, Brown said, “AB 169 would close a loophole in the single-shot exemption. That makes sense.”

 

“I wish I could say that we were shocked by the Governor’s irrational decision to sign AB 1964,” explained Brandon Combs, president of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL). “Sadly, the status quo for elitist Sacramento politicians is to ignore the Constitution and act with blatant hostility towards our Second Amendment civil rights and sound public policy.”

 

“While we are certainly disappointed by Governor Brown’s support of AB 1964, we are also more committed than ever to fight every last attack on our right to keep and bear arms,” Combs concluded. “This is just one bill of many on our radar, and we encourage our friends in the firearms community to steel their resolve and focus on the upcoming battles in August when the Legislature reconvenes.”

 

To read CAL-FFL’s veto request and for more information about AB 1964, please visit http://www.calffl.org/2014/07/cal-ffl-asks-gov-brown-veto-handgun-ban-bill-ab-1964.

 

Gun rights supporters can oppose the remaining gun control bills by sending a letter to members of the California Legislature and Governor Brown at http://www.DemandRights.org.

 

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) is California’s most tenacious and complete advocacy group for Second Amendment and related rights, with over 100,000 individual supporters and members including firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.  CAL-FFL advances the interests of its members and the general public through direct lobbying, legal actions, education, and public outreach.

 

###

 

Media Contact:

 

Brandon Combs, President
media@calffl.org | (888) 541-3040

 

 

Comments are closed.

 

Site sponsor:

Site sponsor:

 

 

 

Subjective issuance by an objective standard…SF Police Chief

Posted on by
3

Want a concealed gun in California? Head north - SFGate“I think concealed carry permits should be handed out subjectively with an objective standard,” the chief said. “We’re a crowded place. … The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms who may not be in the right frame of mind from being so scared or having a cocktail or two. I would much rather they rely on us.”

via Want a concealed gun in California? Head north – SFGate.

Handed out subjectively using an objective standard?!?! WTF? That’s classic political double speak for, “you aren’t getting one unless the mayor says I have to give you one or we play poker on a regular basis together.”  The good news is, the chief may not have a choice on that much longer now that the “good cause” clause commonly applied to Californa concealed carry permits has been struck down by the 9th Circuit.

GM

BREAKING: CA Gov. Jerry Brown VETOES SB 374 Semi-Auto Ban, 6 Other Gun Bills

Posted on by
1

BREAKING: CA Gov. Jerry Brown VETOES SB 374 Semi-Auto Ban, 6 Other Gun Bills.

 

From the Firearms Policy Coalition: California Governor Jerry Brown announced his official rejection of 7 gun control bills passed by the Legislature last month. The vetoed laws include SB 374, a ban on semi-automatic rifles authored by Senator Darrell Steinberg. It’s not a complete victory as a ban on lead ammunition for hunting among other anti-gun bills did pass.

It’s no secret that California policies on guns are often later tried on the national scale. Where firearm freedoms are concerned, California has been on a long slide downhill since the 1960s when they passed a ban on open carry because of the Black Panthers. The fact Brown vetoed what amounted to an all out ban on all modern firearms may be a glimmer of hope for what many of us would rightly consider a lost state

-Gary

California lawmakers pass new semi-automatic weapons ban | Fox News

Posted on by
Reply

Not really a surprise that the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes would pass YET ANOTHER law banning gun ownership or otherwise making the process of exercising such a right so expensive and onerous as to provide significant incentive to either leave the state or give up the right entirely.

“…AB500, which passed the Assembly, would require gun owners to safely store weapons when they live with someone who cannot own a weapon because of mental illness or a criminal record.

The Assembly also gave final approval Tuesday to AB1131, which would prevent people who convey a serious threat of violence to a licensed therapist from owning a gun for five years…” See the full article HERE…

While a part of me likes that they actually made an attempt to deal with the mental illness issue, I have a problem with the idea that one person can take away the rights of another individual.  It’s not that I don’t trust doctors (OK, I don’t) but, there are a number of “professionals” who cannot separate their politics from the job they are supposed to do.

As an example, my own sister is in fact, a licensed psychiatrist. We are separated in age by over 14 years and may as well have grown up with entirely different parents in totally different worlds. Conversations I’ve had with her over the years lead me to believe that she thinks just about anyone who owns or wants to own a gun conveys a serious threat of violence. At the same time, she also advocates for anyone wanting to buy a gun to go through a psychiatric evaluation. If I already know you think anyone who owns or want to own a gun conveys a serious threat of violence, what’s the point in bothering with a psychiatric evaluation? Folks; one of us is crazy, the other one is NOT a licensed psychiatrist.

-Gary