CA anti-gunners aim at 2A rights

If gun control worked half as well as the prohibitionists claim, California should be the safest place in the nation. But the 100+ gun laws already in place have failed to prevent a rise in violent crime in many cities, as well as the high-profile shootings in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park. Still, lawmakers are looking to impose even more infringements on the right to keep and bear arms in the coming weeks, including making it more expensive to exercise your right to armed self-defense.


On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we’re taking a closer look at the latest infringements likely to emerge in Sacramento, as well as the supposed gaps in existing state law identified by the gun grabbers at the New York Times.

Inside the state, gun rights proponents say the shootings show that California’s strategy is a failure. Gun safety groups, meanwhile, have already begun mobilizing for more laws and better enforcement. As details emerge in the investigations, numerous shortcomings have been highlighted, even with California’s voluminous law.

For instance, the state’s regulatory net does not necessarily force gun owners to relinquish weapons that were legal for them to buy in the past but now are banned. California cannot remove guns from people who may have exhibited dangerous behavior, but aren’t properly flagged to courts or law enforcement. And the state must contend with the illegal gun trade, a river of unregistered “ghost” guns and the flow of firearms from neighboring states with less strict regulations

Unless the Times wants to see door-to-door confiscation (a distinct possibility), how exactly is the state of California supposed to “force” gun owners who lawfully purchased firearms or magazines that the state has since banned to hand them over? As it is, California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines requires those who legally purchased one before the ban took effect to permanently modify them to accept no more than ten rounds, hand them over to law enforcement, or remove them from the state. Failure to do so can result in criminal charges.


Similarly, how is the state of California supposed to “remove guns from people who have exhibited dangerous behavior” without getting the courts or law enforcement involved? Reporters Shawn Hubler and Amy Harmon don’t say, but it’s evident they don’t think the state’s current “red flag” law goes far enough even though family members, roommates, employers, co-workers, and teachers can all file for an Extreme Risk Protection Order without going through law enforcement first.

These recent high-profile shootings in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay should be prompting Democrats to reconsider their decades-long attempt to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence in the name of public safety, but instead they’re getting ready to unleash a new avalanche of infringements on responsible gun owners in the state.

… Jesse Gabriel, a Los Angeles-area Democrat in the state Assembly who co-chairs a legislative working group on gun violence prevention, said the group has already moved up its February meeting to discuss new legislation.

Proposals include a state excise tax on ammunition and guns, a measure to add three years to an existing ban on gun ownership for people who have had domestic violence orders filed against them, a proposal to make the possession of an unregistered “ghost” gun a felony and a bill to let people suffering a mental health crisis put their own names on a “do not sell” list. A campaign to expand awareness of gun violence restraining orders also is underway.

Also in the pipeline, he added, is a bill to align the state’s laws on permits to carry concealed weapons in public with a sweeping June Supreme Court ruling that upended gun control laws in at least a half-dozen states, including California. Applauded by gun rights groups, the decision has unleashed a barrage of court challenges to California gun laws, including the bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines that are pending now before Judge Benitez.

Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, said the concealed carry revision is essential, as are tighter gun regulations.

“Is there something new that hasn’t been done?” Mr. Bonta said. “That’s what we’re asking ourselves.”


Yeah, here’s something new: try respecting the rights of Californians and direct your attention towards violent criminals instead of seeking to eradicate a fundamental civil liberty.

I know, I know. That strategy hasn’t been attempted in the state for more than 30 years, and the Democratic supermajority isn’t about to start now. Still, if they’re looking for a new approach, that’s the one to take. Since they’re really just looking for any kind of anti-gun restriction that they haven’t already slapped on the books, however, responsible gun owners are going to have to continue to look for the courts and judges like “Saint” Benitez to curb the repeated abuses leveled against their fundamental right to armed self-defense.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member