I keep finding myself wondering if California will ever hit a point where they’ll decide they’ve done enough on gun control. The Supreme Court has made it so a total gun ban just isn’t going to happen in the state, so we know that can’t serve as the point they stop, so I’m wondering if they’ll ever hit another such point.

It seems the state has decided that not only should they restrict what kind of semiautomatic rifles you can buy there, but also dictate just how many you can buy per month.

Californians would be barred from buying more than one semiautomatic rifle a month and those weapons would be off-limits to people younger than 21 under a bill set for a final vote in the Legislature this week.

The restrictions are being sought by state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La CañadaFlintridge), who noted that such weapons have been used in mass shootings, including an April attack on the Chabad of Poway by a 19-year-old man who killed one person and injured three others.

Portantino’s bill originally would have limited purchases of all long guns to one every 30 days, but he decided to exclude shotguns and some rifles that are popular with hunters and instead focus the restriction on semiautomatic rifles.

Except, of course, there are plenty of semiautomatic rifles explicitly designed for hunting. These aren’t AR-platform rifles I’m talking about here, either, but purpose-built hunting guns with no practical non-hunting application. These guns would be restricted and off-limits to anyone under the age of 21, all while trying to claim you don’t want to limit hunting weapons.

I swear, some of these people are so idiotic that I’m amazed not to find their shoes held on with velcro.

If the state was considering nothing else to do with guns right now, that would be enough. Unfortunately, it’s not.

They also want to expand the rules about firearm storage.

Senate Bill 172 will change many laws. The law of not safely storing a loaded firearm in a residence with a child will be expanded to include unloaded firearms and will be made into a criminal offense punishable by the convicted not being allowed to own a firearm for ten years. Likewise, the current law of keeping a handgun in a place that a child or someone who cannot legally own a gun can easily get to, has been expanded to include all firearms, and also carries a ten year ban on owning guns.

That same ten year ban also applies to owners of a residence storing a firearm if they know that another resident there is legally prohibited from owning one.

In addition, the bill authorizes temporary transfers of weapons without a firearms dealer being present in cases of suicide prevention and sets additional regulations for guns and ammunition stored at residential care facilities for adults, those with chronic injury, and the elderly.

Senator Anthony Portantino (D–La Cañada Flintridge), who has a long history of enacting and voting for gun control legislation, has stated that he has backed SB 172 to prevent gun accidents at home, and to prevent gun violence and shootings.

Unfortunately, none of these lawmakers understand the individuals who might need to keep a loaded weapon unsecured for some reason. Also, this would potentially punish those who find themselves cohabitating with a prohibited person unknowingly and not securing their weapons. While that’s not a great position to be in, it also shouldn’t be criminal. Someone moving in with a roommate may not know that their new roomie was arrested for smacking his wife around a few years previously, yet this bill could turn the new roommate into a criminal.

Honestly, though, what else can you expect? California’s chief export is idiotic gun control ideas, and these are no exception.