There’s absolutely no gun control measure I can’t imagine the state of California fully embracing. After all, we’ve long suspected the only thing keeping them from a total gun ban is that pesky Second Amendment that preserves the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet even with it, they seem determined to make it as difficult as possible for people to get firearms.
Their latest effort would seek to expand the list of prohibited persons well beyond what federal guidelines do.
A recently introduced bill aiming to increase gun safety would amend existing California law to place a 10-year ban on firearm possession for people convicted of several additional misdemeanors.
Assembly Bill 2239, introduced by California assemblymember Brian Maienschein, aims to amend the section of the Penal Code relating to firearms to prohibit firearms for one year people convicted of misdemeanor child abuse, elder abuse, carry of a concealed firearm, carry of a loaded firearm in public and more.
California law prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from possessing a firearm and already includes several misdemeanors that would trigger a 10-year ban on firearms.
Maienschein was joined by San Diego’s Mayor Todd Gloria, City Council Member Marni von Wilpert and City Attorney Mara Elliott to introduce Friday the legislation he said would keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
They keep saying that, yet actual felons–people prohibited from lawfully buying a firearm in all 50 states–still manage to get their hands on guns with frightening regularity, so just how is California going to stop it now?
See, I can’t help but notice how they try to link child abusers and elder abusers with the guy who didn’t realize his carry permit expired last month.
That’s right, something as simple as that would land you on the prohibited list in California if this bill were to pass.
What anti-gunners want to do is keep expanding the list of prohibited people until virtually no one qualifies any longer. While few will defend the rights of child abusers or those who mistreat the elderly, the truth is that if their crimes are so heinous, why aren’t they felonies?
After all, if you want to make illegal acts felonies, especially things like that, I doubt you’d get a lot of pushback. I’m pretty sure there’s not a strong pro-elder abuse movement anywhere on the planet, after all.
So why not do that?
Because it’s not about those crimes being too heinous, it’s about guns being the problem in their mind. California has long acted as if that were true, after all.
They won’t make these particular crimes actual felonies because, hey, people shouldn’t spend a year or more in prison for them, but they should totally be stripped of a basic civil liberty for them. They know at least some of these are simple mistakes–such as carrying concealed–and they don’t want to permanently screw up someone’s life for them, but they’re more than ready to take their right to keep and bear arms.
Sorry, but I’m not remotely interested in hearing any reasoning for that because I’m allergic to BS.
Yes, I actually do think any argument you can make is going to be male bovine excrement and I’m simply not going to buy into it.
California needs to be seriously put in check on this kind of thing. With more and more gun owners coming into the fold, maybe they will.
It’ll be a good time to see it.