The state of California has the most extensive gun control laws in the nation. While it hasn't gone as far as many lawmakers would like to go, that's because most know they'd never get away with some of what they'd like to do.
A lot of anti-gunners in other states say they just want laws like they have there. They claim they don't want gun bans or to make life more difficult for the law-abiding gun owner, they just want to keep guns out of criminal hands.
But that's not really true.
Some of them may actually believe it's true, but it's not. We know it's not because there will always be something more for anti-gunners to demand.
In California itself, there are three gun bills working their way through the legislature. One modifies the red flag orders to include threats other than those against an individual or specific group of people, such as threats against a given location.
I don't like red flag laws, but if you're going to have them, this makes a certain degree of sense.
The other two are where you really see why it'll never be enough, though.
SB 53 specifically prohibits firearm possession in the home unless the firearms are stored in a Department of Justice-approved locked box or safe that renders them inaccessible to anyone other than the owner. According to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, this measure “ignores the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, which argued that storage requirements that prevent gun owners from easily accessing their firearms are unconstitutional.”
A legislative summary of the measure states: “The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified.”
SB 1253 would have prohibited anyone in California from possessing a firearm without a valid Firearm Safety Card. The measure was watered down somewhat in the amendment process and as passed requires anyone bringing a gun into the state to obtain an FSC within 120 days. Violation of the law would be punishable as a misdemeanor.
First, let's talk about the Firearm Safety Card.
Look, gun safety is important and I don't think you ever have enough training, particularly with regard to gun safety. The issue, though, is that when you start requiring a license before one can own a firearm, it allows the state to make the conditions of getting that license more and more onerous until it becomes practically impossible to get one.
What's more, there's literally no other constitutionally protected right that requires a license to exercise. I don't need a permit to open a church, for example, yet we've seen abusive and dangerous cults hurt and kill people through the years, so why is the right to keep and bear arms different? We don't require a license before one can speak their opinions, despite the fact that some of them are asinine, so why here?
Then we come to the idea that a gun needs to be kept in a locked container--no gun locks, mind you, which are easy to get your hands on and are even given out free of charge by numerous entities--at all times. They're saying that it can't be accessible in the event you need it, which will then make defensive gun uses drop, which will then be used to argue that guns don't help you defend yourself.
Yet as troubling as these measures are, the underlying factor we have here is that despite the plethora of gun control laws on the books, if there is a possibility of there being more to take, they'll try to take it.
Press a gun control advocate for where the line is and they most likely won't have one beyond a vague, "I don't want to ban guns, I just want some 'common sense' restrictions." That is the lie, a lie many tell themselves because while they might not want to ban guns, they're willing to inch as close to that line as they can.
The truth of the matter is that no matter how much they take from you, they're always looking for ways to take more. It's why compromise isn't an option because we know they'll just come back for more.
And honestly, playing nice over our rights is completely overrated.
