CA wasting no time following NY lead on gun control?

Well seems like the next state to be taking a turn at stronger gun control is California

State lawmakers sense opportunity for new gun-control measures

SACRAMENTO — Democratic state lawmakers are sensing an opportunity to pass stricter gun and ammunition laws in California after New York approved the toughest gun-control law in the nation and President Barack Obama proposed the most sweeping attempt to control firearms in nearly two decades.

Aside from the talk about assault weapons and magazine size, it looks like they are leaning towards the ammo as well, just like NY

—Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, announced plans for legislation that would increase restrictions on purchasing ammunition by requiring buyers to get a permit, undergo a background check and pay a fee.

Source

Is this how it's going to happen, state by state....some standing fast and some jumping on the ban wagon?

Do you think it will be a red/blue state thing?

Well, to be totally honest and consistent as a Constitutionalist (the best description for me on this, I suppose), this is how it's supposed to work. The 10th Amendment is precisely what creates this and how it's meant to be. The ability to live under different general philosophies without having to 'love it or leave it' by someone else's idea of the best way of doing things.

It's silly to imagine all 330 million people get it 'their way' and this isn't a big Burger King or something, but the ability of the people to change the Government of a state was thought to be realistic enough for most power to rest there. Just as New York and Cali are doing ....but so is Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana and...well.. several others too.

No need to have a big fight over it...since states can have all the laws the people of those states want to live under... Just don't force a California concept of life on Missouri or Texas, is what I say.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I Agree....no matter what side of the fence you stand on, you could move to a state that fit that bill for you..
The question is will the FEDS leave it at that or are we seeing another states rights issue coming to a head?

reply to post by okiecowboy


Cant say im suprised Cali is following NY. I was pretty sure they would be the next state to follow. Im guessing Maryland or Illinois will be next, and then maybe some other North East states.

I disagree with what these states have done, but as Wrabbit said, this is how it's supposed to work. 10th amendment.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
No need to have a big fight over it...since states can have all the laws the people of those states want to live under... Just don't force a California concept of life on Missouri or Texas, is what I say.

I want to start by stating that I am pro-gun, but there is a problem with your theory.

By following your logic, the southern states might just "rise up" as the saying goes and reinstate slavery (not that they really want to but for this example, lets go with it), should that be allowed to? as long as it is a state to state decision it should be respected right.

No disrespect Wrabbit, but I think you are wrong on this one.

Most likely, yes, it will be a blue state/red state thing. New York, California, Illinois. Texas, Wyoming, Missouri.

"Ban wagon" - I see what you did there.

To be clear, since I'm fairly sure I haven't weighed in on this gun debate, I'm a gun owner in Illinois (a few hundred feet from Chicago city limits) that supports gun laws. Even the proposed laws here in Illinois that I commented on about a week ago. And I no longer support the NRA after LaPierre's press conference a week after the school shootings. Although, it was a long time coming. The constant barrage of "give us money" and constant disinfo garbage in my mailbox had already pushed me to the edge.

Originally posted by okiecowboy
The question is will the FEDS leave it at that or are we seeing another states rights issue coming to a head?

Pretty much will have to, unless they want to go against the most recent Supreme Court precedents; McDonald and Heller. The Federal Government, via Executive Orders (actions, memos, whatever else) can direct policies to the Executive departments but those departments have their fingers in a lot of state issues already.

As with those, we can expect a legal blackmail from the Federal Government if States do not follow those policies or fight back (we already see that when it comes to Interstate Highway Act monies and states that don't comply or try not to). I suspect money will be withheld for mandatory background checks that have to go through some new government bureaucratic system only and States that choose not to work with these new policies will have to front the bill on funding the systems; something along those lines.

This way they can make it seem as a huge success as for the most part NY is already disarmed.

It is also the path of least resistance because of that.

They will do it city by city, block by block. But I pity the fool who tries it in Texas.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by okiecowboy
The question is will the FEDS leave it at that or are we seeing another states rights issue coming to a head?

Pretty much will have to, unless they want to go against the most recent Supreme Court precedents; McDonald and Heller. The Federal Government, via Executive Orders (actions, memos, whatever else) can direct policies to the Executive departments but those departments have their fingers in a lot of state issues already.

As with those, we can expect a legal blackmail from the Federal Government if States do not follow those policies or fight back (we already see that when it comes to Interstate Highway Act monies and states that don't comply or try not to). I suspect money will be withheld for mandatory background checks that have to go through some new government bureaucratic system only and States that choose not to work with these new policies will have to front the bill on funding the systems; something along those lines.

Similar to the "strong arm tactics" that gangs and thugs use to get their way...Our government calls them taxes/fees the gangs call it "protection money"... semantics I know are a female dog.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Very good point! I can see that type of thing going on very easy..
I do feel it's going to come down to the 10th thats the issue at stake, as much as the 2nd..how long ago was we had some states reafirming the 10th amendment rights? I still don't think that sits well with those in power at this time...
I could be wrong tho..

reply to post by RobertF

Well now, Slavery is an all together different animal ..and perhaps that's not entirely figurative for the evil I think the whole system represented. You wouldn't want me in a time machine back to that period, I'll say that. There'd be some missing landowners ...and I'm as white as my avatar. It doesn't take race to see and know evil.

That's the point though. The Supreme Court and ultimately by force of the Military to insure it was enforced, determined that Slavery and the inequality of both voting and education were unacceptable. Entirely too late, I'd agree, but it was a determination of the only body under our system capable of making one and having the last word on what is Constitutional.

In the case of the gun topic, they've done that and did it clearly in 2009. They also, in the Heller case, made it clear that regulation was proper to an unspecified degree that lower courts would have to hash out. Oh the Roberts court seems to give every gift with a backhand at the end. (rolls eyes) They do it to both sides though, so I guess it's almost about right for a Court. lol...

Anyway. that's the biggest difference in any legal sense and outside the most obvious moral point that Slavery and 2nd Amendment gun issues don't overlap or cross without the most creative stretching.

Originally posted by RobertF

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
No need to have a big fight over it...since states can have all the laws the people of those states want to live under... Just don't force a California concept of life on Missouri or Texas, is what I say.

I want to start by stating that I am pro-gun, but there is a problem with your theory.

By following your logic, the southern states might just "rise up" as the saying goes and reinstate slavery (not that they really want to but for this example, lets go with it), should that be allowed to? as long as it is a state to state decision it should be respected right.

No disrespect Wrabbit, but I think you are wrong on this one.

I think he was one the spot here with this one. Your analogy is not a good one because if the Southern States reinstated "slavery" they would be in direct violation of a Constitutional Amendment and I suspect that the culture (regardless of how they are portrayed here and via the media) would deject such a notion.

His basic premise is that of problems closest to people should be handled by the government closest to the people it is affecting. It does not mean that a State can do what it wishes, that is strictly spelled out in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Very good point! I can see that type of thing going on very easy..
I do feel it's going to come down to the 10th thats the issue at stake, as much as the 2nd..how long ago was we had some states reafirming the 10th amendment rights? I still don't think that sits well with those in power at this time...
I could be wrong tho..

States go through their posturing from time to time but as a citizen, it would pay for all of you here to study up on Bond v. United States (9th/10th Amendment case) and see that the current Supreme Court is willing to strike down overreaching Federal law "creeping" into State issues in regards to individuals.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, to be totally honest and consistent as a Constitutionalist (the best description for me on this, I suppose), this is how it's supposed to work. The 10th Amendment is precisely what creates this and how it's meant to be. The ability to live under different general philosophies without having to 'love it or leave it' by someone else's idea of the best way of doing things.

It's silly to imagine all 330 million people get it 'their way' and this isn't a big Burger King or something, but the ability of the people to change the Government of a state was thought to be realistic enough for most power to rest there. Just as New York and Cali are doing ....but so is Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana and...well.. several others too.

No need to have a big fight over it...since states can have all the laws the people of those states want to live under... Just don't force a California concept of life on Missouri or Texas, is what I say.

Wrong this does not fall under the 10 amendment. Each state must guarantee a republican form of government that complies with the US constitution. So no individual state can infringe on the second Amendment unless they secede. The Constitution is the standard all the state constitutions mirror it. all have provisions mirroring the bill of rights etc.

reply to post by LuckyLucian

If I were a betting man...I would bet that your state will be the next to jump on the wagon

There are other groups I support that, I think, do a better job than the NRA as well

reply to post by RobertF

By following your logic, the southern states might just "rise up" as the saying goes and reinstate slavery (not that they really want to but for this example, lets go with it), should that be allowed to? as long as it is a state to state decision it should be respected right.

No, that does not follow the same logic.

The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal throughout the nation.

reply to post by okiecowboy


Yeah, there are Bills downstate already in the works. Having read one of the proposals I don't have any problem with it since it mostly covers shooting range licensing and safety, along with rather useless gun restrictions. I mean who puts a folding stock on a handgun? There was, of course, a lot of bad noise about "gun grabbing" and the like but the Bill went out of its way to state quite clearly that no gun grabbing is to be had.

I'm not entirely sure I'm going to have anything to do with any special interest group ever again. Not after these past 5-6 years or so. I'll just let my money and my vote speak for me.

reply to post by hawkiye

If we could point to the Second Amendment as written and say it simply says what it says and holds no more meaning either good or bad, then you'd be technically right. Any regulation is too much regulation and any law, of any kind, is a violation of the 2nd.

That's honestly not how it can be looked at though, with all due respect on this. The way the system works is as much to our benefit as citizens as to our detriment at times but the Constitution is subject to interpretation. Only one of the 3 branches gets that power and, as it happens, it's about the only real power they DO get but the Judicial branch wields enough that way when they get the issues brought to them to look at.

In our benefit ..Well, the Heller case made absolute law for now and forever ..or until the court reverses itself entirely and that's a rare thing,.. that firearms ownership is a personal and individual right. That cannot be banned. It's in no way connected to membership in a Militia or other organization. Yay for that. It was a near thing and losing that decision would have been absolutely catastrophic.

They also said....it could be regulated. It's a backhanded gift. Similarly, Obama got to keep Obamacare ...but the court allowed any state to opt out entirely if they so chose and couldn't be retaliated against by the Federal Government in things like the Medi- program funding to force compliance.

now will the court hold strong ..AND get the issues before them in a way they can act on? Both things have to happen, IMO..and I'm not positive how they get the EO's put before them.

I defiantly am going to buy a .50 cal air rifle now.

Then all i need for ammo is a lead block and a 50cal bullet mold.

the state of Kalifornia does not understand how many people go to Reno and Lost Wages and will just buy there ammo there and then hit the tables.

I am lucky that my brother lives in lost wages and i can get him to pick up ammo and drop it off on a visit.

We have been buying cheap cigarettes there for years at the tribal smoke shops to beat the calif taxes on them.
maybe the tribal smoke shops will state selling ammo too.

I can see it at the agricultural check stations if it come to having to get a permit for ammo.
Then they will be asking if you have any fruit, vegetables, or ammo.

I hope the democrats get totaly out of controll on guns laws.
If they do in two years we may see a lot less democrats in Washington and Calif.

Originally posted by tamusan

No, that does not follow the same logic.

The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal throughout the nation.

You do realise that the 2nd Amendment makes gun control/bans illegal as well?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

To make it more clear.


From Dictionary.com....

in·fringe
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon)
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere: to break, weaken.
Synonyms
1. break, disobey. 2. poach.

So in other words....the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, breached, violated, trangressed, encroached upon, trespassed, broken, disobeyed, poached, or weakened.

Seems alot clearer when you read the Ammendments.