California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

Infringe : act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

The new law makes it very difficult if not impossible in some cases to manufacture a hand-gun.

How is the NOT infringing the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Law of the land?

reply to post by howmuch4another


Just another example of what happens when Progressives get in charge. They destroy a state.

What needs to happen, is the tax revenue needs to leave the state. All those "evil" rich people paying high taxes need to relocate.
Then, the state can fail and then maybe be rebuilt as per the Constitution.

Screw California. No longer will my family and I do Disneyland. I will happily pay the extra money to go to Florida.

reply to jrod

that is what was mostly argued last year when the thread first surfaced and it's a good question with unpopular answers.

reply to post by macman


I certainly cannot find anything in your post I don't agree with. We are looking at Nevada or Texas for 2015.

reply to post by macman


We here in Florida will welcome you, come on down, the weather is lovely.

As far as microstamping goes, are people that stupid? A small jewelers file will take that etching right off. Firing a few hundred rounds through the firearm will at the minimum, wear it down and distort it enough to make it useless. Brownell's and Midway usa usually have great prices on aftermarket firing pins (and barrels too if they want to microstamp the barrels somehow) Then what? What good does it do? Furthermore, will the courts even allow that as evidence? They rarely admit forensic ballistic as evidence because it is documented to be very consistently inaccurate. Regardless of what you see every week on CSI and other such television shows, it is as flimsy as flimsy gets so courts throw it out the majority of the time before a lawyer even really gets to it.

I just want to throw this in here..
I saw someone state earlier in this post that Regulation is not infringing on rights of bearing arms.. I want to point out what this guy said below..


Li nk to Story

n a press release, Dahm said: “The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet when we require our citizens to jump through hoops, pay fees and undergo a process that presumes they’re guilty of something until proven otherwise, their rights are being infringed upon. Senate Bill 1473 simply says Oklahomans can carry firearms in all the places currently allowed by law, but they will no longer be required to obtain a license to do so.”

The guy quoted here is actually right.. When you have some many things that you have to do to get a firearm it is actually infringing on your right to bear arms.. Hense Shall not be infringed.

www.fresnobee.com...

Firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson will no longer ship new semi-automatic pistols to California, preferring to turn away from the nation's most populous market rather than comply with a controversial new gun law. The publicly-traded company posted the announcement on its website in reaction to the state implementing Assembly Bill 1471, which requires new or redesigned semi-automatic pistols have a "microstamping" feature that indelibly marks bullet casings with a unique code when a gun is fired. "Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms," the company said in a news release dated Thursday. "A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes." Read more here: www.fresnobee.com...=cpy

so seems smith and wesson wont be selling any semi autos in ca any more over this,and as the article goes on to say that the state of ca is being sued over this as well so we will get an important court ruling out of this one hopefully when the law gets struck down


www.saf.org...

www.976-hunt.com...

This whole thing stinks of "nudge".

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


My thoughts? Paranoid me thinks that this is another attempt to get guns from the hands of legal gun owners. Why? Because then the thousands of sleeper agents (aka: 'illegal aliens') will have an easier time taking back California when they finally get the order to begin the real invasion.

Realist me however, totally just sees this as more people being 'afraid' of guns. So they are trying to take them from people 'for their own protection.'

reply to post by Chronogoblin


I hear you man.

However, the one thing that points me to the gun confiscation agenda is that just about anyone with half of a brain knows that this will do nothing to combat gun violence.

I mean it just does not make any sense. Are people really that dumb? Do they really think this will help?