Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the 2nd Amendment rights category.

Federal Gun Legislation

2nd Amendment rights

Comment by Tim Grenvik:  Unsure if this legislation will get very far, but hoping for the best. At least someone in congress is willing to make the attempt to curb states like NY and CA.


In case you’re interested, here is a copy of the text of the proposed legislation:


No Comments

California: Federal Judge Grants Request to Stay Enforcement of California’s Magazine Ban

2nd Amendment rights, Constitution, Courts

NRA News

June 29, 2017

Today, attorneys for the California Rifle & Pistol Association, supported by the National Rifle Association, obtained an important injunction in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, a federal lawsuit challenging California’s restrictions against standard capacity magazines. The injunction prevents California from enforcing the recently enacted ban against the mere possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, while the case is pending. The ban was set to take effect on July 1—less than 2 days from today.

In granting the injunction, Judge Benitez explained that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in this lawsuit because “public safety interest may not eviscerate the Second Amendment.”

Filed in May of this year, Duncan is the second in a series of carefully planned lawsuits challenging the package of gun control laws passed last year that have collectively become known as “gunmageddon” in addition to the anti-gun Proposition 63. The case challenges California’s restrictions on standard capacity magazines on the grounds that it violates the Second Amendment, due process clause, and takings clause of the United States Constitution.

As a result of the injunction, California gun owners will not be required to surrender or permanently alter their lawfully owned property by July 1. Instead, the injunction preserves the “status quo” while the constitutionality of the law is decided by the court.

To stay up to date on NRA’s legal efforts in California along with other important issues surrounding your second amendment rights be sure to subscribe to NRA-ILA alerts, check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage . To help contribute to NRA’s legal efforts in California click here.

No Comments

Federal judge blocks California ban on high-capacity magazines

2nd Amendment rights, Constitution, Courts

Sac Bee.com

June 29, 2017

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

Benitez added that “a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.”

The judge granted the request of attorneys from the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association to temporarily block the law.

In the days leading up to the ban, some California gun owners, pro-gun sheriffs and sellers have been reluctant to give up their magazines. Some gun owners have previously said that they were hoping pending court challenges would block the ban.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” said Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko in an earlier interview with The Bee. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

The ban is part of Proposition 63, approved with 63 percent of votes in November, that required background checks for people buying ammunition and instituted other firearms restrictions.

In a statement, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said that the proposition aims to prevent further mass shootings by those who own high-capacity magazines.

“Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way,” Becerra said in the statement. “Restricting large capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities.”

To get rid of magazines in compliance with the approved law, California gun owners would have been allowed to move them out of state, sell them to a licensed dealer, destroy them or hand them over to law enforcement.

Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks: 916-321-1418, @ayoonhendricks

Read more here:


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

2nd Amendment rights

Sac Bee.com

June 26, 2017

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: how many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

California banned the sale of high-capacity detachable magazines in 2000, but it remained legal to possess them, except in cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and Sunnyvale that enacted local bans. That changed this fall when voters and lawmakers passed overlapping gun laws that require Californians, with limited exceptions, to give up any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Sometimes incorrectly called “clips,” magazines are the part inserted into a gun that holds ammunition and can be quickly popped in and out for rapid reloading.

Gun-control advocates say getting rid of magazines that make shooters capable of firing a rapid volley of bullets in a matter of seconds will reduce threats to police and make it harder for gunmen to kill as many people in mass shootings.

“There’s just a lot of data that shows that large-capacity magazines are particularly attractive to mass shooters and to individuals committing crimes against law enforcement,” said Ari Freilich, staff attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, one the backers of Proposition 63, the gun-control initiative that California voters passed last fall. “They do not have legitimate self-defense value.”

In a pending lawsuit challenging the ban, Chuck Michel, a prominent gun-rights attorney in Long Beach, disagreed.

“The reason for the popularity of these magazines is straightforward: In a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death,” he wrote. “Banning magazines over ten rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles.”

Magazines sales were never tracked and owners weren’t required to register them, so it’s not clear how many remain in circulation. Gun rights advocates say there could be potentially hundreds of thousands of them in California gun owners’ homes.

Many types of handguns sold in California prior to 2000 came with detachable magazines that held more than 10 rounds. Large-capacity magazines also were widely collected and used by owners of semiautomatic rifles. These include the controversial – but hugely popular – AR-style rifles. Similar magazines also have long been popular with owners of Ruger’s 10/22, a ubiquitous .22 caliber rifle used by target shooters and small-game hunters nationwide.

The law provides no state funds to compensate owners for their magazines, and there’s no way to track whether gun owners give them up.

The law does give California gun owners several options to get rid of their magazines, including moving them out of state, turning them into law enforcement, selling them to a licensed dealer or destroying them by July 1. Some gun shops also are offering to permanently modify magazines to make them legal.

Even the staunchest pro-gun sheriffs, including Bosenko, the Shasta County sheriff, say they’ll be more than happy to tack a magazine-possession charge on to a drug dealer’s or a gang member’s rap sheet should deputies catch them with a high-capacity magazine.

“This is one more thing we can add to their charges, absolutely,” said Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims, an opponent of the law.

Voluntary compliance among otherwise law-abiding gun owners is another matter.

California cities with local ordinances haven’t had very many gun owners hand magazines in to police, though officers have removed some from circulation during the course of their investigations. The Los Angeles Police Department, for instance, seized nearly 9,000 magazines since it enacted a ban in 2015. Almost of all those magazines came from a cache police found inside a home of a gun collector who died in 2015. The department said it doesn’t track how many citizens voluntarily turned theirs in.

As of late last year, the City of Sunnyvale had six cases in which people handed in their magazines since the city enacted its ordinance in 2013, said Capt. Shawn Ahearn.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

NRA — California: Anti-Gun Bills to be Heard in Committee on Tuesday, June 27.

2nd Amendment rights

On Tuesday June 27, the Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committees will be hearing anti-gun bills SB 464, SB 497 and AB 424. Please use our TAKE ACTION button below to email members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and urge them to OPPOSE SB 464 and SB 497 and the Senate Public Safety Committee to OPPOSE AB 424. 

In the Assembly Public Safety Committee:

Senate Bill 464, sponsored by Senator Jerry Hill (D-13) would further increase the mandatory storage and security requirements for licensed firearms dealers. California already has some of the strictest laws in the country regarding how dealers must store and secure firearms.  This bill simply places more costs and mandates on law-abiding business owners.

Senate Bill 497, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), would extend California’s one-handgun-a-month limitation to all guns.  It is obvious this legislation is another attempt to place more barriers on those exercising their rights and does nothing to address the criminal misuse of firearms or firearm trafficking. Criminals who generally acquire their firearms through illicit means will continue to ignore California’s stringent laws including limitations on the number of firearms that can be acquired within a 30 day time period.

The following Assembly Public Safety Committee Members need to hear from you! 

AssemblyMember Reginald Jones-Sawyer (Chair) – (916) 319-2059

AssemblyMember Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher – (916) 319-2080

AssemblyMember Bill Quirk – (916) 319-2020

AssemblyMember Blanca Rubio – (916) 319-2048

AssemblyMember Miguel Santiago – (916) 319-2053

In the Senate Public Safety Committee:

Assembly Bill 424, sponsored by Kevin McCarty (D-7), would remove the authority of a school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority to provide written permission for a person to possess a firearm within a school zone, absent very limited exceptions.

The following Senate Public Safety Committee Members need to hear from you! 

Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair) – (916) 651-4009
Senator Steven Bradford – (916) 651-4035
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson – (916) 651-4019
Senator Holly J. Mitchell – (916) 651-4030
Senator Scott D. Wiener – (916) 651-4011

Please continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

No Comments

Obama Official Issues Ammunition Ban for Federal Lands on Last Day in Office

2nd Amendment rights

Free Beacon.com

BY: Stephen Gutowski
January 20, 2017 3:47 pm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, an Obama appointee, ordered a new ammunition ban for certain federal lands on Thursday–his last full day in office.

The ban, which took effect immediately, eliminates the use of lead-based ammunition on federal lands like national parks and wildlife refuges, as well as any other land administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The ban is expected to have a major impact on much of the hunting that takes place on federal lands across the United States as lead-based ammunition is widely legal and used throughout the country.

Ashe said the order was necessary to protect wildlife from exposure to lead.

“Exposure to lead ammunition and fishing tackle has resulted in harmful effects to fish and wildlife species,” Ashe said in his order. “According to the U.S. Geological Survey, lead poisoning is a toxicosis caused by the absorption of hazardous levels of lead in body tissues.”

“Ingested lead pellets from shotgun shells have been a common source of lead poisoning in birds,” the order continued. “The Service recognized the problem of avian exposure to lead shot used for waterfowl hunting and enacted restrictions in 1991 and hunting and waterfowl populations have thrived since.”

“The use of lead ammunition continues for other forms of hunting, presenting an ongoing risk to upland or terrestrial migratory birds and other species that ingest spent shot directly from the ground or as a result of predating or scavenging carcasses that have been killed with lead ammunition and left in the field” Ashe’s order said. “Many states have enacted nontoxic shot and ammunition requirements to address this concern.”

Gun rights activists expressed outrage at the last-minute move, labeling it political. The National Shooting Sports Foundation called for the agency’s next director to immediately rescind the order.

“This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics,” said Lawrence Keane, the group’s senior vice president. “The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen, and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this and, instead, create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition.”


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

Liz Writes Life 12-13-16

2nd Amendment rights, Liz Writes Life

Dec. 13, 2016

Liz Writes Life

Published in Siskiyou Daily News, Yreka, CA.

The election of Donald Trump and many of his cabinet and advisor picks are exciting for those of us who believe that tyrannical regulation has been stifling the country’s economy and destroying communities through unemployment. Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt is sending shudders through the ranks of Greens and liberals. Yes, he and several dozen other state attorney generals brought a lawsuit against the over-reaching of the federal EPA that hurts farmers, ranchers and industry. Yay!

Previously, half of the nation was unhappy with the heavy-handedness of federal bureaucrats like the EPA – and that was us! Now the other half of the USA gets to feel the frustration. Sorry about that, but I truly believe Scott Pruitt will serve this county well. And the environment will not be annihilated in the process. In all likelihood it will be greatly improved.

I also like Ben Carson for the HUD pick and Washington State Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers for the Dept. of Interior Secretary. She believes in managing the forests and that fossil fuel is not a horrible monster. My goodness, such realistic attitudes!

Unfortunately, here in California, we still have much to be worried about, especially regarding the many new gun laws. It is confusing. These laws overlap previously established laws. Did you know there is already regulations on assault weapons passed by the state legislature in 1999 and signed into law by then Gov. Gray Davis? Yep.

During the Scott Valley Protect Our Water meeting on Dec. 1, 2016, President Andrew Hurlimann gave a run-down on the new 2016 gun laws passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown plus the new gun law approved by more than 50 percent of the voters on Nov. 8, 2016. Andrew found that the Ten Percent Firearms facebook page presented a fairly easy-to-understand list. I found it and reprinted it here for gun owners.

Jan 1, 2017

Bullet button ban: You cannot purchase or transfer rifles that have bullet buttons. The law is more complicated than this — we are just keeping it simple. You have until Dec. 31, 2017 to make your rifles compliant or register them as assault weapons on the California Dept. of Justice website as buying them was not assault weapon registration.

Loaning firearms: You cannot loan fire arms to people unless they are to spouse or immediate family.

July 1, 2017

Lost or stolen firearms: You have 5 days to report lost or stolen firearms.  $100 infraction cost. (Sounds like a fine to me.)

Large capacity magazine ban: You cannot possess magazines over 10 rounds.  There is a $100 infraction per magazine.

January 1, 2018

Ammunition purchasing restriction: All ammunition sales must be conducted through a licensed ammunition vendor.  No more internet or occasional sales except through a licensed vendor.

January 1, 2019

Ammunition registration requirements: Ammo sales must be submitted to the CA DOJ and include customer driver’s license, DOB address, signature and band/ type/ amount of ammo sold.

July 1, 2019

Non-lead ammunition for hunting: All hunting statewide will require non-lead ammunition. Until then, you can still hunt dove and quail with leaded ammunition.

Effective immediately when purchasing a newly-considered assault rifle: All bullet button equipped rifles must have at least a $300 deposit before DROS (Dealer Record of Sales) start.

Purchasing an assault rifle

Dec. 20, 2016

All bullet button rifle sales end at the close of business. Any inventory not sold will be converted to featureless rifles and put back on the shelf for immediate sale on the 21st or at some point before Jan. 1, 2017. This is going to require some cost and so prices will go up approximately $150.

Dec. 30, 2016

Any bullet button equipped rifles not picked up by the end of the business will automatically be converted to featureless and can still be picked up after Jan. 1, 2017. There will be a non-negotiable $150 charge added to do this and standard cancellation fee of 15 percent and the normal 30 days to pick up still applies.

At this time we cannot guarantee any new fixed magazine devices will comply with the requirement of “disassembly of the action” and the only 100 percent legal option is to go featureless. When the regulations are published, we can give you better guidance on your options.

Assault weapon registration can begin on Jan. 1, 2017 and as long as you lawfully possessed your assault weapon prior to Jan. 1, 2017 you have until Dec. 31, 2017 to register your gun.

Lord Monckton

More than 200 individuals attended the Siskiyou Republican Women’s dinner last week. Great food Dave and Kathy Tyler and all their help! Lord Monckton claims much of the Global Warming crisis is a fraud and perpetrated to establish a tax on all humans by a world government. I personally believe there is such a thing as climate change, but do not believe that man is the cause of most of it. Nor do I believe that all humans must pay for their sins of living on the earth by providing more “tax” money to already very rich people or governments. And, yes, I believe we do need to take care of the earth and the wildlife, but I also believe that under the guise of Global Warming trees are not being thinned to healthy numbers and as a result vicious catastrophic wildfires are putting more “bad” stuff in the air and killing wildlife than many other activities. I will also allow that this horrible practice is man-made, because it is some humans that are dictating the trees must be saved; and then the dry, over abundance go up in flames. Ugh. What a sick, unrealistic way of thinking!

Liz Bowen is a native of Siskiyou County and lives near Callahan. Call her at 530-467-3515.

# # #

No Comments

Gun laws: Who is making compliance difficult?

2nd Amendment rights

PNP comment: This article was written back in 2001 AFTER a major assault weapon ban made it through the legislature and Guv. Gray Davis signed it. David Peltz explains how difficult California DOJ  made it for Californians to register their newly-considered assault weapons back in 2000. This is crazy folks and this type of craziness continues in 2016! — Editor Liz Bowen

Keep and Bear Arms.com

Why haven’t Californians registered all their assault weapons?

by David Peltz

As printed on pages 1 and 4 of “Viewpoint”
Los Angeles Daily News, Sunday, March 4, 2001
Submitted for publication here by the author

In “Harassment by Law” (Viewpoint, Sunday, January 30, 2000) I described problems Californians faced in attempting to comply with the state’s new “assault weapon” registration law. AB-23 dictated registration on or before December 31, 2000.

California Governor Gray Davis holds pieces of an “assault rifle” prior to signing a gun ban that should get him tried and convicted for treason. –KABA

Now we learn that out of California’s population of 35 million people, only 27,000 “assault weapons” have been registered, even though it is estimated that there are 500,000 to 1 million legally owned assault weapons in California. What caused this massive amount of non-compliance?

On various firearms-related forums on the Internet I learned that many Californians opted to legally ship their assault weapons out of state.

A number of others legally removed certain “offending parts” — such as pistol grips and flash-hiders — from their “assault weapons” to reduce them to a state which doesn’t require them be registered. The fact that these stripped firearms are still fully functional is proof positive that in addition to being unclear, the assault weapon definitions contained in AB-23 are totally meaningless.

Many law-abiding Californians say they have not registered as an act of civil disobedience — perhaps the largest such act in U.S. history. They strongly believe that firearms registration is a serious violation of their civil rights and will eventually lead to them losing their firearms.

They point to histories of other locales including New York City, Australia, England and pre-WW II Germany where innocent weapon registration eventually led to wholesale or complete weapon confiscation.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” –George Santayana

These people are not right-wing extremists, but, they strongly feel California’s assault weapon registration crosses the line between maintaining one’s individual God-given rights as dictated by the U.S. Constitution, and giving them up.

They opine that government has no more of a right to dictate which arms they can own for self-defense (or any other legal firearm activity) than it would in selecting which churches they can attend, or which topics they can discuss when writing a newspaper editorial.

And, they say that if you truly examine the facts, you will find that gun control laws just don’t work to reduce crime or violence.

For example, if gun control did work, we would not have just seen a shooting outside the White House. Washington DC has the strictest gun control laws in the country. They constitute a total gun ban — you can’t own or even possess any firearm in Washington DC.

Despite that annoying little detail, an armed man did indeed just get arrested outside the White House after allegedly shooting at it.

Every time there is a school or workplace shooting someplace, we’re falsely told that more gun control laws are needed. This in spite of the fact that California, with its very harsh gun control laws, leads the nation in such events.

CNN and The Associated Press have stated that six of the last 27 school or workplace shootings happened in California. By contrast, absolutely none have occurred in 20 of the 32 states with “shall issue” carry concealed weapon permits and no assault weapons laws.

California’s assault weapon law was passed as the result of a schoolyard shooting in Stockton. Gun-owners felt it was nothing more than a feel-good, knee-jerk reaction, and the CNN/AP numbers have proved them correct.

No fewer than 10 of those 27 school and workplace shootings ended with the suicide death of the shooter. Two more ended with suicide-by-cop. Can sanity be legislated? No, it cannot!

Our legislators seem to have forgotten that each and every thing a criminal can do with a firearm (such as merely possessing it, or committing homicide, assault, robbery or kidnapping, etc.), is already as illegal as these crimes can be, without benefit of any of the nation’s 30,000 gun-control laws. What we really need instead is criminal control.

Lastly, others complain they couldn’t or didn’t register because the law is unclear or the registration procedure was impossible to follow.

When the AB-23 assault-weapon registration went into effect, practically no information was available regarding how to comply with it by December 31, 2000. Public hearings were held. The Department of Justice “clarified” the compliance rules, over and over again.

But, many questions still remained unanswered, including which firearms needed to be registered. As late as October, the DOJ released a document on the Internet which added new ones to the list.

Due to the constant changes, my wife and I delayed sending in our own registrations until December.

We needed two forms but only had one at the time. We went to place after place, but other than “…the very last (form) we have…” from LAPD in the West Valley, all through December, no registration forms were available anywhere in the San Fernando Valley. Absolutely none.

Finally, on December 28, three short days before the deadline, DOJ posted (on the Internet) a version of the otherwise unobtainable form.

You could fill it in and send it to DOJ, but you still had to somehow obtain and submit a “real” form within 14 calendar days.

If you were lucky enough to find a form, you faced the next hurdle — fingerprinting. LAPD doesn’t do it anymore. We eventually found someone with a fingerprinting kit.

The year and a half of change, uncertainty, missing information and unobtainable forms are, in part, why so few law-abiding Californians succeeded in running the DOJ assault-weapon registration gauntlet. To many, it was impossible to comply.

To outside observers, the California assault weapons registration system has been funnier than a Mel Brooks movie. I don’t think the unnecessary creation of upwards of a million new criminals (because of nonregistration of weapons) is at all humorous — it’s sad, tragic and disgraceful.

My wife and I complied. But, after waiting for two months, we still haven’t received any proof of registration. We still can’t use our “registered” firearm without fear of arrest and confiscation. If this isn’t harassment by law, what is it?


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


No Comments

What 2017 holds for California gun owners is still in the air

2nd Amendment rights

PNP comment: I am researching the 2016 new California guns laws and the law passed by the CA. voters on Nov. 8, 2016. This is a good informative article, so I decided to post it. Good luck deciding what to do. — Editor Liz Bowen


California lawmakers and voters in 2016 passed multiple layers of new gun laws set to take effect over the coming years, but just exactly how they translate to practice is a bit murky.

Over a dozen gun control bills were pushed through the state legislature in an express train conducted by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León this summer. While Gov. Jerry Brown rejected a few, in the end he signed seven into law including a controversial “ghost gun” bill he had repeatedly vetoed.

Then came Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” voter referendum which, filed prior to the legislative push, largely duplicated several of the new pending laws while adding a mandate to require background checks prior to all ammunition sales. Listed on the ballot as Proposition 63, voters approved the initiative 63-37 in the general election earlier this month.

However, between the overlap of the legislation and the ballot initiative, and concerns over some of the laws’ constitutionality when compared to the Second Amendment translating to threats of lawsuits on the horizon, many on the ground are left confused as to what happens next.

“Trying to learn what we’re going to have to do is a hassle,” Danielle Terry, manager of Shooter’s Paradise, told the Appeal Democrat. “The Department of Justice tells us to refer to the bill text to figure out what we’re going to have to do.”

The full text of Prop. 63 alone, which has been removed from Newsom’s committee website, is 15 two-column pages taking up some 2,900 words.

Among the more rigid requirements would be that the sale of ammo without a license would be a misdemeanor for any business or person selling more than 500 rounds per month. Internet sales, unless they use a local ammo vendor as a middleman, would be illegal. Those who want to purchase ammunition would need to get a four-year $50 permit, which would require a background check.

Eventually records on all sales and transfers of ownership of ammunition will be electronically transmitted to the California Department of Justice, though the means to do so currently are nonexistent.

While the ammo restrictions largely won’t be felt by the public until 2018 or later, other tenets of the new laws will be more immediate.

Those who own “pre-ban” magazines capable of holding more than 10 cartridges, even if grandfathered under past bans, will be in violation of the law after July 1, 2017. The only allowances to remain in compliance with the law are to remove the magazine from the state, sell it to a licensed firearms dealer, or turn it in to police.

The “ghost gun” bill signed by Brown changes the definition of a firearm under California law to include “an unfinished frame or receiver that can be readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver,” which could make ownership of 80 percent lowers and some gun kits a legal gray area.

Such raw components would have to be regulated in the state just like other guns including having a serial number registered with the Department of Justice, transferred through a licensed dealer, and fall under DROS fee schedules and waiting periods for first-time buyers. Moreover, it would require all homemade weapons currently in the state made after 1968 — and some even older — to have a serial number on file under threat of a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.

The magazine confiscation and mandates on homemade guns raises the specter of non-compliance, which is often seen in arbitrary bans.

Recently, in Connecticut, just 50,000 guns deemed by the state to be “assault weapons” out of an estimated half million in circulation were registered. On the heels of New York’s SAFE Act which expanded the state’s definition of banned weapons, just 44,000 were registered with the state out of an estimated 1.2 million thought to be in the Empire State. Prior to Prop. 63’s passage in California, gun owners rallied at the state capitol and promised they would not be handing over anything.

“We expect mass non-compliance with these laws and encourage good, peaceful Californians to carefully consider the risks of voluntarily identifying their firearms, magazines, and ammunition to law enforcement officials, especially the California Department of Justice,” Brandon Combs, president of Firearms Policy Coalition, told Guns.com previously.

As for how the new sheaf of laws will affect guns on the market in the state, the California-unique bullet button has been banned, but other variants that mean to comply with the new  law are already on the market. While some gun makers have announced their last batches of some of their “California-compliant” rifles, with a market of some 13 million estimated gun owners in the Golden State, there likely will continue to be AKs and AR of various designs on store shelves that meet DOJs new guidelines.

“To make a long story short, Yes! California will innovate, just like we have every other time they banned ARs,” the FPC’s Craig J. DeLuz told Guns.com this week. “In 1990 we came up with ‘Off List Lowers.’ In 2000 we invented the ‘Bullet Button.’  2017 will be no different. Once the regs are out, we’ll know which of the already proposed or soon to be created innovations will allow California gun owners to own these firearms while remaining in compliance.”

What is is known and expected by the state, in a fiscal analysis of Prop. 63, is that tax payers will be on the hook moving forward for potentially tens of millions of dollars annually, related to new court processes, law enforcement and regulatory costs associated with the measure.

What 2017 holds for California gun owners is still in the air

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Guns Save Lives: Armed Passerby Saves Police Officer From Being Beaten to Death

2nd Amendment rights

Leah Barkoukis

Leah Barkoukis


Posted: Nov 15, 2016 1:10 PM

Town Hall.com

Usually it’s police who come to the rescue, but for one sheriff’s deputy in Florida, it was a man with a concealed carry permit who saved his life.

The deputy tried to make a traffic stop Monday morning but instead of stopping, the driver took off, driving more than 100 miles per hour. After following the suspect onto an exit ramp, the driver got out of his car and started assaulting the deputy, identified as Dean Bardes.

Fortunately, an armed passerby came to Bardes’ rescue.

Shanta Holditch told WZVN that the suspect pulled the deputy out of his car and “just kept beating him and beating him … throwing him to the ground and punching him in all different directions.”

At that point, WINK reported, another driver got out of his car and ran to the scene. He told the suspect that he’d shoot him if he didn’t stop beating the deputy.

“[He] refused to get off the officer and the officer kept yelling, ‘shoot him, shoot him, shoot him,’ Holditch said.

When the suspect didn’t stop his attack, the third man shot him three times. The deputy was not hit. The suspect later died.

“I heard like three shots. He fell down on top of the police officer,” said a witness who would only give his last name, Smith.  “After a moment, the police officer rolled him back over, got on his mic, then rolled over back on the ground besides the guy.”

Bardes, a 12-year veteran of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office, suffered only minor injuries and was released from the hospital the same day.

If the ‘good guy’ didn’t have his gun, this story could’ve ended very differently for the deputy.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments
« Older Posts