California Democrats to Americans: Get Out!
California democrats in the state senate and legislature are lining up to urinate on the 2nd Amendment and all those who believe in the amendment, with a raft of bills designed to gut the right to freely own firearms in the state. If passed, some of the bills would confiscate firearms and magazines now legally owned in the state, which already has some of the most draconian and pointless gun laws in the nation.
The new laws would essentially go after any firearm designed after 1900, including traditional semiautomatic firearms with detachable box magazines, the mainstay of hunting in some parts of the state. Some bills directly attack the tiny .22 rimfire. Weapons now owned would have to be registered; some would be seized. A background check and permit would be required to buy ammunition.
The attack on firearms owners goes far beyond the type of machine owned and includes mandatory insurance and assumption of liability; it would prevent restricted individuals from living in a home where there were guns, even locked in a safe; it encumbers firearms manufacturers and sellers with added costs and requirements.
Essentially, California democrats intend to end firearms ownership in the state, or drive those who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights out of the state. Their majority in the legislature might allow it.
I’ll pause to note here that if Republican politicians weren’t largely retrograde morons, the Dems wouldn’t be in power now; ah, but that’s a story for another day.
Several political and social factors drive and embolden California dems. First, the grand inquisitor of the federal effort to disarm Americans is, of course, Senator Diane Feinstein, who, as mayor of San Francisco, attempted to disarm her citizens and now steps forward to exercise her bias nationally. She is the standard bearer for destroying the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.
Next, as publicly observed by Democrats leading the effort, there is a rivalry with the state’s sister on the other coast, New York, which recently enacted the nation’s strictest gun laws.
Finally, there is the dedicated effort of those who benefit well from attacking firearms rights. A good example is Michael Moore, who recently demanded photos of murdered children be released to further emotionalize what should be a rational discussion. Moore, a college dropout, has made a good living from being left wing, and has directed very successful films on a number of issues. Like his counterpart on
the right, Rush Limbaugh, Moore often uses dramatic and connotative language and images to emotionally charge his supporters. Only three years apart in age, the blubbery Baby Boomer bullshitters* share many traits, including their ability to make plenty off their supporters; like Limbaugh, Moore is the highest gross product in his market.
The meat of democratic efforts is a raft of ten bills; there are about 37 other bills, some of which duplicate most of the provisions of the main 10. Normally, in a piece like this, your Fringe Editor would review the bills in question and attempt to tease out what sense there is in them. In this instance, it simply isn’t worth the effort to try to predict what the outcome might be; there are too many variables.
First, it is possible not all the bills will pass; like a DA “throwing the book” at someone so they can plea bargain, some of the most terrible of the bills might be set up before hand to be traded away for other bills.
Second, if bills pass, they might be amended; making them more moderate will help find votes.
Third, the governor might not sign the bills. He needs Republican support for some fiscal measures, and he might be willing to trade freedom for cash.
Fourth, if they are signed, lawsuits and county rebellions, as are happening in New York, may threaten the bills and they might not be enacted as law. Already a ridiculous ammo bill failed to be enacted into law because of legal and physical restrictions on the plan. That might well happen again for some measures.
Finally, it is unlikely the state has the finances to actually enforce the new laws. A caveat here: one purpose of the bills is to raise money, and to increase the cost of firearms ownership so the poor simply can’t afford legal firearms.
One thing is sure, though, it’s going to be more difficult than ever to buy or own a gun in California, whatever happens. If you can afford to move to a freer state than California, and there are many in the West, you should do so. John Evans and the other California county sheriffs who have spoken in favor of private firearm ownership will be powerless to prevent a gun grab if the Dems get their way, and indeed, local law enforcement will have to bear the brunt of enforcing these worthless laws. Nice work, urban Democrats!
*Your Fringe Editor is a blubbery Baby Boomer bullshitter, as are many of my best friends (big shout out to Don Russell!); just an observation, not a criticism.
(Bold added by Editor Fisher)