Well surprise surprise. Wonder who scared him off. Whoever they were good work gentlemen.
[b]SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Friday that would have imposed the nation’s toughest gun ownership restrictions on Californians, saying it was too far-reaching.
The legislation would have banned future sales of most semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, part of a firearms package approved by state lawmakers in response to mass shootings in other states.
It was lawmakers’ latest attempt to close loopholes that have allowed manufacturers to work around previous assault weapon bans. Gun rights groups had threatened to sue if the semi-automatic weapons ban became law.
“I don’t believe that this bill’s blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights,” the Democratic governor wrote in his veto message.
He also noted that California already has some of the nation’s strictest gun and ammunition laws.[/b]
Oh, and atleast he admitted in the statement that it is an actual infringement on one’s rights. Although he completely dismisses the point that that is a right we all share, not just gun owners. More of that us vs. them mentality :rolleyes:
Our ridiculous legislature will be back at it next year, but in the meantime, a little common sense temporarily prevails in California.
Now to start the recall efforts on some select and vulnerable representatives who voted in favor of the ban. One here in San Diego County, Lorena Gonzalez, only needs like 5,000 signatures.
I have a feeling that he went after the ammo instead. If the guys in CA can’t get lead free ammo at a decent price…he effectively limited the semi automatic rifles…without outlawing them.
Jerry Brown was the state’s attorney general before he became governor. It’s a fair bet that he realized that such an overreach in the law would only lead to bad things later on.
In light of the high courts knocking down restrictive laws against weapons in common use (and you can’t get much more “common use” than banning ALL magazine fed semiautomatic rifles), the law was doomed to fail. The bill changed all the current definitions of assault weapon. Had the bill been signed and implemented, it would have gone down in flames in the court system. When that happens, it probably would have taken nearly ALL of California’s draconian laws with it since they are all interwoven into the penal code.
I’m tracking but before he signed this bill, there were a few areas where this already was in effect, now it is state wide. To the best of my knowledge, there wasn’t an exception for ranges used for marksmanship/training or any other activity. Just no lead bullets in the state.
The Heller ruling was seen as a major win for gun rights yet it is still next to impossible to own a gun in D.C. and it is impossible to CCW in D.C.
The current lead ammo ban only applied to hunting within the endangered condor regions. I’m currently stationed at a base within this region. I have no problem buying traditional lead ammo anywhere, but they all say it cannot be used for hunting. The new law expands that limitation to the rest of the state.
There are grumblings that some groups will challenge this on the basis that requiring solid copper ammo will run afoul of restrictions against armor piercing ammunition. I don’t think they’ll have success with that route, but they’re going to try it anyway.
Some people are actually pissed that Brown vetoed the expanded AWB bill. If passed, everyone would have to register their semi-auto rifles and they could have removed the stupid bullet buttons anyway (since they would now be registered assault weapons, anyway). And then they would ride out the court challenges until the whole AWB infrastructure collapsed. They called this the “briar patch” solution.
Of course, there is always the chance that the state would implement some sort of confiscation scheme, as it has before, regarding the newly registered weapons.
I had saw something on this that was saying the law would allow people to register their guns as assault weapons and grandfather them in. They were saying these people would then just remove the bullet button as it was now an assault weapon in the eyes of CA. Any truth to this?
Essentially, the law redefined the definition of assault weapon. In order to make it happen, they would have to reopen the assault weapon registry that’s been closed for 12 years. Now they would suddenly have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more registered assault weapons in the state.
Since the bullet button is what currently keeps AR-15s from being considered an assault weapon, it would no longer be necessary once the weapon was registered as one. The regular magazine release could be reinstalled.
Basically, passing the law would bring about the grabbers’ worst nightmares, as the state would suddenly be awash in legally owned fully capable assault weapons. Then, once they tried to close the registry (as they did before) disallowing any new weapons to be purchased or registered, their new law would be crushed in the courts, taking the entire assault weapon infrastructure with it.
Browns decision is no reason to celebrate as many people are. We lost other rights. The fact that we only were ****ed halfway has some stupid Californians orgasmic. Non of them should have passed. We’re already one of the most restricted states in the nation. I’m sure plenty of 2A Californians will actually vote for brown next election because he only chopped half their dick off instead of the whole thing. Their plan is working well.
In a sad way it actually was a victory for CA. It’s like Stalin only sending half your family to Siberia when you expected everyone would go. CA is actually a very scary place from a civil rights POV.