Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
These are the same type of people that reassure you, they don’t want limitations on your long guns.
More incremental gun control.
Don’t fall for it.

Leftist Democrat California Governor Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into ‘law’. Lawsuit ensues.

This is all about control for control’s sake.
.

California Sued over One-Gun-a-Month Purchase Limit​

6,441

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

AP Photo/Keith Srakocic

AWR Hawkins

20 Dec 2020

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed suit Friday against California over the state’s one-gun-a-month purchase limit for law-abiding citizens.

California has had a one-gun-a-month limit on handgun purchases since 1999, but legislation to expand purchase prohibition to all guns was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (D) in 2019.

On October 11, 2019, the Sacramento Bee reported Newsom’s signed the Senate Bill 61, bringing long guns under the same one-gun-a-month purchase limit that already governed handgun sales. The expanded gun rationing law is set to take effect . . .
Click to expand...
 
Among law-abiding citizens, who would need to purchase more than one gun a month? Do hunters need to do so? Gun collectors perhaps? I suppose the rationale is to have fewer guns in circulation. After all, guns are not toys or food, so who would need or want to have more and more of them in people’s homes, given they might fall into the wrong hands even if purchased legally?
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, I think it is everyone’s business that more guns are circulated among people, law-abiding though they may be, because such weapons of destruction, even when used for the purpose of self-defense and hunting, may fall into the wrong hands by family members and others if not carefully stored and safeguarded. As I said, guns cannot be treated as a safe commodity in the same way as toys and food, for example, and even the latter products carry with them restrictions. Guns are more akin to such commodities as cigarettes and alcohol, and I believe should be monitored accordingly, particularly in large urban centers.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Among law-abiding citizens, who would need to purchase more than one gun a month?
Click to expand...
Law abiding citizens should only be able to exercise free speech once a month.

Law abiding citizens should only be able to exercise religious liberty once a month.

Law abiding citizens should only be protected from illegal search snd seizure, and cruel and unusual punishment once a month.

These are no more and no less constitutionally protected rights as the right to arms. If the government can infringe on one of them this way, they can and will infringe on others.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
I don’t know.

It is none of my business what “law-abiding citizens” do in cases like this.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Law abiding citizens are not and should not be obliged to tell government, or anyone else how and when they exercise their constitutionally protected rights.
 
The right is to bear arms, but NOT to purchase arms to excess. If one already has arms to bear, why does one need or have a right to continue to purchase more and more arms even to the point of having the military capacity to inflict harm or inadvertently lead others to inflict harm on the State, one’s neighbors, or oneself? Even law-abiding citizens run risks of overindulging their freedoms if these are not tempered by a sense of moral responsibility to the welfare of others. Do you not believe that our constitutional rights were shaped within the context of an ethical framework, in particular a Judeo-Christian morality?
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
The right is to bear arms, but NOT to purchase arms to excess.
Click to expand...
Who gets to decide what is excess? Not the government.
meltzerboy2 said:
If one already has arms to bear, why does one need or have a right to continue to purchase more and more arms even to the point of having the military capacity to inflict harm or inadvertently lead others to inflict harm on the State, one’s neighbors, or oneself?
Click to expand...
But now you’re not talking about law abiding citizens. You’re talking about inflicting harm. That’s not law abiding. There are in excess of 300 million legally owned firearms owned by roughly 100 million law abiding Americans. If they were the problem, we’d know it.
So, the target of firearms laws should always be on criminals and criminal activities. As it stands currently, long guns are not the problem. Legally purchased handguns are not the problem. Illegal handguns owned illegally are the problem. Instead of intentionally attacking the law abiding and their rights, which is what Newsom is doing, government should spend its efforts on law breakers.
Meanwhile, the victims of illegal arms is disproportionately in the inner city and people of color, where progressives govern. And they seem perfectly content to turn a blind eye.
meltzerboy2 said:
Even law-abiding citizens run risks of overindulging their freedoms if these are not tempered by a sense of moral responsibility to the welfare of others.
Click to expand...
Again, 300 million arms in the hands of 100 million law abiding Americans. They are not the problem, except for perhaps politicians with authoritarian goals who view law abiding Americans as a threat.
meltzerboy2 said:
Do you not believe that our constitutional rights were shaped within the context of an ethical framework, in particular a Judeo-Christian morality?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, because rights were not shaped by men. Rights are antecedent to government. The constitution requires government to protect individual rights.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
because such weapons of destruction, even when used for the purpose of self-defense and hunting, may fall into the wrong hands by family members and others if not carefully stored and safeguarded.
Click to expand...
It’s become a fairly common phenomenon in the counties that I’ve frequented for there to be car break-ins by people specifically looking for guns in cars. I hear about them more in Cobb County, GA. Up in Kennesaw (a city in Cobb County) gun ownership is strongly encouraged.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership/index.html
 
ThinkingSapien said:
It’s become a fairly common phenomenon in the counties that I’ve frequented for there to be car break-ins by people specifically looking for guns in cars.
Click to expand...
While I saw no reference to this in the article, car break ins also happen to steal other items in cars. Lock you car. Hide items. Install an alarm.
But here again is the evidence that the issue is not law abiding citizens exercising their inherent individual right to own arms. The issue is criminals. Target them.
 
JonNC said:
While I saw no reference to this in the article
Click to expand...
I only shared the article to show the attitude to guns in that area. I lived just south of the area when I attended University and became aware of them.
JonNC said:
But here again is the evidence that the issue is not law abiding citizens exercising their inherent individual right to own arms. The issue is criminals. Target them.
Click to expand...
It illustrates how well-intentioned citizens can involuntarily find themselves as part of the supply chain for those that have bad intents. I’m not arguing for a specific response to this myself. As I type this, I’m two rooms over from a locker containing guns. Though these guns are primarily used to acquire food. Protection isn’t a major concern here.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I only shared the article to show the attitude to guns in that area. I lived just south of the area when I attended University and became aware of them.
Click to expand...
Okay. I had the wrong impression. Sorry.
ThinkingSapien said:
It illustrates how well-intentioned citizens can involuntarily find themselves as part of the supply chain for those that have bad intents. I’m not arguing for a specific response to this myself. As I type this, I’m two rooms over from a locker containing guns. Though these guns are primarily used to acquire food. Protection isn’t a major concern here.
Click to expand...
Without a doubt, this is the case. The same can happen when exercising free speech, that someone can act in an inappropriate way in response to something said.
 
Last edited:
Was the intent of this law to prevent mentally ill people with revenge motives from stocking up an Arsenal to carry out a mass homicide event? Talk about a cure worse than the disease, imho. It seems to be restrict just for restrictive’s sake.

I’m pro gun ownership by law abiding citizens. I’m also in favor of well thought out restrictions on gun ownership. This law isn’t one of those. However, it does seem to sound typical of some of California’s laws…massive overreach to solve an insignificant problem…how many Californians were buying more than one gun a month anyway? We’re there any statistics on that?
 
meltzerboy2 said:
The right is to bear arms, but NOT to purchase arms to excess.
Click to expand...
“Excess” of “what”?

And WHO in your paradigm gets to make those decisions for law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing wrong?

.
meltzerboy2 said:
If one already has arms to bear, why does one need or have a right to continue to purchase more and more arms
Click to expand...
That’s not my business either.
 
Last edited:
Excess can be defined as beyond the bounds of reason and within the realm of potential or actual harm to oneself or others, as in excess eating, drinking, work, idleness, sex, and so on. If religion imposes such limits so can secular authority, both based on one’s own good and the welfare of others.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Excess can be defined as beyond the bounds of reason and within the realm of potential or actual harm to oneself or others, as in excess eating, drinking, work, idleness, sex, and so on.
Click to expand...
If one is operating a motor vehicle on a public road, only drinking alcohol is covered by government. Otherwise, government has no say. But if a person kills someone while driving drunk, we do not even entertain the notion of confiscating tens of millions of cars as a response.
Sexual activity is covered by government only when one imposed it on another outside of consent.
meltzerboy2 said:
If religion imposes such limits so can secular authority, both based on one’s own good and the welfare of others.
Click to expand...
No, it can’t. If a religion restricts alcohol consumption by its members, on can merely join a different communion.
Further, the governing document of the United States extends protection over this right, which exists for the purpose of self defense, including defense against the state. The Church today presents no such threat.

Again, 300 million arms legally owned by roughly 100 million law abiding Americans. If they were a threat to the welfare of others, we would know it. Guns in the hands of government have proven to be a much greater threat over the last 100 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top