Sunday, October 13, 2013

Governor Brown Vetoed the Rifle Ban but Signed 11 Other Gun Laws

San Jose News

Some of the other bills Brown signed will require long-gun buyers to earn safety certificates like those already required of handgun buyers; ban conversion kits that allow people to turn regular magazines into high-capacity magazines; and extend from six months to five years the prohibition from owning firearms for those who have described a credible violent threat to a psychotherapist.

Gun rights activists are grateful that Brown vetoed Steinberg's SB374, but the governor still "signed the most sweeping set of gun control bills in the nation into law today," Kerns said Friday. "There will be a political price to pay for this."
She said her group will examine Friday's signings, pore over roll calls of lawmakers who voted for them "and determine if there are grounds for legislative recalls," especially "any legislators who voted wildly out of step with their districts. ... We may even go out and talk to some of their constituents, hold a town hall or three."
Still, Brown ultimately rejected seven of 11 bills that the National Rifle Association had urged him to veto.
Easily the most controversial gun bill signed by Brown was AB711 by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-South Gate, to ban use of lead ammunition in hunting by mid-2019.
He issued a signing message that said lead endangers wildlife, but noted that the new law lets the state Fish and Wildlife Department suspend the ban if the federal government prohibits nonlead ammunition because it's considered armor-piercing.
"It is time to begin this transition and provide hunters with ammunition that will allow them to continue the conservation heritage of California," Brown wrote.

15 comments:

  1. TS, my friend, you should move to the United States. California is a failed state in need of federal intervention, but that won't come soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lie about facts again hillbilly. Calif. has lower unemployment than the rest of the country. Calif. is building, unlike the rest of the country. Calif. has a better financial bottom line than the rest of the country. If all States were as healthy as Calif. we would have no recession.

      Delete
    2. JIm,

      I'm afraid your facts are a bit off on this issue. Here is a comparison of unemployment figures compared to the US overall.

      2013 January 9.8% 7.9%
      February 9.6% 7.7%
      March 9.4% 7.6%
      April 9.0% 7.5%
      May 8.6% 7.6%
      June 8.5% 7.6%
      July 8.7% 7.4%
      August 8.9% 7.3%

      http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Employment.htm

      Delete
    3. I'll give you the standard reply you hillbillies give to EVEY poll, or study Mike posts.
      Your stats are lies!
      So be a fucking hillbilly and get the same treatment you give.

      Delete
    4. Jim,
      This isn't a study or poll. These are unemployment figures provided by the California state government. No biggie.

      Delete
    5. On this blog, we're really not too interested in comparative unemployment stats. But we are interested in gun violence and violence in general.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/10/californias-5150-rule-for-gun.html

      Delete
    6. Yes, Flying Junior, federal intervention. The U.S. Constitution trumps state attempts to infringe on rights.

      Delete
  2. My belief is that over time, a number of states will sort out and become "havens" for people who are more comfortable living with strict gun control and other forms of infringements on civil rights that they are willing to forego.
    These states over time will tighten their laws to the maximum short of losing a constitutional challenge and they will feel much better knowing they are much "safer". This is part of the great experiment our form of government allows. The problem is that when data shows their hypothesis to be incorrect, most scientists will accept the data and move on. When it comes to gun laws, the scientists claim contamination from other states and demand other experiments change in order to support their hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your support is appreciated, Greg. Arizona is pretty nice. And if I live in the high country it doesn't get too hot.

    So Mike, what were your thoughts on the vetoes- particularly sb374, the expanded "assault weapons" ban? I seem to recall you supporting this, but just the other day you were arguing that things like forward pistol grips make all the difference in a killing machine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry he pulled a Chris Christie and vetoed that one. But some of the ones he signed are good.

      Delete
    2. So, you're admitting that the cosmetic features are not what makes an assault weapon according to the definition you would really like--instead, you want to ban semi-automatics that use a detachable magazine, regardless of make, size of magazine, structure of the gun, etc.?

      Delete
    3. So what was all that talk the other day when you were railing against Emily Miller for saying there is no functional difference between "assault weapons" and semi-auto hunting rifles? And your screed on forward pistol grips? You want the gun banned with or without the grip.

      Delete
  4. Don't forget that Brown was also the first in the world to decriminalize marijuana. Believe me. It's nice to be able to laugh about a marijuana ticket. Always ahead of his time. A true man of the people.

    California and New York will continue to lead the world for the foreseeable future.

    I wonder if he ever really had a chance to try to pull the reins in on Linda Rondstadt after all? You can't blame a guy for trying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're always good for a trip down memory lane.

      Some of our commenters think Arkansas and Mississippi lead the country. To each his own, I guess.

      Delete