CA: Another Big Lie Editorial

[Subdeacon Joe]

Local rag ran an editorial advocating a vote against Newsom's Prop. 63. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/6194012-181/pd-editorial-no-on-prop

But, as usual, it is stuffed with lies.

 

California has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, including mandatory background checks and a 10-day waiting period on all firearm purchases.

This year, after a heavily armed couple killed or wounded 36 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino, state lawmakers took additional steps to outlaw weapons designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

Beginning in 2017, semi-automatic rifles equipped with “bullet buttons,” a feature allowing rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, will be banned in California. So will the sale or possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Also, starting in 2019, background checks will be required for ammunition sales, and ammunition sales will be prohibited to people ineligible to own guns due to felony convictions, mental health issues or restraining orders related to domestic violence.

Proposition 63 on the Nov. 8 ballot covers much of the same ground. But it was drafted without legislative oversight and has conflicting provisions that could result in litigation, complicating implementation of the new state laws.

Initiatives are supposed to provide an alternative route when the state Legislature fails to act. On this issue, however, legislators have acted. Voters are asked to supersede those laws with Proposition 63. That seems premature. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote.

One area of conflict is the ban on high-capacity magazines, with different exemptions in the law and the initiative. Another is background checks on ammunition sales. Proposition 63 creates a new state permit for buyers, which could be renewed every four years. The new state law requires a check on each purchase. Both avenues are likely to produce litigation, and the conflict between them could present its own legal challenges.

Proposition 63, sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, isn’t without merit.

In an attempt to thwart straw purchases, the initiative would require people to notify law enforcement within five days after discovering that one of their weapons is lost or has been stolen. Too often, guns are reported lost or stolen only after being used in a crime.

Proposition 63 also would close a loophole in Proposition 47, a 2014 initiative that allows the theft of a gun worth less than $950 to be charged as a misdemeanor. Making that a felony offense means anyone convicted of stealing a gun would no longer be eligible to own or possess a firearm. Such a change requires voter approval, but that could be accomplished separately — and without the friction between other provisions of Proposition 63 and the state’s new gun laws.

 

 

See my response. Also, please add your own comments.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Joe, the "Reader Comments" page won't open...

 

Can you post a copy of your reply here?

[Subdeacon Joe]

"Beginning in 2017, semi-automatic rifles equipped with “bullet buttons,” a feature allowing rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, will be banned in California. "

No, the "bullet button" was to comply with the anti-civil rights Democrats mandate that a tool be used to release the magazine from scary black rifles (SBR) rather than just using the standard magazine release. This made the firearm marginally less safe since you had to fumble around with a tool to release the magazine.

Now, with the deluge of anti-Bill of Rights laws that Democrats in Sacramento passed in record time on July 1 this year, one must break open the firearm in order to either load or release the magazine. So now, if you hand to someone, or have someone hand you, a SBR you must, rather than being able to drop the magazine and cycle the action to eject a chambered round and check the chamber to make sure it is empty, you must either fumble around with the take down pin and open the rifle or cycle the action up to 10 times to eject rounds from a charged magazine, then open up the rifle. Democrats in Sacramento care nothing for actual firearm safety, only about eventually banning all guns in California.

"Proposition 63 also would close a loophole in Proposition 47, a 2014 initiative that allows the theft of a gun worth less than $950 to be charged as a misdemeanor."

You fail to mention that that "loophole" was created by Democrats in an attempt to create fewer felons. In late June a bill written by a Republican from So. Calif. to make theft of any firearm a felony again was voted down by Democrats in Sacramento. Again, showing that they care nothing at all for actually doing something about crime or violence, but are intent on ridding CA of all firearms and punishing the 99.99% of gun owners who will never misuse their firearms.

"As regular readers of these pages know, we are strong supporters of gun safety laws."

No, you are strong supporters of legislating private ownership of firearms out of existence through draconian anti-civil rights laws.

I am amazed that the anti-civil rights editorial staph (sic) of the PD has come out against any anti-gun law. Of course, the o, so enlightened editorial board of the PD still spreads the lies of the totalitarian left. What a shame that they will scream about being asked to reveal their sources, or being held accountable for spreading likes, and insist that the Bill of Rights protects anything anyone related to the press does, but work hard to destroy every other clause of the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Thanks, Joe.

 

Well presented!