- Threat Watch
- Warrior Tools
- Body Armor
- Long Guns
- Accuracy International
- Desert Tactical Arms
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- Mosin Nagant
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- SIG Sauer
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Wilson Combat
Posts Tagged californistan
Arsenal Inc. appreciates the 2nd Amendment supporters and our enthusiasts from California and we remain dedicated to “The Right to Bear Arms” for everyone.
However, given the current laws and regulations in California and with less than 3 months left for the new laws to take effect, we regret to announce that the production of two of our California compliant rifles, the SAM7SF-84C and SAM7UF-85C has come to an end as of October 10th, 2016. All components for making the SAM7UF and SAM7SF into fixed stock California compliant rifles have been manufactured and the last units have rolled out of our production lines.
The $3.5 million referendum will end grandfathering of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, require relinquishment of weapons by those prohibited by the state from legal possession and mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns. In addition, it would require background checks prior to all ammunition sales – a first for any state.
It is this latter facet that drew particular concern from the group of California’s municipal police chiefs, led by Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney.
From Sacramento Bee:
Asian residents of south Sacramento say they’ve formed their own armed patrols to respond to a wave of robberies that has terrorized the community, where business owners report a steep drop in customers because people are afraid to go out after dark.
Some Chinese community leaders have formed a task force to combat the issue themselves, frustrated by the slow response from civic leaders. The volunteers have launched armed patrols in south Sacramento and respond to calls for assistance from those using WeChat, a popular social media app that originated in China.
“There’s no difference between night and day,” he said of the requests for assistance. “We need to take security into our own hands. If not, who will protect us?”
This is why everyone should have the choice to defend themselves how they see fit. The police will not always be there and have no legal duty to protect anyone.
An Assembly bill that could hike the cost of gun permits in the state is now headed to California Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.
McCarty, a Sacramento Democrat, argues his county had a $250,000 shortfall caused by its permitting program.
From Courthouse News Service:
The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of “health care providers” and subject third parties, including journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally recorded footage.
Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the illegal footage.
From NBC LA:
More than 7,000 handguns, rifles and other weapons were destroyed Thursday as part of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department’s 23rd annual Gun Melt event, authorities said.
Sheriff Jim McDonnell joined other law enforcement officials at the annual event Thursday morning at the Gerdau Steel Mill in Rancho Cucamonga, where more than 180,000 firearms have been destroyed over the past 23 years. This year’s event marked the largest gun melt since the program’s inception more than two decades ago, according to authorities.
As previously reported, Bahrami filed paperwork with the Secretary of State’s office on Friday to repeal a half-dozen new laws signed by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this month. He told Guns.com that he is trying to raise 450,000 signatures of registered voters on each petition to slam-dunk the 365,000 required by law to make the ballot.
From Gun Runnerz YouTube channel:
From National Review:
As soon as the story hit the news, the usual suspects began cranking themselves up. Americans, they said, need to “do something.” It was time, they argued, for “more laws.” And the NRA? It was, of course, to blame. Forgive me for being a broken record, but I have some questions in response to these reactions: Namely, “what something?”; “which laws?”; and “what, specifically, did the NRA do wrong here?” Rolled into one, these congeal into a single, simple inquiry: “What law — specifically — would have prevented yesterday’s shooting?”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436142/ucla-shooting-gun-controllers-need-say-more-specifically-what-they-want-do
From Chris Cheng:
Earlier this week, San Francisco’s last gun shop, Highbridge Arms, announced that it is closing its doors in October 2015. Here’s an excerpt from their Facebook page.
As Highbridge Arms was my home gun shop, I will be very sad to see it go. There is no official word if they are relocating or simply going for good. I hope they will relocate to somewhere in the Bay Area so we can ensure that San Franciscans can exercise their Second Amendment right.
It will be interesting to see if any viable lawsuits come up in the future which argue that San Francisco has a de facto gun ban since it will (soon) have zero gun shops, or something along those lines. I’m not a lawyer, but I sense potential for legal action by some organization down the line.
From The Huffington Post:
Every now and then a case, a law comes into focus to remind us just how far we remain from the dream of equal protection under the law. Such a case appears this week in the State of California where the betters have moved Senate Bill 707 to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk for consideration.
SB 707 is a gun control bill. It is part of a larger strategy of zero tolerance gun control measures with the real aim to trip people up in ways that even the smallest mistake causes them to lose their gun rights. SB 707 adds a new tripwire to the Gun Free Zone laws that surround 1,000 feet around every school in California threatening everyone, even those with a dire need or legal permit, from being within these zones with a gun. Everyone that is, except for the one lobby Sacramento needed to support this law, retired police officers. Even though they are no longer law enforcement officers and do not have any police powers, they will be granted a privilege no other citizen will have in the State of California. Indeed, there are lobbyists that seem to believe that retired police officers are not subject to living among their lowly fellow citizens as equals under the 14th Amendment; that they are better, exempt; that they are not “little people”.
The bill has been introduced by Rep. Honda (D-CA of course):
Considers as a banned hazardous product under the Consumer Product Safety Act: (1) any firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank (do-it-yourself assault weapon) that does not meet the definition of a firearm under the federal criminal code at the point of sale but that can be completed after purchase by the consumer to function as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machine gun, or (2) an assault weapon parts kit or machine gun parts kit.
Makes it unlawful to market or advertise any of such weapons for sale on any medium of electronic communications, including over the Internet. Requires marketing or advertising violations to be treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
From Shotgun News:
Uber has forbidden all its supposed free-agent drivers to carry guns or to pick up anyone with a gun. So Uber gets to tell you how you may protect yourself (prayer, maybe?) and restricts you from carrying a whole class of passengers.
In concealed carry states no one is supposed to know/see that you have a gun so how would this be enforced? Quick answer: it can’t. It won’t be long now before criminals start targeting Uber cars to rob driver and passenger.
Update: I called it.
On Wednesday, an Uber driver in Queens was robbed by a man who allegedly got in his car, pointed a rifle at him, and demanded his money.
From David French of National Review:
If I lived in San Francisco, I would violate that law. San Francisco’s anti-gun ideology is simply not worth risking my family’s safety. I do not have confidence that — even with practice — my wife and older children would be able to unlock a safe as quickly as necessary, under extreme stress (nor am I completely confident that I could do it). In fact, it’s hard to see a clear downside to violating the law. Yes, there are criminal penalties for noncompliance, but San Francisco isn’t doing house-to-house searches for gun safes. It simply doesn’t have the resources to systematically enforce this law, and it never had any intention of systematically enforcing the law. Instead, it’s counting on the least dangerous gun owners in America (the law-abiding cohort) to voluntarily render themselves more vulnerable. I would dissent. In fact, I have dissented in other, similar jurisdictions in years past.
By declining to hear the case the Supreme Court has essentially given the “thumbs up” to this law and signaled to other cities that they may do the same.
From Yahoo News:
By declining to hear an appeal filed by gun owners and the National Rifle Association, the court left intact a March 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the measure.
The regulation, issued in 2007, states that anyone who keeps a handgun at home must either store it in a locked container or disable it with a trigger lock.