Posts Tagged californistan

No Guns in Uber Cars?

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.

From Brietbart.com:

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.

 

 

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

SF Gun Laws Don’t Trump My Safety

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.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Declines To Hear San Fran Gun Case

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.

 

 

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Debates Taking San Francisco Gun Control Case

From Reason.com:

Will the Supreme Court allow the 9th Circuit to openly flout one of its precedents? We may soon find out. Today the justices are meeting in private conference. Among the items scheduled for consideration is a petition filed by conservative lawyer Paul Clement seeking review of the 9th Circuit’s Jackson opinion. “The decision below is impossible to reconcile with this Court’s decision inHeller,” that petition observes. “The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that San Francisco may venture where this Court forbade the District of Columbia to go is so patently wrong that summary reversal would be appropriate.”

 

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

California Sued For Regulating Gun Ads

From WND:

Weapons retailers in California are suing the state over a ban on the display of images of handguns – even the word “handgun” – in what the business owners say is a violation of the First Amendment.

“I am one of the most heavily regulated and inspected businesses in existence, but it’s still illegal for me to show customers that I sell handguns until after they walk in the door,” said Baryla, who owns Tracy Rifle and Pistol.

“That’s about as silly a law as you could imagine, even here in California.”

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Impossible Law Leads To No New Guns In California

California law requires a technology in guns that does not exist.

From San Diego Rostra:

Last year Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris decided that a law signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 would now be put into effect. The law requires every pistol sold by a dealer in California have a serial number on the tiny tip of the firing pin so that it imprints an identifying mark on the ejected casing of a firedcartridge. Without this, a pistol cannot get onto the “not unsafe” list. It was agreed upon at the time of passage that the law would not go into effect until the imprint technology was developed.

Anti-gun laws passed in Sacramento have already ended sales by manufacturers like Barrett Firearms and STI International. Smith & Wesson and Ruger have joined fellow manufacturer Glock and organizationsSecond Amendment Foundation and National Shooting Sports Foundation in a lawsuit against California regarding their “not unsafe” gun list scheme. The attorney heading the case is Alan Gura, who in 2008 helped win Heller vs. D.C. in front of the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

, , , , ,

No Comments

CA Bill To Require Ammo Registration and “Permit for Purchase”

From NRA-ILA:

SB 53 would require the purchasers of ammunition to register with the state Department of Justice (DOJ) prior to purchasing any ammunition.  This registration would require the submission of fingerprints, a background check and fees to the DOJ.  If passed and enacted into law, SB 53 would require the collection and reporting of personal consumer information and thumbprinting for all ammunition purchases throughout the state.  It would also ban online and mail-order sales of all ammunition, including hunting and collectible ammunition.  In addition, SB 53 would require anyone wishing to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms to obtain a costly ammunition purchaser permit that must be renewed every two years.

Read the bill here

From smartgunlaws.org:

Status: This bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 10, and is currently on the Assembly floor. 

, , , , ,

No Comments