Today is Tuesday, September 02, 2014rss RSS feed
NRA-ILA

NRA – ILA

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)-  Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco now trying to ban and confiscate more so-called “assault weapons.”

Originally, Senate Bill 249 was a quiet agriculture bill that passed in the California Senate back in May.

With sneaky back-door tactics, Senator Yee turned the bill into a gun ban monster.

SB 249, as amended, would make a small but profound change to the definition of what constitutes a detachable magazine for a semiautomatic firearm.  By doing so, hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles, which were legally sold in California over the last decade, would become illegal on July 1, 2013.

The existing definition of detachable magazine was used by Governor Brown’s administration for the four years he served as Attorney General.

Senator Yee’s bill has no provisions to allow permitting, licensing or reimbursement for the loss of valuable property.  Worse yet, the bill doesn’t require a public notice program to advise owners of this change in state law.

Thousands of owners could be arrested for inadvertent violations.  If you own an affected firearm, your only choices would be to destroy it, surrender it to a law enforcement agency, sell it out of state or have it confiscated at the time of your arrest!  Which option would you prefer?

Call AND E-mail your state legislators TODAY and urge them to OPPOSE SB 249

  •  Contact information for your state Senator can be found here.
  • Contact information for your state Assembly Member can be found here.

 Also, contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to tell the state Legislature that he stands by the existing definition of detachable magazine,just as he did when he was Attorney General.

 Governor Brown can be reached at 916-445-2841 and by e-mail at:  http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php

Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners across California and urge them to do the same.

California is going to need EVERYONE to help fend off this attack!

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 2 User comments to “Warning – SB 249 is California’s Worst Gun Confiscation Threat in 20 Years”

    1. Winston O on August 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM said:

      Gun Bans Only Disarm the Law-Abiding

      By John C. Eastman and John R. Lott[i]

      830 Words

      This week, after the tragic attacks in Colorado and Wisconsin, State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and State Senate Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) announced a push for more restrictions on guns. They propose to ban detachable magazines on so-called “assault weapons.” Their hope is to limit the number of bullets that can be shot in quick succession.

      This might at first glance appear as a very logical solution. But it has already been tried. After January 1990 and again in January 2000, California’s assault weapons ban made it a crime to own assault weapons with detachable magazines.

      But there is no evidence that these bans reduced crime. After the 2000 ban, California’s murder rate rose, even while its overall violent crime rate fell. It wasn’t until 2008—after gun manufacturers developed a detachable magazine that complied with the California restriction—that the murder rate fell back below its 2000 level. And no academic study by a criminologist or economist has shown that the restriction had any beneficial impact on crime rates.
      Only in government are actions that fail greeted with calls to double-down on those actions. That if the original restriction didn’t work, the solution must be even stricter regulations. And so it goes with gun control.

      For ten years, from 1994 to 2004, the federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the manufacture of magazines that could hold more than 10 bullets. When it expired, Senator Diane Feinstein was among the prominent gun control politicians warning that there would be an “open season for criminals who want the most dangerous types of military-style assault weapons” and that there would be “deadly consequences on the streets of America.”

      Well, that didn’t happen. Since the federal ban expired, murder, robbery, and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Initial data for 2011 shows that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people.

      California itself has had a long experience with assault weapons bans. Its first ban went into effect in January 1990, was struck down by the California State Supreme Court in March 1998, and then was put back into effect in January 2000.

      With all these changes in the law, academics have had plenty of data from which to assess the impact of the bans. Yet studies published in peer-reviewed journals, whether by criminologists or economists—and even those funded by the Clinton administration— have not found that either state or federal bans reduced violent crime.

      Some studies even find negative effects of these laws. The bans cut the number of gun shows by over 20%, thus making it more costly for law-abiding individuals to get guns for self-defense.

      Much of Europe has already adopted every gun control law being proposed over the last few weeks and more in the US, but they haven’t prevented multiple-victim public shootings in Europe. In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. During just the last few years, there are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy.

      Over the last decade, Europe has had as many mass public shootings as the US. The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they need.

      The one common feature in all these European attacks and virtually all the ones in the US has been that they keep on occurring where guns are banned.

      Californians need only look south to Mexico to see whether extremely strict gun control laws are keeping criminals from getting everything from real machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers. And these aren’t weapons that they are picking up from US gun dealers.

      National surveys of police administrators and street officers show they doubt that assault weapons and other gun bans work. It is the same in California. A 1997 survey conducted by the San Diego Police Officers Association found that 82% of its officers opposed an “assault weapons” ban, 82% opposed a limitation on magazine capacity, and 85% supported letting law-abiding private citizens carry concealed handguns.

      Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals. But gun control proponents face a simple problem: bans are obeyed law-abiding individuals, not criminals. Laws that disarm the law-abiding relative to criminals make crime easier to commit.

      Politicians may feel better claiming that they are doing something when crime occurs, but, unfortunately, laws that disarm law-abiding citizens can all too often make the problem worse.

      [i] Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University School of Law; Lott is a former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and the author of expanded 3rd edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

    2. Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest American Militias?

      Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

      Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

      Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

      The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

      During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

      NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

      You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

      Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

      Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • Mike11C: EAT THAT, Shannon Watts!!!
      • Janek: Resisting the onslaught of ‘Progressive’ policies via ‘boycotts’ limits your freedom...
      • Scott Weir: A 200″+ or anything close would go great on my wall
      • james bollerud: Does Secretary Salatazar have an office or a contact person working in Anchorage, Alaska?
      • Charles K. Bent JR.: VOTE HIM OUT!
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

    • AmmoLand Poll

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ
    13746032
    14344384