California gun laws

[spdrun]

I was having this discussion with a self-professed Tea Partier ... "I hate California and would never move there because they're so strict about guns."

I truly don't have a strong opinion on the issue since I don't own guns, but I go look up the law -- no permit required to buy or own a handgun or rifle, only a safety test and background check. This is actually less strict than many Northeastern states. You need a permit to carry concealed, and it goes by county, ranging from impossible to get to shall-issue. Again, less strict than a lot of the Northeast, and frankly, I'd rather not have random people going armed in urban areas. There are also restrictions about the kinds of guns that can be sold. Again, not unusual or terribly shocking.

Why the hatred of CA on this issue? Are they just envious of the climate and unable to afford the move?

[MTI]

Mostly because many think that California is a monolithic block of liberalism.

[The Clk Man]

I believe in the Right to own Guns.

[Jorn]

I believe in the right to own a bazooka.

[Hatterasguy]

Cause you can't own anything.


Every manufacture has what is known as CA models. For example say you want an AR. In CA your not allowed to own one with a standard magazine release, you have to have whats called a "bullet button" since you can't release the mag without a "tool". Your also limited to 10 rounds.

CA is also very hard to sell guns in, if you go on Gunbroker I would say 70% of the dealers don't ship to CA.

CA and NY are the two worst states, MA is pretty bad too.

I think their class 3 laws are pretty restrictive as well, but I'm not a class 3 expert. I know CT sucks since you can't own a class 3 unless its only full auto. No single shot or 3rd burst allowed.

[spdrun]

^^^

Wait a sec -- machine guns ("full auto") are *mandatory* in CT?

Perhaps I'm thinking of different guns than you. What I meant is that in CA, a non-felon should have no trouble buying something like a .38 revolver to defend their home or business (assuming they can pass the class and test). This isn't the case in a lot of the Northeast.

[elchivito]

There is a mentality among conservative 2A extremists that ANY restriction on gun ownership is the first tip down the slippery slope towards 2A repeal. Most have swallowed this line hook, line and sinker cast directly from the NRA's boat. As a gun owner and user and lifetime non-NRA member, I don't subscribe to such lunacy. As a believer in state's rights, CA can do whatever it wants to.

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by Jorn

I believe in the right to own a bazooka.

Here, have this piece of Bazooka bubble gum.

[Botnst]

One of the benefits of federalism is that each state can formulate laws that work for them and not be overly concerned with what works in another state, so long as both states stay within the agreed upon national guidance -- the constitution....

[Hatterasguy]

Originally Posted by Botnst

One of the benefits of federalism is that each state can formulate laws that work for them and not be overly concerned with what works in another state, so long as both states stay within the agreed upon national guidance -- the constitution....

The Supreme court struck this down a year ago, all state gun laws are now unconstitutional, but try telling that to the states.

There is also an act called the Inter State Federal Firearms act. Where by if the firearm I own is legal where I left from, and is legal where I'm going I can legally transport it threw any state. But try telling that to a joker cop in MA or NY as they arrest you. One guy a couple years back who was going to a shooting match got arrested in Boston when his flight had to make an unscheduled detour for some reason. The *&%^*(&%&^ MA cops arrested him for having a firearm that was illegal in their crap state.

He'll beat it but its going to cost $100k in legal fee's, last I heard the NRA was helping him.

[Hatterasguy]

Originally Posted by spdrun

^^^

Wait a sec -- machine guns ("full auto") are *mandatory* in CT?

Perhaps I'm thinking of different guns than you. What I meant is that in CA, a non-felon should have no trouble buying something like a .38 revolver to defend their home or business (assuming they can pass the class and test). This isn't the case in a lot of the Northeast.

Pistols are limited to 10 round mags, and good luck too you if you dare to defend yourself and use one. I wouldn't not in CA.

I'd have to sell a lot of the firearms I own if I moved to CA, so the chances of me moving their are zero.

[Da Nag]

Originally Posted by elchivito

As a believer in state's rights, CA can do whatever it wants to.

States rights don't trump the Constitution.

Perhaps you disagree with such wisdom. If so, do you feel the same way about the other amendments, or do you reserve such lunacy for the second?

[spdrun]

Originally Posted by Da Nag

States rights don't trump the Constitution.

Should we be allowed to "bear" any "arms?" How about nuclear arms? Poison gas?

I can just see the NRA lobbying for the above in 2030, if we haven't killed ourselves in WW III by then. Speaking for myself, I see pistols, non-auto rifles, and shotguns as an acceptable compromise.

We also have freedom of speech, but that doesn't extend to ranting on the street at full volume at 3 am.

[HuskyMan]

The place is bankrupt and running so far in the red it will never dig out. Perhaps it will fall in the ocean someday and relieve us all of a major headache. good riddance.

[LaRondo]

Originally Posted by spdrun

Why the hatred of CA on this issue? Are they just envious of the climate and unable to afford the move?

California DoJ runs a very tight "Handgun Roster" which determines which handguns can be newly imported and sold in CA. For a handgun or firearm enthusiast, restrictions like these are horrible limitations.
It's not so much individual qualifications allowing you to own, it's what you are allowed to own. Hattie made the point already on ARs.

Personally, I don't feel is a problem. There are enough guns in CA to blow the heck out of the place.