California Gun Control Craziness Risk Of Trading Futures Contracts To Earn Money Watch Advertising Binary Options Graphs Login Virtual Trade Pad One Click Trading V 7 0 Forex 60 Seconds Binary Options Review Trading

This proposed law is also a backdoor effort to impose an expense on handgun ownership knowing that it is in lieu of a tax. In the process, it creates a boondoggle akin to the private remedial auto schools we now have when you get a moving violation. The intent is to saddle the owner of a handgun, who has a lawful right to keep it in his/her home according to the Supreme Court, with a cost of hundreds of dollars per year. It’s the same kind of BS logic that anti-abortion lawmakers use to force women to pay for an unwanted sonogram and then to listen to the fetus. It will result in making handguns available only to the competent test-taker with sufficient money. Sadly, it has class, and probably racial overtones.

A second absurd proposal is to call all long guns with removable magazines assault weapons. What about .22s? Can anyone credibly argue that a .22 caliber rim-fire rifle with a five or ten round removable magazine is an assault weapon? It stands the meaning of the words “assault weapon” on their ear.

What about rifles with removable five round magazines? There happen to be many such rifles that are bolt action, not semi-automatic. What about those? Bolt action rifles are not what we’ve seen in misuse in Tucson, Aurora or Newtown. When’s the last time anybody has seen a multiple murder, much less a mass murder by someone using a bolt-action rifle? (Probably, the Texas Tower sniper back in the ’60s.)

There are also some guns that are semi-automatic but have small removable magazines. I am thinking of the Ruger Mini-14, a popular gun among rural folks. Again, this is not a weapon of choice by a mass murderer.

So, as I read the reports of these legal proposals, I am wondering why our legislators are spending their energy trying to fix things that are not broken. I come to the conclusion that they are relying on the ignorance of their constituents or some people’s visceral animosity to firearms of all kinds. Many people in California would prefer to ban all firearms. I can understand their feelings but the current state of the law is not with them and attempting to achieve that result by imposition of incremental absurdities is both disingenuous and counterproductive.


This entry was posted in Essays, Politics, What's New and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *