California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

0 Shares

With the stroke of a pen, new semi-automatic handguns have been banned from sale in California.

How, you ask? This bulletin, signed by the State’s Bureau of Firearms Chief, Stephen J. Lindley, for Attorney General Kamala Harris, requires all semi-auto pistols to be equipped with microstamping technology.

The technology, while available, is expensive and impractical and is not being employed by major manufacturers. Firearms manufacturers will most likely walk away from California rather than gear up to make the handguns for one State, a State that already has onerous gun laws. California-compliant models are already being dropped from production. The State’s registry of compliant weapons has dropped from 2,400 to 1,278 in recent years.

Microstamping technology is designed to create a microscopic set of characters on each cartridge fired. The characters would identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol, conceivably allowing law enforcement to track the gun to the owner.

However, the technology is far from tamper proof and is of little use when the gun is stolen or sold on the black market.

Jumping from the left coast to the right, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie saw three new gun bills land on his desk Tuesday. One would give owners of illegal guns (read scary and black and loud when fired) 180 days to dispose of them; one would create a task force to study ways to improve school security; and one would establish uniform standards for law enforcement to report lost, stolen and discarded guns. Christie is expected to sign them. New Jersey legislators are also discussing a bill to reduce magazine capacity limits to 10 from 15.

But not all gun news this week is bad. The Alabama Legislature passed a bill that, while not giving 2nd Amendment advocates in the State everything they wanted, at least moved the bar a little to the right. Among other things, the bill allows gun owners to keep their guns in their vehicles while at work. In the past, business owners could ban guns from their property completely, including their parking lot. It also turns Alabama from a “may issue” State to a “shall issue” in the case of concealed carry permits, and it gives the individual the option to purchase a five-year permit rather than only one-year permits. One bad aspect of the Alabama bill requires those without a concealed carry permit who wish to carry a weapon in their vehicle to transport their weapons unloaded and locked out of the reach of the driver.

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • SSMcDonald

    Is there even ONE person living in California with an IQ higher than the number on a local school zone speed limit sign??

    • Mr Diesel

      No, there is not.

      • Wizzardly

        not any more. and NJ is following suit. we’re out of NJ as soon as possible. We actually like NJ, enjoyed living here and raising our kids here, but it’s just intolerable any more.

    • Michael Shreve

      Apparently, the schools have successfully created a population without ANY capacity for critical thinking.

    • vicki

      Yes there is. But alas voting is done in the democratic way so the 99%ers get the representatives that have no IQ above the local school zone speed limit sign :(

      Or there is a LOT of voter fraud.

      Or both.

      • JeffH

        BOTH! :)

    • JeffH

      Yes, there are still quite a few of us left but we certainly aren’t the majority.

      FYI, It was Gov. Arnie who originally signed this law. This law effectivley ends all handgun sales and purchases in California when every approved handgun on the California approved handgun roster’s time expires.

      C.D. Michel, the NRA’s West Coast regional attorney:
      “This is not going to help solve crimes,” he said. “It’s easily defeated, easily wears out and can be used to lead police down false alleys” if the serial numbers are altered.

      Worse yet, Michel said, manufacturers will be unwilling to add this expensive feature to guns sold in a single state, and will instead keep manufacturing weapons for the other states, where demand already far exceeds supply. The effect, he said, would be a ban on new semiautomatic handguns in California, which the NRA will challenge in court.

      • JeffH

        Ther is some good news out of California.

        Conservative Andy Vidak,R-Hanford, who will be the next state senator representing the 16th District, beat the big union money backing Democrat Leticia Perez by a margin of 52% to 42%.

    • Timbo

      If you knew anything about California you would know that the Northern half of the state leans far left and the far right tends to be in So. California. Don’t lump all Californians together as liberal, that is not the case Mr. Einstein!

  • Derek Balling

    How is taking away my property rights, as a property owner, “good” somehow?

    If I’m a property owner, it is my RIGHT to say who and what may come onto my property, and you — as a visitor, or as an employee who works here — can abide by those rules or stay off my property.

    (EDIT: Let me be clear. I personally would not make such a rule for my property, but I would defend to the death someone’s right to do so for their own property.)

    • Mr Diesel

      A property owner would be wrong by banning firearms from someone’s vehicle. Think of you car/truck as your own little piece of home that you take with you. Your employer can’t arbitrarily search it unless you have signed away your rights so they cannot dictate what you car in your car. Period.

      • Derek Balling

        But if you want to bring that tiny little slice of portable-property, and rest it on top of MY real-property, I can absolutely set conditions on that. And one of those conditions might be “no hazardous materials”, or “no guns”.

        • Mr Diesel

          Nope, not the way it works and more and more states are making sure you are wrong.

          You can make it a condition of employment going in but not after the fact or ban automobiles completely but you do not have the right to ban anything legal in someone’s car no matter what you might think or feel about that legal item.

          • Derek Balling

            Yet another reason simply not to allow people to come on one’s private property.

            [comment has been edited] get on your property and they think they own your property and can set the rules.

          • Mr Diesel

            Finally, something we do agree on. Just keep everyone off your property and I have no problem with that. As a business if you let people drive on and they have something legal in their car though and you can’t a thing about it.

            Personally I mow next to a busy state route with my Glock on my hip exposed and I answer the door with it in my hand.

            I only visit theaters that allow guns.

          • Derek Balling

            OK, let me ask some clarifying questions:

            – What if as a condition of coming into my property, you have to sign an agreement to waive certain rights, such as the right to carry a gun? Do you consider that binding or non-binding?

            – What if, at the entrance to my property, I post a sign which says, “by coming onto this property, you agree to waive the following rights: blahblahblah”? Do you consider that binding or non-binding?

          • vicki

            What if, at the entrance to your property you post a sight which says “by coming onto this property, you agree to waive the following rights:The right to life, liberty, property “?

            Do you consider that binding or non-binding?

          • Derek Balling

            LIFE: Non-binding, because my taking of life from you is a criminal act.

            LIBERTY: Binding. People waive liberties all the time in exchange for access to restricted portions of private property. For instance, you have a first-amendment right to say whatever you want, BUT, if you go onto Google’s private property, you’ll sign an NDA that says you waive that right when it pertains to things you see/talk about on-site.

            PROPERTY: Binding. I waive the right to $11.00 worth of property every time the movie theater allows me into the auditorium to watch a film.

          • vicki

            I notice in the 2 binding examples you only covered 2 of the MANY items in the sets. Do you mean to say that some liberties are waive-able and some are not?

          • Derek Balling

            The point in the two “binding” examples, is that it CAN be binding. The point in the non-binding is that when you’re causing ACTUAL CRIMINAL HARM, there are very strict limits.

            Your inability to carry a gun on my property is not an “actual criminal harm”. It may be inconvenient for you, it may make you feel less safe, you may even BE less safe, but you can still choose not to come onto the property if you don’t like it.

          • vicki

            Agreed. Especially with respect to your private property. If I don’t agree with the limits you have requested I just don’t go onto your property.

            As to how I feel that is entirely in MY control. No law can make me feel safe if I don’t want to.

          • Derek Balling

            Exactly.

            And then, where I go after that, is that a privately-owned workplace is private property. So I think this particular law is nonsense.

          • LastNameFirst

            There is a difference in your personal private property and your business private property. Your personal property is the confines of the building or automobile that you own and are in; not your outside area so to speak. 2 examples- 1. Colorado state law; an intruder in your home or vehicle that you are also in at the time is legal to defend yourself with any and all force as long as he is not running away from you. If he makes it outside and you shoot him in your yard, you are going to jail for attempted / murder. It’s still your property, but now you are in an open environment. 2. South Dakota laws do not allow on duty officers to enter any business establishment to enforce laws such as brawling in a bar, unless the officer witnesses the crime himself. Otherwise he must wait outside (on the property) until the suspect comes out as if informed by a witness telling the officer. You have a right to post a ‘no guns allowed’ sign at the entrance of the establishment to which patrons must comply. But to say that they cannot leave their personal protection in their vehicle while they are in your establishment and unknown to you is a violation of their constitutional rights, no matter how you feel. You would be setting yourself up for a lawsuit by trying to do so. Businesses follow a much different set of laws than private owners do. Sorry if this offends you, but I felt that you should know, so as to keep you out of trouble.

          • Derek Balling

            But wait… if you say I can limit the presence of guns on “this part” of my property (the inside of the building) but not on “that part” (the parking lot), then you’re being inconsistent.

            Put another way, if there is a sign at the entrance of my building says “no guns allowed” and is binding, why is the sign at the entrance of my parking lot NOT binding? Those two things are both my private property.

          • Gerald Bradley

            So a unknown car pulls into my driveway do I have a right to shoot them? NO.A unknown man breaks into my home do I have the right to shoot him? YES.Why can I not shoot the car in my driveway?It’s both cases the intruder is on/in my property.Is the driveway still my property?The city/state don’t maintain it.

          • Derek Balling

            Man, could that analogy be any worse?

            Most states limit the use of lethal force for self-defense to when a person “fears for their life or the life of others”, or similar verbiage.

            A guy who has pulled into your driveway almost certainly doesn’t meet that criteria.

            You want to go back to the drawing board and try again?

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Dr. Diesel,

            You write: “You can make it a condition of employment going in…” Not once this bill is signed by the governor.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

    • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Derek Balling,

      You write: “How is taking away my property rights, as a property owner, “good” somehow?” How is making a law prohibiting you from violating the 2nd Amendment rights of anyone “taking away” your property rights? Property is only mentioned in the Constitution under Article IV, Section 3 (regarding U.S.-owned property) and in the Bill of Rights in Amendment V, (…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use…). Amendment IV also deals with property without specifically mentioning it, of course in regard to searches and seizures. So you may be in error about just exactly what your “property rights” are. Infringing on the right of someone to keep and bear arms–which prohibiting them from keeping their weapon in the car does because one has no other place in which to store it and therefore would be prohibited from carrying it to and from work–is a definite violation of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is the point on which all other rights hinge.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Derek Balling

        You confuse public and private actors. ME saying “I don’t allow guns on my property” is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution provides limitations on government action, not on the action of private citizens.

        Using your logic, if you allow me onto your private property, and then don’t like something I’m saying, you have no recourse for telling me I’m no longer allowed on the property (because that would be infringing on my first amendment right to free speech). That argument is — obviously — specious. If I’m on your property and you don’t like what I say, you absolutely can kick me off your property, or say that a person is not allowed to come on your property and, say, promote a religion you disagree with, etc., etc.

        The 2nd Amendment protected civil liberty of gun ownership is NOT, in fact, some “super-right” that is higher than other all others.

      • Derek Balling

        Let me make it clear – as a gun owner, I am annoyed beyond belief when property-owners of places like malls, movie theaters, etc., tell me I’m not allowed on their property if I’m carrying, but I absolutely respect their right as the owner of that property to set the conditions for my use of that property.

        • vicki

          Perhaps you should focus on the distinction of private vs private, open to public.

          On your private property you should have every right to insist that someone leave and you don’t even have to have ANY reason.

          • Gerald Bradley

            That includes the right to tell police to leave if they have no warrent.But of course the police are law breakers and break all the laws.

      • vicki

        Since (for private property) you can ask anyone to leave without even needing a reason, why is it even a question?

        P.S Thank you for this site and and all that you do to support personal liberty.

    • Michael Shreve

      IF you have a concealed carry permit, and USE it, is that weapon safer on your person, or in your car? IF your employer prohibits carrying on the job, why should you not be able to carry before and after work? Where do you leave you gun WHILE at work? Far too often, people MUST disarm themselves due to property owners who oppose guns. If they are injured or killed BECAUSE of a property owner’s rules, should they be allowed to sue?

      • Derek Balling

        As the property owner I would put this in the category of “not my problem”, just as it’s not the concert venue’s problem when you show up with your backpack and there’s a “no bags allowed” rule.

        • Derek Balling

          Taking that analogy a step further, it seems there could be a booming business opportunity in “daily gun lockers” the same way there is a booming business in places that do “bag check” surrounding most ballparks.

        • Gerald Bradley

          Then provide armed security at your cost then.

        • Gerald Bradley

          Not allowing gun owners onto public but private businesses is no different than the Jim Crow laws of “no Negroes allowed” in businesses like diners bars movie theaters ect.

          • Derek Balling

            I would argue (as would many libertarians) that the laws forbidding such practices are themselves immoral and unconstitutional. I would argue that we can — and should — identify businesses which engage in such practices and boycott them, picket them, etc., etc., until they go out of business, but that as the person who owns the property it is their right to decide for themselves who they wish to do business with (“freedom of association” it’s called).

  • dad was right

    Dad was right

  • Timothy Marvin

    zero!!!!!!

  • Michael Shreve

    Stupid, useless, unenforceable and UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws are being passed because the PUBLIC panics at the sound of thunder. Over 20,000 gun laws and counting.

  • wyatt81

    Meddling, controlling, leftist bureaucrats and a sheep-like public=more and more muzzling and control of the sheep. For their “own good.” Courtesy of those who “know better” and “care more.”