Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Federal Lawsuit Takes Aim At Vague Definition Of ‘Assault Weapons’

May 25, 2011 by  

Federal lawsuit takes aim at vague definition of 'assault weapons'A pair of gun rights groups have filed a lawsuit in California alleging that the State’s definition of “assault weapons” is unConstitutionally vague.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Calguns Foundation have been joined by Brendan John Richards in their effort to change the wording of the law. Richards, an Iraq combat veteran, spent six days in jail in May 2010 after police found two pistols and a rifle in the trunk of his car.

Richards was arrested and charged for unlawful possession of an assault weapon. Last September, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office dropped the charges following a report from the State’s Department of Justice, which indicated that none of Richards’ firearms were considered “assault weapons.”

“Mr. Richards was jailed for almost a week, when he had broken no law because a police officer had a conflicting view and the District Attorney’s office believed him,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

Gene Hoffman, executive director of the Calguns Foundation, said that the broad definition of the law is designed to prohibit “guns that look scary.”

Attorney Don Kilmer of San Jose claims that gun owners in the United States are vulnerable to a system in which police “arrest them first and let the courts sort it out.” He believes this is a direct broach of citizens’ Constitutional rights.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Federal Lawsuit Takes Aim At Vague Definition Of ‘Assault Weapons’”

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.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Cawmun Cents

    Bottom line…if it looks fancy they(California legislators)will call it an assault weapon.If it fires more than ten rounds and it is a long-gun…its an assault weapon.Most of the people who seek these particular weapons are using them for nefarious purposes,therefore creating an undue fear amongst the public.Personally,I dont see the need for any weapons that fire over ten rounds before reloading.But that is only my personal opinion. And I believe it is wrong to limit what can be purchased based on”might happens”.It would be much easier to create a law which more harshly punishes those who use such weapons in an illicit manner.Say 50 years hard labor.And then,unlike the current penal system in the state of California,ensure that the sentence is carried out(must serve at least half of the sentence before a parole hearing is granted).

    • James

      If your home was being assaulted by a mob, wouldn’t a firearm that uses a 20-30 round magazine be handy.

      • Cawmun Cents

        Unless zombies come….not really(in which case a steel pipe will suffice).A-There are no mobs coming(mobs usua;;y cant fit in a doorway).B-I can change a clip quickly,and if I keep a few loaded I can continue fire fairly well.C-If they want what little I have,and they are willing to kill me for it,I’ll just give it to them…haw!

        • JC

          Did you ever see film of the man who was standing on his roof defending his home and property from a mob during the Compton riots?
          he had a full auto M-16. and he sprayed his own front lawn with it hurting no one…but it had the desired effect. They left him alone.
          To each his own in the Land of the FREE!

          • bill gray

            I’d love to see that. Link?

          • Cawmun Cents

            Is it any mystery to you that a man who lived in Compton had to defend himself with an M-16?That is like going to the Mustang ranch and wearing a condom.You gotta project yourself to protect yourself,and vise-versa.Look…you may think I am foolish for taking my position,but if I have to leave my environment(the urban sprawl) and I am carrying a Barret.50 cal bmg on my back,chances are I aint hunting deer with that gun.If I am carrying an M-16 with a 30 round clip in it and I have to hike across someones property,they wont think I am deer hunting either.But if I have A Remington 7600 with a ten round clip in it(aftermarket for sure)then I still look like I have a hunting rifle on my back,not a full blown war machine riding me.But I dont expect most folks to understand that I can see the other 90% of the iceberg without being under water.Dont worry I am used to it.-CC.

          • JC

            Geez Bill its been a lot of years…I’ll see what I can do.

            And Cawmun, I have no argument with any of that…to each his own.

        • Cawmun Cents

          I live 400 miles from Compton,I’ll take my chances.-CC.

      • Cawmun Cents

        While I certainly believe it is your God given right to own thousand round clips if you wish,for me personally…ten rounds is enough.

        • Roadkill

          you my friend are simply stupid

          • Cawmun Cents

            No you my friend are over-reacting.

          • skippy

            Could not agree with you more RK…!!

          • Cawmun Cents

            I would expect no less from a peanutbutter packer like you skippy…..

        • TIME

          Look, if you only want a 10 round clip thats up to you. If someone else wants a 100 round clip that as well is up to them.
          Thus the Governments will should not even be a question in this equation for any reason at all.

          Nor should anyone within Government try and enforce what you or anyone else may feel is what YOU need, as long as no ones righs are infringed the Governments interest stops at the door.
          Thats what Freedom & LIBERTY is all about, lest we forget that point of Logic.

          CC the basic point is this, when the Government tells you what you can have, then they open the door to the next step thus as an example its now the 100 round clip. Then in a while its the 10 round clip, then its You just can’t own a GUN as your to stupid to be able to own such.
          And thats what the game plan its to convince the general populace that they are to stupid to know how to use a gun and or even own one.

          *One small step for Control, is one Large step to extend TOTAL Control over you.

          Please people use your GOD given Gray matter and think out of the BOX!

          Look I would rather have a gun with 100 round clips and never have to use them, then to not be able to own such and need it at some point in time.

          • DC/Tex

            Well Said, Thanks

    • Cliffystones

      My Glock 19 holds 15 rounds, standard. My Ruger 10-22 rifle holds 10, 22 caliber rounds stock, but Ruger has magazines that hold more. I have a couple of Marlin 22 caliber rifles from the 1940s that hold over 20 rounds in their feed tubes.

      My point here is that if you know something about firearms, you understood my last short paragraph (not you personally Cawmun, I do understand your point). But if you are a politician who can’t tell the difference between a Carbine and a cornstalk, are you qualified to make the distinction between what should and should not be legal? Let’s face it, boneheads like Nancy Pelosi have a broader agenda beyond “assault” weapons. They would just as soon have all of us stripped of our rights. And the Hollywood Liberal crowd freaks out at the sight of a gun. Watch carefully how the movies and TV shows portray guns and gun ownership, it’s borderline diabolical.

      I too believe that what we carry and shoot be a personal choice. I just don’t want government folks micromanaging my choices.

      • Cawmun Cents

        I posess a multitude of weapons with aftermarket variety attached to them.Many of them I posessed before the laws were made making them illegal.Should I fear a mob of government agents coming to break down my doors?Not hardly…you see an effort like that requires a bureaucracy which is probably only in its infancy at this point.Stripping me of my arms is something which would cause my neighbors alarm.They probably wouldnt take it too well.Since I basically as anyone does,abide by the laws of the land,the confiscation of my arms would be seen as an overt action by my neighbors.And if they found out it was a government thing…well let us say that they might take issue with that action.My stance on the ten round thing is that I dont use the weapons in question for warfare,so I really dont see the need for more than ten round clips.That does not mean I do not posess them.Mr. Roadkill seems to think that I am stupid.That is his opinion and I respect it for what its worth.However I own operate and maintain a healthy variety of weapons and am exposed to their use often.I can Identify nearly any weapon instantly unless it is not a marketable version.And moreover I fire my weapons both accurately and with haste in most given situations.I hate the laws that restrict any and all firearms from the American public(with the exception of keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons).I also believe that restrictions on ammuniton should be lifted.There…I hope that will clear up Mr. Roadkills contempt for me.-CC.

        • jibbs

          I side with the “Dick Act of 1903″ The 2nd Amendment says, the government shall not infringe. Well, that means just that, felon or not. A person could have two DUI’s and be considered a felon snd that has nothing to do with firearms. Hell, as long as you not commiting murder, robbery, or a violent crime. What do you define as a viloent felony crime? Besides, violent felons will always have guns if they want, no law will stop them.
          I know several people who can’t own guns due to having several DUI’s, nothing to do with firearms or violence. Two people get charged with the same non-vilont felony crime, one gets it reduced to a misdemeaner and the other doe’s not….it’s still the same crime.
          I know see how you pick and chose the laws that you like and don’t like. Jeeze, embezzlement is a felony. After your response on the Rabbit Case today, I see you pick and chose what laws you are ok with. Someone broke the law, but you say sometimes it’s ok. The Rabbit Case is a federal law, well guess what, no guns for that guy.

        • vicki

          Cawmun Cents writes:
          “Stripping me of my arms is something which would cause my neighbors alarm.They probably wouldnt take it too well.”

          If you lived in Calif your neighbors would probably cheer the police on.

          CC: “My stance on the ten round thing is that I dont use the weapons in question for warfare,so I really dont see the need for more than ten round clips.”

          The 2nd Amendment is not about protecting hunting or target shooting rights. It is about protecting freemen from tyrants. As such the whole stated purpose of 2nd Amendment is to keep the power to wage war in the hands of the people, individually.

          • Cawmun Cents

            I do Happen to live in the Soviet Socialist Republics of California.But not everyone here lives in San Fransicko or Lost Angeles.Just half of the people.Believe it or not vicki,there are staunch conservative neighborhoods in California.Yea,there even be card caryin’Christians herebouts.The only thing wider on me than my shoulders(I happen to be a big guy)is the swath of red which is splashed on my neck.I like NHRA Dragracing,guns,rowdy women,beer,and even rock and roll…(gasp!)I know…odd isnt it?Guess I am one o’ them thar nucular mewtents.-CC.

      • 45caliber


        I agree with you. Sen. Feinstein carrys a gun herself everywhere she goes. When asked if she was going to give it up if/when she got a law passed to ban guns, she stated, “No, of course not! There are people out there who hate me! I have to have one for protection!”

        At last count she had been attacked by these haters a total of 0 times.

        • EddieW

          I really believe in concealed carry…I mean a police officer is too heavy to haul around, and it takes them for 10 to 30 minutes to respond…in a lethal threat, are we supposed to be defenseless?
          I wish my State were like Montana and Wyo…You don’t need a CCW poermit…it is your constitutional right…here it is a small tax!!!

          • Dan az

            Also in Arizona.Like you said the police are to heavy to carry around!LOL!

          • 45caliber

            I know of several prosecutors and politicians who believe you shouldn’t defend yourself or your family. One in NYC stated that no one need fear that the attacker won’t be punished. If he kills you, the law will find him. (Doesn’t that make you feel safer?)

            Several insist that if you don’t resist and don’t have a weapon, the attacker won’t harm you. “He is only interested in robbing you. If you don’t scare him he won’t attack.”

            Yet the older prisoners in the prisons are afraid of the young ones coming in. As one told me, “These kids will kill in a moment for any reason and you never know what they will do.”

            So, should you be armed and defend yourself? I definately do. I feel that if I’m killed, perhaps I can at least insure that my killer goes down with me. And perhaps I can save my wife at the same time.

            Actually, the way I look at it – if you raise enough Cain that you “save” the life of a criminal who otherwise would be executed, and he kills someone else because you gave him the opportunity, then you are equally guilty of murder and should receive the same sentence he does for doing it.

          • Dan az

            Good point!I agree.

        • Cawmun Cents

          Feindstein,is a hypocritical purveyor of progressive largess.Barb(I call her that cuz she gets under my skin,outlaws guns and then carries one herself)is my least favorite liberal.Followed closely by Nanski Peloski,and bubbaray boxhair.Of course there’s a large list of fellow f__k’s.(thats folk’s to all you liberal progressives out yonder)that get the rasberry rating from good ol’-CC.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy 131

    The 2nd Amendment was inserted into the ‘Bill of Rights’ so as to give the people the means to over-throw a tyranical government that may use its powers to usurp the rights of those people, such as unConstitutional mandates. The Constitution never gave the government the power to ban any arms, especially those needed to put the people on an even bases as to what the government might have and use against them. If Obama succeeds in his efforts to destroy the US Dollar on the global market, through historically high deficits each year of his administration, and increasing the national debt to an amount the rest of the world believes could never be repaid, this will cause the collapse of our economy creating chaos and rioting in our streets and the collapse of all law and order. You may then wish you had one of those assault weapons the Founding Fathers planned that it was your right to own, to defend yourself, your family, and your property, for their will be no authority left for your protections, for the police will use their weapons to obtain whatever they’ll need for their own families. And the people with assault weapons will do as they please, for might makes right in the absense of law and order.

    • James

      Randy 131, The Second Amendment wasn’t ‘inserted’ into the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) was enacted as one document.

      • 45caliber

        Correct. And the Bill of Rights was approved at the same time the Constitution was since most people refused to vote to approve the Constitution unless those freedoms were recognized as a reduction in the power of the federal government.

        • James

          45caliber, the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, and the Bill of Rights was added in 1791, two years later.

  • nax777

    As always more concern for the axe and none the murderer.

    The US reached a zero population growth in the mid 80’s our leaders increased their yearly appetite for immigration. The legal yearly immigration rate went from 100,000 to 1,000,000. From the years 2000 to 2010 our leader’s yearly appetite for legal immigration grew to 3,000,000. At present levels the US population will swell another 130 million to 442 million by 2040! This is a very conservative estimate. US immigration rate is the sole reason for overpopulation in the US today and tomorrow!

    It is irrational to think that any nation can save more than a hand full of people from overpopulated poorer nation. Especially when most refuse to change their life style and blame the Jones’s for their plight.
    It is irrational to call mom a Nazi A. hole for giving people a ride back home to keep her home from overpopulation. It is irrational to think that any single payer social program will work best. It is irrational to think that nations can tax its way out of poverty. It is irrational to believe that a power convinced that you have nowhere else to go will do your biding.

    No one is going to stand in their way the template to convince people that a rational person is a very sick or stupid SOB must be removed first. And only you can remove yours.

    People will not take in grandma, or their disabled neighbor long enough to break the social network of chains that separate us. It does not have to come to that, yet! The working class can be forced to plan for their life without a single payer plan. We must meet with our fellow citizens, listen and share ideas.

    A true Conservative and a true Liberal agree on one thing though for different reasons. Any single payer social program is a nutty idea! Now each believes that it’s not so nutty as long as their side is managing it.

    We can destroy the power by replacing them with citizens that can be immediately removed by citizens should they grow a greedy bone and never serve for a life time. We must take control ourselves. Please join with us at you might be able to click on my name. This will take you to my link page that links to, and

    P.S. Have you heard of “you cut” @

  • Antonio

    They call anything an assault weapon these, hell the last time I checked shotguns were assault weapons. Here’s the thing an “assault weapon is really a full military style combat weapon. example an M-16. Others are just sporting weapons. Example AR-15. They are sporting weapons thats all they are not assault weapons and nor is a shotgun and especially a handgun. They use that term as an excuse so as to ban certain weapons that all. Dont let them do that to ya’ll. If you do just remember they will still have all the guns and you wont have shit, well maybe they will let you have raven .25 who knows lol

    • James

      Antonio, Sawed-off shotguns wsere general issue in WW I, as assault weapons.

      • JC

        So were revolvers…So What?

      • Cawmun Cents

        Ever try assaulting a machinegun nest with a pistol?You better be John Wayne and Clint Eastwood rolled into one…haw!Now with a shotgun…you got a chance.

        • JC

          I guess my point is, I can assault someone with a stick…so what’s with splitting hairs over shotguns, hunting rifles ao semi auto sport guns? There’s no point in it or any of the ridiculous definitions coming out of the Peoples Republic of California.

          • Cawmun Cents

            You’ll get no argument here.

    • independant thinker

      “Assault weapon” is a term made up by anti-gun people and the news media to confuse the general public into thinking firearms that are semi-auto only but look like a military weapon are in the same class as a true assualt rifle. A true assualt rifle is classified as a machine gun and requires a class III license to purchase and posess. The term “assualt weapon” is also used to confuse the general public on other firearms the powers that be want to ban such as semi-auto pistols or shotguns made specificaly for home defence.

      • 45caliber

        I’ve seen one person already state that all weapons except single-shot rifles or shotguns be banned in the US since “that’s all that’s needed to hunt with.”

        All but single barrel shotguns ARE banned in England – and you can get a permit for one of those ONLY if you are a farmer worried about rabbbits eating your crops. The English rifle team for the Olympics has to go to Switzerland to practice and they have to keep their rifles there too.

        • Bill O’ Rites

          You’re wrong on what you say about the UK.
          Single & double barrel shotguns are legal, including pump & semi automatic. Anyone (apart from convicted criminals) who wants to shoot game, vermin or clays can get one.
          The English rifle team did NOT have to go to Switzerland to practice, nor do they have to keep their rifles outside the UK.
          Now for the facts:
          A licence IS required to possess any kind of firearm with more ME than 12ft/lbs for a rifle or 6ft/lbs for a pistol.
          Semi automatic rifles (apart from .22rf) are banned, as are all handguns, with the exception of cap & ball types.
          Bolt action rifles & lever action carbines are legal, though a citizen must show “good reason” to possess any firearm except for shotguns before a licence is granted.

          It is interesting to note that these extreme restrictions have done nothing to curb the violent crime rate in the UK, which is more than double that of the US, though out homicide rate is 82% less.

    • Miguel A. González

      Actually, the correct term for the M-16 or any other select fire (i.e. capable of firing full-auto) is “assault rifle.” The term “assault weapon” is just another anti-gun media-created catch phrase, like “Saturday Night Special” (low cost handguns), or “Pocket Rockets” (concealable handguns whose design was the result of the high-cap magazine ban in the Brady Law). It is used to describe any rifle that has any of a number of cosmetic characteristics that do not affect its function (i.e. they look military or scary). The Brady Law codified it as having any three or more of the following: magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, or folding stock, and manufactured after the law came into effect.


    Nax 777

    Could you translate please?

  • Thor

    “…the State’s definition of “assault weapons” is unConstitutionally vague….” but the intention of those who passed the law is not. They hope to eliminate the 2nd Amendment piecemeal. First they eliminated automatic weapons; next, large capacity magazines…etc. The whole network of gun laws looks like an exploded diagram of a Thompson submg that is being disassembled one part at a time. The core point of the 2nd Amendment was that citizens should be armed with weapons similar to those used by the military so a citizen militia could be raised with little equipment incompatibility at a moment’s notice. The amendment says ‘shall not be infringed’…what’s not to understand about ‘infringement’? Terms like ‘assault weapon,’ ‘sporting arms,’ and ‘automatic weapon’ are irrelevant to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The relevance of such terms resides squarely in the threat they present to a government intent on oppression.

    • Antonio

      You are right great post!!! We should be able to own automatic weapons as well without having to pay annuall taxs and a licencia just to have one. Again you are right. Keep posting.

    • James

      Thor, Their hope is to eliminate our right to bear arms, not the Second Amendment. That amendment is simply a restriction against infringing on the right, it is not the right, itself.

      • jibbs

        The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

        The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

        The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

        The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

        Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

        The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

        During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

        The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

        Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

        “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

        The Honorable William Gordon

        Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

        • 45caliber

          Good comments. Too bad the libs won’t pay any attention.

        • James

          Jibbs, Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 1, allows presidents to use State Militias “when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

    • Cliffystones


      Think of me as the town drunk in “Blazing Saddles” giving you a big “Reveren!” :)

    • 45caliber

      Thor – you are right. While I have no interest in an automatic weapon (the bullets are expensive) they are fun to shoot occasionally. But I do prefer the semi-autos for hunting – and I like big magazines because it provides a place for extra bullets instead of my pocket. But they worry the government.

  • http://gunner689 gunner689

    I suggest that we give all of Calif., south of San Francisco, back to Mexico. All crazy legislation seems to stem from there and affects the rest of the nation like a cancer. Time to get rid of them from the Union.

    • Cawmun Cents

      Huzzah!(I agree)

    • independant thinker

      The line needs to be north of SF not south of it.

    • 45caliber

      Let’s include San Francisco in that gift. What’s a few more acres? Besides, we’d get rid of all the fruits in SF.

    • Ron

      How about everything south of the San Luis Obispo, Monterey County line. With the remaining area conservatives would be able to take the rest of the state back. Then the new conservative majority could properly retrain San Francisco.
      I still use an older Ruger 1022 with 25 round mags but my favorite is a Ruger 223 with a four round mag. Now, having said that with my best squirrell shot at 540 yards given enough lead time I would be happy with a single shot. After all, it only takes one.


    The military always leads with weapon design and technology. The citizens follow. If not we would still be hunting with muskets. Assault weapons are just another scary word for a firearm that is efficient but looks scary since it looks like a military weapon. Bolt action rifles would have been considered assault weapons back in the day when the American Patriots were using single shot black powder rifles.

    When will the people wake up and realize that never in the history of mankind has any weapon made jumped up off of the shelf and killed someone. It always took a criminal behind the trigger to do that.

    Guess I’m just not smart enough to understand the reasoning of those who want to disarm the population. Maybe they think that if those nasty assault weapons weren’t out there tempting criminals, they would change their ways.

  • Cawmun Cents

    Well when you put ignorant people in office as your representatives they almost always screw things up.They want to punish everyone including their own constituents,instead of the criminals who use these types of weapons to harm others.Apparently they have never heard of the Black Market.

  • lonetrader

    The issue is not about crime or hunting. The issue is about CONTROL. The politicians want total control of the people. Take a stock mini 14. it is not illegal is Calif. It is a semi automatic rifle. A deal was made by Bill Ruger (owner of the company) that he would back the 10 round magazine limit if the govt allowed his gun to not be on the ban list. Another backroom deal. Now I always thought that marksmanship was important, yet the features on an AR 15 make it illegal. One, it is black. ew that is evil. 2, It has a pistol grip, that is evil, 3, it has a flash suppressor, that is evil. etc These 2 different guns fire the same. As fast as you can pull the trigger. One is legal, the other is not. Why? The AR 15 is a more accurate gun. So the govt want people to have guns that are less accurate. That way, when they are needed to protect oneself, you will probably hit an innocent person instead of your targeted person. I was born and raised in Cali and moved just because of the opprression there. In cali, the criminals have the rights and the citizens do not. The only reason the elected ones want gun confiscation is because they are afraid of the people. They want total power. They are all a sell out to the American people. Wake up America. Demand your rights.

    • Cawmun Cents

      I agree the issue IS about control.

  • 2WarAbnVet

    To a rational person an assault weapon is a fairly lightweight military rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge, and is capable of fully automatic fire. To California an assault weapon is any weapon that looks “mean”.

    There is really no accounting for liberal (ignorant) hysteria. Remember the Clinton ban included a ban on bayonet lugs. When, in the history of the United States, has any criminal used a bayonet-equipped weapon in a crime?

    • independant thinker

      vet………Your first sentence describes an assualt rifle.

      Assualt weapon is a term made up by the anti-gunners and the media and used to describe as you say ” any weapon that looks “mean”.”
      I would add any other firearm they want to ban.

    • JC

      In California if you veer off the road and run over someone’s flowers…you’re driving an “assault car”. ;)

  • Jim

    Now that our Reserve Forces have been used overseas, it demands that “WE THE PEOPLE” be armed with the EXACT SAME WEAPONS our military use to protect ourselves from attach by both foreign and tyrannical forces.

    The Second Amendment reads:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    In order for the Constitution to be fulfilled, wouldn’t you think we all should have the same exact arms as our military? We must understand that the Militia was not Regular Army back in the day. It was just plain old folk defending the homeland from being taken over along side the Regular Army. And their weapons were, aside from the cannons and other major arsenals, exactly the same as those they fought beside.

  • oldgringo

    Civilians do not own Assult weapons…..This is a term coined by the Liberal anti-gun Fruit Cakes…..An Assult weapon is one that can fire full automatically as in use by our Armed Forces…..Civilians can not own a full automatic weapon without ATF approval and paying a stiff tax fee of $200. just to own one…..Your name is then Registered with the ATF into a Civilian Assult Weapon Owners Data Base. This weapon must at all times be accompanied with documentation with shown approved by the ATF, to use an Assult weapon with out the required ATF paper work is like driving a car with out a drivers license…..Both resulting in Court appearances with possible loss of paid Privileges.

    • Cawmun Cents

      While I am aware of these statutes,I am neither in favor of them nor do I see the legality of them.They are a means of control,and nothing else.I will follow the writ of law for the most part,but I do not see the merit of imposing fines or fees on owners of any kind who havent used their weapons in a threatening manner.It just doesnt make sense.-CC.

    • JC

      Which is entirely unConstitutional.
      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”


  • JimH

    Most law makers start out as lawyers. The write tha laws so you need one of their lawyer buddies to interpret that law.
    Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Founations have hired “lawyers” to file a federal lawsuit against the state, who will send their “lawyers”.
    Brendan John Richards needed a “lawyer” to get him out of jail for commiting no crime.( the lawyer sent a bill anyway)
    Keep it vague and confusing so lawyers and judges have jobs.

    • 45caliber


      You are correct. There has been a lot said for the poor justice system we have – but from a lawyer’s point of view we have the perfect system.

      Someone commits a crime. He has to have a lawyer. The lawyer is paid either by him or by the court (us). It takes two years to get a court conviction so the lawyer gets paid for the entire two years. Further, if he’s low in any month all he has to do is claim he had worked on that case to get extra money. The criminal is convicted and sent to jail. This offers the lawyer chances to continue his income by filing appeals. When they finally run out, the criminal is released from jail to start the cycle all over again.

      The only thing that stops this is if the criminal is killed. When that happens, the lawyer has to find another client. It’s no wonder the lawyers are against private ownership of guns!

  • Cawmun Cents

    Again I agree…the line should be north.

    • Cawmun Cents

      North of San fransicko,north of the American river.Lake Tahoe will be our new capitol.The rebulic of northern Mexico,can have Sacratomato…and the progressives.

  • Norb

    In the late 1980′s a lot of folks purchased (legally) semiautomatic weapons manufactured by Calico in Bakersfield CA. They look “scary” and were used in SciFi movies quit a bit. Are they now considered criminals unless they’ll surrender these weapons ?

  • 45caliber

    The last I heard, the federal definition of “assault rifle” is – Any weapon that has ever been used in combat anywhere in the world at any time in history.

    Note that even rocks fit this definition. Certainly all guns, knives, sticks, etc. do.

    The idea is to allow the government to decide what weapons should be outlawed or not. In this case, the government simply decided to not push it at this time.

    • JimH

      45, If we go by that definition my bow (recurve) is an “assult bow”.
      I could light my flaming assult arrows with my assult matches.

      • 45caliber


        You are quite correct.

      • JC

        And you could fire them from your “assault truck”, after pulling it out of your “assault garage”. :)

  • 45caliber

    A true? story …

    A lawyer dies and goes to heaven. He is greeted by one of the biggest celebrations he’s ever seen. Finally he is taken before St. Peter. “Why is everyone celebrating?” he asked.

    “Because you are the oldest man who ever lived,” St. Peter told him. “You are over ten thousand years old!”

    “But that’s wrong!” said the lawyer. “I’m barely forty five!”

    St. Peter looked surprised. “Let me take another look here,” he said, flipping open the book. “There must be some mistake.”

    After a minute or so of study, he looks up. “Oh, I think I’ve found the problem,” he said. “We made a mistake. Instead of your age, we recorded your billing hours.”

  • 45caliber

    Incidently, the M-16 was chosen as the “assault rifle” used by our military (and NATO) because the bullet is basically a .22 caliber. It is NOT MEANT to kill – it is meant to wound. The idea was that if you killed an enemy, you took one of his soldiers out of combat. But if you wounded one, you took three of his soldiers out since two men would be required to carry the wounded man to safety and care for him.

    In the house-to-house searches the Army presently does in Iraq, they insisted upon and got .30 caliber weapons because they needed to kill instead of just wound. The last I heard, at least two members of each squad carry one of them for that reason.

    • Cawmun Cents

      The idea was that the enemy would use two extra men to carry the wounded one….problem was,they just left them there,and continued to fight.Buddism teaches karma,and if a man is hurt or killed then it is probably because of something he did in a former life.Since he made his own karma…you need not help him.That is what the people who thought the former formula up,did not think of.Dumbasses.-CC.


    Legislative vagueness is practiced daily by the California legislative assembly, it is a unruly, out of touch, left leaning body of law makers who need to be overthrown and replaced with a part time legislature and the means to keep them as servants of the people. As of now they are elitist, catering to the state unions, over paid and compensated for the insanity they produce as a social plague in the form of law and regulation.

  • Jsck from New Mexico

    The people who are sponsoring the 10 round limit are exactly the same ones who would like a total ban. As soon as they get the 10 round limit well established there will begin a flood of bills for a 5 round limit with the precedent that governments have the established power to regulate magazine capacity. Right after that 2 or even 1. Try 0.

    • 45caliber

      Many states already have a 5 round limit for hunting. Why just five rounds? Makes no sense to me. I only use one, normally, but there is no reason I couldn’t have 20 or more if I wished.

  • i41

    Next time some dumb bastard says only a ten round limit should be imposed ,the m all cars should only have a 5 hp powered motor. See how they will bitch about it is their right and they may want to go some where quick, when Clinton was in office I heard many morons were talking about limiting it to 6 rounds, until I pointed out why not make all cars use lawn mower engines to get around,most of the college degreed idiots said it was their right, and I said it was my right if I wanted to shoot 100 times with out reloading, end of dicussion. Need to let the idiots in the beltway know the same thing, since when preaching to citizens about using match box cars and battery operated crap, they should be first to abide by their mandated rules and get rid of limos and freebies.

  • Dan az

    Just something that might be of interest.
    Internet web sites, pundits, bloggers, commentators and denizens of the “alternative media” who are critical of Barack Hussein Obama beware, as you will now be “officially” in the crosshairs of the Obama White House. As part of his 2012 re-election campaign, the Obama administration this week created an “online rapid response team” tasked specifically with quashing any Internet articles and news critical of Obama.

    This team is headed by Internet guru Jesse C. LEE, 31 of Tacoma Park, Maryland, who was named the “Director of Progressive Media & Online Response.” Unsurprisingly, this is the first administration in history to ever create such a position, and LEE is well suited to head the Ministry of Propaganda, err… the Progressive Media & Online Response team.

    Displaying the hubris of an emperor rather than an elected official and possibly violating campaign finance by doing so, Obama brought the fight against Internet publications critical of his administration in-house. Previously, such efforts were performed and funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). With LEE’s hire inside of the White House Communications Department, the operation is now being officially funded by the American taxpayers.

    To launch his campaign against Obama detractors and negative reports, LEE has already created an official White House Twitter account, featuring as his first tweet the image of “The Terminator” with the message “OK, turning on the White House Twitter machine that they issued me in 3…2…1…”

    By design, the image sends a threatening message to anyone critical of the Obama administration and sends a signal that unfavorable reports about Obama and his reign will be dealt with much more aggressively.

    Read More at Canada Free Press By Doug Hagmann and Joseph Hagmann, Canada Free Press

  • r.p.

    The whole idea of gun control is Unconstitutional, and this whole fiasco is a moot point. All gun laws should be nullified, and Ron Or Rand and any rep should understand the Constitution enough to know this. When the 2nd amendment was added, it was for the defense of our person’s and property from any enemy foreign or domestic. By my Constitutional and God Given right, I can own any weapon that an armed force would use against me. Therefore if I want to I have the right to own an automatic machine gun and arm it with thousand round belts. Now; being able to afford it is another story!

  • JC

    From a newsletter sent by the National Assoc. for Gun Rights today…

    It’s gotten nasty in the Senate between Rand Paul and Harry Reid … and personal.

    The final vote on the mis-named Patriot Act may be rammed through at 1am tonight, so it is IMPERATIVE that you call Sen. John McCain at (202) 224-2235 and Sen. Jon Kyl at (202) 224-4521 and demand they support Rand Paul’s pro-gun amendment.

    Senator Paul’s amendment to protect gun owners has caused a tremendous stir in the Senate — Reid refuses to vote on it or protect gun owners’ rights.

    Today, Senator Paul had this to say: “They are petrified to vote on issues of guns because they know that a lot of people in America favor the Second Amendment, own guns, and want to be protected in the right to own guns, and the right to have those records not sifted through by the government.”

    I need you to call call Sen. John McCain at (202) 224-2235 and Sen. Jon Kyl at (202) 224-4521 immediately. They could be stripping your Second Amendment rights away in just a few hours!

    • Dan az

      Will do!Thanks.

    • JC

      Senator Rand Paul took on the entire Senate leadership — Democrats and Republicans alike — and the Washington Establishment while fighting to protect gun owners from the onerous Patriot Act.

      Despite the machinations of Harry Reid and his Republican conspirators’ schemes, the U.S. Senate held a recorded vote on Paul’s amendment to exempt firearm records from Patriot Act searches.

      Senator Paul took a courageous and personally challenging stand against the conventions and go-along-get-along attitude that powers the U.S. Senate. Many who should have stood with him, didn’t.

      Watch what Senator Paul said on Fox News prior to the vote:

      Instead of championing Paul’s amendment to protect gun owners, the NRA sat on the sidelines and trumpeted the lies of Harry Reid (which isn’t surprising, considering their duplicitous endorsement of Reid in the last election). Instead of fighting to protect gun owners, they elected to stand with the Political Establishment AND to give cover to the politicians who won’t vote for our gun rights unless it’s convenient.

      However, gun owners’ voices were heard.

      Your phone calls — FIRST TO YOUR SENATORS AND Majority Leader Harry Reid and THEN TO the week-kneed Republican leaders — made this vote possible and sent an important message to every single member of the United States Senate.

      You scared them.

      Your tidal wave of phone calls and e-mails told them that Rand Paul isn’t alone. Hundreds of thousands of Americans demanded that the U.S. Senate protect their right to keep and bear arms from the police-state, warrant-less searches of the mis-named Patriot Act.

      They hate that Senator Paul stands with the people and not the politicians, because they fear you and your power at the ballot box.

      Now it’s the responsibility of every gun owner — you and me — to make sure we connect the legislative season with the electoral season.

      You can click here to see how your Senator voted on Rand Paul’s pro-gun amendment.

      The 10 Senators who voted for your Second and Fourth Amendment rights were:

      Senator John Barrasso (R-WY)
      Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
      Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
      Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY)
      Senator Dean Heller (R-NV)
      Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
      Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS)
      Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
      Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL)
      Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)

      If your Senators didn’t vote for the Paul Amendment to protect gun owners from the warrant-less Patriot Act searches, you may want to call and give them an earful.

  • DC/Tex

    Everyone that wants keep their gun should join and donate to the NRA, it is the only reason we have our guns today. The liberal politicians call semiautomatic guns machine-guns and then say no one needs a machine-gun. As has been said before if the government can outlaw one kind of gun it will not be long before they outlaw all guns. The criminals will love it when that happens. A prison survey said that the criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than they were of the police.

  • http://gunner689 gunner689

    I have two questions:

    1) what is the limit on Liberals, dailey and season ?
    2) are they edible ?

    • independant thinker

      1. Do not know.

      2. No, they are tough, stringy, and taste terrible.

    • Dan az

      One a day
      Taste like chicken

  • r.p.

    Go here to see how your senator voted on the PATRIOT EXTENSION:
    Go here to contact your senator and let them know what you think about them defending the Constitution:

    • r.p.

      Follow the thread up to THOR at 8:40AM. He says it more eloquently.

  • Loki

    Hey Cawmun. I apreciate the fact (you said) you own firearms,so I assume you support the 2nd amendment. Than you should know that the right to own a firearms should no be infringed upon. While I support your personal choice not to want or need any firearm capable of holding more than 10 rounds it is that kind of thinking(out loud) that enables this moron politicians to say ” …in our latest poll x-amount of American public supports the ban on high capacity magazines etc. …” So be carefull what you say and how you say it or this brainless tools WILL USE IT AGAINST US!!! I personally love the high cap mags so I don’t have to reload after every 10 rounds at the range and for zombies and for lots of other reasons that are nobodys business. And this my friend is my personal choice !!!
    So give it some tought.
    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    - George Washington

    • Cawmun Cents

      I was raised with two schools of thought.My dad(a veteran of the Pacific theatre during WW2)taught me to take the one-shot-one-kill method to the extreme.I got my first Elk at the tender age of eleven.Dad taught us all(five boys)to shoot and hunt.Out of those five I was the only one who did not go into the military,mostly because I was working on earning my blacksheep credentials.Two of my brothers are lifers,a S.E.A.L.,and a Ranger.That being said,we all know how to shoot fairly well.The other school of thought,which has been get a lot of ordinance in the general direction and keep your head down,has some merit.Yes I know many cagey veterans of the Viet Nam conflict who owe their very lives to this school of thought.If the government is paying for my ammunition,I will use this training method to its onus.However that is not the case for me,so I have to use dads tried and true method.It is very simply not a way for me to operate,to carry boatloads of ammunition.I suppose if I had a sherpa,that I might carry more.There is a very Hollywood-like atmosphere being foisted on citizens these days.The”more is better”syndrome if you will.Folks are getting imaginative with their future conditions.If the rumors are true,then a civilian army of weapons confiscators will be coming to a neighborhood near me.A house to house raid will take place.But if citizens fight back…the attrition will make that job a little too dangerous for the pay dont you think?Just something to ruminate on.-CC.

  • Rich

    I can see most of you have no training in handgun gun fights. Last month a police office was killed in our city in a gun fight at night. The officer had a Glock 23 with 15 rounds. He fired 12 of those rounds and only wounded the perp in the arm with one shot. The perp fired all six rounds from his Colt Detective Special and hit the officer 5 times. As you see that was only 1 perp and at nite. Suppose there are 2 or more. You want as many rounds as possible because when your out of rounds your out of the gun fight and probably dead.

    • Cawmun Cents

      Well Rich,the thirteenth round may have got the perp.On the other hand it may have taken a hundred rounds to get them.A person chooses their battles I suppose.Or a perp chooses them for you.I once had the misfortune of getting involved in a streetfight.The perp fled the scene and quickly returned with a nickel plated .357 mag.,which he pointed at me and fired.Since I was only trying to aid an injured person,I wasnt relly prepared for gunplay.He used the slack sideways grip that you see people use in the movies,and fired directly into the asphalt inches away from my knee.He was only six feet from me.From this I come up with two possibilities.Either he was poorly trained or he just wanted to scare me.He did shoot the man I was trying to aid in the leg,but it took emptying the cylinder to do it.So yes training in handgun combat does have its advantages,but it goes both ways.The perp in this case died in the eventual high-speed chase he got himself into as a result of his crimes.He was 18 and did not survive that entire day.-CC.

  • Rich

    The ATF has a proposal to ban the importation of shotguns that they say does not fit sporting purposes, whatever that is. Sporting purpose has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

    • independant thinker

      From what I have heard the only thing “non-sporting” about the ones they want to ban is cosmetic.

    • JC

      Not to mention that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Crayons, Hairspray, Toejam, Hemerhoids and Nasal Discharge
      has no authority to infringe on the Second Amendment….NONE!

  • Ranchman

    Kalifornia (no misspelling) can keep their commie crap. I live in Oklahoma, where a firearm is a firearm is a firearm. My girlfriend lives in Southern Kalifornia. I tell her I’m sorry. She will never get me to move to her state, I would be a felon the minute I crossed the border. The left coast has so many socialist and communist regulations it’s unreal, but it’s the residents of the state who are to blame, period. Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and the other representatives, senators, and now the new Governor, are shameful, yes, but the people keep re-electing them! Totally amazing! How will the people ever get their freedom and liberty back if they keep voting for the chains which bind them? I ain’t never seen such ignorance in my life! The people in Kalifornia need to be educated on their so-called leaders; how they’ve voted in the past, their beliefs and stand on issues today and so forth. Education is the key, I tell this to my girlfriend all the time. But, between having visited there and talking to her every day on the phone, I have come to realize that the people out there live in fantasy land. They just don’t care. Whenever someone tries to bring up their situation and tell them they can do something about it, they clam up. “I don’t talk about ‘politics’” is all you hear from them, it’s incredible. When I mention any of the names above, I get, “Who?!” I would feel that they deserve it and leave them to their misery if I didn’t strongly believe that their garbage can infect the rest of the nation! We definitely have our work cut out for us!

    • Cawmun Cents

      Just think of the good you could do in California!Teaching folks about the 2nd amendment.You may even convert some commies to conservatives….haw!


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.