California

The short version appears to be that new handguns will not be added to the list of "acceptable" handguns in California unless they have microstamping technology.  Guns already on the list will remain ok unless for some reason they need to be re-registered. 

The details are at Calguns.

The difference this makes is a significant one.  Microstamping is an unproven technology that is easily defeated by means such as changing the firing pin; criminals will not be affected by this requirement.  It will increase the cost of new firearms that include microstamping technology and, probably more importantly, block new handgun models that don't use microstamping from being added to California's roster of "allowed" handguns.  That means they won't be added at all, unless the California market is deemed large enough to justify the investment by itself.

In short, it's a roundabout gun ban.

There was no need to pass a law to do it, because the law had been passed years ago; all it took to activate this new restriction was a certification that the microstamping technology was available for use.

New Jersey has a similar statute concerning "smart" guns.  We're likely to see an attempt made to bring that rule into effect as well, especially if there was an Obama administration push behind California's move.  We're already seeing editorials calling for it, even though it's a really bad idea.

Many years ago there was a bit of a kerfluffle about a brand of ammunition known as "Black Talon". It was basically hollow-point ammunition with a scary marketing name.  Unfortunately, the scary marketing name worked too well, and it got a lot of unfriendly political attention.  The manufacturer stopped making the ammunition, and the noise gradually died down.

In the face of an NRA lawsuit, on April 5, 2010, the San Francisco Police Department provided formal written confirmation that, contrary to multiple statements by San Francisco politicians who oppose the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the City's recently enacted ban on the possession of certain ammunition does not prohibit possession of hollow-point ammunition after all. The City's late-hour concession was prompted by a pending legal challenge by the NRA.

And as soon as the lawsuit threat goes away, they will go back to claiming it bans all hollow-point ammunition.

But then, we've already had our revenge: shortly after discontinuing the "Black Talon" brand of self-defense ammunition, the manufactured introduced a new brand of hollow-point ammunition that wasn't painted black and didn't have a scary marketing name.  I believe they are still selling it.

They noticed that her answers to Ted Cruz on whether an assault weapons ban would be constitutional were... somewhat lacking.

They won't ever stop asking for more.  This isn't about some reasonable level of common sense controls on firearms.  This is about banning civilian ownership of all firearms.

It's also about lying:

According to Jackson, who lived through and remembers the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., the country has seen increased gun violence throughout recent years. Jackson said the ban will help prevent people from having access to these specific firearms, lessening the possibility of future shootings.

Were any of those politicians killed with "assault weapons" as defined by her legislation?  I doubt it.  More importantly, we have not seen "increased gun violence throughout recent years".  We've seen reduced gun violence, in fact reduced crime in general, but increased media frenzy over rare-but-scary spree killings.

"For me, I believe that gun violence is an epidemic in this country and we've got to do something to deal with the carnage that we've been seeing at Columbine, Aurora and particularly in Newtown," Jackson said. "In far too many cases, access to firearms makes law-abiding citizens into criminals. Think about that. The young man who killed 20 children and six teachers all in Connecticut -- he had no criminal record."

Access to firearms did not make those people into criminals.  Guns do not have mysterious mind control rays.  Murdering people made them into criminals.

However, gun control laws do make peaceful citizens into criminals for possessing inanimate objects.

If you're in the area, maybe you can join a counter-protest.

UPDATE: Not just California.

Too much to summarize here; read the whole thing.  There's a ban on magazines, a ban on semi-auto rifles that accept magazines (yes, all of them, no features list), a registration list for all firearms, a ban on loaning guns to others, , expands the prohibited person list, requires training for mere ownership of a gun, another bill to require registration of semiauto firearms with detachable magazines (and bans "bullet button" workarounds), another requires a ammunition purchase permit and bans mail-order of ammunition, storage requires, and funding for prohibited person confiscation by raiding some other gun-related fund for money.

As a bonus, more legislation has been filed that contemplates confiscation, yes, confiscation of the existing 166,000 registered "assault weapons".

Yes, that's right, 166,000 people who followed the rules and registered their firearms will now be forced to beg the legislature for permission to keep them.

Or, you know, they could move.

Registration leads to -- outrageous government intimidation of your exercise of your fundamental rights. I'm laughing here: the more the antigunners overstep their bounds, the more opportunities we have to sue them into submission.

If a white Southern Sheriff and Attorney General had sent a "friendly reminder" letter -- watch out new voter, you could be prosecuted for voter fraud if you exercise that right to vote, so y'all be careful, hear?" to every newly registered voter during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, that'd have been outrageous, right?

The letter is being sent during the California waiting period, and seems intended to discourage the recipient from completing their purchase. 

California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Those gun owners have roughly 39,000 firearms, said Stephen Lindley, chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice, testifying at a joint legislative hearing. His office lacks enough staff to confiscate all the weapons, which are recorded in the state's Armed Prohibited Persons database, he said.

The gun owners typically acquired the firearms legally, before being convicted of a felony or diagnosed with mental illness. Each year, the state investigates and seizes the guns of about 2,000 people on the Armed Prohibited Persons list, Lindley said, but each year about 3,000 names are added to the list.

Demanding more gun control is stupid when the police can't even keep up with existing law when they have a list of people to visit.  It's also noteworthy to point out that the fact the police have a list at all indicates they are keeping a gun registry of law-abiding gun owners.  I knew they had a registry for scary guns, but not for guns in general.

Also noteworthy:

Tuesday's hearing was part business, part theater, with law enforcement officials displaying assault weapons and retired legislators testifying that they were harassed and intimidated by gun-rights advocates when they passed firearms-control laws in previous years.

Yes, we call that democracy.  You know, the First Amendment right to petition our government for redress of grievances?  You signed up for that when you ran for office.

If you were really harassed and intimidated, people would be in jail.  But I have no trouble believing that you felt harassed and intimidated by people speaking their mind.

Lansdowne has gone on record saying: "I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it's courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it's going to eventually make the country safer."

He also has personally advocated for a legislative solution that would allow current lawful firearms owners to keep their assault weapons if new sales are banned, but prohibit assault firearms from be passed down to living relatives after death, meaning the weapon would be destroyed when the current owner dies.

He made it clear that it may take "a generation," but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.

That's San Diego chief of police William Lansdowne.  Thank you, Mr Lansdowne, for making your agenda clear. 

"We're seeing an increase in the quality of weapons, in the types of weapons we're seeing... even though we have a ban here in California."

He admits the ban doesn't work, but wants to impose it nationally.

"The officers in many cases face people better armed than they are."

Better armed than the police?  Really?

What does Mr Lansdowne issue to his police officers?  As of 2004, it appears to be:

San Diego Police Department
Issues the 9×19mm Beretta Mod 92FS pistol, 9×19mm Ruger PC9 semiautomatic carbine, 5.56×45mm Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, and 5.56×45mm Ruger Mini-14 semiautomatic rifle.
Uses the Cadillac Gage Peacekeeper 4×4 armoured car.

The Beretta 92FS can accept up to 32 round magazines.  The Ruger PC9 carbine can accept a 15 round magazine.  The Ruger Mini-14 can accept up to 30 round magazines and has a select-fire version.  The Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle can accept up to 100 round magazines and is a semi-automatic version of a fully-automatic firearm.  The Cadillac Gage peacekeeper is an armored vehicle that can mount a full size machine gun or a 40mm grenade launcher.

All of these firearms, or their magazines, would be banned under the laws Lansdowne supports.  But police officers could still carry them.

Why does Lansdowne want to be able to carry firearms that he wants to prohibit honest, law-abiding citizens from owning?

This is what the "end game" of gun control looks like:

AB962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), is in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

Ever increasing and more draconian restrictions that provide more and more silly hoops for law abiding gun owners to jump through (not to mention more opportunities for accidentally becoming criminals), while real criminals simply ignore the restrictions.

I got the info from a CCRKBA alert, but they don't appear to have posted it to their website.  They did include contact information for your legislators in the email, but I don't want to post that here -- it's excessively long for something only of interest to Californians.  A little poking around should be sufficient to find the details on this legislation and who to contact in opposition to it.

Three criminals, one armed good guy.  Good guy wins.  It's a good thing that the handgun ban was struck down recently, or the police might have felt obligated to track down the good guy and arrest him for defending himself.

I hope this collection of quotes from a recent article will encourage you to protect yourself, instead:

Statistics compiled by San Francisco police for the committee show that in 74 of the 94 homicides recorded through Monday afternoon in 2005, no arrest has been made and the cases remain open and under investigation.  Part of the explanation, police said, for the low rate of arrests and prosecutions is the reluctance of witnesses to provide testimony given their exposure to retribution.About 20 percent of the 94 homicides recorded through Monday afternoon for 2005 took place at public housing properties. That last number prompted supervisors to ask why a program begun last year that tasks 16 officers with patrolling four housing developments in the southeast part of the city hasn't been expanded to other locations. Mirkarimi said he wants to see a regular flow of reliable statistics on how San Francisco's Police Department is performing. Suggesting police officials are reluctant to submit to closer oversight, he characterized getting good information out of the department as a "cat-and-mouse game."

Sure sounds safe over there in San Francisco, where they recently voted to ban handguns.

Judge Kozinski, one of the reliable anchors keeping the 9th Circuit tied down to reality (and that's no easy task), has once again struck a blow for sanity.   He ruled that a prior California conviction for assault rifle possession is not a crime of violence for purposes of sentence enhancements.

While the scope of the ruling is small, since most people aspire to go through their lives without ever seeing the business end of a criminal court, that the question was even asked provides just a hint of the legal mire that awaits when objects can become crimes without any malicious intent from their owner.  

I got it from David Hardy, who got it from Volokh.

The Gun Owners of America are urging us to support Kaloogian's campaign for Congress, by way of a district in California.  He's got good qualifications:

As a California Assemblyman from 1994-2000, Mr. Kaloogian fought tenaciously against the most radical anti-gun agenda in the country.  Working with Gun Owners of America, Kaloogian lead the fight against SB 23, the expansion of the ban on "so-called" Assault Weapons, and SB 15, the Safe Handgun laws that were really meant to ban small affordable handguns.

The seat is currently open, and will be filled by special election within the next few months.  Since it's a special election with no incumbent, there will likely be relatively small turnout, which means that Kaloogian has a chance at winning if he can mobilize enough people who care about the gun issue.

In any case, GOA says he's worth supporting, and that's good enough for me.

Looks like San Francisco's handgun ban passed on Tuesday's ballot.  About 42% opposed the ban (according to NRA News).  This is not as bad as it sounds; California has a firearms preemption law, and the ban will most likely be struck down as violating it.  The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA have filed lawsuits; Of Arms and the Law has more. 

UPDATE: The War on Guns says that attorney Gary Gorski is seeking plaintiffs, if you happen to live in San Francisco.

Proposition H would ban almost all private possession of handguns by San Francisco residents within city limits. Exceptions would be made for people who require guns for professional purposes, such as police officers, security guards and members of the military.

This proposition also would prohibit the sale, manufacture, distribution or transfer of all firearms and ammunition within

The City.

The use of guns in crimes is far too prevalent and gun violence is far too common in San Francisco. But Prop. H would not be an effective or appropriate means of preventing violent crime. These difficulties should be addressed by better enforcement of existing laws and better regulation of firearms ? not a blanket ban, particularly one that affects such a small geographical area and is likely to be challenged in court as a violation of state law.

In addition, it is possible that once residents gave up their handguns, San Francisco would be seen as an easy hunting ground for criminals who have no intention of giving up their own pistols.

Voters should turn down this proposition.

Question: Are there any San Francisco newspapers willing to come out in favor of the proposed handgun ban?

If you live in San Francisco, you better be ready to vote.

Alphapatriot spotted the story about the San Francisco Police Officers Association coming out against the proposed handgun ban, despite several highly-placed supervisors favoring it.  Remember -- politicians pick police chiefs and give them orders.  People who actually work the streets understand that firearms are equalizers.  They make enable ordinary people to resist a criminal attack on equal or better terms.  Take that away, and you tilt the scales towards the criminal.

It's short, it's sweet, and it will repeal CA's state-level assault weapons ban.  You folks over in the Left Coast get behind this one and see what you can do. 

The city of San Francisco has placed on the November ballot a proposal to ban handguns in the city limits. If we defeat the proposed ban, it will send shockwaves throughout the anti-gun ranks (the concept of San Francisco doing anything remotely pro-gun is inconceivable . . . to the gun ban crowd).

From now until November, the left-of-center Bay Area media will be asking a lot of questions  This is our opportunity to educate them, and there are indications that they are ready to listen.

It's a worthy cause.  It may be a doomed cause, but it's a worthy cause.  Any money donated will go towards printing up copies of his excellent gun control fact book to be shipped to the top media people in San Francisco.  I don't imagine that it will take that many copies to make an impact, if they are actually read by the recipients.

One of the most common arguments for the restrictions on military-pattern weapons is that they "aren't necessary for self-defense". That's a narrow distinction to draw, because even if they aren't necessary, they can be damn useful. The latest demonstration of their usefulness comes by way of the police forces in California, some of whom have been ordered to carry fully-automatic assault rifles on every call.

Apparantly military-pattern weapons, and even the fully-automatic versions usually reserved for the military, are necessary for self-defense in California -- if you happen to be a police officer. If you are not a police officer, then you are not permitted to own one... no matter how necessary for self-defense they are.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday let stand a lower-court ruling that allows a suit to proceed against the makers of guns used in a California shooting spree.

This is the usual absurd legal theory. There are a number of reasons why the Supreme Court wouldn't want to take the case right now, but the obvious one would be Rehnquist's health issues.

It's also important to note that it's not the end of the case. The only thing that is happening here is allowing the suit to proceed; the manufacturer has not actually been found liable. The 9th Circus appeals court seems to have ruled on the basis of state law -- and California state law may well be crazy enough to have some sort of explicitly-created liability for gun manufacturers or dealers, or simply to require the manufacturer to effectively prove its innocence at trial, before an unfriendly judge.

So, the gun industry lost a battle, but the war is yet to be fought.

?We know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city.? ? Bill Barnes, aide to Supervisor Chris Daly (1)

With this erroneous claim to bolster them, San Francisco supervisors kicked off a campaign to get voters to approve a city-wide handgun ban to take effect in 2006. What they are ignoring, besides statistical data, is history.

The above is the introduction to an excellent discussion of mortality rates, their correlation to gun control, and what that means for the City of San Francisco's proposed handgun ban.

Amid the rancor in Contra Costa County over big guns - the county's controversial new ban on .50-caliber rifles was legally attacked again this week by gun groups - a nagging question lingers: Who wants these things, anyway? I mean, what is the point of having a .50-caliber sniper rifle that can take out a Humvee and penetrate inch-thick steel? I've been accused more than once of just not getting all this "gun fun." I confess: I still don't.

As you may recall, Contra Costa County in California has taken it upon itself to ban the sale of .50 calibre rifles, since the law does not appear to ban ownership, and anyone wishing such a rifle could simply drive to another county. (Unlike state borders, you can usually cross county borders to purchase a firearm; I assume this holds for California). They join Los Angeles in passing this measure.

The writer of this editorial is operating under the impression that the only people who would want a .50 calibre rifle are terrorists. She is also under the impression that these rifles could be used to shoot at heavy industry (and actually do significant damage). She is, apparantly, undeterred by the fact that none of these things have happened. Terrorists don't seem to be using .50 calibre rifles to attack tanks or industry, probably because it wouldn't work.

And really -- banning an entire calibre seems a bit much in response to a completely non-existant and overblown problem, doesn't it? What's next -- banning the .45, a popular handgun calibre? It's not quite .50, but it's close.

Let me reiterate the main points here:

• The .50 is not a uniquely powerful, accurate, or long-range calibre; it's just the largest in common use.
• The .50 is not a weapon specially suited for terrorists; it's just a rifle.
• The .50 is not an explosive bullet.
• The .50 is not an armor-piercing bullet at normal ranges.
• The .50 is not a uniquely powerful calibre.
• There have been no criminal incidents within the United States with these rifles.

UPDATE: No Quarters reports that a cop robbed an armoured car with one, but details aren't readily available. Fine by me -- cops usually get exceptions to regulation, so a cop committing a crime with a weapon doesn't add points to that weapon's "evil rating". That reminded me that some of the initial reports of the bulldozer guy claimed he had a .50 rifle, but I haven't seen any reports I trust to that effect; reporters are notoriously inaccurate about gun details when they're in a hurry.

San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

It looks like San Francisco is planning to follow in the footsteps of Washington DC, such a crime-free paradise of gun control as the left has been able to create. Luckily, their efforts are probably illegal:

The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.

Thank god I don't live there. And thanks to Freedomsight for spotting the article.

UPDATE: Publicola has more. This appears to be a proposal by the local politicians to put their gun control measure on the ballot. I'm not sure why they would choose to do that, rather than simply passing the measure outright, unless they are afraid of the electoral consequences and seek to blame "the people" at election time.

I'm not sure what effect the Governator might have on this effort. He's certainly a political figure who might be able to bring some pressure to bear on the issue during the run-up to the public ballot. Not that such opposition could be counted on; the girly-man governor has failed us before, despite waving around all those fashion accessories. But he's also shown some political courage on the issue.

This touches on an issue that I've mentioned before, along with other gunbloggers. The gun control effort knows that, in order to succeed, they have to get on the offensive and stay there. If they set the agenda, they win, because they can keep coming back until they find a way to sell their policies that people will believe, however briefly. We have to put them on the defensive, and that means repealing bad laws and passing desirable ones.

UPDATE: Volokh has more.

As readers may recall, Ashcroft v Raich was argued before the Supreme Court recently. The transcript of the oral arguments is now available.

The case is an interesting one. It's a California medical marijuana case, argued by Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy on commerce clause grounds. The idea is simple: if the federal government, under the commerce clause, can regulate (ie, forbid) the in-state growth and consumption of marijuana that never crosses a state line, then it's powers are essentially limitless. The abuse of that clause is what has given us our modern government.

The current court has taken steps to rein in governmental authority under the commerce clause, and for that reason this is a significant case. Speculation is that the justices are sympathetic to this line of argument. Let's hope so; it's our last, best hope for a peaceful return to a Constitutional form of government.