Does This Left Coast State Want To Ration Guns?

14
1010

File this under the: “How does this make any sense to anyone?” file.

A proposed bill has the specific purpose of preventing residents from one Western state from being able to purchase more than one gun per month. Yes, we’re talking gun rationing.

Now, we’re not talking about concerns that there will be enough food or other resources for everyone like was used to justify rationing during World War II. We’re just talking rationing because, apparently, State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena) thinks it’s a good idea. Never mind that it, even if it passes, it won’t apply to him. Daniel Jennings gives us more details about this lunacy in California:

The California bill, sponsored by State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena), was labeled “firearms rationing” by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” SB 497 states.

The bill applies not only to pistols but also to rifles and shotguns.

It specifically exempts law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, licensed firearms dealers, motion picture and television production companies, and licensed collectors.

Current California law makes it illegal for private citizens to purchase more than one handgun a month. SB 497 extends that restriction to rifles and shotguns.

“This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms,” the legislative counsel’s digest of SB 497 states. Dealers who violate SB 497 can be prosecuted as criminals.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 25-13. To become law, it must pass the state Assembly and then be signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who vetoed a similar bill in 2016.

What I want to know is what in the world that State Senator Portantino (and the other Senators that voted for the bill) hopes to accomplish with this bill. So, they stop someone from buying a second gun this month. The bill doesn’t stop someone from buying a gun right now (whch is all some nutcase needs to go commit a horrible crime), and the bill doesn’t stop a criminal from stealing or obtaining a gun by some other illegal manner.

All this bill will accomplish is that it will allow these State Senators to say that they helped to protect the children (without actually making any difference) and to place an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun shops to have to to through the process of making sure a customer hasn’t already (legally) bought a gun of any kind this month before selling them a gun.

It’s ridiculous and a waste of time and money.

14 COMMENTS

  1. How do these politicians get away with passing, or even introducing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, and also blatant violations of their oaths of office to uphold the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution?

    I will tell you how, because the Supreme Court, and all other lower courts are absolutely political, not judicial, and violate their oaths of office, just as these politicians have by proposing, then passing unconstitutional Bills, then calling them laws. No one keeps the federal or state governments in check.

    These law makers in California, Chicago, New York, and many other cities and states have gotten away with these unconstitutional laws for do long that the citizens think that they have the right to pass these laws, and just accept that they are preforming their sworn oaths as they should be.
    Nothing could be further from the truth!

  2. Krazy Kalifornia, home of FRUITS, NUTS. FLAKES and their very own MOONBEAM has crossed the line into total insanity. Hey mother nature do us a favor and send the “nutcase” state into the ocean!!!

  3. The objective of ALL the anti-gun legislation in that state (and others) is simply to make it more difficult for their citizens to be armed. Why would the state govt want to do THAT? Because the ultimate objective of socialist govts is to make the citizens totally dependent upon the govt for everything, in this particular case, for their personal safety and defense. To do this it is necessary to effectively disarm the public, so anything that moves in that general direction is considered a reasonable law. Logical arguers may say that it doesn’t address any specific problem, but in fact, it does. It addresses the “problem” (for Socialists) of having an armed public as a socially acceptable concept. Any law that attacks that belief, no matter how minor, is “a step in the right direction” for them.
    We can already see the result of this kind of thing in the UK, where the citizens, actually subjects, are told to “run, hide, tell someone,” in case of violent attack. Not, as here in the USA, “run, hide, FIGHT.” Ordinary folks in places like the UK are not “equal” in the sense that they are inevitably at the mercy of anyone physically bigger, stronger, younger, more aggressive, etc. than they themselves. Obviously the govt cannot BE THERE when they get attacked, but the govt has still made them reliant on it for their safety. Hence they are told NOT to resist; indeed, resistance is virtually always illegal there – just “tell someone” (meaning someone in the govt). Ordinary folks go along with this, and it even seems reasonable, only AFTER they have been disarmed and made vulnerable. After all, if you CAN’T defend yourself, you can always tell the govt after you’ve been victimized, and that feels like you are “doing something about the problem.”
    The presence of guns in the hands of the public changes this dynamic dramatically. In that case, as is the case in the USA (at least in states with “loose” gun regulations), a human predator must always consider whether or not his intended victim may be armed, and therefore able to defend him/herself effectively. If I am a strong, aggressive, thug, targeting a smaller, elderly person for mugging, and I live in TX or FL, for example, then I must consider that I may not be the “stronger” one in the encounter, because my intended victim may be armed. That makes the older, physically weaker, person EQUAL to me. That’s what the old adage meant when it said, “God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” With guns readily available to the public, everyone is potentially equal (at their own option); without guns everyone is potentially at the mercy of anyone bigger and stronger. So it is the availability of guns to the general public that makes its members physically equal.
    This feeling/attitude of physical equality, and the sense of self-reliance and confidence it engenders, changes a person’s worldview. This different worldview is inevitably carried over into other walks of life as well, including into one’s political beliefs, and THAT is something socialism cannot survive, and therefore cannot tolerate.

  4. Seems an all to clear violation of The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. CAlifornia is part of the U.S., isn’t it, meaning that the U.S. Constitution would hold sway there. Of course, given that I believe that 2 plus 2 equal 4, who knows.

  5. I have been reading with great trepidation that Yellowstone National Park has had more than 300 earthquakes in the past several months. If you are not aware, Yellowstone is an ancient “supervolcano” that last erupted 650,000 years ago, and is considered by many vulcanologists (scientists who study volcanos- nothing to do with Mr. Spock) to be seriously overdue for another eruption, hence the worry over the earthquakes. This could be serious as it may rise to the level of an “Extinction Level Event” of the sort that killed the dinosaurs. Of course these may be the same “Chicken Little” scientists pushing “Global Warming”. An eruption of this size will put so much dust and ash into the atmosphere that sunlight will be blocked to an extent that will bring about another ice age of unknown duration, possibly decades, making as much as 60% of the U.S. uninhabitable. The lone upside to this is that maybe, just maybe, the destruction could reach to the San Andreas Fault, and cause California to fall into the Pacific Ocean. It would mean massive loss of life, but as most would be idiotic Liberals, do the rest of us really care? Just think- no more egotistic narcissistic movie stars, no more Anti Fa, no more Berkeley riots over Conservative speakers, and most important, no more Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein. Am I bitter? Yeah, a little. But mostly very, very hopeful it all works out.

  6. I would think right now for the past 8 yrs people have already bought their guns so this ration doesnt matter to us already armed..now being able to carry is another matter..

  7. All of the idiots in office in the state of California need to be thrown out on their asses . Every couple of months you hear about more of the stupidest shit coming out of that state. What is wrong with those people. Yea, I don’t even know if stupidest is even a word, but it felt right. Anyway if its not guns its something else, the govt should let them detach from normal society and have their own weird little state all to themselves and cut them off completely from the US. Good Riddensssssssssss !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. Virginia passed a similar bill several years ago put forth by a Democratic Governor. It did absolutely nothing to curb violent crime. Our next Republican Governor came in and repealed this useless law. Our current governor race has the democratic party challenger Dr. Ralph Northam running ads that he stood up to the NRA after the Virginia Tech shooting, saying he supported a ban on assault rifles and a mandatory background checks for all weapon purchases, neither of which would have prevented the attack at Virginia Tech as the shooter passed a background check and used two pistols. Our current Democratic Governor attempted to reinstated the one gun a month law and it was defeated by out Republican state senate. The saying that an armed person is a citizen and an unarmed person is a subject it what the democratic’s and socialist want. I’m willing to bet if they passed the one gun law in California it will only apply to the average Jane or John Doe, not to the politicians. Sic Semper Tyrannis (Thus ever to Tyrants).

  9. Typical of COMMIE MEXIFORNIA apparently they do not need the TX REVENUE DEVLOPED FROM THE SALE OF FIRE ARMS and they are on the BRINK of bankruptcy and with the withholding of federal grants to Sanctuary Cities they will need all of the TAX REVENUE they can get. LOL

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here