Gov. Brown Signs Bill Banning Gun Sales to People Under 21

Gun seizureMost people under 21 won’t be able to buy guns in California starting next year under a law Gov. Jerry Brown announced signing Friday.

It will prevent people under 21 from buying rifles and other types of guns. State law already bans people under 21 from buying handguns.

The new law exempts law enforcement, members of the military and people with hunting licenses from the restriction.

It was one of dozens of bills Brown took action on.

Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino pointed to the shooting at a Florida high school earlier this year that killed 17 people as the reason for his bill banning gun sales and transfers to people under 21.

“I was determined to help California respond appropriately to the tragic events our country has recently faced on high school campuses,” Portantino said in a statement. …

Click here to read the full article from NBC News

California Legislature Approves Lifetime Gun Ban for Those Convicted of Domestic Violence

Gun seizureThe California legislature has added to the state’s extensive slate of restrictions on gun ownership, passing three bills that would place a lifetime gun-ownership ban on anyone convicted of domestic violence or placed on two involuntary psychiatric holds in one year.

If signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, the legislation would extend the current ten-year ban on gun ownership for domestic abusers to a lifetime ban, a measure the bill’s proponents claim will help ensure the safety of domestic-violence victims.

“We must do more to ensure the safety of our survivors of domestic violence,” Democratic assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, who introduced the domestic-violence legislation, told her colleagues, the Los Angeles Times reports.

A separate bill, introduced by Democratic assemblyman Evan Low, bans gun ownership for those ordered into psychiatric institutions by the courts twice in one year. The bill is intended to reduce the number of gun-inflicted suicide deaths, which comprise two-thirds of all gun deaths annually in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. …

Click here to read the full article from the National Review

ACLU Fighting California Democrats over Gun Control

Gun Open CarryThe American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is pushing back against Democrats’ efforts to create further limitations on gun ownership based on mental health treatment.

California Democrats are pushing to secure five gun controls before the legislative session ends. One of those controls would expand bans on gun ownership to include new prohibitions related to mental health.

The Sacramento Bee reports that Democrats want to “prohibit gun ownership for anyone involuntarily committed to a facility twice in one year for a mental health disorder.” A misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence would also trigger a ban on gun ownership.

The ACLU is zeroing in on the mental health provisions, voicing opposition on the grounds that broad language is being used to lump the non-violent in with those who may, indeed, be violent. The ACLU said, “This bill stigmatizes people with a history of mental health issues, and perpetuates the harmful and false stereotype that such people are inherently violent and dangerous.”

We saw similar opposition to the Social Security gun ban, which was created and implemented federally under former President Obama. That ban prohibited gun ownership for beneficiaries who needed a money manager due to mental health struggles, be those struggles temporary or permanent. Duke University psychiatry and behavioral science Professor Jeffrey Swanson made clear that the ban was a convenient way to lump all types of people together–the violent and the non-violent–for a broad-based gun ban.

Swanson used a Washington Post column to explain that “the vast majority of mentally ill individuals” pose no threat to themselves nor to others. Yet the ban stigmatized a broad swath of the mentally ill by treating them as a threat.

The ACLU is making a similar argument against the ban being pushed by California Democrats.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

CA Lawmakers Seek to Expand Gun Confiscation

GunCalifornia lawmakers are pushing numerous gun control measures including an expansion of confiscatory orders and limits on the number of firearms residents can buy each month.

Many of the lawmakers are claiming school shootings in Florida and Texas as the impetus for more gun control on law-abiding Californians.

The Mercury News reports that Assemblyman Rob Bonita (D-18) is pushing controls to bar 18-20-year olds from buying firearms. A companion bill, sponsored by State Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-25), passed the Senate earlier this week. Portantino’s bill also puts a one-gun-a-month purchase limit in place for Californians.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-9) is pushing for an expansion of the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders. Whereas the orders currently authorize the confiscation of firearms, Skinner would also have them authorize the confiscation of gun parts. And Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-64) wants to close the “Ghost Gun Loophole” by regulating any parts that a prohibited person could use to build a gun at home.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is working with legislators to secure these various new controls. Brady Campaign legislative advocate Amanda Wilsox said, “Everything is certainly moving forward. Together, all these bills make a difference.”

California already has an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, a requirement that residents obtain a firearm safety certificate from the state before buying a gun, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance, a ban on campus carry, a prohibition against allowing teachers to be armed to shoot back, and various ammunition controls.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Legislature Claims New CA Gun Control Bill Will Help Prevent Suicides

GunMore stringent gun regulations to curb suicides could soon be enacted in California. Assembly Bill 1927 successfully passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee during a hearing Tuesday morning.

Spurred by recent mass shootings, the legislation, introduced by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, and co-authored by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, would allow residents to “voluntarily add their name to the California Do Not Sell List for firearms.”

“A lot of the political opposition to efforts California has taken to address gun violence is around government telling people what they can and cannot do,” Bonta told the SacBee. “This is different. This is an individual saying, ‘I want to do this. I’m choosing to do this.’ We think it will save lives.”

Of the roughly 38,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2016, about two-thirds were suicides. In California alone, there were nearly 1,600 suicides with guns in 2016.

While a controversial topic, the issue of guns and suicide are inextricably linked. Research suggests that suicide attempts are an impulsive act, and firearms offer a disproportionately lethal means.

The bill is not without its opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, with some expressing concern that the law could be abused.

To join the list, a person would provide the names and contact information for five people. These contacts would be informed if the person attempted to buy a firearm. Additionally, while those on the list may not be able to legally purchase a firearm, they would not be liable for “any criminal or civil penalty for purchasing, receiving or possessing a firearm.” Those who knowingly sell firearms to Californians on the list, however, would be subject to penalties.

The law would require the state to regularly add people on the list to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

People on the list would need to wait a year before removing themselves; however, to remove themselves earlier, they could provide testimony from a medical professional that they are not a risk to themselves or others. The state would “expunge records related to the person’s inclusion in, and removal, from, the Do Not Sell List.”

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Wait Time for Concealed Carry in Riverside County: Two Years

03_Concealed_Carry_CC_Inner_PhotoThe wait time for a concealed carry permit in Riverside County, California, now sits at two years.

That means a law-abiding citizen who applies for a concealed permit out of fear for his life has to find a way to survive unarmed while waiting 24 months to receive a permit allowing him to carry a gun for self-defense.

According to the Reno Gazzette Journal, the wait time for applicants who apply for a concealed carry permit in Riverside County “has climbed from a few months to two years.” This means law-abiding citizens like 56-year-old Steve Perkio have to apply with the understanding that it will literally be years before they get a permit.

Perkio already has a non-resident permit outside of California, and that permit allows him to carry in 26 states across the country. But California refuses to recognize any permit but its own, which means Parkio’s out-of-state permit is not valid in his home state. And it also means Parkio is at the mercy of the criminal element while he waits two years for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office to approve his concealed carry application.

And it should be remembered that even after two years, the issuance of a permit does not rest solely on Parkio being a law-abiding citizen but on Parkio being able to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a gun daily. So he may wait two years only to have the sheiff’s office arbitrarily reject his application.

News of the two year wait in Riverside County comes on top of the report that Los Angeles County has only issued 197 permits for its 10.2 million residents.  The discrepancy in the meager number of permits issued in a such a large population was uncovered by the California State Auditor. Moreover, the NRA-ILA observed that the Auditor found the “good cause” requirement was arbitrarily followed, if at all, in many of the instances where permits were issued.

This brings us back to the earlier point on Perkio, that even after waiting two years and being a law-abiding citizen he may be refused a permit unless he proves “good cause.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

San Francisco sues Defense Department over gun background checks

GunThe cities of San Francisco, New York and Philadelphia filed a sweeping federal lawsuit Tuesday accusing the U.S. Department of Defense of failing to live up to its legal duty to notify the FBI when a member of the military is convicted of a crime that would bar them from buying or possessing firearms.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Virginia, accuses the defense department, the Army, Navy, Air Force and a host of high-ranking Pentagon officials — including Secretary of Defense James Mattis — of unevenly feeding reports about convictions and dishonorable discharges to the FBI’s criminal background check system for the past two decades.

In their joint complaint, the cities contend that these kinds of reporting lapses allowed Devin Kelley — a former member of the Air Force who was court-martialed and convicted of assaulting his wife and stepson in 2012 — to purchase the assault-style weapon that he’s accused of using to kill 26 people at a church in Texas last month. Kelley, who was discharged from the Air Force in 2014, killed himself shortly after the mass shooting. …

Click here to read the full article from the San Francisco Chronicle

Ammunition Sales Surge as Californians Seek to Beat New Gun Controls

PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Boxes of 9mm and .223 rifle ammuntion sit on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school massacare, California State lawmakers are introducing several bills that propose taxing and regulating sales of ammunition. Another bill is aimed to require a background check and annual permit fee to purchase any ammunition. (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

California ammunition sales are surging as residents rush to beat the January 1, 2018, implementation of new gun controls targeting ammo sales.

The incoming controls are the outworking of Proposition 63, passed by voters in 2016.

On December 15 Breitbart News reported that California’s war on guns would broaden to include a war on ammo in 2018. These controls include a ban on any ammunition not purchased within the state of California. Moreover, they narrowly define legally purchased ammo as that which is acquired via a licensed dealer in the state.

These controls will not only lessen the supply of ammunition available to Californians, thereby driving up the price for bullets, but will also add processing fees to certain ammo sales, driving up the price even higher.

Right now Californians are buying ammunition at a frenzied pace, getting it at a cheaper price while they can.

Orange County Register quotes AmmoMan’s Eric Schepps, who said, “California has been consistently at the top of our sales, but the biggest difference is that in 2014, about one in 10 packages was going to California. Last year, it was about one in every five packages. Today, every other package we ship is going to a California ZIP code.”

Sales in California have been running well above AmmoMan’s normal sales all year, and have steadily climbed as we draw nearer to January 1.

Here are percentages on how far sales have run above normal each month:

  • May: 134.6%
  • June: 134.8%
  • July: 147%
  • August: 138.2%
  • September: 152.6%
  • October: 151%
  • November: 173.2%
  • December: 187.5%

Shepps said “folks that are intent on buying ammo ASAP.” And he said it is evident “there is more urgency among them as we head toward January.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

California Dems Learn Gun Control Easy in Theory, Difficult in Reality

Photo courtesy of krazydad/jbum, Flickr.

Photo courtesy of krazydad/jbum, Flickr.

Since the passage of “Gunpocalypse” (June 30, 2016), and Proposition 63 (November 8, 2016), California Democrats have learned that gun control is easy to pass but difficult to implement.

The problem for Democrats is that they have already passed so many gun laws that they have now begun trading the real for the theoretical, struggling to find a way to stop the crimes and terrorist attacks that none of their existing gun controls have stopped. In fact, Democrats are fighting for gun control with such fervor that one of their current undertakings is reworking a previous law in order to bar law-abiding teachers from carrying guns for self-defense.

It was in this spirit of gun control upon gun control that the Democrats passed Gunpocaplyse and Prop. 63.

The Firearms Policy Coalition measures consisted of:

SB 880: Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
SB 894: Re-victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.
SB 1235: Now competes with Gavin Newsom’s Safety for All Act/Ammo Ban [by enacting ammunition background checks].
SB 1446: Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity ammunition feeding devices.
AB 857: Forced “Ghost Gun” registration.
AB 1135: Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
AB 1511: Bans the loaning of firearms.
AB 1673: Redefines “firearms” to include items that are not firearms.
AB 1674: Bans buying more than one firearm within a 30-day period.
AB 1695: Makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms.
AB 2607: Dramatically expands who can request a Gun Violence Restraining order.

Prop. 63 consisted of a “high capacity” magazine ban and a background check requirement for all ammunition sales. All of these laws were passed after universal background checks, gun registration requirements, gun confiscation laws, a ten-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry, and numerous other state and local gun controls – -including gun-free zones — proved impotent to stop the December 2, 2015 San Bernardino attackers. But now that all the gun controls have been passed, The Trace reports that implementing them is another story altogether.

According to The Trace, California’s Office of Administrative Law found fault with the way the wording of the “assault weapons” ban had been presented to the public for comment. And on June 29, “a federal judge in San Diego issued a preliminary injunction halting the statewide ban on the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds from taking effect.”

Because of these and other problems, deadlines for citizens to register their “assault weapons” have been pushed back six months, and there are those who believe deadlines may be pushed back further.

The problem is simple: what works on paper does not always work in the real world. And because Democrats continue to theorize that gun control works, against the weight of the evidence, there is a growing chance their hypothesis will collapse under the weight of reality.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

California’s High-Capacity Magazine Confiscation Halted by Judge

PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Boxes of 9mm and .223 rifle ammuntion sit on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school massacare, California State lawmakers are introducing several bills that propose taxing and regulating sales of ammunition. Another bill is aimed to require a background check and annual permit fee to purchase any ammunition. (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

As of July 1, all that stands between the state of California and the criminalization of thousands of previously law-abiding state citizens is the opinion of a single federal judge. In a 66-page order, Judge Roger Benitez temporarily blocked a new California law that required citizens to surrender possession of any gun magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Remember how gun-controllers mock conservatives who claim that progressives really want to confiscate lawfully owned weapons? Well, someone forgot to tell California progressives to hide their radical cards. Last year the state amended its criminal law. It already banned the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines. The new law applied to those magazines that were grandfathered in, legally possessed under previous law. As of July 1, 2017, any person who keeps a lawfully purchased and lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine risks a fine and up to one year in a county jail. Or, to quote the judge, “On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.”

The law, however, does play favorites. It exempts “active and retired law enforcement officers” (but not members of the military), “employees of armored car businesses” and — incredibly — “movie and television actors when magazines are used as a prop.” Not even social justice can stop the Hollywood gravy train.

The little people, however, have but three choices: take the magazine out of the state (I’ll gladly accept donations to my Tennessee stash), sell it to a licensed firearm dealer, or surrender it to law enforcement for destruction. To absolutely no one’s surprise, gun owners appear to be resisting the law. A Sacramento Bee report summarizes their mood: “Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.”

The Bee quoted UCLA professor Adam Winkler who noted that gun owners tend to “ignore” magazine bans. “We see no compliance from gun owners,” he said. “As best as we can tell, no gun owners are giving up their high capacity magazines or selling them out of state.”

In fact, blue-state gun owners are becoming known for their passive resistance. When Connecticut required registration of so-called assault weapons, as few as 15 percent of assault-weapon owners complied.

Thanks to Judge Benitez, California’s gun owners have a brief reprieve. His opinion should be required reading for anyone who seeks to understand the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. Judge Benitez, quite simply, “gets it,” and his opinion is a tour de force that not only critiques Ninth Circuit jurisprudence (even as he applies it), it also eviscerates claims that California’s ban will have any meaningful impact on public safety.

The law’s advocates claim that large-capacity magazines don’t have “legitimate self-defense value.” Judge Benitez responds with actual evidence of their use in self-defense. The law’s advocates claim that studies of mass shootings show that large-capacity magazines render mass shootings particularly dangerous. Judge Benitez takes apart those studies, showing that the impact of large-capacity magazines is exaggerated and that the evidence is woefully deficient that banning them would have any meaningful impact on public safety:

To sum up, of the 92 mass killings occurring across the 50 states between 2013 and 2009, only ten occurred in California. Of those ten, the criminalization and dispossession requirements of section 32310 of the new law would have had no effect on eight of the shootings, and only marginal good effects had it been in effect at the time of the remaining two shootings. On this evidence, section 32310 is not a reasonable fit. It hardly fits at all. It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Moreover, the Court directly addresses a vital purpose of the Second Amendment — that it stands as a firewall against tyranny. If a state removes effective, commonly used weaponry from public use, that firewall starts to crumble. This summary paragraph is near-perfect:

Violent gun use is a constitutionally-protected means for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law-abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domestic. To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permitted to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights — which may repel criminal gun violence and which ultimately ensure the safety of the Republic.

The case will move quickly to the Ninth Circuit, where gun owners’ prospects are more grim. Ninth Circuit case law is hopelessly convoluted. Indeed, it seems deliberately engineered to provide maximum flexibility to progressive state and local governments while still providing a veneer of judicial review. One hopes that the Supreme Court will break its recent habit of refusing to review gun cases and step in once again on the side of the Bill of Rights.

As I’ve written before, California is seceding from the Constitution. It is systematically attacking individual liberty in favor of secular progressive collectivism. First Amendment rights are already under comprehensive assault, and now it seeks to cross the Second Amendment Rubicon — moving from gun “control” to outright confiscation of previously lawfully owned magazines.

Gun owners are right to resist this law. The court was right to block it. As Judge Benitez noted, if he didn’t enjoin the statute, then “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property. That is a choice they should not have to make. Not on this record.” To that I would simply add, not under this Constitution. California’s law cannot stand.

READ MORE:

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

This article was originally published by National Review Online