No on Prop. 63

Want to talk about something that doesn't fit into any other forum? This is the place to post your topic for discussion!

No on Prop. 63

Postby mrfish » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:12 pm

Prop. 63 Would Further Limit High-Capacity Magazines For Firearms
Fascism at it's most extreme. Anyone who owns a "high capacity" magazine (defined as capacity of more than ten rounds) would have to get rid of them. On top that there's no compensation for those impacted. Further anyone who wants to simply purchase ammunition would have to pass a background check.
User avatar
mrfish
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:50 am
Location: Poison Canyon

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby mrfish » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:53 pm

What California’s new gun laws mean for hunters, target shooters
Here's more info and there are a bunch of exceptions. What complicates things is that there were laws passed by Brown and there's this proposition. They overlap in a lot of ways and it's hard to say how all of this will all turn out in the long run. The good news is that the worst parts of this are not likely to take effect before July 2017.
Q: Some of the guns I use take magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. What do I do with them?

A: Senate Bill 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds as of July 2017. That expands on an existing state law barring the sale and import of such magazines. So you might need to get rid of old high-volume magazines by destroying them, selling them to licensed gun dealers or handing them in to law enforcement. But, as with the bullet-button bills, there are some exceptions written in. If you own a gun that only takes such large-capacity magazines, and bought it before the start of 2000, you can keep the magazines that go with it provided you only use them for that gun.

LINK:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article88521977.html
User avatar
mrfish
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:50 am
Location: Poison Canyon

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby sandman » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:37 am

Yeah, I heard about this awhile ago. Although I'm not exactly a gun nut, I still feel that these laws and the proposition contradict our constitutional rights regarding firearms. What bothers me the most is what compensation is being offered to anyone impacted by these laws? Some people stand to lose thousands of dollars worth of gun-related accessories. How is it okay to just confiscate without compensation? Even in an eminent domain situation there is payment made for the property in question.
User avatar
sandman
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: NEVER NEVER LAND

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby surfsteve » Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:27 am

Thanks. I'll be sure and vote no on 63 but it wont matter much if Hillary gets into office because she will virtually abolish the 2nd amendment anyway. I will also vote no on Prop. H
You know why single men live longer than married men? Because they want to.
surfsteve
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby desertrat » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:47 am

Is the NRA going to challenge any of this in court? I'm with Charlton Heston on this one: I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
User avatar
desertrat
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby whiskeypete » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:54 am

Gun control measures on ballots in four states
Attempts to nullify our second amendment rights. Tyranny of the majority? Just because an initiative passes doesn't mean it's Constitutional. We can't vote away our Constitutional rights!
User avatar
whiskeypete
Cantankerous Mule
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Location: Under The Influence

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby mrfish » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:49 am

Prop 63 Passes as Gun Control Sweeps California
The law will be challenged and with Trump appointing a conservative supreme court justice legal challenges have a good chance of eventually succeeding.
User avatar
mrfish
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:50 am
Location: Poison Canyon

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby surfsteve » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:34 am

Instead of California succeeding from the United States maybe Las Angeles could just succeed from California. Instead of Trump sentencing her to prison he could just sentence her to LA. She could be the warden, Superjail could become a reality and everyone could live happily ever after!
You know why single men live longer than married men? Because they want to.
surfsteve
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby desertrat » Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:38 am

Clock ticking for many California gun buyers
Not much time left to pick up that assault rifle you've been dreaming of!
User avatar
desertrat
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby sandman » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:15 am

SB-1446 Firearms: magazine capacity.
If you're like me then you've heard a ton of rumors. Different dates for this and that and who knows what will happen with court challenges. Here's the text for the bill:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1446
User avatar
sandman
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: NEVER NEVER LAND

Next

Return to News and Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest