Example #178,567: Why California Lawmakers Are Idiots

by Jack Lee

CA – The knee-jerk types who always want to pass a law following every shocking headline on crime and the gun-grabbers who need no excuses, came together to pass the landmark Roberti-Roos ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, the date was 1989.

A short time later in Washington D.C., Diane Feinstien and Chuck Schummer, both notorious gun-grabbers, pushed thru another ASSAULT WEAPONS ban for the feds.

In an article written in 1989 by the L.A. Times, “Virtually everyone agrees that the Roberti-Roos plan threw open the floodgates and made it easier for proponents of gun controls to win passage of their measures.

Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), chief GOP defender of gun ownership, agreed that “in the short term, the (assault gun ban) opened the floodgates” but forecast that “the moment enforcement of this law begins, you are going to see public opinion drastically shift.” Tom missed this one by miles.

Both the State and Federal law were based on the improbable theory that civilian ownership of so-called assault weapons by otherwise law abiding civilians presented an undue risk to the public and to law enforcement. When people hear the term [assault weapon] they think machine gun, but that’s not the case, not at all. We have very restrictive laws to deal with the civilian ownership of machine guns (guns that fire fully automatic). What we’re talking about is a whole list of guns that fire semi-auto and have always been considered legal.

The A-W law was updated in 2000 in CA and I have provided a copy of it at the end of the article for your review. It lists a number of absurd requirements that do not address safety, but do restrict ownership because of the hoops one must jump thru to possess a legal version of a rifle that has the [appearance] of an assault weapon.

The supporters of this A-W ban rationalized it under several false premises. First, that all assault weapons have powerful calibers and fire automatically using a high capacity magazine. Second that this was unusual and such weapons should only be reserved for the military.

At first, their pitch for a ban sounds almost reasonable, but the proponents didn’t tell the truth and they didn’t give this bill an honest review. Instead, the 1989 law was rushed through because Roberti and Roos wanted to seize on the momentum of the moment, thanks to one terrible event. A month earlier Patrick Purdy went on a shooting rampage and killed 5 kids on a Stockton school ground before killing himself.

That one horrific shooting was enough to sway opinions and outweigh all the impartial statistical evidence not to mention allowing for consideration of our Second Amendment right. This State’s lawmakers were on a crusade as if passing another gun law would bring justice to the victims while imposing injustice on gun owners.

Even back in 1989 there was little reason to believe that banning these weapons would have any effect on violent crime and since then, the Federal ban was imposed and lifted. History proved the ban had no impact on violent crime.

According to the Dept. of Justice those so-called assault weapons make up less than 1% of all guns in the USA. However, their use in crime is extremely low compared to other types of weapons. One possible reason for this is because they are so easy to identify and their sales are closely monitored. All have serial numbers and are fully registered when sold to legally authorized citizens.

To some uniformed people these guns have scary-looking features, but the guns in question are no more lethal than hundreds of other similar firearms that remain 100% legal as they should be. They all fire at the same rate as any other semiautomatic gun–in other words, no faster than a revolver. Their ammunition is of intermediate caliber, less formidable than the cartridges fired by many hunting rifles. In fact the calibers in these weapons are about half as powerful as the typical rifle used in World War 1 or WWII.

Decades ago many concerned lawmakers relied on a BATF study that concluded the A-W classed guns were more likely to be used in a crime. Later, when it came out that the BATF study was grossly flawed, a second study was conducted under more relevant and more scientific guidelines. Ae new conclusion was reached, the opposite was true! The data from 24 separate studies using police inventories was done by criminologist Gary Kleck. He concluded: “Virtually all of these studies show that only 0 to 4 percent of confiscated guns are assault weapons.”

Because the statistics show that “assault weapons” are so rarely used in crime, advocates of the ban switched their justification to focus on [specific] cases. Things likely to incite passions, like the Stockton school shooting. “We must protect the children – we must pass a law restricting….!” The scapegoat was once again the gun owners.

So now the momentum for banning ASSAULT WEAPONS was being carried forward based on emotion rather statical data and guess what? Emotion won! However, in the end nothing was won. Crime sure didn’t go down and we just sacrificed a major part of our Second Amendment right for security that never arrived.

As I said earlier, eventually the federal ASSAULT WEAPON ban expired thanks to a sunset clause, and life in America went on as usual without anyone even noticing the change, except for a few gun owners. This is why I call the lawmakers in Sacramento idiots. And they are. Worse, they are dangerous idiots because they would sacrifice our Constitutional right for false security, and that is doing more harm than good. Passing this A-W ban has effectively turned loose the full authority of the law on legal gun owners who enjoy the lawful sport of target shooting with old ex-mil firearms or other guns that may fall within the so-called ASSAULT WEAPON ban. The ban became another constraint on their freedom, and when that happened we all lost a little and for what? So that liberals can [feel] more secure or [scare] people into submission?

The feds let the assault weapon ban go for a reason: It did no good, it was an erosion on our Second Amendment and it impacted on other areas, like interstate commerce and it even raised property rights issues. Let me say it one last time…The federal government abandoned the assault weapon law because there was no nexus between reducing crime and the guns. That was the whole essence for having a ban in the first place!

CONT- page 2

CONT-

Can you imagine that a semi-auto rifle that had a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action, a thumb-hole stock or folding or telescopic stock, flash suppressor or a forward pistol grip was enough to make it a felony to own such a gun?

Does anyone out here who knows about a rifles, think a pistol grip can somehow make it more lethal, so dangerous that the law should make it a felony to possess one?

How about that illegal thumb-hole in the stock or that illegal flash suppressor? Does any rational, sober person with the slightest bit of understanding about firearms think this makes them more lethal and worthy of being a felony? Well of course not, we all know none of that stuff has anything to do with lethality and a felony? It would make as much sense to make it a felony to own a car that goes above 85 mph, because they are so much deadlier than cars that don’t. This is how a Nanny State thinks, but do we need a Nanny more than our Constitution with all its risks that go with freedom?

To the ignorant lawmakers a rifle that looks more lethal (with a pistol grip) must therefore be more lethal! Sure, and if looks could kill we would all be dead. I ask you, isn’t this idiotic? How can we accept such incompetence from our highly paid lawmakers?

Did you know a bayonet (knife) on the end of the barrel of most old ex-military semi-auto rifles makes them instantly into an ASSAULT WEAPON in California? No where else – just here, we’ve unilaterally imposed it on ourselves. Why is that, have we had a rash of bayoneting in recent years? In CA it’s a felony!

When some of these sage, scholarly lawmakers were questioned about the parts of a rifle most of them couldn’t identify a butt stock from from a forward grip. Yet in their wisdom and unsound judgment, they pass laws to make the innocent into felons.
All because they hate the military, they hate military guns, they hate guns that even look military and because they have no understanding of how firearms work, nor do they care to know. Theirs was another emotional knee jerk response to a perceived problem, something that liberals are famous for.

The two idiots (Roberti and Roos) that wrote the 1989 Assault Weapons Law are long gone, but their bill lives on despite having failed the test of time. Point of clarification, David Roberti stayed on the government gravy train as long as he could working on boards, then he went over lobbying where he is still annoying us.

———————————————

Don’t even try to explain any of this to any DEMOCRATS in our STATE LEGISLATURE…THEY WON’T GET IT – THEY’RE IDIOTS (and so are you if you voted for any of them. )

CA Assault Weapons Defined

Penal Code 12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean any of the following: 1.A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

A.A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
B.A thumbhole stock.
C.A folding or telescoping stock.
D.A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
E.A flash suppressor.
F.A forward pistol grip.

2.A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

3.A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

4.A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

A.A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
B.(B) A second handgrip.
C.A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
D.The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

5.A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

6.A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
A.A folding or telescoping stock.
B.A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

7.A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

8.Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
A.”Assault weapon” does not include any antique firearm.
B.The following definitions shall apply under this section:

1.”Magazine” shall mean any ammunition feeding device.

2.”Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds” shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

3.”Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
C.This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.

——————————

Can you imagine a robber about to stick-up a liquor store, when he stops dead in his tracks, looks down at the gun in his hand and frowns. He silently turns away from the store and walks away… because he has just realized the firearm he is carrying did not have a [legal] CA magazine release button? Ah, and he had everything so well planned out, only to be foiled by those wiley politicians in Sacramento and their clever technicalities in the assault weapon law.