California Gun Owners-Read This

Discussion in 'California Gun Forum' started by jdhagen65, May 24, 2012.

  1. jdhagen65

    jdhagen65 New Member

    20
    0
    0
    Hello fellow gun owners behind the Liberal Curtain in the Peoples Republic of California! All joking aside, a serious threat has raised it's head and is currently making it's way through the legislature. Senator Yee (d) (yeah, what else would he be?) from San Franscisco (another shocker) has introduced legislation to BAN BULLET BUTTON TECHNOLOGY, because he sees it as a way to "get around" California's assault weapons ban. Here in CA we already have to deal with the damned inconvenience of this stupid gadget attached to our AR's, AK's, etc, but this clown wants to ban that too.

    This must not get to a vote. If it does get voted on, it has a good chance of passing on a party line vote- since the libs have a solid majority. I urge you to contact Senator Yee's office and tell them how much we do not like this. Then you need to contact your own representitives and urge them not to vote for this full frontal assault on our 2nd amendment rights.

    If he is successful each law abiding gun owner in Ca that owns one of these rifles will instantly become a felon overnight by merely owning a rifle with bullet button technology because it will then be considered to have a "detachable magazine." Think of that a minute- if caught with your AR/AK, you will have ALL of your firearms confiscated and NEVER be permitted to own another one.

    A quote from Senator Yee: “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear; there is no debate, no discussion.”

    His position is clear and I doubt he will be swayed. The bill is SB 249 and if it gets out of committee it will face a general vote on the legislature floor within a month.

    Please dont delay, call your elected reps and start hounding them right now!

    Thanks
     
  2. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Good luck guys. Keep us informed.
     

  3. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    My hunting rifle is a scoped Remington model 700.

    The state legislature has not focused on these yet.

    The rifle is 3 + 1.

    Nothing like the 20 + 1 or 30 + 1 sturmgewehr.

    I guess in 1903 the Springfields were nothing like the 1944's. Or the 1947s. Or the 1959 AR-15s.

    3 + 1 is plenty for hunting big game. Pretty good for long range precision shots as well. I guess the ARs and the AKs are really popular though.

    Can't exactly figure out why though. I suppose an M-14 would be ok for hunting deer close up. But its too heavy as well.

    Kentucky lets their residents own machine guns. But this ain't Kentucky.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 24, 2012
  4. jdhagen65

    jdhagen65 New Member

    20
    0
    0
    Shoobee-

    Give them a chance. There are assembly members who are on record as saying they intend to advance their agenda to ban every firearm in Ca. whether they are for hunting, home defense, plinking, or just because it's your right to own them as an American.

    You took the time to reply to me, please take the time to shoot an email to your representitives!
     
  5. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    It is an odd notion that we all need to support machine guns etc in order to keep the battle line drawn far from home defense and hunting guns.

    KY lets you have machine guns. They burn through a lot of ammo, and they are not good for very much.

    In Calif whether there are reps who make voter mileage about their anti-gun stances, if that works for them and their hippie constituents, I don't care.

    It is fortunate that nobody in Calif has used a 1903 Springfield type rifle to shoot up a school yard. Fortunately the AK's work much better for this.

    I have no use for an AK. Or anything like it. That's why I replied.
     
  6. Blueguns

    Blueguns New Member

    1,931
    0
    0
    This is how the U.K. got their guns taken. Their gov't pitted different types of gun owners against each other. Eventually they got rid of all types of firearms one by one until there was none left. Gun owners are forced to unite against these leftist politicians and fight to keep our God given rights.
     
  7. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,339
    204
    63
    Gents- I am not a Californian, just strolling thru the threads tonight. But I would offer this for your consideration-

    First, do NOT assume that just because the Congresscritters are not talking about YOUR rifle/shotgun/handgun NOW, does not mean that they will not get around to it. Now, a word about that "sniper" rifle you have there, Mr. Shoobee.......I see that it shoots LEAD bullets. Do you know how harmful that is to the environment? I mean, it is for the children.......

    Second- what STARTS in CA has a way of spreading to the rest of the US. Sort of like athlete's foot. :rolleyes: Would just as soon see this sort of thing quashed early.

    Several years ago here in VA, we had a well intentioned muttonhead- sorry, member of the State House of Delegates, who drafted a law to ban anti-tank weapons. Well, really- who would object to THAT? Nobody goes hunting or target shooting with a Bazooka or M72 LAW, right? Problem was, the law was worded in such a way that it would have outlawed every 30-06, .303 Enfield, 8mm Mauser, .308, and 7.62x52R rifle in the state.

    Not swallowed whole by a shark, gents- nibbled to death by ducks.
     
  8. Fixer

    Fixer New Member

    154
    0
    0
    It can't pass. There is no way to make an item, which is designed to comply with the law, illegal.
    I understand what he wants to do, but it's not going anywhere. There is no way to enforce it without allowing everyone who owns a centerfire fixed magazine firearm to turn it into an AW with a detactable magazine.
     
  9. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    Gents, our problem in California is somewhat different than other places in the USA.

    First, gun ownership here is in the minority. Only about 1/4th of households in California contain a firearm.

    It is not like in Wyo, Alak, Mont, SD, WV, Miss, Ida, Ark, Ala, or ND where the ownership is over 50%.

    It is not even like Ky, Wisc, La, Tenn, Ut, Okla, Io, SC, Kan, Vt, Minn, NC, Me, Ga, or Ore where it is at least in the 40s.

    So as an overwhelmingly small minority in California, the gun owners actually need to worry about their public image, act responsibly, and appear to be reasonable.

    We cannot get away with shooting anything that moves here. 75% of the people who live here do not like to hear about shooting everything that moves. The majority here will tolerate hunting for meat. They will not tolerate shooting everything that moves.

    We also cannot get away with owning things that are associated with mass and spree killings of people either. The AK's are not looked upon with much tolerance here.

    Fortunately nobody is against people owning revolvers, and pistols, and scoped hunting rifles, and shotguns.

    I cannot imagine any state banning all firearms. I do not believe that is even possible.

    But the only thing I can imagine that would propell the non-gun-owning majority in California in that direction would be the AK's.

    I would not care if AK's were banned in California.
     
  10. AgentTikki

    AgentTikki New Member

    3,496
    0
    0
    Spaceballs. Oh crap, there goes the planet.
     
  11. jdhagen65

    jdhagen65 New Member

    20
    0
    0
    Shoobee- You are without a doubt a far more dangerous enemy to all owners of legal firearms than 100 Senator Yee's. Ever heard of Neville Chamberlain? "Peace in our time!" Concession has been proven time and again to not work, just as gun control laws do not work.
    You might as well start pounding your sword into a plowshare right now, or better yet- next time the local police have a gun turn in take your firearms and trade them in for a $100.00 Target gift card. If you think they will stop at this you are delusional. Wake up and protect your rights or you will lose them.

    I urge everyone to contact every senator and as many assemblymen as possible. Remind them that before they start placing restrictions on ANY Constitutional right, they'd better tread lightly and not be so rash. I've read quite a few flat our false statements from Yee already and he needs to be held accountable and explain himself on such a serious issue. Every elected official in Sacramento needs to understand just how severe it is when they start stripping away Constitutional rights. They should have to explain, for example, why a pistol grip on a rifle makes citizens less safe. They should have to explain why any of this is needed in CA, but not in other states. What makes Senator Yee qualified to draft legislation on this? What makes anyone in Sacramento qualified to evaluate the impact of bullet buttons on society? We should not allow them to proceed so feely with simply drafting some new law and running it through without the scrutiny it deserves. It shouldn't be yet one more law that they run through that needs to be fought in the courts later. This is the US Constitution they're putting restrictions on. That's no light matter.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2012
  12. M14sRock

    M14sRock New Member

    5,549
    0
    0
    Shoobee, there have been many discussions in the gun control world of making "sniper rifles" illegal.

    And how do they define "sniper rifle"? Any centerfire rifle capable of accepting a magnified optical device.

    You are the most dangerous type of gun owner.

    Supporting ANY type of gun control means you get eaten last.
     
  13. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    Shoobee,
    Do you support Mr. Yee's proposed legislation? You say (or perhaps imply would be more accurate) that you have no use for nor a desire to own any of the firearms that would be affected by Mr. Yee's bill. What about the rest of us who do own or desire to own said firearms?

    A good analogy would be to say that there is one member here on FTF (I will call him Mr. Bee) who has proposed that the very popular Clock forum should be removed from the website because Mr. Bee disagrees with keeping time.

    Should the Clock forum be removed? Should Mr. Bee be banned? Should the Clock Forum be removed and Mr. Bee be banned as well? Or should both continue to exist?

    I would vote for both continuing to exist on FTF. Mainly because the Clock Forum is popular but also because I would like to keep an eye on what Mr. Bee is thinking. As freaking crazy as his thoughts are.
     
  14. Eddy_J

    Eddy_J New Member

    32
    0
    0
    Omfg, I had hoped that gun laws were going to get better here in Kali. Guessing not. Here I come home to find out that I can't order ammo online cause I live in Sacramento County. Jebus but how stupid is that?! And the bullet button on the AR or AK is so freaking retarded already that I refuse to purchase said weapon systems cause they're a f***ing disgrace! I'd own an AR without a doubt cause that platform is what I learned to shoot with. I may not have a use for it except reminiscence and just plain fun shooting, but I can't bring myself to buy one that is just..... so stupid!!!
     
  15. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    Wait.... you actually hoped gun laws in CA would get BETTER??? :eek:

    I kid. I hope they do get better. I also hope they get less retarded here in MA.
     
  16. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Just when I thought Ole shoobee couldn't get any more ridiculous. Great thinking there shoobee, just because you don't like something nobody else should have it either. :rolleyes:
     
  17. PlaysWithZombies

    PlaysWithZombies New Member

    878
    0
    0
    Haven't you seen his list of the only 7 guns a person needs? Obviously any gun deemed unworthy to be on shoobees list is completely useless :rollseyes;
     
  18. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    No I haven't seen the list, but it doesn't surprise me that he has such a list.
     
  19. triggerjob

    triggerjob New Member

    258
    0
    0
    The purpose of the 2nd ammendment is not to strik fear in the hearts of deer, but to allow the citizen to defend himself from the government. If the police and army have detachable magazines, the citicenry should have them.
     
  20. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    I can't believe I just wasted 2 minutes of my life reading such a dimwitted response...

    Shoobee, listen close and listen good...It's not about the gun, it's about the right!!! What part of that don't you get???
     

    Attached Files: