Skip to content

California Anti-Gun Bills Signed and Vetoed by Governor Brown

October 13, 2013

Anti-Gun bills SIGNED INTO LAW law by California Governor Jerry Brown

  • Requires a licensed psychotherapist whose patient makes a serious threat of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims to report that threat to local police within one day; police must then notify the state Justice Department within a day of receiving the report.  (Imagine the huge wave of lawsuits with he said vs she said claims.  “I’m going to record this for our mutual defense in court.”  No doubt this is good for the California trail attorneys.)
  • Extends from six months to five years the prohibition from owning firearms for those who have described a credible violent threat to a psychotherapist.  (It is now safer to talk to your bartender than your therapist.)
  • Bans conversion kits that allow people to turn regular magazines into high-capacity magazines.  (No one knows what this means, but they passed it and signed it.  Police are exempt of course.)
  • Require long gun purchasers to earn a California Firearms Safety Certificate like those already required of handgun owners.  (I feel safer already.  Don’t you?)
  • Expands the crime of “criminal storage” to include keeping a loaded firearm within premises where a prohibited person is likely to gain access and actually accesses and causes injury.  (The prosecutor and judge will decide what is likely and reasonable.  Can you say Show Trial?)
  • Makes it a crime to leave a loaded firearm somewhere a child is likely to be able to get it without permission.  (The prosecutor and judge will decide what is likely and reasonable.  Can you say Show Trial and law suit?)
  • Tightens gun safety laws on safe storage to include households where someone is prohibited from owning a gun; also allows additional time for Department of Justice background checks.  (Did someone in your house have pain meds prescribed after surgery?  Were they prescribed a sleeping aid after the death of a loved one?  Welcome to the People’s Republik of Kalifornai.. and turn in your guns.))
  • Provides that only an individual person, not an organization, may be issued a permit to possess an assault weapon, .50 BMG rifle or machine gun.  (Anti NFA-trust legislation.  Kind of makes it hard for my defense contractor employer, though.)
  • Requires a licensed firearm dealer to provide copies of the dealer’s record of sale to a firearm purchaser at the time of delivery.  (Let me see your papers?)
  • Allows someone who’s temporarily prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm to transfer firearms in his or her possession or ownership to a licensed firearms dealer for storage. (That’s nice.. I guess.  Now we don’t need to call a shooting buddy at midnight to take our guns.)
  • Bans use of lead ammunition in hunting by mid-2019.  (Everything is covered from the 22 rifle used to hunt skunks on the farm to the .177 pellet rifle used to hunt rats and crows.  It is not clear if carrying the ammunition is a crime, shooting it is a crime, or killing the animal is a crime.  Each may be illegal under the  vague description of “hunting”.)

Anti-Gun bills VETOED by Governor Brown

  • Would have required gun owners to report a gun theft or loss to police within seven days of knowing about it.
  • Would have added all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to the state’s list of banned assault weapons.  (Yes, even the ubiquitous Ruger 10-22 was on the ban list.)
  • Would have essentially banned gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring they be approved by San Francisco and San Mateo supervisors.  (The San Fran politicians wanted go get some anti-gun political donations.)
  • Would have updated the definition of an illegal shotgun to include a shotgun with a revolving cylinder and a rifled bore.
  • Would have expanded list of convicts who can’t legally own guns to include those with multiple drug or alcohol crimes, street gang members and others.
  • You may only buy “California approved handguns” (except for police) Would have tightened exemptions to the law prohibiting purchase of handguns that haven’t been tested and deemed safe by the state.
  • Would have given Oakland an exemption from state pre-emption so it can pass its own stricter gun registration or licensing statutes.  (The Oakland politicians wanted go get some anti-gun political donations.)

California is not a good state in which to live if you believe in the human right of self-defense.



4 Comments leave one →
  1. October 13, 2013 9:15 am

    ANYONE who thinks gun control measures such as these are about guns or “safety” is an idiot. It’s about CONTROL…not guns.


  2. October 17, 2013 6:12 am

    I agree, pappad.


  3. Stephen permalink
    October 19, 2013 2:41 am

    The Ruger 10-22 was not on the list of guns to be banned as stated in the article. It was only centerfire rifles, not rimfire.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: