BREAKING: CA Senate Votes to Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles With Detachable Magazines

The Truth About Guns.com | 29 May 2013 | Robert Farago

[Kickass Conservative]

If Cancer were contagious they would call it Liberalism.

[no-s]

time to switch to belt fed ammo

heheh, I'll go for that.

If the state chooses to adopt laws intended to criminalize freedom and convert the law-abiding into felons, all of the law in the state is on thin ice. We've reached the Rubicon.

[calex59]

The ban is on semi-auto rifles with detachable mags. A sh**ty law but one that will not affect(at the time it becomes law, if it does)bolt action rifles. My .22 semi-auto is a Winchester model 74 with a tube magazine.

[2001convSVT]

Nylon 66, what a wonderful rifle, works in all climates, deserts, tropics or arctic, what a great rifle.

[Mad Dawgg]

I am fairly sure the founding fathers did not got to all the trouble of creating the Bill of Rights just to have them negated by a bunch of nattering nay-bobs in a State Assembly.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“The Remington 700 has a detachable magazine. The standard holds four, but is easily modified. The legislation is broad and would include the 30-06, 308, many other rifles and some shotguns. This is a very broad registration and confiscation Bill.”

Yes but according to the title of the article it applies to semi-auto rifles. Does it also apply to bolt actions?

[Sir_Ed]

I’m not sure about that...I can’t find any details.

See ya’,

Ed

[musicman]

Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $991 To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's FReepathon

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[fr_freak]

I am fairly sure the founding fathers did not got to all the trouble of creating the Bill of Rights just to have them negated by a bunch of nattering nay-bobs in a State Assembly.

Once, again, the Bill of Rights, as well as the rest of the federal Constitution, existed as restrictions on the federal government. How could the States negate something that didn't apply to them? If you don't know that the original arrangement was one where each state was sovereign, as if it were its own country, then you aren't familiar with that part of history. The federal government only had power over the States where the federal Constitution specifically gave it to them (i.e. interstate commerce). Otherwise, fedgov had NO say in how the States conducted their affairs.

[Mad Dawgg]

"How could the States negate something that didn't apply to them?"

Do the words "Shall Not be infringed" ring a bell?

Tell you what drive up and down New York Highways with an Unloaded AR-15 and then get back to me.

(I am guessing you will need to do so by snail mail since your "one phone call" would logically be to a lawyer or someone who can post your bail...)

[fr_freak]

I didn’t say that was the current interpretation. I said that’s the way the system was designed. Our fedgov has become overbearing since that interpretation was changed. I really can’t be clearer than that.