In a Legislative Update issued earlier today, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he has signed Assembly Bill 1964 (Dickinson), a measure that will eliminate the “single shot” exemption to California’s Roster of “not unsafe” handguns. AB 1964’s changes to section 32100 of the California Penal Code, which will go into effect on January 1, 2015, will make it virtually impossible for law-abiding residents of the Golden State to acquire a “non-Roster” handgun in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.calffl.org/2014/07/gov-jerry-brown-signs-new-handgun-ban-ab-1964/
Greg Drobny gives a great no-nonsense look at some of the myths surrounding the second amendment.
If there’s one area in political thought that is an immediate indicator of where people stand when it comes to their view of government and individual freedom, it’s the subject of the Second Amendment. What it meant then, what it means now, and how people interpret those definitions offers somewhat of a demarcation line regarding people’s relationship to the government.
What passes for political discourse on this subject is usually marred by flawed terminology and horribly illogical thought. As one of the hot-button topics of our day, I think it’s important to give our characteristic, Unapologetically American take on the subject by answering some of the more popular ideas proposed by gun control advocates.
Myth #1: “The Second Amendment was only intended for those serving in the National Guard or state-sponsored militia; not for individuals.”
Myth #2: “If everyone had guns it would be like the Wild West!!!”
Myth #3: “School shootings have gotten worse because of looser gun laws.”
Myth #4: “Look at all these countries with stricter gun control. They’re so much safer!”
Myth #5: “All we are looking for is ‘reasonable’ gun control that any ‘reasonable’ person would see as common sense.”
Read the rest of the article: http://www.unapologeticallyamerican.com/an-unapologetically-american-look-at-the-second-amendment/
From the “Children’s Firearms Marketing Safety Act,” proposed by Rep. Robin Kelly:
[T]he Federal Trade Commission shall promulgate rules … to prohibit any person from marketing firearms to children [defined as anyone under 18]. Such rules shall include the following:
(1) A prohibition on the use of cartoon characters to promote firearms and firearm products.
(2) A prohibition on firearm brand name merchandise marketed for children (such as hats, t-shirts, and stuffed animals).
(3) A prohibition on the use of firearm marketing campaigns with the specific intent to appeal to children.
(4) A prohibition on the manufacturing of a gun with colors or designs that are specifically designed with the purpose to appeal to children.
(5) A prohibition on the manufacturing of a gun intended for use by children that does not clearly and conspicuously note the risk posed by the firearm by labeling somewhere visible on the firearm any of the following:
(A) “Real gun, not a toy.”.
(B) “Actual firearm the use of which may result in death or serious bodily injury.”.
(C) “Dangerous weapon”.
(D) Other similar language determined by the Federal Trade Commission.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/17/federal-bill-to-restrict-the-content-of-gun-advertising/
We hear it constantly from droning citizen control cultists.
The argument goes something like this.
“You want to listen to the last part of the Second Amendment where is says ‘shall not be infringed,’ but you ignore the part where it says you have to be a ‘well-regulated militia.’”
Invariably, they argue that “well-regulated” means “subject to extensive government regulations.”
But what does “well-regulated really mean?
Read the rest of the article: http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/