Appropriate gun laws stop at background checks and expand with the provision of more government-sponsored training. I`ve always said it would be huge to have “guns” in school (like Fahrered). But football moms won`t be too excited about the idea, so it probably never will. Although California is strongly conservative, there are still enough reasonable liberals and conservatives who have not become completely psycho like some members of the Republican Party, so the laws remain in place, albeit under heavy fire from gun manufacturers posing as NRAs. Unlikely. These states are not making good faith efforts to stay within the bounds of the Constitution. You have a predetermined result and it will be like that or in no case. NY, for example, has already introduced a bill banning the carrying of firearms in carpooling or public transit, or in a gathering of more than 15 people. They know that they will lose their case and that they will have to issue transport permits. They will now proceed with the banning of wearing almost everywhere, which will make the right to wear practically useless. They can make these laws faster than the courts can attack them, which is why they will always win.
I totally agree with you. Capacity limits only work if someone has never been trained before, when they dry fires they usually become useless and fin-handles or flashhider restrictions like front handle restrictions seem to make 0 sense. I totally agree that more training and education would change the way America views guns for the better. I would say that socio-economic factors come into play in this statistic. If you adjust that number for low-income areas, I would get the impression that California would follow the national average. There are just a lot of high-income areas in Cali and these people don`t do mass shootings. They can afford mental health care. I`m a gun owner who believes we need some of California`s laws nationally. Background check and 10-day waiting period. I do not think the government can do an accurate background check in 30 seconds. They need time. I can go on forever, but basically, most of these new gun laws have nothing to do with reducing crime, criminals don`t care about gun laws, they`re going to get guns and ammunition on the black market at any time.
Since it`s not illegal to own a gun in California, this may not be the most relevant argument here. It may be a basis for resisting some restrictions on carrying guns, but I don`t know who is allowed to carry guns in the state and city. Personally, I do not agree that it makes a lot of sense to prohibit people who legally own firearms from legally carrying them in public, outside private property or in a place of safety. Sure, it`s possible to get guns that violate California laws, but not so easily. In fact, the act could also have increased the likelihood that he would be stopped in advance, and he ultimately decided not to. In the civil unrest of the `60s and `70s, some blacks decided they were tired of taking Whitey`s shit and started mumbling about shooting white people. A few did. So conservative demigod Ronald Regan, governor of California at the time, did what any sane conservative would have done at the time: he signed ultra-restrictive gun laws so quickly that his pen left slingshots. Laws have made it much harder for the poor to get their hands on guns, while legitimate hunters and others have not been significantly affected.
As a lawyer, I can say that I never really had the experience of scratching my head until I first tried to understand California`s gun laws.* Since these laws are not intended to prevent everyone from acquiring firearms, but to limit the harm a person can do with guns that can be acquired legally, I maintain that they have achieved their goal. They`re stupid, but these laws weren`t written with things like winged handles and AR maglocks in mind. The drafters of the law were not sufficiently knowledgeable about the firearms they were trying to ban in order to draft the laws effectively. So we`ve had a lot of companies come to the party with innovative ways to muddy written laws so we can still exercise our rights. I`ve seen videos of people using Maglocks and Freedom Fighter props as fast as a mag release. Ironically, these laws are only against 2A if you don`t take an originalist view of the Constitution, which is why I`m baffled that 2A`s defenders tend to take an originalist view. In reality, you have to think that meaning can change over time, depending on prevailing standards, to agree with a 2A vision granted to an individual right. Techno-linguistic analysis and evidence from an originalist point of view support the view that 2A does NOT grant an individual right.
Aside from the fact that California is a blue state and probably always has been, why are gun laws so strict? Wouldn`t this overuse of gun laws deter local gun manufacturers from locating their headquarters and factories in the state, reducing potential employment opportunities and hurting the local economy? They must be framed as gun safety laws, which they really are, and not send the CHUDs into a frenzy. Aside from people who don`t want gun control laws, there are many laws that are unnecessary, excessive or counterproductive. Recently, California and the 9th District justified their rules based on a balancing test. They are essentially saying that a law can be a violation of the Constitution if the government has a substantial interest in enacting the law. All that disappeared with the Bruen judgment, so it remains to be seen what happens next. I have no experience with guns, other than going to a shooting range once, so using and owning guns has never been a big problem for me. However, I continue to see many complaints from Californians and non-Californians that our gun laws are “stupid,” “idiotic,” “ridiculous,” or even “unconstitutional.” I was aware of Proposition 63, but otherwise I am not up to date on this issue. So what exactly do people hate about these laws? It cannot be said that gun regulations that do not completely ban firearms are aimed at eliminating all armed men, because there are no foolproof indicators of a person going crazy and starting to kill people.
Indeed, laws should not be expected to prevent everyone from breaking them; A 100% compliance target is unrealistic. However, laws can make some measures more difficult or hinder the effectiveness of people who try to break other laws. Laws violate our natural rights to self-defense to stop tyranny, whether the opposing force is foreign or national.