Democrats in Sacramento don’t care about protecting our God given rights to self-defense, as evidenced by the anti-firearms bills they approved in the Assembly this week. They would rather have us dependent on the government for protection. But I would rather have a Glock in my hand, than 911 on the phone.
The measures include:
AB 1664, which would change the existing definition for detachable magazine to mean “an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action, including an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool.” This would, in turn, expand the number of firearms that California considers “assault weapons.” According to NRA-ILA, changing the definition of “detachable magazine” would strike a major blow to competitive high-power rifle competition in California, along with semi-automatic rifles commonly used for hunting and self-protection. AB 1664 would subject them to the onerous transfer and use restrictions imposed on “assault weapons”—and future sales in California would be banned.This move allowed final Assembly consideration without notice to the public of their eligibility for a vote.
AB 1673, which would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that can be readily convertible. AB 1673 would essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms.
AB 1674, which would expand the current restriction on the number of firearms an individual can purchase within a 30-day period. AB 1674 would have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law-abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms.
AB 1695, which would require the attorney general to send notice to each individual who has applied to purchase a firearm informing him or her of laws relating to firearms, gun trafficking and safe storage. As NRA-ILA puts it, this is just another example of the government wasting resources on “feel-good” programs.
AB 2607, which would expand the class of individuals who could seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO).” GVROs were opposed by the NRA during the 2014 session because of the lack of due process when depriving an individual of his or her right to keep and bear arms.
These five anti-gun bills will now move to the Senate for further consideration.
It’s important to note that not all California lawmakers are working against citizens’ rights. On May 31 at a press conference on the Second Amendment, Republican state Assemblywoman Shannon Grove and several other lawmakers met to speak out against the restrictive legislation.