Ammo For Sale

« « Rewrite the second amendment | Home | Only mostly dead » »

Unintended consequences

CA legislation prohibits police from owning standard capacity magazines.

12 Responses to “Unintended consequences”

  1. dan Says:

    NY, CA. Who woulda guessed?

  2. Ted N Says:

    I expect an “only ones” exception in a month or so.

  3. wizardpc Says:

    Or they’ll just ignore the law.

  4. Tremaine Says:

    Let them join the fight or throw them back under their own bus? Tough call. They weren’t too keen on fighting for Cali citizens rights when they where getting exempted……

  5. SPQR Says:

    California’s preemption is strong. It is an illegal ordinance as well as stupidly written.

  6. tincankilla Says:

    dumb law, but cops aren’t any better than me, so why should they be exempted?

  7. JJ Says:

    I’m a cop, I’m not any better than you, I shouldn’t be exempted, but it’s a stupid law on so many levels that it makes my head spin. I’m not from Cali, I’m a cop in the South-East. The vast majority of my peers support gun rights. But the most interesting thing about this is that statistics prove that most gun battles involve firing 6 rounds or less between both combatants. Also, most drive-bys involve 10 or fewer rounds or multiple shooters. Exactly what problem does this law intend to address?

  8. Rivrdog Says:

    Is there any sort of website with an interactive map showing this sort of restriction, and if so, will any current travel-mapping program accept it as input so as to route travelers away from these cities?

    Perhaps a freedom-minded code-slammer might make one up to work in one of the open-source O/S combos such as a Linux variation or Android.

    This is the way to take out these Constitution-scoffing governments: hit them in the pocketbook. If you lived in the Bay Area, and were searching for a new restaurant in Sunnyvale, and your app popped up a note against the restaurant’s address, at some point, this would start to hurt the businesses, and THEY have the juice to kick the city Council in the ‘nads.

  9. Fin Says:

    I’m also an LEO and I get tired of other LEO’s using the worn out phrase: “The vast majority of my peers support gun rights.” Who cares? As if we (LEO’s) are the be-all, end-all authority on what rights Americans can and should have? It amazes me how American citizens look for a cop’s approval on anything. And it further amazes me at how some of us actually believe that we deserve to be asked. It’s a fucking right to own a gun, get it? And when or if we get to retire from “the job” we are going to join the masses of law abiding Americans who continually have their rights stomped on by jack-hole politicos who love to use cops as props.

    Unc says it best : “Because FUCK YOU, that’s why.”

  10. Rivrdog Says:

    @tincankilla: it’s not about “better than…”, it’s about the Bill of Rights. When any arm of Government takes a permanent position against the Bill of Rights, that arm of Government has lost it’s moral right to govern. If the ENTIRE Government has lost it’s respect for the Bill of Rights, then it’s time to start working towards the Second Republic.

    I find it VERY stimulating to ponder on the replacement Federal government. For starters, term limits on EVERYONE in Government with rule-making authority, including all Executive positions north of a secretarial pool, AND all Federal Judges, all of whom should have to stand for election, as most State Judges do now.

  11. tincankilla Says:

    i agree with all you guys piping up about the bill of rights – that’s exactly my point.

    Rivrdog, i actually think we’re on our 3rd or 4th republic already, insofar as who and how we’re represented. I’d do a loose demarcation as the founding to the civil war, civil war to 1929 (depression and reapportionment act of 29), New deal to now, maybe cutting at 9/11 and katrina (ie, the rise of the security state independent of the protection of citizens).

    as for term limits – terrible idea, as you’d end up empowering staffers and lobbyists even more. instead, look to increasing the number of reps by returning to the founder’s original formula for representation.

  12. UNHchabo Says:

    JJ – “But the most interesting thing about this is that statistics prove that most gun battles involve firing 6 rounds or less between both combatants.”

    Massad Ayoob, in his 1990 video “Shoot to Live”, says that the statistic (which he quotes as “2.3 rounds per encounter”) comes from a review of officer-involved shootings where the officer does not survive. At the time, he said the average is more like 5-6 rounds per participant, and the reason it wasn’t higher “is because not everybody has semi-automatics yet”.

    I have no other sources for this statistic (and that’s nearly 25 years old), I just wanted to bring that up for completeness.