Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Yet Another Reason To Get Out Of Kaliforniastan

Like anyone needed one.

L.A. City Council bans large-capacity ammunition magazines


Defying the warnings of gun rights groups, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to ban the possession of firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Backers of the plan said it would help minimize the bloodshed of mass shootings by forcing attackers to interrupt their rampages to stop and reload.
Juliet Leftwich, legal director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, called such magazines “the common thread” in almost all of the mass shootings that have devastated the country, from Newtown to Virginia Tech to Columbine.

Even as city officials celebrated the newly passed restrictions, gun control activists were dismayed to hear about a proposal to exempt some retired police officers from the rules -- an 11th-hour change now being sought by the union that represents Los Angeles police.
California law already generally bans the manufacturing of such large-capacity magazines, offering them up for sale or bringing them into the state. But state law does not prohibit people from possessing them -- something that Councilman Paul Krekorian and others called a loophole that jeopardizes public safety.

“People who want to defend their families don’t need a 100-round drum magazine and an automatic weapon to do it,” said Krekorian, who championed the ban at a rally Tuesday outside City Hall. But if someone wanted to do harm, Krekorian added, “imagine what a gunman on this sidewalk could do with that kind of firepower with a crowd like this.”

Under the new rules, Angelenos will have 60 days to remove, surrender or legally sell or transfer them after the city ordinance goes into effect. Breaking the law will be a misdemeanor.
The Los Angeles rules exempt, among others, on-duty police and military gun owners, licensed firearm dealers, and people who more than 15 years ago obtained guns that only can be used with such magazines. At the Tuesday meeting, Councilman Mitch Englander also proposed an exemption for any retired police officer who holds a valid, current permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Peter Repovich, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said it was important for police -- including retirees -- to be prepared to meet any threat to public safety. “They’re additional eyes and ears out there,” Repovich said.
The Council also voted narrowly to ask city lawyers to draft such an amendment, which will return to the council for debate and a vote next week. Four council members -- Paul Koretz, Nury Martinez, David Ryu and Marqueece Harris-Dawson -- voted against drafting the amendment, which was sharply opposed by gun control activists.
“If the City Council allows this exemption, none of us are going to be happy,” said Women Against Gun Violence Executive Director Margot Bennett.

I have two words for that broad and they rhyme with Stupid Bitch.

I think it's a safe bet that most people who own these magazines will do the same thing that they did back in Connecticutstan and Coloradostan, just hold on to them anyways and keep your mouth shut.

I know damn good and well I would but I think all these feel good bullshit laws are UnConstitutional to begin with and as such are Null and Void from the get go.

The way I see it is that those stupid sonsabitches can't take what they don't know exists anyways.

It will be interesting to see them all show and tell just how many get turned in.
Bet me they are too embarassed to say even if someone asks.


No comments:

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.