Yesterday the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, announced a novel and significant approach to gun violence which, if it becomes law in California, I can only hope will spread. The initiative, according to Newsom, was copied from the new Texas law which allows residents to sue someone who offers abortions which violate the state’s new abortion ban. In California, the state has passed a ban on assault rifles, and Newsom wants state residents to be able to sue anyone who ‘manufactures, distributes or sells’ an assault rifle in the Golden State.
When this initiative was announced, members of Gun-nut Nation in California immediately began whining about how such a law would deprive gun owners of their 2nd-Amendment ‘rights.’
There has never been a gun-control law announced anywhere in the United States which doesn’t violate the s0-called 2nd-Amendment ‘rights.’ Of course, the fact that the 2nd Amendment happens to be an amendment and not a ‘right’ is somehow always left unsaid. A reader sent me a message stating that I was just a typical example of the ‘insidious, Left-wing mentality’ that has been destroying American life since World War II.”
There are actually people sitting around who think that way. Luckily, I suspect that most of them live in those red states where nobody is vaccinated which means they won’t be around to vote in 2022 or restore Trump to his rightful place in the Oval Office in 2024. Oh well. Anyway, back to Newsom.
The history of the United States is usually written to show that the country developed from East to West. So, for example, with the exception of the West Coast, we added states from East to West. We also opened the frontier to farming and human settlement from East to West.
But when it comes to nuttiness, things usually go the other way. After all, the shift of the GOP to nutty, right-wing ideas started in California with Ronald Reagan when he first ran for President in 1978. And what food product has ruined billions of cups of coffee? Half and half, which the dairy industry started selling in the 1960’s but was also first produced in the Golden State.
Except I don’t think that Newsom’s idea of giving residents the legal authority to express how they feel about the guy next door sitting there in front of his TV with a can of beer on the coffee table and his AR-15 on his lap is nutty at all. In fact, to the contrary, and let me tell you why.
When the first assault-rifle law was proposed, and it was also in California, by the way, the gun industry attacked the law because the AR-15 was a semi-auto design and hence, a ‘sporting’ gun. Semi-automatic guns had been used for hunting and sport since the semi-automatic design was developed by John Browning in 1898, and the AR-15 was just a ‘modern’ adaptation of Browning’s original design and the ‘modern sporting rifle’ had no connection to assault rifles sat all.
This was a good argument, a clever argument, an argument to keep the AR-15 design from being thrown on the ash heap of gun designs by liberal gun-haters like Michal Bloomberg, et. al.
There was only one little problem. The argument that the AR-15 was no different from any other semi-automatic rifle was simply wrong.
What makes the AR-15 dangerous and a threat to community safety is not whether only one round comes out of the barrel every time the trigger is pulled. The issue is how many rounds can be fired out of the gun before it needs to be reloaded and how much time is required to reload the gun.
The kid who blasted his way into the Sandy Hook Elementary School killed 26 adults and children in less than 3 minutes because over that period of time he fired more than 90 rounds! He got off that many shots in such a brief period of time because the AR-15 is a bottom-loading gun, so he was able to attach magazines holding 30 rounds to the bottom of the frame and switch from empty to full mags in two seconds or less,
If anything, firing a semi-auto gun is easier and more accurate to control than a full-auto gun, which is why the assault rifle currently issued to our military troops, the M4A1, can be fired in semi-auto mode.
If you are convinced that the AR-15 represents a danger to life and limb, the only thin you can do right now is send an email to your Congressional rep or send some dough to one of the national, gun-control groups which is trying to ban the gun. In other words, you can only express your worried and fears on a second-hand basis.
But let’s not forget that for every gun owner out there, there are probably two adults who don’t own guns. And if a bunch of them were to send a message to the powers-that-be about some guy wandering down the street with his AR-15….
Dec 13, 2021 @ 14:25:50
The AR-15 is a bottom-loading gun and Mike may be correct in that it can fire more than 90 rounds in 3 minutes. This is one reason why I like my Bren (it’s a top-loading gun). I’m thinking about buying another top-loading gun…the FN PS90.
This way I won’t be looked at as one of those evil people who own one of those AR-15 Sporter like Mike bought back in 1978 when he was well on his way of being a proud owner of over 60 guns.
P.S. I went to a gun range yesterday with my bottom-loading Ruger 10/22. I have 5 magazines that hold 25 round each. I didn’t time myself, but I bet I could shoot 4 of those magazines in 3 minutes or less. Guess I’ll wait for the ATF, but I’m safe with my Bren and if I get my FN PS90, that too will be okay.
Oh, on March 28, 2013, court documents released from the investigation of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting showed that the shooting had occurred in the space of less than five minutes with 156 shots fired. Two of those shots were from a 10mm pistol. Details, details, like words…they matter.
Dec 13, 2021 @ 17:46:38
It didn’t take a rocket scientist to know that as soon as Texas did its thing, some blue states would return the favor. So two questions.
There are California legal ARs on the market. I won’t tire anyone with links, but all I did was type in “California legal ARs” into a search engine and presto!So if this law is passed, are we to presume that folks can only sue owners of California-illegal copies? If they get it wrong, can they be countersued for false light invasion of privacy?
Secondly, I take it the author of this post thinks that laws deliberately designed to avoid legal scrutiny are a good idea? Maybe we ought to poll the women of Texas as to what they think.
If anyone reading this thinks the state of civil life is ugly now, wait till all the red states pass laws privatizing the suing of abortion providers and gay establishments while all the blue states do the same with guns. I can’t wait till the actual shooting wars start.
Dec 14, 2021 @ 20:51:07
Will the Ar-15 Disappear from California?
No. It won’t.
First off, Gavin’s Grand Scheme is nothing but a BLUFF. He’s not going to actually do anything other than talk about it.
Why?
IT would take almost 8 months to become an actual law…Long after this “Novel and Significant approach” has been smacked down by the Supreme Court (which is actually what Gavin wants).
Secondly, “Assault Weapons” are ALREADY ILLEGAL in California (and even Gavin’s not stupid enough to try to ban all semi-automatic rifles), therefore any semi-automatic rifle currently being sold is NOT considered an “Assault Weapon” under California law, so there’s nobody to sue.
And Thirdly, Our Masters in California don’t want an “Assault Weapon” case going before the Supreme Court. This “Law” would guarantee to be fast tracked straight there, where there’s a good chance that California’s current gun ban will be found Unconstitutional.
Ar-15’s will still be available for sale in California long after Mike the “Anti Abortion” guy is Dead and Buried.