56 points

Let me guess, this is a massive violation of the second amendment and oppresses all Americans everywhere.

permalink
report
reply
49 points
*

This is California. 60% of the population will readily support this. The other 40% think that murder is one of their Constitutional freedoms. Thankfully, they are the minority and can continue to move themselves to Florida, Tennessee, Texas and other minor 'murican ethnostate dictatorships. The rest of us rational freedom-loving Californians bid them adieu.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Bye felicia

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

This is almost too perfect for them because, while not everyone who believes taxation is theft is an ammosexual, all ammosexuals believe that taxation is theft.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Heh, ammosexual. I’m totally using that!

permalink
report
parent
reply

It’s the only thing that explains their willingness to ignore history and facts and just go with their emotions on every aspect of this issue.

Only unmitigated sexual lust could explain why in every debate they say such absolutely stupid shit like “well cars kill just as many people, should we ban cars?”

I remember my first boner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yes, even the expats living in countries with extremely restrictive gun laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Ha, the “I’d rather be Russian than Democrat!” … okay… check out their gun laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Just helps oppress the rights of the marginalized to defend themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s the California way. Market solutions and getting guns out of the hands of minorities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Are you in California? Are you marginalized? Trying to understand your perspective. Move around be, if you’re marginalized, you should be worried about gun toting Nazis in the central valley, inland empire, deep redwoods, central coast, OC, etc… Tell me about your AR taking on the US military if tanks come down your street. It’s just not real. That’s a fantasy. Vote for decent people that represent you and your interests to pass legislation to protect you with that military. From Nazis. With guns. Or be the gun obsessed dude and fantasize about cosplaying cowboys.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

The only time some care about the “marginalized” is when guns are involved. They care when the “marginalized” have guns, because higher percentages of marginalized groups tend to be involved in crime, or when they don’t have guns, because suddenly they need to defend themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Guns are already taxed under 2A.

Taxing them more is legal as long as the taxes aren’t so high that it infringes on rights.

In other words a 5 or 10% tax wouldn’t violate 2A but a 1000% tax certainly would.

If you still don’t believe guns are taxable, refer to sales tax.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Whoa now! I never said they couldn’t/shouldn’t be taxed. But we OK with a 200% markup on that tax?

California will double the taxes on guns and ammunition

This law serves two purposes:

Be seen to be “doing something”, always a winner. Tack on “for the children”, a tack conservatives are winning with.

More taxes on the poor. And that’s really the meat of it. It’s appalling how liberals (and I include myself in that definition) are quick to defend the poor, but abhor the notion of them defending themselves.

Further reading:

https://imgur.com/eUseWqC

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
  1. The individual right was decided by a 5-4 court decision along party lines 2 centuries after the fact. It’s not as clear cut as freedom of speech

  2. Poor people and people of color are disproportionately victims of gun violence. You may come back with “good guy with a gun” but in most altercations more guns equals more deaths.

  3. While Reagan’s gun law in California was racist, it wasn’t what killed the Panthers, FBI assassinations did. Even if black people had all the guns in Texas they still wouldn’t be able to challenge the state.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Even free speech as we know it today was a product of modern Supreme Court decisions from the Warren Court.

Until then we still enforced anti sedition laws!

permalink
report
parent
reply

The courts held for two hundred and fifty years that there was no individual right. Only because we have three illegitimately installed Supreme Court justices did a court of law hold otherwise.

The reason it took thos long and basically coup is because the proposition is utterly ridiculous.

I’ll let it go right now, never argue for reasonable gun policy again, if you can find a single original document written in America prior to 1776 in which the phrase “bear arms” clearly refers to an individual right. Because even though 95% of the pre-1776 usage clearly refers to proper warfare, you will find that the other 5% is at best ambiguous and in zero cases express.

Reading an individual right into it a revisionst history and lies. That federalist society hacks and bootlickers have been clambering for it for the last fifty years does not negate the actual history of this nation and the development of western jurisprudence.

Here’s is just one absurdity: if the express purpose of the second amendment is “security of the state,” how does reading in an implied, individual right advance the interest of state security, when the express language “bearing arms” and “well-regulated militia” adequately and directly achieves the purpose?

Another absurdity is that the express purpose of the bill of rights was to codify existing rights, and even today everyone agrees that the bill of rights did not create new rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of western, natural law, and for the most part, English common law. Guess what? They regulate guns in England and in every other western nation as we have done in America for 250 odd years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Called it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points
*

But how can I fend off the king of England now?!

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Just phone in the French. They’ll hate on the English for free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This had me laughing out loud. Lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Remind him of Brexit and he’ll self destruct in shame.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Before I judge… What am I missing about this comment? Why downvoted? A random jab at a pedophile?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Probably downvoted by pedos.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

all semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology.

That means each bullet would have a unique marking making it easier for law enforcement to trace the gun it was fired from back to its owner.

Nice end-run around the Constitution. This technology does not exist, and cannot exist. Anyone wanting to argue that needs to stop watching stupid cop shows.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Well agree it doesn’t exist but to say it can’t exist is silly

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Perhaps they’re talking about stamping the firing pin, somehow. Are you aware of the forces at work at the tip of a firing pin? A “micro” stamp won’t survive 2 shots.

each bullet would have a unique marking

Yeah, stamped in lead. The material that flattens, deforms, shatters on impact. This is as dumb as the Batman scene where he extracts shards from the wall and magically reconstructs the bullet.

Or maybe they don’t know what a bullet is and they meant the shell/casing? And we’re going to micro stamp the billions of shells produced annually? And what does that get us? Doesn’t tell you anything about the exact gun that fired it. Aaaand we’re back to stamping the firing pin.

Let’s ignore physics and pretend this is still technically feasible. Stamping any sort of unique ID on a firing pin, bullet or shell is going to be wildly cost prohibitive. Which is the exact point.

Legislate impossible tech, or in a magical world where possible, make it so no one but the rich can afford it. This bill would effectively make every gun and shell illegal in CA.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

NYSRPA vs Bruen decision by the Supreme Court will invalidate this law just as it recently did to their magazine capacity law. They are literally wasting the citizens tax dollars with this legislative performance because any lawyer knows that it will get overturned after seeing the many recent rulings on the topic. A couple of federal district courts even ruled that you can be an illegal drug user and retain 2A rights based on Bruen this year, because that restriction does not fit the historical context of gun control laws. Microstamping obviously fails that test even harder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Could be that this train was already in motion before the Bruen decision. Not a good look for us folks interested in increasing gun safety while also respecting the bill of rights’ intent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

while also respecting the bill of rights’ intent.

Well-regulated militia? The thing we did away with when we created a standing army? That intent?

permalink
report
parent
reply
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply

The technology to “make it easier” to trace the gun exists.

Simple patterns can tell you the make of the weapon, for example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Great, now only the rich can commit gun crimes… /s

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

This seems like a really cool thing to put onto law, but I wonder 1.) If it’ll actually survive federal review, and 2.) If it’ll make a meaningful difference in the amounts of gun violence in the state. I feel cynical for saying this, but I just feel like the central role guns play in the American mythos makes it really hard to solve this cultural problem with taxation and educational campaigns.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

I don’t think there’s really a lot the feds could do here aside from saying states imposing their own commerce taxes is unconditional somehow, which would hurt red states A LOT more than California being annoyed at being micromanaged.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 473K

    Comments