California liberals are it again, this time going after ammunition instead of guns.
In a new legislation called the “Safety for All Act of 2016” voters will be able to ban the possession of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds and mandate that everybody in California get a “firearms purchaser certificate” in order to buy ammunition, which will not only cost up to $50.00 and take two months to get, it’ll also put you in a database for law enforcement.
See what else it entails on the next page.
You bet
This will certainly be legally challenged and stayed until resolved in the courts
I don’t get how this can become federal law because of the 14th amendment.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FORBIDS JUDGES OR LAW MAKERS FROM INFRINGING OR PASSING LEGISLATION “EDITING” THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WHOSOEVER tries to enforce such legal fictions is to be resisted by ALL FORCE necessary INCLUDING lethal force. IT IS YOUR DUTY as an american to assist in the Lawful Resistance of UNLAWFUL legislation in the event you witness a fellow american being oppressed whether he knows his rights, conforms, or not!
Stupid idea, increase crime and innocent civilian death rate. Anyone who does not support the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment should just leave the United States of America!
Purchase what you need out of state. Unless they plan on searching all vehicles coming into California then take a vacation.
God forbid we keep track of guns and ammo. Much better idea to have moving about with a total lack of oversight and control. Switzerland has a lot guns but those guns are tightly controlled. I’m all for private firearm ownership, I believe firmly in your right to carry. But I know that in a country with more guns then people, and with more gun crime then any other 1st world country, that we need to do a better job at controlling this stuff. We cleary have a problem, and doing nothing will not solve it.
Regulated…Regular Training.
The words “well regulated” had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution’s provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers’ definition of “militia,” government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”
they had guncontrol and had the mass shooting just proves it doesnt work