Prop 63 is lame.
Because you're a gun owner?
Most of the tough laws were passed in July. This is just Gavin Newsome grandstanding.
Don't you think some of these laws make sense though? Like giving the courts more power to enforce the law that convicts shouldn't have guns.
Sure, but short of a legal warrant for search and seizure, it won't make a convict give up his or her guns. A $100 fine? Do you think they care about that?
Just more government overhead.
Every little bit helps. And you don't think reporting when guns are stolen is good?
It won't change anything. Any responsible gun owner knows to report theft. Otherwise, they'll be blamed for a murder.
Okay so might as well make it law. What about owning large-capacity magazines?
If you've held on to your magazines for 16+ years, why would this law make you give it up?
And you're not annoyed by the $50 permit? or the need to have ammo delivered to a store first.
The $50 is particularly annoying because it's just more red tape. Ammo delivered is another inconvenience.
What happens if the seller ships it to my door by accident? I get a misdemeanor?
How would they enforce that?
Now you're thinking...
Sounds like you agree with the intent of the law, but it sounds like you're saying it won't make us much safer. In general though, more restrictions = less guns in bad people's hands.
Let's not get into the more guns vs less guns debate. State laws have been shown to be ineffective at reducing murder rates. Agreed that bad guys shouldn't have guns, but at the expense of what rights?
Another study says that mortality could be decreased with national laws. And California often leads the way in setting the example.
I don't own a gun, so I'll probably vote yes.
And that's why we continue to get shat on, because you think it's not your problem.
We don't want terrorists communicating, but we'll never allow the govt to listen to our conversations. We don't want bad guys to have guns, but at the expense of what freedoms?