This legislation, which Representatives Issa and Stefanik have sponsored in the past, is even more pressing now as Attorney General Rob Bonta of California released a report finding that “firearm microstamping technology is technologically viable.”
The California Department of Justice released a report that ignores what the data examined actually reveals and instead is being
“It goes to the difference between states’ laws related to gun ownership. In the state of New York, you cannot buy (an AR-15). You have to be over age 18. You cannot have access. I mean, he had a concealed carry permit which allowed him to have this weapon.”
One thing is for sure. Failed anti-gun logic, with its outright bans, rigged permitting and licensing schemes, and other ludicrous control strategies that rely on government power, doesn’t work any better when it’s applied to things other than guns.
It’s an all too predictable cycle: There’s an active shooter, he takes out innocent people, then the murderous killer takes the coward’s way out and it all blows up in the mainstream media.
Dems are pushing an agenda that would leave law-abiding Americans unable to access their firearm quickly in a time of need while mandating that manufacturers change their packaging, pushing extra costs on small businesses, manufacturers and sellers.
“Constitutional rights are not up to a public vote, which the 9th Circuit panel recognizes, even if he doesn’t. Neither are rights subject to essentially getting permission from the state, via a background check, in order for citizens to exercise them.”
Gavin Newsom vented his displeasure, writing “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition. Their voices should matter.” That’s rich since the background check system in place now isn’t what Californians voted for at all.
In the recent discussion around the potential removal of suppressors and short barrel rifles from the provisions of the National
Because California’s ammunition background check regime violates the Second Amendment, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction.
