This is a call to action, something I rarely do. For the sake of everyone’s freedoms, however, we should be vigilant. The Second Amendment protects your right to bear arms. This means you have a right to own and use firearms. The right to own firearms should necessarily mean you have the right to acquire and/or transfer firearms to others. This may sound elementary, but the reality is that the State of California continuously tries to whittle away the freedoms of those that own firearms. Once the government is permitted to pass over-broad laws in one area of life, they will begin passing it in other areas of life as well. An example of real firearm-related laws recently passed by the California legislature and signed by Governor Jerry Brown, I came accross a website that claims the following laws have been made:
- Changes the definition of so-called “assault weapons” in a manner that potentially makes felons out of hundreds of thousands of Californians
- Requires registration of firearms for common use
- Requires confiscation of firearms upon death, or transfer out of state
- Forbids transfer of firearms to other Californians
- Forbids transfer or bequeath of property to family
- Criminalizes lending of firearms for otherwise lawful purposes. I.E. Gun safety and marksmanship programs such as the Scouts, Appleseed Project, 4H Clubs, etc., would no longer be possible because “lending” firearms is prohibited. Loaning guns to law abiding citizens for hunting or for use at a firing range would then also be prohibited.
- Requires background checks when you buy ammunition. Essentially, you do not have a right to your freedom to purchase until you pay the state to prove your innocence. The government will be keeping records of gun owner’s purchases, and be able to ban the otherwise legal purchases of ammunition, and further limit the availability of ammunition.
- Banning possession of +10 round magazines, and confiscates those that are already owned by law abiding citizens.
- Requiring serialization and registration of legal and federally regulated self-built firearms made for personal use only, which is written too broadly and could be used to include antique, heirloom, or curio & relic firearms. Apparently Gov Brown already vetoed virtually the same law (SB 808) last year, stating “I appreciate the author’s concerns about gun violence, but I can’t see how adding a serial number to a homemade gun would significantly advance public safety.”
If those changes to the law are true, then we have a serious problem. As you can imagine, there is a lot of fear of firearms (i.e.: guns, but I just like the sophisticated sound of “firearms”). The problem is that fear will cause people to do silly things, overcompensate, and passing the foregoing laws is an example of that. Too many of the laws passed are simply unconstitutional. The state is not allowed to take your property unless it’s absolutely necessary, and even then they must provide reasonable compensation for what they took. Yet this is not being done.
Forbidding the transfer of firearms, and forbidding a gift by will or trust of a firearm to a responsible individual, just doesn’t make any sense. Can you imagine the state saying you could not transfer, sell, lend, or gift by will your car, truck, wagon, or van? Yet more people die in vehicular-related incidents than by guns, guns, guns. Moreover, when you think about it, if you can’t transfer or even bequeath guns, in time this means only the very wealthy will be able to afford them.
Stop by just about any local firearms store (Bass Pro, Turner’s Outdoorsman, Big 5, I think even Walmart sells firearms now), and sign a petition to give the citizens of California a chance to vote on those same laws listed above, and if they want, veto them. This way Californians get a chance to speak out about some of the specifics involved. I’m sure when you were voting on your CA legislative representatives in the last election you did not think that each of these laws would be passed. Take action now, and start by reading the bills. The deadline to sign a petition is September 24, 2016.
Read more about how you can make a difference and protect your freedoms, whether you plan to exercise those freedoms now, later, ever, or never, by visiting https://www.vetogunmageddon.org/ Learn more about your Second Amendment freedoms and how to become responsibly educated on firearm safety through the National Rifle Association at https://home.nra.org/.
Own a gun? Contact us today to set up a free initial consultation on setting up an estate plan with provisions on firearms. We can serve clients desiring California estate plans, worldwide.
Merrill A. Hanson
Law Office of Merrill A. Hanson
180 N. Glendora Ave., Ste. 201
Glendora, CA 91741
Tel./Txt: 626-905-4682
Originally Published September 22, 2016
_____
This page is not intended to convey legal advice. You should contact an attorney for your specific situation.
Discussion on this matter online has prompted Merrill A. Hanson to take a closer look at the bills. His commentary is as follows:
I have done a cursory analysis of each bill referenced at https://www.vetogunmageddon.org/ in an effort to determine whether the hype is overstated, and to determine with more specificity the amount of concern citizens should have about their civil rights. After reviewing each, generally I think there is some cause to be concerned, however, 80% of the bills make a lot of sense. Still, a bill with a 20% problem is a huge problem. For example, a law that punishes with the death penalty both 1) the murder of others, and 2) the tickling of children’s toes, is a bill that should never be passed. I suspect that good intentions are nearly always the reason why bills get passed, however, good intentions is not enough cause to pass a bill. Let’s look at each bill:
AB-1135 and SB 880… They both appear to be identical and are about defining and prohibiting “assault weapons.” First of all, an “assault weapon” probably doesn’t mean what you think it means. It includes a lot more docile weapons than one might think. They have defined an assault weapon to mean any firearm that has a detachable magazine (makes it easy to reload), or a gun that has a permanently fixed magazine but also has things like second handgrips, a stock that folds, etc. How a gun looks, or how many handles it has, should not make a difference. The good news is that “antique firearms” are exempt, and if you get your “assault weapon” before the expiration of 2016, you can keep it, except, everyone will have to register their assault weapon. Registration will start at about $20 per firearm. The benefit here? Your registered firearm will now be traced which may help law enforcement. The risk here? You’ve given up a lot of information and future freedoms for something that probably won’t stop criminals from getting registered guns. Discovering someone owns firearms does not make them a higher risk, instead it will lead to prejudgment of gun owners by police who are afraid someone is carrying who probably is not. Also, the government will follow this law with more laws which will make it harder to get your gun registered so that you can no longer get guns.
AB 1511… Loans. The rule used to be that you can not loan a firearm of any sort to anyone, unless you personally know them… but now that rule has tightened to mean no loaning to anyone unless they are a spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, AND, the loan is for less than 30 days, AND, the loan is infrequent, AND, the person taking the weapon has a handgun safety certificate (for handguns) and a firearm safety certificate (all firearms), AND, if a handgun, it must be registered to the person making the loan. I don’t mind this law requiring people to have safety certificates, but essentially this law says that Californians are so stupid that they can not decide who to let loan their firearms. In reality, a person probably would never loan a gun to someone who they think would be a risk, unless that person was one of the family members listed in the bill. This law is over broad and over restrictive. It really does make it illegal to hand any firearm to anyone who’s not immediate family, like your fiance, your brother or sister in law, your aunt or uncle, your favorite niece or nephew, etc., even if these people live with you.
AB 1695… No calling the cops and saying someone lost or stole a gun if you know that’s not true. First of all, that makes sense… Second of all, it doesn’t matter that it makes sense because the First Amendment protects speech. Plus, the punishment does not fit the crime here. It becomes a misdemeanor for a person convicted of violating this provision to own, purchase, receive, or have in their possession or under custody or control, any firearm within 10 years of the conviction. This is not a statement made under oath in a courtroom, this is just being dumb when police ask you questions, which is despicable. There is a part about reporting the lie to a grand jury, and, well, that’s just dumb. Don’t lie to a grand jury. If you do, you deserve it. There are better ways for getting back at liars, like perjury, and contempt. This law says you can still use perjury, and contempt, and you can take their gun rights away from them, even though they never touched one.
SB 1235…Restrictions on ammunition. Now the government gets to decide whether you get it. Plus you have to register to get it. Plus they charge you to register to get it. Plus they charge you per transaction to get it. That’s $50 per person for the issuance of an ammunition purchase authorization or the issuance of a renewal authorization, plus $1 per transaction. This is where it starts, but one day it’ll be $500 to register and $50 per transaction. What bothers me is that it can not be “amended by a statute that is passed by a vote of 55 percent of the Members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor so long as the amendments are consistent with and further the intent of the act.” That’s a problem for a couple of reasons. 1) Why a vote of 55%? Why not a majority? AND 2) Amendments can only be consistent with the act? That means you can’t undo it. Ever. In addition to all of this, they will be making records of who bought what, make vendors get licenses, sales can only be face-to-face (no online purchases), and if you are not allowed to have a gun, you will commit a crime if you even try to acquire ammo. Lastly, further restraint on trade, you can not bring ammo into the state without going through a ammo dealer. When will it stop? One day you’ll have to get thumb printed at a bar and register with the state before taking a drink of every ounce of alcohol, or have a special license to open a bottle of wine in your own home. (Drunk drivers kill too).
SB1445… large capacity magazines. Hold more than 10? Outlawed. You must: (1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state. (2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer. (3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine. (4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction. Luckily, it does not apply to museums, or for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. That’s a nice touch. Here’s a reason to never close an estate… also exempt: The receipt or disposition of a large-capacity magazine by a trustee of a trust, or an executor or administrator of an estate, including an estate that is subject to probate, that includes a large-capacity magazine. I think I just found my calling. Okay, the point of the rule, who needs more than 10 shots? The problem with the rule, next year it’ll be 9, then 8, then 7… you get the picture. Plus, they just outlawed something and told you to destroy it or else be a criminal. That’s called a taking. At the very least the government should buy it off of me.
AB857… gun IDs. It requires a person or business who manufactures or assembles a firearms to first apply to the department of justice for a unique serial number or other identifying mark before making the firearm. This is probably to make it easier to track guns, but as mentioned earlier, putting a number on it is not really going to make a big difference. The risk of the government restricting the issuance of numbers is more likely to happen than the little number on the side of a firearm preventing a crime. It would help removing guns from people who are found to have weapons that are not their own… as long as they’re not loaned… to the right list of people.
About seizing weapons. If law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion that a gun is either illegal or has been used in the course of a crime, they may seize it. Thus, all violations of the foregoing bills would end in loss of the firearm.
The real question is, what happens when in an otherwise lawful situation, the government does not want to issue a serial number, license, or ammunition permit? It happens already. Ever heard of how difficult it is to get a concealed carry permit? Also, what about when the fee to do any of it goes up so high that it becomes too costly to do it? I don’t think Californians are ready to give up their firearm freedoms and put all of their faith in their police department to protect them in every circumstance. There’s too many stories of the police not making it to the scene of the crime on time. Their job, by nature, is to respond to what they can, but they can not be everywhere.
Those are my thoughts for now. I’m for doing the most restrictive thing to protect people, but I am against taking away freedoms of individuals when unchecked fear is the reason for doing so. In short, responsible firearm ownership is the answer, not taking away freedoms forever.
–Merrill A. Hanson