Californians who want to buy ammunition would have to submit personal information and a $50 fee for a background check by the state, under a bill passed by the Senate. The state Department of Justice would determine whether buyers have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns.
Ammo shops would check the name on buyers' driver's licenses against a state list of qualified purchasers.
The goal of the bill is "to ensure that criminals and other dangerous individuals cannot purchase ammunition in the state of California," said Sen. Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles), author of SB 53.
The vote was 22-14, with a few Democrats joining the Republican minority in opposition.
The Senate also OK'd a bill that would outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture in California of semiautomatic rifles that can accommodate detachable magazines. The measure, SB 374 by Steinberg, also would require those who own such weapons to register them with the state.
The Assembly joined the action on guns by passing a measure to require the state Department of Justice to notify local law enforcement agencies when someone buys more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition. The bill would also ban kits that convert magazines to carry more than 10 rounds and would extend a ban on gun ownership for anyone who conveys a serious threat of violence to a licensed psychotherapist.
#2
...or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns.
Find a 'friendly' judge and get a restraining order issued on all members of the assembly. Doesn't have to be about guns, just a restraining order to stay away.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/31/2013 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The goal of the bill is "to ensure that criminals and other dangerous individuals cannot purchase ammunition in the state of California," said Sen. Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles), author of SB 53.
#8
Nothing good ever comes from the California state legislature. They really should be abolished. Let the governor propose laws and budgets that the people either approve or disapprove via the ballot box. You might think I'm joking but I'm not. A room full of monkeys would be better than guys like De Leon. It might be interesting to see how this law stands up to scrutiny by SCOTUS. Rjschwartz makes a good comment too. With Obama refusing to secure the border bad guys can easily get their ammo on the black market.
#10
But the criminals - they won't be able to afford the big fee, right?
Right? That's the idea, isn't it?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/31/2013 17:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The rubes in Sacto are setting up conditions for a lucrative black market in ammo. I guess they never heard of how the ban on alcohol worked during the twenties.
These are the same people who argue a prohibition on drugs doesn't work. Go figure.
It's ambitious, but you and I didn't set out to do easy things.
As long as I can count on you to be a part of this, we will find a way to make progress on all of it -- continuing to create good-paying jobs, fixing our broken immigration system, finding a common-sense way to reduce gun violence in this country, and more.
No president can do it alone.
Say you're in:
http://my.barackobama.com/Are-You-In
There's a lot of work to do -- thanks for doing your part.
Barack My part is sharing with Rantburg!
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/31/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No president can do it alone.
Say you're in:
http://my.barackobama.com/Are-You-In
You'll get my e-mail addy wen you from my cold dead hands you pry it !
#3
You put your Left foot in
you put your Left foot out
you put your left foot in and shake it all about
you do the hoeky pokey and turn yourself around
that's what its all about
Seems to fit the Obama administration quite well. The hokey pokey is what its all about for Obama.
#4
Besoeker,
Your home and work emails addresses are already in the "Big Data Warehouse" that the kids from Google, Orbitz, LinkedIn and Facebook, in the Black Room of OFA in Chicago, along with all your Rantburg comments dating back to 2011.
One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. This problem will be especially acute when the law's main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance "rate shock."
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare's health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. "These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard," boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange.
But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
Lee's claims that there won't be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. "Despite the political naysayers," writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, "the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California." A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California's sleight-of-hand.
Here's what happened. Last week, Covered California--the name for the state's Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange--released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. "The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market," the state said in a press release, "ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California's most populous regions."
That's the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," exulted Peter Lee.
Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples--the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market--and oranges--the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical. Someone affiliated with Bumblecare wasn't being truthful? I am Shocked
Obamacare to double individual-market premiums
If you're a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare's exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That's the median monthly premium across California's 19 insurance rating regions.)
The next cheapest plan, the "bronze" comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.
Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you're 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.
For both 25-year-olds and 40-year-olds, then, Californians under Obamacare who buy insurance for themselves will see their insurance premiums double.
#4
the more expensive 2014 plans cover more than the 2013 plans so its not a completely 'apples to apples' comparison
also, I think the quoted prices are for the unsubsidized policy and that California has a complicated subsidy program
so its a bit more complicated than the article suggests
but, yes, there's little doubt that Obamacare bends the cost up
Posted by: lord garth ||
05/31/2013 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Very little good will come of this Obamacare, the health insurance cart is being overturned to suit the political aims for the leftist socialist elements in the USA. Their aim is the complete control of the lives, literally lives of the people of America, from cradle to grave.
#7
Doing math is a dog whistle for racists. Note the CA exchange deliberately lied, comparing rates of small group plans with exchange individual plans. No accountability for our all powerful public officials.
Posted by: regular joe ||
05/31/2013 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
the more expensive 2014 plans cover more than the 2013 plans so its not a completely 'apples to apples' comparison
The extra coverage is not what most consumers would have bought, so the price comparisons are valid.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
05/31/2013 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
[BREITBART] The government obtained "thousands and thousands" of phone records of News Agency that Dare Not be Named staffers according to CEO Gary Pruitt. Pruitt held a town hall meeting with AP staff and revealed that the phone records obtained by the DOJ included incoming and outgoing calls for the news organizations.
During the town hall, Pruitt reiterated that the AP did not report on a CIA-thwarted terrorist plot in May 2012 out of national security concerns until sources indicated the B.O. regime was going to announce it publicly.
The News Agency that Dare Not be Named has joined the New York Times ...which still proudly displays Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... in refusing to attend an off-the-record briefing by Attorney General Eric Inaction Jackson Holder ... aka Mister Fast and Furious... over the DOJ's policy regarding news hounds and leak investigations.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Clearly he Pruitt must mean Milyuhns + Dilyuhns + Tilyuhns of ...
Specifically, [Mayor Bing] addressed the fact that citizens -- important citizens -- have been leaving the city in droves.
"The people who were the most important that left, in my opinion, were the public safety officials -- the police and fire," Bing said.
"When they were in neighborhoods and the community, people felt a little safer," he said. "But now with more than 50 percent of them no longer living in the city, not only don't people feel safe anymore, but you also lose the tax benefits that you were getting."
Bing said he thinks it would make sense pass a law that mandates that new employees of the city remain residents of the city of a period of seven years.
"In seven years a lot of things can change. And I'm hopeful in seven years we'll see the city change and people will want to come back to the city," he said. Wouldn't it make more sense to require existing employees to live there for the next 7 years? If they refuse, fire them & hire substitutes for less. Might also tend to improve the underfunded city pension problem, either by attrition of existing employees who refuse, or by attrition of those who make the attempt to last 7 years living in Detroit, but who don't survive their attempt.
#4
That will certainly attract the best and brightest. /sarc off.
Can we count Windsor as part of Detroit? Since cars manufactured in Windsor are considered 'domestic' for classification purposes by the Feds (per union input).
#5
15 years ago I lived a 1 mile outside of the Pittsburgh city limits. Apparantly Pittsburgh use to (or may still have) a similar rule. Of course the city fireman down the street from me in the suburbs owned an inexpensive home in the city (just did not actually live there). It was a $12,500 free standing PO Box.
#6
"In seven years a lot of things can change. And I'm hopeful in seven years we'll see the city change and people will want to come back to the city," he said.
"Hope"... is not a plan. Neither are residency requirements.
#7
#5, employees can do the same thing 'voters' do, have about two dozen or so listed at the same address. It's legit for voting right? And to even question it would be just another example of voter suppression and racist.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Californians who want to buy ammunition would have to submit personal information and a $50 fee for a background check by the state, under a bill passed by the Senate. The state Department of Justice would determine whether buyers have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns.
