I see no benefit in trying to preserve a union with these leftists. Let's each go our own ways and be done with it.

The smartest Jews got out of Germany before Hitler rounded them up, robbed them and executed them.

Smart Patriots who believe in the constitution and the 2A, should leave blue states. They are passing laws to eventually incarcerate gun owners as well as rob them with high taxation and fees.

Passing unconstitutional laws should be against the law and punishable by jail time.

If you want to change the constitution, go through that process and not this BS.

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Are you kidding me? The 99.99% have to jump through hoops to insure an additional charge can be filed on the .01%? Why not punish the "bad guys who use a firearm" to the full extent or punish them in a manner that doesn't involve some additional form of "compliance" the rest?

"See legal gun owners? We're doing this for your own good." Sound familiar?

B-1 83 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Are you kidding me? The 99.99% have to jump through hoops to insure an additional charge can be filed on the .01%? Why not punish the "bad guys who use a firearm" to the full extent or punish them in a manner that doesn't involve some additional form of "compliance" the rest?

"See legal gun owners? We're doing this for your own good." Sound familiar?

---

Because, despite what they say, the purpose of all new gun laws is to harass and criminalize conservatives.

The tell is that they rarely enforce existing gun laws to the full extent permissible against true criminals.

Shall not be infringed

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Is this a serious take? Are folks really this delusional?

I'm all for this . Every liberal should register their firearm. Here's hoping CA confiscates their weapons.

Disarmed liberals are good for the country

lots of people going to have surfing gun accidents. sucks for a shark to eat your gun.

Why is it that I read Antoninus and all the other lib socks with a pic of this guy in my head?

Great on top of just wrong, there will be more migration from caly to Texas.

Because you didn't think of this guy first.

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

First of all, you're either lying or being a total fool when it comes to alleging this is their intent. It is nowhere NEAR their intent. Second, even if it was their intent, the legislature doesn't get to do that. There's no constitutional provision to violate the constitution to give law enforcement the ability to charge you with additional crimes or make it easier to convict you of the other crimes they've charged you with.

Where in the hell did you get all this? You either have a wild-ass imagination or you read it on some leftist lunatic blog.

The only thing you said in your post that's even close to correct is "among others" when talking about intent. The intent was clearly to subvert the second amendment. You damn well know that.

If California prosecuted laws currently on the books I could believe your stance. However, this is another law that will be used selectively.

Quote:

---

$250/gun/year

---

And we think property taxes are high...

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Think how ?

.... To have an updated database of what-- kind of firearm , where -- its located, and who-- owns it. You think like a lawyer which is not a compliment here.

I think like an IT guy --information and how to use it against whoever you want and for whatever agenda you want. Given who governs that state this isn't good.

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Drop the "(unregistered)" and replace "bad guys" with "anyone" and you'd be correct...

This is the **** they will try to do at the federal level, once they install Biden's replacement.

[Calling out moderation and derailing the thread, all in one post. Stop with the derails. Either contribute to the discussion or don't post -- Staff}

wait until you defend yourself with an unregistered weapon out there..…you will be sucked into a legal quagmire both civil and criminal

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

You can't be serious with this post. That is not the intent: you really think some gang banger gives a **** about a heightened charge? The proposed law is unconstitutional and there's no defending it.

Ricky would have been a star running back in the league had this law been in place

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Hey kids!

It's time to play…Troll or Simpleton!

*cue theme music*

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Fetch that water.

Logos Stick said:

---

I hope it does pass. Every lib out there deserves this.

Knowing the name of every law abiding gun owner and what they own accomplishes nothing as far as public safety.

If you are a conservative, move!

---

I did six months ago and couldn't be happier.

I don't even feel bad for my neighbors left behind.

Antoninus is always super upset about any infringements to the "constitutional right" of abortion, and will routinely reeeeee all over those threads. Yet another blatant infringement of an *actual* constitutional right is just hand waved away as dumb gun nuts overreacting about nothing.

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Triggered much?

You think this is some ground breaking approach targeting criminals? A fine that they wont pay? There are already laws in place that do this. Don't be so naive.

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

When I moved back to Cali in 99 I remember standing at the DMV to get my DL. The sign on the wall said in big letters, "Register your firearms blah blabeddy blah." Silently I told the state to **** right off. Guns since were stolen in a home burglary (true). State ****ed off then, they can **** off now.

Additional charges? Lol. You think there aren't enough laws on the books right now? Another law gonna fix it, huh? Or am I misinterpreting your post?

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

Triggered much?

You think this is some ground breaking approach targeting criminals? A fine that they wont pay? There are already laws in place that do this. Don't be so naive.

---

Like we used to tell people (before the internet)…you need better bull****.

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

lol. That's definitely not the intent of the lawmakers.

If an unlawful user is using an unlawful gun, in an unlawful way, it's already multiple felonies . So now cops are going to tack on an infraction?

MonkeyKnifeFighter said:

---

So this is a $250/gun/year tax to keep your firearms off the registry.

It's a poll tax on the 2nd amendment, that becomes a defacto gun registry in its own regard.

---

How do they know if you don't register? To me this seems like unenforceable feel good useless legislation.

They already have a registration requirement. I don't know what annual enforcement they plan, do they send you a citation if they don't receive an annual registration or bill of sale?

It does seem redundant. What does the annual registration accomplish that their current registry doesn't?

This will just increase the sale of guns in other states

Antoninus said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What do you expect. It's California. I'm sure the criminal element will be following "laws" as usual.

---

good Lord. This statute is punitive, not prophylactic. No one in the California legislature expects a criminal to register his firearm.

Do you folks not realize that the California legislature passed this bill with the intent (among others) to give law-enforcement officers an additional charge to bring against bad guys who use an (unregistered) firearm?.

Sometimes I wonder when A&M stopped teaching people to think.

---

That may work but the first thing that is dropped in criminal proceedings is the gun charge. Very few criminals get additional years for possessing an "illegal" gun.

www.wftv.com/news/local/why-are-so-many-cases-against-felons-accused-gun-possession-being-dropped/TJMF6XPXUJENNAQR3PJFGE2GMU/

www.hg.org/legal-articles/felony-weapons-charges-dropped-by-the-state-can-feds-still-prosecute-49058

All States and the Federal Government have laws that can add additional years to a criminal for the use of an "illegal" gun but they are not used by the judicial system.