Gun-control bills could push California to top of firearm-restriction list

[ellisonz]

By Josh Richman
[e-mail]
Posted: 08/10/2013 12:00:00 PM PDT
Updated: 08/10/2013 06:33:02 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO -- With summer recess behind them and the legislative session's five-week homestretch ahead, state lawmakers face a fusillade of gun-control bills that could move California far beyond what any other state has enacted -- including proposals to ban a wide range of semi-automatic rifles and impose strict new regulations on ammunition.

And what happens in Sacramento might not stay in Sacramento. With their agenda stalled in Congress, gun-control advocates hope California can break the inertia and reignite the national debate that erupted after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.

-------

The state Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday will hear bills already passed by the Assembly that would create a state database of all ammunition purchases, make it a crime to have a gun that's not locked up when not being carried, and extend the time for which someone is banned from owning firearms after making a violent threat.

The next day, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will hear bills already passed by the state Senate that would ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, make it a crime to leave a gun unlocked when you're out of the house and require those who own high-capacity magazines to get rid of them.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_23833928/gun-control-bills-could-push-california-top-firearm

[Recursion]

1. The ammo registry is an interesting idea. We had that for years nationally

But law enforcement could never really get it to help them. Hopefully technology has improved since then.

Also, I'm glad to see a focus on who has the gun rather than what the guns they can have look like.

[Nevernose]

2. That last part sounds like it may be unconstitutional.

The part about requiring high capacity magazine owners to give them up sounds like it's a violation of due process.

I think it's not a bad idea, if legal, but might just be a better idea to prevent the sale of new ones.

[BainsBane]

3. and a 53% reduction in homicides

[TheMightyFavog]

4. So they're trying to close the "bullet button" loophole?