By Lee Williams
SAF Investigative Journalism Project
California’s state legislature employs some of the busiest and most creative anti-gun staffers in the world, who operate in an atmosphere of nearly complete permissiveness.
Whatever lunacy these well-schooled goons propose has an extremely high likelihood of becoming state law, especially if it targets guns or shaves a chunk off of the Second Amendment protections enjoyed by free people living in free states.
Want to buy a Glock?
Sorry, it’s not one of the handguns California’s “experts” approved for personal purchase.
Need an AR?
Sorry, all you can have is a bastardized amalgamation of AR parts that won’t accept mags or function like normal ARs do for normal people in normal states.
These well-paid legislative dullards are the reason why California’s anti-gun laws migrate east and become laws in other deep blue states.
One of the favorite tactics they use to further erode gun rights is to “clarify” previously passed anti-gun laws.
Few bills have the heft of AB-1753, which the anti-gunners claim will only “clarify” the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Order, or GVRO.
California’s hellish GVRO already subjects the state’s 40 million residents/internees to unconstitutional Red Flag laws, multiple hearings and massive legal consequences if they legally own a firearm and a petitioner accuses them of being naughty.
Keep in mind, in the People’s Democratic Republic of California, nearly anyone with a faint pulse can sign a petition claiming that someone’s guns need to be taken away for a myriad of reasons. They don’t even have to live in the same home. Coworkers can suffice, as can anyone who attends the same school.
Now, what do the anti-gunners want to add to “clarify” this state law and make it even worse?
The answer is simple: Ammunition
“This bill would make clarifying and conforming changes to the procedures relating to the protective or restraining orders described above by explicitly requiring the restrained person to relinquish, in addition to any firearm, any ammunition in that person’s immediate possession or control. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require courts to permit a party or witness to appear remotely at a hearing for a postsecondary educational institution or workplace violence restraining order at no cost. This bill would also require courts to develop rules and instructions for such remote appearances and to post them on their internet websites. The bill would also, commencing on January 1, 2028, require courts to allow filings related to those protective orders to be submitted electronically, as specified,” the authors, who are apparently paid by the word, claimed.
And who will bear the ultimate responsibility of seizing the ammunition of anyone who violates this California law?
Why that would be state law enforcement, of course.
“This bill would additionally require a peace officer to take temporary custody of any ammunition in plain sight or discovered pursuant to such a search,” the bill states.
Takeaways
If you are reading this behind enemy lines in The Golden State, run. Leave immediately. “John has a long mustache.” It’s time to go.
Ronald Reagan and George Deukmejian are gone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is far too busy to help.
Sure, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is doing better, but there’s a long way to go, and even if he wins, California will likely remain hopelessly blue.
What’s needed are fresh federal laws that do not allow rogue states like California to subject their subjects to gun bans or other loathsome regulations.
Help, friends, may be coming.
“Reckoning day for lawmakers in Illinois, Connecticut, and elsewhere across the country, is not far away and it’s high time they are finally put in their place for infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens,” said Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president.
On June 30, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear two SAF cases—Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—challenging the prohibitions of many commonly owned rifles like ARs.
“Throughout SAF’s more than 50-year history, we have fought to ensure Americans could fully exercise their Second Amendment rights, and we are optimistic this case will be a giant leap forward for the right to keep and bear arms. The ruling in this lawsuit will affect generations of lawful gun owners for years to come, and we are hopeful the Supreme Court will deposit these unconstitutional bans where they belong—in the wastebin of history,” Gottlieb said.
I could not have said it any better.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
