Even in a big state such as California, does anyone really believe that drug gangs and other groups are going to be prevented from getting access to the weapons that they want?
California already has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Buying a handgun requires registration, a safety certificate, a 10-day waiting period and a rigorous background check. All direct person-to-person sales are banned and concealed-carry permits are rare.
But now, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, lawmakers in the Golden State have launched into a new legislative frenzy to restrict firearms further. And they're confident the measures will pass, given Democrats have a two-thirds "super majority" in both chambers -- which means they have the power to pass legislation and get constitutional amendments on the ballot without a single Republican vote. . . .
"Almost any idea that anybody in this country has, as to further regulate and limit access to weapons or ammunition, is probably going to get passed in California," said Democratic strategist and USC law professor Susan Estrich.
Some politicians want to regulate all ammunition sales, requiring background checks and annual permits.
One Republican lawmaker wants a lifetime ban on gun ownership for anyone who's ever been ruled a danger to others because of mental health issues -- even if they've been successfully treated. . . . .
Question: If someone is so dangerous that they should have a lifetime ban on gun ownership, why should we even let them out of the mental facility? Criminals and others who shouldn't have guns get them all the time. If they are really that dangerous, why take the risk?
Labels: assaultweaponsban, GunControl