California Leading the Way Toward 100% Gun Registration By Any Means Possible

[JAL]

In spite of Federal Law (FOPA) to the contrary, the California Legislature is leading the charge on 100% gun registration which I anticipate being echoed and parroted by other states when these two bills introduced into their legislature this past week pass and are signed into law by Gavin Newsom:

California SB 1160
Introduced on Wednesday, Feb 14th. Requires annual registration of all firearms owned or possessed with Calif. Dept. of Justice, and imposes an annual registration fee that can be annually adjusted as the California Government sees fit. The author of it has language in the bill claiming it doesn't violate the 1986 FOPA ban on federal or state gun registries in spite of it being a gun registry.

Link to bill (not posting text of this one as it's a bit long for here, but the gist of its provisions are understandable).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1160

William T Kirk of Washington Gun Law created a good video about it.

---

California AB 3067
Introduced on Friday, Feb 16th. FPC has posted about this on several media platforms including Twitter and Reddit, but doesn't have it on their website yet. Stumbled across it on Twitter. This one is insidious. It requires all gun owners to report all the firearms they own in detail to their homeowner/renter insurance companies, and then it requires all insurance companies operating in California to report these insurance registrations to the California Government including the Legislature. How soon before that all leaks out, once gathered (OOPSIE!)? The law is to be inserted into their Insurance Code. I expect it will appear on FPC's web site this next week. I've found nothing yet on it on YouTube. The text of the bill is short, which I've quoted.

This is a link to it.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3067

"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:​

​

SECTION 1. Section 2086 is added to the Insurance Code, to read:​

2086. (a) In addition to existing regulations, an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance shall include questions regarding all of the following:​

(1) Whether there are firearms kept in the household, including in any accessory structures, and if so, how many.​

(2) Whether the firearm, if any, is stored in a locked container in the home, including any accessory structures, while not in use.​

(3) The number of firearms kept in a vehicle located on the property subject to the applicable insurance policy, and if any, whether they are stored securely in a locked container while not in use.​

(b) An insurer shall update the contents of their applications for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance to include the questions regarding the presence, storage, and number of firearms by January 1, 2026.​

(c) An insurer shall annually report the information gathered from the questions regarding the presence, storage, and number of firearms to the Department of Insurance and the Legislature beginning on January 1, 2027. The report shall not contain any identifying information contained in a consumer’s application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance, including, but not limited to, names, addresses, and telephone numbers, which shall remain confidential.​

(d) For the purposes of this section, “locked container” has the same meaning as in Section 16850 of the Penal Code."​

---

These have not been enacted into law yet, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they will be. Then watch the other Usual Suspects who will not be outdone by California leap to enacting their own nearly identical versions. Yet more laws to clog up the dockets of the Federal Courts getting them struck down.

 

[Twangbanger]

Hey man, when half the population of Asia, Central America, and South America dreams passionately of moving to California - they don't wanna go there because they've been told their state government is "limited."

 

[JAL]

Hey man, when half the population of Asia, Central America, and South America dreams passionately of moving to California - they don't wanna go there because they've been told their state government is "limited."

20,000 Chinese "military age" single men have poured into California alone since last October. Complete with designer luggage and very nice clothes, as if they had just stepped off a plane from Peking and strolled down a jetway at LAX. They cannot be deported back to China. The U.S. has no legal means to do it (China won't take them). All the illegals pouring in there will soon have a rude awakening just as they are in all the other "sanctuaries".

The California Legislature, Gavin Newsom, San Francisco, and Oakland governments in particular (along with some other SF Bay area cities) are Looney Tunes. San Jose has a strict firearm insurance requirement and AFAIK it's still in force. Haven't been following that one. The Calif. AWB and Mag bans are biggies being litigated.

These two bills will be immediately pounced on by the major 2A orgs the day or day after Newsom signs them into law. I have to wonder if the state legislature's and Newsom's strategy is creating an endless avalanche of laws to be litigated in the Federal Courts.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

 

[jwamplerusa]

California, and some other States, really do need to be evicted from the Union. The Union is a two way street. The Federal Government was supposed to be limited and address those limited duties equally in protection of the States. The States were to comply with the Constitution, while supporting the Federal Governments.

States such as California are simply not upholding there end of the bargain (the Feds are not either), and are arguably subverting the Constitution of the United States.

Evict those States from the Union. The productive parts will quickly petition to return to the Union and can be readmitted. Just think of all the leftist congress critters that would eliminate.

 

[bgcatty]

When will Commiefornia just fall into the ocean?
Please?

 

[JAL]

When will Commiefornia just fall into the ocean?
Please?

On the other hand -- the antics of state legislatures and governors like California's (New York, Illinois, Washington State, Colorado and Oregon come to mind) do their part to getting landmark cases out of SCOTUS, even if it takes a while. If nothing else, I'll be waiting to see what the California Federal District Court(s) and 9th Circuit do when these two gems get to them. I've little doubt they'll pass.

 

[spencer rifle]

I wonder if there isn't a way to get some kind of three-strikes provision on district and circuit courts that get struck down by SCOTUS. You get only so many hand-slaps and then you are on probation, like none of your rulings or injunctions can take effect anywhere until ruled on by higher courts. Just to make sure adults who understand the Constitution get input first.

Yeah, I know it won't work, and could be a bad thing once the leftists get control of SCOTUS again.

 

[JAL]

I wonder if there isn't a way to get some kind of three-strikes provision on district and circuit courts that get struck down by SCOTUS. You get only so many hand-slaps and then you are on probation, like none of your rulings or injunctions can take effect anywhere until ruled on by higher courts. Just to make sure adults who understand the Constitution get input first.

Yeah, I know it won't work, and could be a bad thing once the leftists get control of SCOTUS again.

The only way to remove a US Constitution "Article III" Judge (District, Circuit Appellate or SCOTUS) is by impeachment in the House and conviction by 2/3 vote in the Senate. They're appointed for life and must otherwise die or resign (most resign in old age). Fed Judges have been impeached and convicted, but as with other impeachments, getting past the 2/3 Senate supermajority required makes it all but impossible. Fifteen have been impeached, eight convicted, four acquitted, and three resigned before proceedings were finished.

Be glad it's designed that way. You wouldn't want a judiciary beholding to those in political power, kowtowing to them. Might be convenient when your guys are at the helm, but becomes intolerable when someone else with nefarious purpose takes the helm. Constitution Article III was written that way to prevent a repeat of King George III's judges, who served at the King's Pleasure. He was notorious for immediately replacing those who made decisions and rulings he didn't like.

As bad as it may seem now in some regions, imagine what it would be like across the nation if current POTUS and/or Congress (Senate in particular) had control of what is currently a independent judiciary.

 

[bobzilla]

I see Big Red hasn't made it in here yet....
**** those **** sucking *************** ******* ****** ******* right in their ******* *** with a rusty barb wire wrapped baseball bat dipped in lemon juice.

 

[Bluedragon]

So if FOPA doesn't matter and can be ignored does that mean the Hughes ammendment is null and void too? Seeing how it got snuck into the FOPA bill to have a chance at "passing"

 

[JAL]

So if FOPA doesn't matter and can be ignored does that mean the Hughes ammendment is null and void too? Seeing how it got snuck into the FOPA bill to have a chance at "passing"

California state legislature can pass whatever bills it wants to and the governor can sign them into law with 100% complete impunity. Whether they're constitutional at state or federal level is for the courts to decide, and to force that, someone with standing must file the lawsuit challenging the law. I anticipate there will be federal lawsuits challenging both bills the day or the next business day after, Newsom signs them into law.

 

[Bluedragon]

California state legislature can pass whatever bills it wants to and the governor can sign them into law with 100% complete impunity. Whether they're constitutional at state or federal level is for the courts to decide, and to force that, someone with standing must file the lawsuit challenging the law. I anticipate there will be federal lawsuits challenging both bills the day or the next business day after, Newsom signs them into law.

California is on a roll with the unconstitutional antics lately, surely the two aren't related.

 

[JAL]

California is on a roll with the unconstitutional antics lately, surely the two aren't related.

View attachment 334885

It's crap like this that made happiness seeing California in my rear view mirror 29 years ago. It was bad then with street gangs, graffiti "tagging" everything in sight (including the fence around my home), illegal drugs, and crime, and getting worse each year. I cannot begin to imagine living there now with all the firearm laws they have now.

I predict the death of these two bill -- it's a matter of how far up the Fed Court chain they have to go to get them killed.

 

[04FXSTS]

California is on a roll with the unconstitutional antics lately, surely the two aren't related.

View attachment 334885

I really like the part where it says she is an "immigration rights activist." I could be wrong but that sounds to me like someone who would push for immigrants, legal or not, to be able to vote. Jim.

 

[Bluedragon]

I really like the part where it says she is an "immigration rights activist." I could be wrong but that sounds to me like someone who would push for immigrants, legal or not, to be able to vote. Jim.

I have no doubt about that. I also find it disturbing that foreigners from places like Bangladesh are being elected into our Government while being here for less than two years and a lot of them are eager to try and pass more restrictive gun laws for both purchase and carry.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2023/12/b...rginia-bars-restaurants-even-for-nondrinkers/

 

[JAL]

Guns and Gadgets (Jared Yanis) has a video on the Calif. Annual Registration Bill (Calif SB1160). As is customary in his YouTube channel, the first couple minutes are paid sponsorships.

 

[JAL]

Copper Jacket TV has a video on AB3067 -- the Insurance Bill creating a back door gun registry by requiring Insurers to require reporting all guns owned in detail including where and how they're stored, and for insurers to report their insured gun owners to California DOJ and State Legislature:

 

[Bluedragon]

Copper Jacket TV has a video on AB3067 -- the Insurance Bill creating a back door gun registry by requiring Insurers to require reporting all guns owned in detail including where and how they're stored, and for insurers to report their insured gun owners to California DOJ and State Legislature:

Litterally all of this sounds like the tomfoolery of the Third Reich during Weimar Germany's gun registration.

Besides violating the 2a, how does this not also violate privacy rights? it sure seems like it does.

 

[bgcatty]

Commiefornia, it’s politicians and their libtard sheeples should all fall into the ocean and make the USA a better place overnight!