California governor signs stringent new gun control laws

It only has one meaning other than being a crime.

1. An act that disregards an agreement or a right

 

I've already given you an example of what is considered constitutional infringement of a right.

 

Aw, I thought I would give you the additional benefit anyway.

No, I don't think bad is the right word to describe these laws. Disregard for the rights of others and the Constitution that states the right would do it more accurately.

The one about magazine capacity of five sounds incremental. Prior laws have tried 10 and this make me wounder when they will try one.
This intern, makes me thing back in time to my youth, back in the 40s, when I like to read the yearly addition of the Stoeger Arms catalog.

It listed the arms available from around the world, and none were banned in this country, but some were in other countries and you could find that in this catalog.

It had a section in the back, listing the arms available for sale to the indigenousness populations in various places around the world, Africa, The Dutch East Indies, colonies mostly. All of the weapons legal to sell to these areas were single shot small caliber rifles and larger caliber muzzle loaded rifles. Of course these decisions on what
would be legal to sell in these areas was done in places like London, Brussels, Amsterdam, not locally.

It seems there is similar thinking today now among the left, about the people they would like to control and the worth of the Constitution that lists their rights.
I suppose elitist need games to play, it provides humor in a dull life.

 

Oh I think what you have given me is an understanding of the value you have for an agreement. But you had already done that sometime back.

 

Link

You can keep insisting that any gun control law at all is unconstitutional, it's okay by me. But if Connecticut's more restrictive law wasn't overturned, it's pretty unlikely that California's will.

 

I can't figure out what would be the thing to do with the Browning carbine I have under this law. The magazine hold 11 rounds of .357 ammunition and 12 rounds of
38 special. Would this law require you to turn in the gun since the magazine is part of the weapon? Geez, it has a value of about $1000. Sure would hate to have to give it too them. Might move instead.

Are they really requiring people to "give" them magazines? Or are they buying them?

 

You misread the result.

This is another reason to vote for Trump. This ruling did not set a precedent, not a full court. Of course it is an infringement, any man that understand the value of an agreement would know this. So would a judge that gives a shit about agreements and rights.

 

These discussions are valuable, not because we will ever solve a thing are even agree on anything. It simple solidifies a principle that I have used quite sometime now.
Before you ever negotiate with someone to reach and agreement, you need to identify their character type. It is really not prudent to put any trust in and agreement with a person that is of the feeling type. While the commitment to the the agreement at the time maybe real at present time, the commitment will change when the feeling changes, without regard to the logic. So, it is most valuable to be able to determine a persons character type before you make any agreements.

It also lets you know whether to attempt persuasion or which type of arguments to put forth, feeling or logic. This may require you to hire a negotiator capable of doing the needed persuasion. Loggerheads is the result, handled without the understanding or quickly broken agreements. But all agreements with feeling types maybe broken when the feeling is in favor. However, many times this is good enough, longevity is not needed for every agreements to be useful. Not the case with the Constitution and rights.

Study and practice can provide the ability to determine character type, but it gets a little tricky to differentiate between some types. Time is need to prove consistency.
Other opinions from people that can do this are useful too.

This battle never ends, this is battle to staff the court. This is another reason to vote for Trump. One more feeling type on the court will not be good.

 

I know that no precedent was set in that particular case, that but as the part I bolded said, "it is part of a trend in which the justices have given at least tacit approval to broad gun-control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them."

And "the right to bear arms" is already restricted, because there are many weapons you can't legally have, like NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) weapons. The interpretation of the Constitution determines how much restriction is allowed, not whether or not restrictions are possible.

 

Hell that agreement was reach many years ago. The only difference now is the court has lost some logical thinkers. Perhaps fixed shortly.

 

That is some wacky stuff you're spouting there.

You do realize The Second Amendment is available for all to read and see that your entire post is utter nonsense possibly derived fromand based on an overindulgence of Disney movies, SALON, and Huffington Post blogs?

The Second Amendment quite clearly and succinctly forbids the enactment and/or enforcement of any government control, delay, alteration, prevention, limitation... of any American citizen's right to bear arms.

 

You'll need to petition the Supreme Court to watch fewer Disney movies and read less Salon and HuffPo blogs, not me.

 

I take it you are in favor of making him First Mate on the next shot to Mars. I marked it down.