Gutting the Second Amendment

You know you live in the wrong state when each and every year the dimbulbs in Sacramento conjure up another 900 or so new laws. Fortunately, whichever governor we happen to have at the time usually vetoes about half of them. But that still leaves more than 400 new laws we must cope with each New Years Day. Does anybody out there believe we need 400 new laws each year?

One of my favorites from '09 was the Paris Hilton Law. That's the one that makes it a crime to drive with your pet on your lap. Thank God that's taken care of. With annual $20 Billion shortfalls in our State budget protecting pets from their owners is a really high priority. One of the more ridiculous from the 2010 batch is the new law requiring you to humanely euthanize your rodents before feeding them to your pet Boa Constrictor. I'm NOT making this up! These laws are foolish, of course, and are listed simply to give the reader an insight as to the level of intellect, or lack of same, so prevalent in the Capitol these days. Must be something in the air.

But there are other laws forced upon us that are seriously flawed. Laws that impinge upon our freedoms. Laws that are anti-business. Laws that are patently unconstitutional on their face. Laws that should never have been introduced, or passed, or signed into effect. One such law is Assembly Bill 962.

Our action hero governator signed AB962 into law last October. It calls for sweeping new controls on the sale of handgun ammunition in California. When it takes effect in February, 2011, it will mandate that those wishing to purchase ammunition for handguns must jump through some serious and unprecedented hoops. First, one may only acquire ammo from a certified ammunition dealer. A classification, by the way, that does not exist as of this writing. No more Internet orders or UPS shipments will be permitted. You'll have to fill out a Federal form requesting permission to purchase. Permission, by the way, which may not be granted. Your thumbprint must be attached. This form will be provided to the Feds and included in a national database of ammo purchasers (if the Feds know who has the ammunition, doesn't that mean they know who has the guns?). The dealer must remodel their stores at their own expense to make sure ammo is kept out of their customers' sight and reach. And, you'll be limited to 50 rounds of ammo per month. Yep, that's right, 50 rounds. Oh, and if you want to get rid of your ammo after you've purchased it, too bad. It will be a felony to give it or sell it to anyone, including members of your own family. To do that will require the dealer to become involved once again to handle the transfer. More forms, more thumbprints, more fees, more nanny state controls on our freedoms.

In 46 of our fifty states you have but to walk into a gun dealer, put down your money, undergo a background check and walk out with a handgun. Or two or three or four. Not so in California. One pistol per month. No more. Forty of our United States permit concealed carry of firearms. Not so in California. You must petition your county's sheriff for permission, which is almost never granted. Just yesterday a new Federal law kicked in permitting the carry of weapons in national parks. The 2nd Amendment guarantees you that right (what part of "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't they understand?). But California is going in the opposite direction. It seems that liberals believe that it's no longer necessary to take our guns from us. They'll just do their best to prevent us from acquiring the ammunition we need to use them (maybe we can beat burglars to death with them). And in doing so they are also screwing the residents of our state out of the tax revenues which would result from their sale. Does anyone think that hundreds - perhaps thousands - of Californians won't be taking a trip to Nevada or Utah or Arizona soon to buy their ammo in whatever quantity they wish, while also saving the CA State sales taxes on those same purchases?

Those who advocate that the 1st Amendment's right of free speech is absolute are often the same as those who do their very best to gut the 2nd Amendment. I've got a question: Isn't limiting the access to ammunition for those desirous of exercising their 2nd Amendment rights the same as limiting oxygen to those desirous of exercising their 1st Amendment rights?

I leave you with this thought: 100,000,000 American owners of 200,000,000 guns didn't kill anybody yesterday. But more than 1,000,000 times per year they successfully defend themselves and others from burglars, rapists, carjackers, killers and various other bad guys. Does it make sense to arbitrarily limit their ability to do so by reducing their access to ammunition? It does if you're one of the bad guys. Or a feckless, bloated, has-been actor turned failed politician.