antimongo

Interesting, hadn’t heard about the situation in SF. That’s unfortunate.

And yes… good old SB2. CA had a relatively lax CCW policy, until we became a “shall issue” state. Now there’s all this policy reform.

If the final part of SB2 kicks in, it’ll be pointless to have a CCW. The last part changes private property that’s open to the public from a default permitted carry, to a default not permitted.

So any business that wants to allow lawful CCW would need to clearly place a sign to opt-in. Which isn’t happening in this state lol.

Fortunately that last part is still being “stayed”. But so was the entire bill at one point. So I’m not holding my breath.

I totally acknowledge that we need gun control, but not restrictions. And going after CCW holders? Literally the owners with the highest level of training? Most compliant with the law? Bananas.

But anyway, I see where you’re originally coming from. It is kinda death by a thousand cuts. Slowly eroding away at gun rights. In the worst way… Criminals could care less about what’s legal, hence criminal.

As far as CCW policy, it’s my understand that cities are very aligned with the state DOJ. I’ve looked at a few policies in the past across cities, and they’re basically cookie-cutter.

As far as issuing, yea, it’s up to your local sherif.

I wasn’t aware of local-specific excise taxes for firearms. The state does have that 11% one though.

Very curious about that renter ban, haven’t heard of that one.

Not trying to be argumentative, just enjoy the nuances of CA gun laws lol

And I agree, on your sentiment. I don’t have any issues with firearm regulation, I just want it applied with common sense. The state of CA’s gun laws feel like they’re a shitty compromise. The guns right’s group fight against the “ban all guns” group, and what’s left is this. Both sides are uncompromising and take little wins here and there. But the environment it creates is weird, and doesn’t flow well. And definitely doesn’t do any favors for law abiding owners.

I’m not aware of any significant local laws in CA. Other than the SF law outlawing sales.

Which one are you referring to?

While California does have a lot more regulation around guns, I don’t think it’s necessary prohibitive. As much as the right claims it is.

We’ve got a written test, takes all of 20 minutes, not difficult if you have common sense and all the questions are online.

Then you have to demonstrate to the salesman that you can safely operate the firearm (load and unload). I’d hope someone purchasing a firearm would be capable of this.

Finally there’s the 10 day cooldown period. So you can’t walk out same day with the gun. I do think this one is kinda annoying. It totally makes sense for your first gun, but why do I have to wait every time?

The rest just comes down to model and configuration availability. Restricted to the handgun roster, but there’s still a decent amount available. Restricted to 10 round magazines, I don’t like this one either. And generally restricted to featureless shotguns and rifles.

But if you wanted to, you could go today and start the purchase of a featureless AR15-style rifle with a detachable 10 round magazine. And you’d pick it up 10 days from now. So I don't think it’s extremely prohibitive.

I was talking with a colleague about this. They’ve had a lot of “gang culture” exposure.

Their opinion was it wasn’t a MS13 tattoo.

They said MS13 tattoos were notorious for being massive and blatant, not secretive and subtle.

They elaborated that gang tattoos are used for “repping” and need to be immediately clear who you’re repping for, otherwise it defeats the purpose of showing reputation and providing protection.

Just my $0.02

I think this is a good idea. Especially the part that allows those who can demonstrate a higher level of responsibility, complete additional safety courses and background checks, to own these banned firearms.

Bans are generally just bans for people who follow the law. So I like these exceptions for those who are willing to “extra follow the law.”

Obviously this assumes that the exceptions will actually be given, since it’s up to your local sheriffs discretion. Could be abused.

With you on that. This is a bit of a “bad example.”

And someone looking in from the outside could totally make the conclusion that “they (lemmy) are totally taking this out of context! They’re a felon!”

Like you say, there’s a menagerie of actions done by this administration that are dangerous and telling of their goals.

I agree with your sentiment.

The cartoon is clearly in extremely bad taste and dehumanizing.

However, the context that she had been previously convicted for fentanyl trafficking is important.

It’s tough though, because if we put the cartoon aside, this is technically what they should be doing. I don’t disagree with deporting felon immigrants.

But then you consider all the history of this administration that got us here… it’s really hard to agree with them.

Yea I think within the last year or so the fee was removed.

Here’s a great site to do exactly this!

https://www.thetruesize.com/

Great idea! Just posted!

Here’s a not-so-fun read tangential to this guy.