The newly proposed gun control policies would align the rest of the United States with California gun laws. Gun owners, quit complaining.
President Obama is not going to take your guns away — unless they are assault rifles. In that case, as a California resident you shouldn’t have them anyway. The proposals concerning gun control that President Obama is presenting to Congress mirrors California, and contains legislative support and allocation of federal grants that would help create safer schools in the event of a shooting and increase funding for mental health programs.
California citizens are not affected by the proposed gun laws, because California has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. Any California gun owner must pass the Handgun Safety Certificate, register any guns they own and are subject to a background check, according to the California Bureau of Firearms website.
President Obama’s proposals, according to the Huffington Post, that directly affect gun owners themselves are: a national ban on all assault rifles and no more than 10 live rounds per magazine (all mass shooters this year had magazines larger than this). The Department of Justice has to publish an annual report of all the lost and stolen hand guns, as well as improvements on tracing the life of all guns, from manufacturer to dealer to purchaser. All of these are in line with California gun laws. Even if those proposals are passed, California still is the national model for gun safety.
The majority of President Obama’s proposal to Congress on gun control largely consisted of allocation of a series of federal grants and budgets for increased safety training within schools, and training school and support staff to recognize mental illness. The Huffington Post reports that President Obama also included in the budgets for an increase of 15,000 more police on the streets around the United States.
While school shootings are preventable, the monetary support to prevent mass shootings is imperative–money could be used to have grief counselors or to fund training of teachers in how to react to a gunman on school grounds. Increased funding can also help teachers identify possible threats and how to react accordingly.
A major theme of the proposals was increased funding for care, awareness, education and diagnosis of mental illnesses. Mental illness-related costs and treatment would be covered by medicaid and all health insurance plans cover mental health treatment as well as drug abuse recovery.
This part of the bill is very important as many of the recent mass shooters are considered mentally unstable. Increased awareness of mental illness can help prevent mass shootings if people are able to recognize and report to the proper authorities those who might be potentially dangerous.
I do realize that there are many out there who have a sincere interest in guns, those who use them for hunting or sport. These law-abiding citizens are usually the responsible gun owners. What scares me is not the average gun owner, but the extreme cases–such as the Sandy Hook and Aurora shooters.
In these extreme situations, the shooters were considered to be mentally unstable, but had acquired their firearms through legal loopholes. The bill that President Obama is presenting to Congress for approval addresses those concerns. Gun reform is not seeking to restrict the law-abiding gun owner, rather shooters such as those at Sandy Hook and Aurora.
The proposals President Obama has submitted to Congress are reasonable, one that many California citizens will have no problem abiding to. The hullaballo about “Obama taking away our guns,” is a theory that is based on rhetoric and just a rumor. Unless you have a massive stash of assault rifles, clearly, Obama is not coming after your guns.
February 7, 2013 at 8:39 pm
Bullshit they are! I for one won’t give anything up but also when things get worse, people with your outlook will be wishing you had people with guns around. As a member of law enforcement, I will tell you first hand that people who don’t have guns for defense and such are sitting ducks.
February 8, 2013 at 8:58 am
“The newly proposed gun control policies would align the rest of the United States with California gun laws. Gun owners, quit complaining.” A lot of people already have a lot of complaints about current California gun laws, so I’m not sure how this makes Obama’s proposals “fair”.
“President Obama is not going to take your guns away — unless they are assault rifles. In that case, as a California resident you shouldn’t have them anyway.” That statement is simply inaccurate. All current assault weapon ban proposals would take away several non-assault weapon guns that are currently legal in CA. Look at the newly proposed restrictions on shotguns. Look at the new restrictions on Ruger Mini-14s. Look at the new restrictions on belt fed guns, which includes WWII relics…
And to this day, not a single person has been able to explain how an “assault weapon” is functionally more dangerous than a semi-auto hunting rifle or otherwise worthy of such a ban.
“California citizens are not affected by the proposed gun laws, because California has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. Any California gun owner must pass the Handgun Safety Certificate, register any guns they own and are subject to a background check, according to the California Bureau of Firearms website.” Again, this statement is simply inaccurate. Besides the new restrictions already mentioned, not all guns are required to be registered and not all transfers are subject to a background check (also on the CA DOJ website). For example: transfers between a parent and child do not need a background check. Rifles and shotguns are not registered.
“What scares me is not the average gun owner, but the extreme cases–such as the Sandy Hook and Aurora shooters. In these extreme situations, the shooters were considered to be mentally unstable, but had acquired their firearms through legal loopholes.” Really? I was unaware “murdering your mother and stealing her guns” was a “legal loophole”, as was the case with the Sandy Hook shooter. And the Aurora shooter passed background checks and bought his guns from a licensed gun dealer. Where’s the loophole?
“Gun reform is not seeking to restrict the law-abiding gun owner, rather shooters such as those at Sandy Hook and Aurora.” And yet you will restrict what I can and cannot own, despite my law-abiding nature. Even if gun reform isn’t “seeking” to restrict law-abiding gun owners, that *is* certainly the end result.
“The proposals President Obama has submitted to Congress are reasonable, one that many California citizens will have no problem abiding to. The hullaballo about “Obama taking away our guns,” is a theory that is based on rhetoric and just a rumor. Unless you have a massive stash of assault rifles, clearly, Obama is not coming after your guns.” Please tell me how making certain cosmetic features of firearms (like pistol grips and thumbhole stocks) is “reasonable.” Seeing as the definition of “assault weapon” keeps changing and getting more strict, it’s difficult to say Obama (or other politicians) aren’t coming for my guns. Apparently, under the newly proposed assault weapon ban, my exhibition competition shotgun will be banned because I can fit 6 rounds into it. That extra round must be really dangerous…