Whilst speaking to a number of you on the phone, the subject of gun law nearly always raises its’ head at some point. I feel that these views should be given a bit more air for feed-back by others. I have put this page together so that individuals can give their opinions on gun law and other issues, not just in the UK but world-wide.

The views published here are not necessarily my own, but in the interests of balance, I would be happy to consider all views sent to me for publication whether a friend of our sport/hobby or not.

California for years has been under the control of easily-manipulated college kids, hippies left over from the 60's who smoked way too much weed, and rich elitist who totally worship the idea of being little kings.

The Barret 50, and all 50 Cal centerfire rifles, were banned for sale and transfer in this state even though there is not one single instance on record of one being used in a crime-anywhere in the US.

Next up for a law being passed is that no new gun in California can be sold unless it comes with some sort of sci-fi computerized fingerprint reader built in, and designed so the weapon can’t fire unless the "registered" owner is holding it-never mind that no one makes any reliable technology for that anyways.

Governors are like Presidents here, they have veto power and some veto override on the State Legislature. But they can’t create or modify laws either. Being political animals, and since it's about the money in order to keep office, and appease the Media, concessions are made. Here, "concessions" mean something different, give the Democrat/Liberal party everything it wants, no matter how unfair or unreasonable, or the press will make up stuff and lie out it's arse in order to eliminate your chance of re-election and destroy your political reputation.

Since most of the money in the state is under the control of "robber barons" (like California’s Old West) they pay to assist politicos who give them more control and influence over the "little people". This includes eliminating the possibility of the general population protecting itself (thereby relying more on the police/Government) or worse, giving the people the means to resist a government that is out of control.

Our First Amendment about free speech doesn't carry much weight when the government simply has to ignore what the crowds complain about (that's why there's always "protests" here in California, and nothing changes). When that crowd is armed, well, government has to actually do it's job and do what the people want.

As for politicos, we have a terms over here who employ "gerrymandering". It's where voting districts for legislative seats are cut into bizarre illogical shapes, based on what polls tell them that people will vote for. You cut out the districts to make sure that the Democrat leaning voters outweigh the Republican Californians, or work to concentrate the conservative votes in as few districts as possible while creating more liberal districts to offset in the Legislature. This creates amoeba-like maps where they make sure to grab any college town and attach it to a hardworking mill town, where voting age (and unemployed) native kids have more time to "politicize" and more than offset those hardworking stiffs too busy keeping their mortgage paid.

This creates a group that cries loudly about personal freedom (to do drugs, to sneak into the country illegally, to interfere with how families are created and raised) but works hard to make sure basic rights as determined by our basic laws of the land (our Constitution) are broken and diluted. Some unconstitutional gun control measures have been presented, and voted down, by the same legislators year after year after year, and are defeated, until it's attached to some other important bill, which must be passed in it's entirety or not at all. Then after continual failure, it gets through. No legislators ever try that hard for “any” other Californian issue, except maybe for drug legalization.

Kind of makes you wonder, with all other hippy-dippy, feel-good, and even legitimate legal changes that need to be made, why eliminating the Second Amendment is the one thing that gets top Democrat/Liberal priority for over two decades and counting.

And as for Hollywood, "Dirty Harry"'s "do ya feel lucky, punk?" pistol is now illegal to purchase or transfer in California. Seems guns have to be on a limited "white list" to be legal. After a couple of years, approved pistols "fall off" the list and become "unsafe" or "illegal" after two years, unless the manufacturer still makes them, and sends them for the California Department of Justice "Approval Process".

Custom automatics and Olympic semi autos are not submitted for approval, so they can’t be bought, and if you had one that was approved two years ago, you can only transfer it to your children, or sell it out of state to an out of state resident. The AMT Automag that Callahan’s’ (Clint Eastwood) partner carried, has also fallen off the list and can’t be purchased by a Californian resident.

At least your government was honest enough to call it a ban, instead of exploiting sneaky loopholes and making laws that are bans, but pretending a different name changes the truth.

-Rick

A Californian Shooter