Remember, they aren’t trying to take anyone’s guns, and they just want common sense reform. They’re not going to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. They’re angels!!!!
Can NC ensure ‘safe’ guns? Democrats want to ban handguns with dangerous design flaws
A trio of Democrats want North Carolina to follow California’s footsteps in governing gun safety.
The “Ensure Safe Handguns” bill instructs the NC Department of Public Safety to prohibit the use of handguns that have design flaws endangering users. The bill instructs the department to use California’s Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as a model.
California has prohibited the sale of hundreds of handguns, affecting popular brands like Beretta, Colt and Smith & Wesson.
The department would conduct firing and other tests to determine which firearms are unsafe. Antiques, theater props and guns designed for use in the Olympic Games would be exempt from testing.
The bill itself would require that anyone who owns one of the non-certified handguns turn it in or face a misdemeanor.
Paul Valone, president of the gun-rights advocacy group Grassroots North Carolina, said the bill shows that Democrats “are trying to incrementally ban the ownership of firearms, one step at a time.” He thinks it would drive up the cost of handguns.
He’s not worried about the bill now, because he doesn’t think Republicans will even consider it.
“But people who value the 2nd Amendment should take note,” Valone said. “If Democrats win (control of the NC General Assembly this November), we would eat this bill and others just like it.”
True, it will die in committee now, because the GOP holds a supermajority. But, this is what the gun grabbers do: pass something, then expand on it.
Steve Oetzell noted in the Daily Breeze back in 2015
In 2000, California passed SB 15, creating the so-called Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. This bill mandated that, in order to be sold in the state of California, all “pistols†(semi-automatic or not) shall be subject to a series of “drop tests†to determine the gun’s resistance to discharging when accidentally dropped. Additionally, it stipulated firing requirements to test the structural integrity of the gun.
This, presumably, was a good safety law, as the intent was to protect the public from poorly made guns. But rather than creating a much shorter list of unsafe handguns that are not approved for sale, the law created an all-encompassing list of “approved†handguns which, effectively, made all guns unsafe until the manufacturer paid a fee and submitted their handgun for testing. Once approved, a yearly fee was required to keep a handgun on the list. If the fee was not paid or the gun not resubmitted, it fell off of the list, once again, becoming an “unsafe†handgun.
Worse yet, one might argue that a citizen’s rights should not have an expiration date based on the expiration of a government fee. It also did not matter that nearly all firearms manufacturers already subject their product to testing and quality control far more rigorous than anything the state of California could ever dream up.
Guns have to be retested. But,
But that wasn’t enough. In 2003, California passed SB 489 requiring two very questionable “safety features†to be installed on any new handgun submitted for testing, approval, and addition to the list. These two features were the loaded chamber indicator (a device indicating that there is a bullet chambered in the gun) and a magazine disconnect (a device that will not allow the gun to fire if there is a bullet in the chamber when the magazine has been removed from the gun).
Suddenly, the list of laboratory drop tested firearms had been distorted into a vehicle used to enforce mandated “safety features.†This was not the intent of the original SB 15.
And then California required microstamping. And fewer and fewer handguns were available to the residents of California, who already had to deal with a huge amount of regulations and rules and laws that restricted law abiding citizens from using their 2nd Amendment Right.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the Masterpiece Cake case — and on the surface, it would appear to be a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. The justices ruled 7 to 2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the religious freedom of a baker, Jack Phillips, when it sanctioned him for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012.
The only thing that will truly enshrine equal protection under the law for all Americans, including L.G.B.T.Q. people, is an amendment to the Constitution.
Since President Donald Trump took office, ICE has put a renewed premium on workplace raids, and recently announced that it had “already†doubled the number of raids between October and May over the year before – a step towards its pronounced aim at quadrupling the rate practised by the previous administration.
The government should make it mandatory for large companies and pension funds to report their exposure to climate change risks, a committee of MPs has said.
The report urges the government to lay down in law the duty that pension funds and other large asset owners have to consider the long-term value of their investment. In light of this duty, institutional investors should be considering environmental risks, the committee said. (snip)
