Former San Francisco Mayor, current California Lieutenant Governor and likely future California Governor (and probable future presidential candidate) Gavin Newsom has this ONE WEIRD TRICK to render the Second Amendment toothless.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. So keep your arms, but what if we instead decided to regulate the BULLETS??? And he's proposing it as a ballot initiative, to skip the NRA-bought-and-paid-for legislators.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la...olumn.html

Quote:Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom never has feared charging into a blazing barrage of bullets.

While taking on enemy fire, he attracts grateful allies. Many people initially question his wisdom but eventually wind up admiring the boldness.

Newsom is attacking again, this time challenging one of America's most dreaded political machines: the gun lobby.

"Risky? Sure it is," he told me. "These guys are exceptionally gifted at intimidation and bullying and are adept grass-roots organizers.

"But their home court is legislative chambers across the country. I think they're very vulnerable in public. They can intimidate the politicians, but I don't think they can intimidate the public."

Newsom, 48, who plans to run for governor in 2018, last week announced he'll lead a ballot initiative next year to significantly bolster California's already tough gun laws.

He proposes a statewide ban on possession — not just sales — of high-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. San Francisco and the city of Los Angeles already have approved similar bans. Newsom also wants to require instant background checks — the first in the nation — for every ammunition purchase. After all, guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

There was an immediate response — you could call it semi-automatic — from Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition: "If Gavin Newsom wants to declare war on law-abiding gun owners and 2nd Amendment rights, we're certainly going to bring the fight to him."

This guy is a fearless rising star. He'll take over for Jerry Brown and will be running against Julian Castro in 2024 for the Dem nomination.

It's already failed.

(10-23-2015 10:17 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's already failed.

Yep, and the fact someone would look for a way "work around" the United States Constitution is more telling that trying to ban any bullet.

I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

(10-23-2015 10:20 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

So did Led Zepplin.

There are Supreme Court cases straight out of the 10s and 20s on this issue.

This is a non-starter.

How exactly would one regulate bullets?

(10-23-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How exactly would one regulate bullets?

One way is to do the same thing done with cigarettes.

(10-23-2015 10:20 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

It's already on the books in Los Angeles and San Francisco. He's proposing taking it statewide.

It's unfortunate we need to work around it but SCOTUS' interpretation of the 2A leaves us no choice.

(10-23-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How exactly would one regulate bullets?

Draconian stuff that they could do

20 years in prison for not declaring all of them you have to the state
Taxing them massively
20 years in prison for importing them or possessing bullets not on the registry
Requiring every bullet fired by reported to the state

All of that would be Constitutional. Unless the courts declared that the right to privacy extends to bullets. I think that would be a hard argument to win.

(10-23-2015 10:27 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There are Supreme Court cases straight out of the 10s and 20s on this issue.

This is a non-starter.

Someone needs to tell LA and SF then. Citation?

(10-23-2015 10:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How exactly would one regulate bullets?

One way is to do the same thing done with cigarettes.

That's what I was thinking. Would it really be so awful if states placed a tax on bullets.

The money raised could go to victims of gun violence.

Isn't that a win, win?

(10-23-2015 10:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:17 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's already failed.

Yep, and the fact someone would look for a way "work around" the United States Constitution is more telling that trying to ban any bullet.

I guarantee this initiative which would float like a lead ballot in front of the supreme court, will cost more than the bengazi hearing expenses you guys have been bitching about.

(10-23-2015 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How exactly would one regulate bullets?

One way is to do the same thing done with cigarettes.

That's what I was thinking. Would it really be so awful if states placed a tax on bullets.

The money raised could go to victims of gun violence.

Isn't that a win, win?

Just another tax? Why is that always the answer? Especially when gun deaths are down overall?

There’s been a big change in how people are dying from gunshots in America

How exactly would one regulate drugs? How exactly would one regulate anything?

Quote:He proposes a statewide ban on possession — not just sales — of high-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. San Francisco and the city of Los Angeles already have approved similar bans. Newsom also wants to require instant background checks — the first in the nation — for every ammunition purchase. After all, guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

Sounds reasonable to me. And hopefully there'd be no gun show loopholes.

Wow progressives would be funny if not so dangerous..

"we need to defang an amendment to the constitution with taxes and or other regulation to get around the law and that's good. But a free photo id to vote is a violation of your rights and can't be tolerated..

(10-23-2015 10:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How exactly would one regulate bullets?

One way is to do the same thing done with cigarettes.

That's what I was thinking. Would it really be so awful if states placed a tax on bullets.

The money raised could go to victims of gun violence.

Isn't that a win, win?

Just another tax? Why is that always the answer? Especially when gun deaths are down overall?

There’s been a big change in how people are dying from gunshots in America

What would be your solution?

Newsom's ex wife BTW is Fox News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle. That'll make for an interesting dynamic when he runs.

(10-23-2015 10:41 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Newsom's ex wife BTW is Fox News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle.

She has a nice rack but that's about it. That mouth looks like it belongs on "The Joker".

(10-23-2015 10:39 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How exactly would one regulate bullets?

One way is to do the same thing done with cigarettes.

That's what I was thinking. Would it really be so awful if states placed a tax on bullets.

The money raised could go to victims of gun violence.

Isn't that a win, win?

Just another tax? Why is that always the answer? Especially when gun deaths are down overall?

There’s been a big change in how people are dying from gunshots in America

What would be your solution?

Definitely not another tax. Honestly, given gun statistics, not sure any "solution" is needed. I don't fall for the ol' "Well, something has to be done" nonsense. That's just a technique to get people to go with emotion rather than with their brain.