NEW GUN LAWS FOR 2020
- If you have a gun-violence restraining order, you’ll be prohibited from buying a firearm for up to five years, under AB 12 by Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks. It takes effect Sept. 1.
- An employer, coworker, employee or teacher can seek a gun-violence restraining order from a court, allowing police to remove firearms from someone making threats, under AB 61 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco. It takes effect Sept. 1.
- You can’t buy guns in California if you are prohibited from buying guns in another state, under AB 164 by Assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes, D-Corona. The bill takes effect Jan. 1.
- California law enforcement agencies before Jan. 1, 2021 must develop and adopt written policies and standards regarding the use of gun violence restraining orders under Irwin’s AB 339.
- Suicide warning labels must be on gun packages and in gun stores by June 1, under Irwin’s AB 645. The handgun safety certificate test also will cover the topic of suicide.
- Certain gun “precursor” parts must be sold through a licensed vendor under AB 879 by Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson. Provisions of the bill begin to take effect Jan. 1, but others don’t until July 1, 2024 or 2025.
- No more firearms and ammunition can be sold at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego after Jan. 1, 2021, under AB 893 by Assemblyman Todd Gloria, D-San Diego.
- The $100 cap on processing fees for concealed firearm licenses is going away with the passage of AB 1297 by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento. County sheriffs can now charge “an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application,” according to the bill, which takes effect Jan. 1.
- If you have a gun-violence restraining order against you, you can fill out a form that says you’re willing to relinquish your guns, under Ting’s AB 1493. The bill takes effect Sept. 1.
- Nonprofits “that are at high risk of terrorist attack due to ideology, beliefs, or mission” can apply for state grants of up to $200,000 from a newly formed State Nonprofit Security Grant Program to beef up their onsite security. The bill, AB 1548 by Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-San Fernando Valley, was in response to mass shootings at mosques, churches and synagogues.
- Starting Jan. 1, the fees Californians pay the state when purchasing a firearm will climb to $38.19, with the passage of AB 1669 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda. The bill also updated California’s legal code to reflect that gun show regulations apply to ammunition vendors.
- If you’re younger than 21, you can’t buy a semiautomatic center-fire rifle starting Jan. 1. SB 61 by State Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, also prohibits Californians from buying more than one semiautomatic center-fire rifle in a 30-day period beginning on July 1, 2021.
- Beginning Jan. 1, the owner of any unlocked gun taken out of a home by a child or a “prohibited person” can be charged with a crime and penalized with a 10-year ban on gun ownership under Portantino’s SB 172. The bill also set gun storage requirements for nursing homes.
- The number of transactions a gun seller can make without a firearms dealer license is now limited to six per year under SB 376. Portantino’s bill also sets a cap of 50 total firearms within those six transactions. The bill takes effect Jan. 1.
List via the Sacramento Bee.
California wants to keep their top spot as the nation’s most anti-2A (or as they may term it, ‘firearm safety conscious’) state.
And for what? The only rule in the list that makes a modicum of sense is the security grant program for non-profits. $200,000 is a decent enough budget to put surveillance, harder doors, and perhaps even staff in place to respond to an attack or other emergency. Being California, they would be remiss to not include earthquakes, fire, and your average everyday medical emergencies among their preparatory list. But what do I know? I just do this for a living around a bunch of folks who do that for a living.
One gun a month for their neutered semi-automatics, 21 to buy, an ammo background check system with a 20% or better false positive rate, ‘Red Flag’ mayhem and no written accountability until 2021. Meanwhile that same order can ban your Second Amendment right from you for five years at a time, all without a conviction.
Here’s a fun one. Beginning Jan. 1, the owner of any unlocked gun taken out of a home by a child or a “prohibited person” can be charged with a crime and penalized with a 10-year ban on gun ownership under Portantino’s SB 172. The bill also set gun storage requirements for nursing homes.
Don’t know your friend or family member is prohibited under some other state’s rule? They get caught using your gun, not dangerously, just using it, even with your permission,.. done, 2A gone for you in California.
You can only sell your property up to six times per year. The other limit of 50 firearms seems rather stupid too, more like an attempt to seem like their trying to influence curbing unlicensed for-profit sales. But the real limit, the true limit, is 6. I hope your firearm turnover rate is low. Because if not, even during just one year, you are an unlicensed dealer and a criminal.
Firearms now need a ‘suicide warning’ on the package, it’s California so I’m sure they cause cancer too. Taxes are up, the State fees are rising on purchases and applying for a concealed carry license (which will now surpass Michigan’s fee by an unknown amount). Just buying a gun nets the state $38.19, on just the fact it is a gun, before any other tax.
All the efforts for naught…
Every law they pass is said to target a specific aspect of ‘gun violence’, usually with a mass casualty attack being the most visible and prominent. All of this while overlooking the abysmal statistical likelihood that massive and intrusive efforts will prevent an attack because of what an attack like that entails.
The rare individuals motivated to indiscriminate or targeted mass violence will not be deterred by any provision herein. They will adjust for it. The data supports that such people are often at least collegiate level educated, only some have prohibitive criminal backgrounds (that didn’t prevent the attacks), and these events happen with an infrequency amongst the general population and possess so many variables that they cannot be ‘filtered’ from the general population with anything like reliability.
This leaves effective measures weighted heavily on the response end of the spectrum for reducing casualties and not the prevention end. That’s why that security measures grant makes some semblance of sense as it funds reactive measures in case of an event.
California continues to be on about the right to ‘safety’ and not ‘defense’. The state saying that your are secure in your person and belongings is not and cannot be a right of ‘safety’. It is a right that the state backs you in that what is yours is yours, and that if you exercise personal force up to a lethal level in a justified manor the state still backs you. It is the assurance of a legal status, not a physical one.
The only person who can most influence that physical state of being is still, always, and forever will be, you.