CA Senate votes to exempt itself from gun laws

| June 7, 2011

In a 28-2 vote yesterday, the California Senate voted to exempt it’s members from the oppressive and pointless gun laws that it has inflicted on the rest of California according to The Washington Times;

Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.

This is just one of many bills Golden State politicians used this legislative session to set themselves apart from the little people, the ones who pay their inflated salaries.

This is less than a month after the California legislature voted to ban open carry for the peasants;

The bill, AB144, would make it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in a public place, street or vehicle except in some unincorporated areas. It was approved 45-29 largely along party lines and moves to the Senate.

It makes you wonder what they have in store for us, doesn’t it?

Families shouldn’t have to fear for their safety if they’re out for a walk and see someone packing a pistol, [Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Portantino of La Canada Flintridge] said, and police shouldn’t have to answer calls to respond to those fears.

He said a loophole in current law allows people to carry unloaded weapons in public even if they’re carrying ammunition on the same belt.

“You don’t need a handgun to order a cheeseburger,” he said.

We don’t need nanny Democrats to tell us what we do and don’t need, either.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. I worked as a cop for over 30 years in CA, when I retired I moved to Arizona mostly because of the useless gun laws in CA.
    A good citizen of Arizona can purchase a gun easier and take it home the same day than a cop in CA can.
    A cop in CA has to still wait 10 days before they can pick up any firearm from a dealer…or if their chief will give them a letter, they can pick it up the same day. Come on…a friggen cop who’s been through background, psyc screening etc has to wait 10 days to pick up a gun when they carry one every day? It makes no sense.

  2. Rational thought says:

    I here you CI Roller Dude that’s bull. In my opinion they should just have background checks. That’s it none of these trigger lock, gun safe, assualt weapons ban bull crap. I want to own a Stag Arms m4 look-a-like rifle with a full 30-round clip and all the bells and whistles, but thanks to CA. i can’t. Why because California doesn’t trust me with it? That’s beyond bullshit it’s horseshit. I’m to mad to even type1 logically right now!

  3. NHSparky says:

    An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

    Keep reminding me why I left California.

  4. Just A Grunt says:

    This new law addresses UNLOADED weapons. Can I assume that it is ok to carry a loaded weapon??

    I know, I know I’m being a butt, but this is CA so what the heck.

    The other thing is, just for shits and grins how about the latest fashion accessory of wearing a belt fully laden with bullets but no gun, just to watch some people freak.

  5. USMC Steve says:

    Nothing surprising here. Socialist democrat state, no gun rights, most restrictive gun laws in the country, but the ruling “elite” vote themselves the very rights they deny those they rule (not represent, but rule). Given how demcong that state is, they deserve every stroke in the ass they get.

  6. Doc Bailey says:

    here’s the main problem, and its the same problem that Illinois has. San Fransisco, LA, and Oakland have enough population to outvote the rest of the state. you’d be amazed at how solidly Red the rest of the state is. and not red in THAT way.

  7. Mike D says:

    This story doesnt make sense to me.

    For one thing, the WaTimes op-ed says the vote was “Wednesday”:

    “The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace.”

    Today is Tuesday June 7.
    The date/time stamp on the WaTimes posted says is 7:06 pm Monday June 6th, as does Jonn’s blog post:

    “In a 28-2 vote yesterday…”

    Also the op-ed is more anti-legislator than about exemptions for members to carry concealed weapons. wtf?

    Also I checked for a bill of this type in the current session and all I saw was AB 144, which makes it a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded handgun in public, unless…

    Among the many exemptions in the bill, none of them mention members of the legislature. the closest thing is these exemptions:

    “The open carrying of an unloaded handgun when in accordance with the provisions relating to the possession of a weapon in a public building or State Capitol.” does this mean legislators? I dont think it does.

    “The open carrying of an unloaded handgun does not apply to person authorized to carry handguns in the State Capitol or residences of the Governor or other constitutional officers.”

    Nothing here about exempting members of the legislature from open carry restriction. Also the most recent vote on AB 144 was 11 days ago May 26. So the Times op-ed cannot be referring to AB 144.

    Also there are 40 state senators in California. a 28-2 vote would mean an atypically large number of members absent or not voting. At 28-8 as the WaTimes oped says, thats still 6 members missing or not voting. Thats not very unusual.

    So yeah, unless I am totally whiffing on a fundamental detail, something does not add up. The WaTimes editorial writer should have noted the bill number. Absent that, I think smomething weird. Gonna do some more looking and make some calls tomorrow.

    Of course, I may have missed a key detail and if so I will ritually flay myself with a wooden switch in penitent embarrassment. But I dont think I did.



  8. G-Man says:

    I am SOOO glad i left the commie state of CA. I lived there for 20 years until i got sick of the crowds, but that was when Orange County was actually still conservative.

    And to Mr. Portantino: You have absolutely NO business telling any law abiding citizen when, where, or how they may defend themselves, and any law you support that presupposes to do so is unjust and should be repealed. How the hell can you know when or where i might need to defend my life? Fast food joints can actually be very dangerous, or don’t you follow the news? Regardless, if i want to wear a pistol while i take a bath, it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

    Any Californian who has any pride left should just go. Let it fall into the sea from the weight of all those inflated egos in Sacramento.

  9. JonP says:

    In my formally great state of Vermont they haven’t ruined one thing yet: you can walk into a gun store, buy a pistol, ammo and a holster, fill out the form and pass the background check, load and strap that baby on and walk out. I’ve done it a number of times. Funny about that ultra low crime rate up there.

  10. Fitting considering that the current law was passed by a conservative held assembly and signed by Ronald Reagan because the Black Panthers did what the Tea Party did to Obama. The difference was that the Black Panthers were standing up to corrupt and racist police forces that were common in that “liberal bastion”.

  11. rb325th says:

    We are living in interesting times…. watching a Nation built on personal freedoms and the idea that the government is of the people, turn into some totalitarian socialist regime. Or at least numerous small pockets of it, that are seeking to strip away any and all personal freedom and bring on the era of Big Brother. Well, beause it has worked so well elsewhere…

  12. USMCE8Ret says:

    I agree with you, rb325th. It seems that lawmakers everywhere have lost sight that the Constitution speaks more about what the government CAN’T do instead of protection of individual rights and the government, and interprets it in a way to meet their own agenda of stripping us of the individual rights we’re supposed to have.

    Maybe I’m the one who is confused?

  13. ImanAzol says:

    Why should the cops be treated any differently than other civilians?

    You’re a civilian. The law applies to you. Don’t like it? Change it.

    That was exactly the point of this article–that some animals are more equal than others.

    Welcome to equality.