Nibble Nibble Chomp, can’t swallow away the entire 2A in one bite? Nibble around the edges until it is gone…
Thanks for the preview of Colorados next stroke of genius!
Same with the Glock machine gun thing! 
And that nitwit calls the right fascist….. 
Kim Jong uNewsom strikes again 
Exactly how many barrels do they think criminals are purchasing in CA?
I suspect this has more to do with harassing and shutting down FFLs than anything else.
Does a barreled upper fall into this category also? This is one that I haven’t looked too deeply into.
I’m struggling to see their motivation on this one. I wouldn’t think a $5 fee on this would amount to much revenue for the state. Never underestimate the stupidity of Sacramento. But I suspect the motivation on this is about shutting down FFLs over failures to keep proper paperwork. I don’t know…
Uppers would then be treated like lowers
They should all be treated like “arms” as described in the second amendment of the constitution and not be infringed upon or restricted in any way.
mic drop
I cannot wait for him to be the next president. 
Pedos get to run free… Epstein files…
With CA, you cant make this crap up, they already have a law for it.
Hope this crap stays in CA, they voted for it, its on them
Absolutely agree. And that’s what’s been happening in the courts. …for the most part. In our magazine capacity case (Duncan v Bonta), the 9th Circuit agreed that magazines are essential to the function of a firearm and are therefore “arms” and protected under the 2nd A. But then the needle skipped on the record and, somehow, any magazine holding more than 10 rounds was suddenly just an accessory and not protected. No explanation was given on the magic involved or why 10 was a magic number. We’re now begging SCOTUS to step in. Reading the majority opinion, you’d think some pages were missing, or at least a few paragraphs were left out when they flipped from being essential to being an “accessory”.
On this bill though, I think they’ll rely on the fact that fully functional firearms already go through a background check so if that’s not an infringement, then neither is this. That’s one of their arguments on the ammunition background checks we’re subjected to.
Reading through the bill a few times, they seem very focused on penalties for the seller. I’m now 100% convinced that this is another way for them to harass and shut down FFLs.
On the other hand, their references to “firearms”, “frames”, and “receivers”, makes me think barreled uppers are exempt. The devil’s always in the definitions.
Seems like radical anti-gun activist lawmakers in California are running ramped with their gun control agenda, passing gun control bills left and right like a well-oiled machine (unopposed), as they please, when they please, how they please and unstoppable. California is a great place for felony criminals with illegal weapons to live there where these laws DON’T APPLY TO THEM!!!