Tag: jerry brown

Governor Jerry Brown’s New Gun Control Laws Are Foolish

By Teagan Fair | United States

On Friday, Jerry Brown, Governor of California, signed bills advancing gun control within the state. A notable piece of this is a law that will raise the minimum age for buying rifles and shotguns from 18 years old to 21 years old.

It is a bit over seven months since the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, when 19-year-old gunman Nikolas Cruz killed 14 students and 3 teachers, injuring 17 others, using a Smith & Wesson M&P15, which is an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle. This event launched the left into a full out attack on the second amendment and gun rights. Three weeks after the shooting in Parkland, California passed laws that raised the legal age to purchase a gun, banned bump stocks and allowed police to bar a mentally ill person from owning guns for up to a year if judged to be mentally ill by a court.

Seven months later, California has passed laws that will be put into place on January 1st. The minimum age to buy a rifle or a shotgun will be 21 years of age. These laws also ban firearms for those convicted of serious domestic violence and those who have been hospitalized due to their mental health more than once in a year. Another bill governor signed by the governor will make it easier for both family members and police to seize guns and ammunition from those who are ‘threatening and potentially violent’.

Like all of these proposed gun control laws, raising the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21 is ridiculous. Of course, you can join the military at 18 and kill people for the government. You can invade countries, attack people you’ve never met and destroy or take lives of innocent people if it’s in the name of the government, but you cannot defend yourself from people trying to attack you unless you are three years older than the minimum age to do previously mentioned activities. If it’s not in the name of the government, of course, it’s sinister now. You can vote for who will represent you at 18, but owning a tool used to defend from criminals, private or government, is somehow malicious. More people are killed by cars than guns each year, yet you can drive at 16 years old.

Not to mention the fact that putting a law on it will likely prove useless, as is true for most gun control arguments. For this particular case, if someone has their mind fixed on committing murders, they will 1. Do so whenever possible, whether that time is when they are 16, 18, 21, etc. and/or 2. Kill by any means necessary, whether that is doing so by gun, knife, car, chemicals, a bat, a sharp stick, jabbing a spoon into someone’s throat, etc. Additionally,  if someone is actually fully willing to commit mass murder,  they will not be scared of the fact that they are not allowed to buy a gun, considering the fact that it’s incredibly easy to purchase guns illegally, and no law will change that. It’s pretty hard to imagine a mass murderer thinking, ‘Man, I really want to go into a vulnerable area and kill as many defenseless children as I can in cold blood, but apparently I’m not allowed to go and buy a gun. Wouldn’t want to do anything illegal, because it’s not like I’m prepared to kill vulnerable teenagers!’ Obviously, if one does not fear mass murder, they will not fear buying a firearm illegally.

This rule can go for most legislation, including all of the previously stated laws coming into place starting in January. People convicted previously of domestic violence, will obviously not be afraid to illegally obtain a firearm if it supports the much worse crime they are already planning and not afraid to commit. Any future mass murder does not fear gun control laws. Yes, Governor Brown, even if they are mentally ill. Law abiding citizens, on the other hand, who have no interest in murder, hence why they are considered law-abiding citizens, are the only ones who will likely be affected by such laws, leaving them defenseless and in a worse state than before.

Governor Brown’s laws are foolish, both morally and practically. There is no excuse for us to sit and watch as our rights are gradually taken away. I advocate for those who wish for these rights to be protected to stand up to those enforcing these laws on law-abiding citizens so that we can attempt to protect our liberty.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

California Wants to Regulate Options for Kids’ Drinks

By James Sweet III | United States

A new bill in California would require restaurants to give children one of two initial options for drinks when ordering a meal: milk or water. Senate Bill 1192 has already passed the California State Assembly. If Governor Jerry Brown signs it, it would become the first law of its kind.

In Section 114379.20 of Chapter 12.8, it is stated that “a restaurant that sells a children’s meal shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s meal” either water or milk. However, it does not necessarily have to be plain water. The bill does allow some variations, including seltzer and flavored water.

The bill “does not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage instead of the default beverage offered with the children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the children’s meal.” This is quite interesting, as it allows the parents to order whatever they want for their children if they are fine with letting their child drink something that’s not water or milk. It attempts to address situations in which parents allow children too many unhealthy drinks. Despite this, it does not take any firm action in this direction, as parents can easily circumvent this.

The bill defines a restaurant as “a retail food establishment that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to the consumer.” Since fast food restaurants are included in this definition, it is important to note that chains like McDonald’s already serve healthy beverages with their kid’s meals. For example, they serve Happy Meals® with organic juice or milk. Sit down restaurants, on the other hand, often do not include drinks with meals, so the bill largely does not affect them. Thus, the main target is fast food chains that do not serve healthy drinks by default.

One can only wonder if this bill will be effective in cutting down on obesity and diseases like diabetes. McDonald’s and other companies are currently taking all of the actions that the bill proposes. So, if signed, it appears that it will make few noticeable changes, but cement into law some decisions the market is already making.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Initiative to Break California Into 3 States Fails Before It Begins

By Indri Schaelicke | United States

Last year, California venture capitalist Tim Draper announced a plan that would break California into three separate states. The Northern region of California would become North California, the Southern portion, South California, and a strip of land along the coast, including Los Angeles would be California.

Break California: A Representative Government

The idea was a solution to what many view as a currently ineffective and unrepresentative state government. Citizens of California feel that the elected officials of in their state government do not represent them. Many counties in California typically go Republican during presidential elections. However, because of the large concentration of Democrats in urban areas, the state reliably goes blue. This causes the state to favor policies that benefit those in urban areas, rather than those in the rural counties.

Beyond failing to accurately represent and address their needs, however, the sheer size of California means that elected officials cannot quickly and effectively address issues that the public faces. This frustrates many citizens, who reason that a more localized government will better serve their needs.

The Bureaucratic Process

The first step to break California into three was to collect 365,880 signatures from registered voters in California. Tim Draper and his team collected 600,000, enough to place the issue on the ballot for the 2018 midterm election.

On Wednesday however, Draper’s plan hit a snag, as the California Supreme Court wrote thatsignificant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity. This unanimous decision directs the Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, to not place the proposition on the ballot.

So, though they did collect enough signatures, the vote will not occur this fall.

The dreams of Tim Draper and his supporters must wait at least another two years before they have a chance to become a reality.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

New California Law Requires Warning Labels For Gun Sales

By Andrew Zirkle | CALIFORNIA

This past week, California’s Governor Jerry Brown (D) has signed three new gun control bills into law as a result of recent public outcry against gun violence by constituents in the state. The law regarding new labeling, AB-1525,  passed just this Sunday and makes significant changes to the California penal code. This new law requires a large warning label to accompany the packaging or other literature associated with any gun sold or transferred within in California by a licensed retailer or manufacturer.

The label itself is required to say “Firearms must be handled responsibly and securely stored to prevent access by children and other unauthorized users.” Also required on the label is the threat of being “fined or imprisoned if you fail to comply [with California Law].” The label also needs to have website URLs showing where to find more information, should a prospective buyer need more information on California state gun law. The new law also includes more provisions regarding warning signage in gun stores, with over 1000 words relating to California gun laws required to be “clearly displayed” at business locations. The final provision in the new law changes the way mandatory gun safety tests are administered before purchasing a weapon. This bill joins two others signed this week in California regarding firearms.

The first bill signed, AB-7, more tightly restricts open carry of long guns in unincorporated areas. The second bill, AB-424, ends the ability of school superintendents to give someone open carry permission on campus property, which is the final nail in the coffin for any sort of open carry on California educational campuses. These three gun control measures passed each house and were signed by the Governor with little opposition from any involved party. Despite these huge strides taken by gun control advocates, it wasn’t all wins after Governor Brown vetoed the fourth measure designed at increasing security at gun shops after criticizing it for being too overreaching.

California already had some of the tightest gun control regulations before these bills, is expected to continue to work to pass even more control legislation as a response to the public opinion after the Las Vegas massacre. The full text of each bill can be viewed on the California Legislative Information Website