# A serious question for gun control advocates: effect of loosening gun laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127 "2016-04-25T21:29:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/161 "2016-05-04T22:34:05Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Come on. How can you not get a warning for that? > > Oh, you can’t avoid it. Warning. Don’t ever do it again. See my posts #'s 91 and 96. Also use the search function to see how many times variations of “keep fucking that chicken” have been used at this board over the years without warnings. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/162 "2016-05-05T15:20:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you apply the same rationale to books? No new books - only the old ones are okay. That would be okay? Not sure this is a relevant analogy, but I’ll think about it. > [@](#): > > Great, then you can join the cause since the majority of people who live in CA cannot bear arms as is our right. Is this true? Honestly asking because I have no idea of the percentage of people in CA who can’t bear arms. Any cites for this? > [@](#): > > It was your question, that was not analogous to mine. You were asking about a non-specific handgun. My statement was that all new model semi-auto pistols are banned from sale by FFLs. The fact that if you meet certain criteria you can buy a handgun that is outside of those parameters is irrelevant to the truth of my statement. My question was “if you meet certain criteria, can you buy a handgun in CA?” and it seems like the answer is “Yes. Yes you can” Therefore, I don’t personally feel that the rights of people who are able to meet the criteria are infringed. If you feel the criteria are too stringent, as to infringe on a large percentage of people, then that is another conversation to have. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/163 "2016-05-05T15:30:20Z")
[Here is the Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California) about gun laws in California. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/164 "2016-05-05T15:39:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Meh, the Japanese and South Koreans seem to have figured out plenty-effective methods for committing suicide without using a gun. I’m not convinced that getting rid of guns would really change the suicide rate much. Canada, Australia, and England (countries that are routinely held up as success stories by gun control advocates) don’t seem to have done much to cure their suicide problems. Canada, Australia and England also drink more alcohol than we do, which is a predictor of suicide. (I’m pro-alcohol, so not arguing for more strict alcohol control, quite the contrary, but that probably pushes the rates up quite a bit). Canada and England also have climates (short winter days, etc.) that contribute to suicide. (Canada also has a lot of guns, mostly used for hunting, albeit fewer than we do). ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/165 "2016-05-05T16:11:39Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Not sure this is a relevant analogy, but I’ll think about it. We are talking about a fundamental enumerated constitutional right. There are not that many apt comparisons. > [@](#): > > Is this true? Honestly asking because I have no idea of the percentage of people in CA who can’t bear arms. Any cites for this? CA is a “may issue” state. CCW issuance is controlled at the county level. The majority of the population in CA live in counties that will not issue permits. The county sheriff has complete discretion to allow or deny a permit application. For regular folk who aren’t celebrities or who don’t make large campaign donations, if you live in a county that does not issue you will never get a permit. [Here is the population by county in CA\*](http://www.california-demographics.com/counties_by_population): ```auto Rank County Population Issue: 1 Los Angeles County 10,170,292 No issue to regular citizens 2 San Diego County 3,299,521 No issue to regular citizens 3 Orange County 3,169,776 May issue with outstanding "cause" 4 Riverside County 2,361,026 May issue for "reasonable" cause 5 San Bernardino County 2,128,133 Virtual shall issue 6 Santa Clara County 1,918,044 No issue to regular citizens 7 Alameda County 1,638,215 No issue to regular citizens 8 Sacramento County 1,501,335 Virtual shall issue 9 Contra Costa County 1,126,745 No issue to regular citizens 10 Fresno County 974,861 Virtual shall issue 11 Kern County 882,176 Virtual shall issue 12 San Francisco County 864,816 No issue to regular citizens 13 Ventura County 850,536 Virtual shall issue 14 San Mateo County 765,135 May issue with outstanding "cause" 15 San Joaquin County 726,106 Virtual shall issue 16 Stanislaus County 538,388 Virtual shall issue 17 Sonoma County 502,146 No issue to regular citizens 18 Tulare County 459,863 Virtual shall issue 19 Santa Barbara County 444,769 No issue to regular citizens 20 Solano County 436,092 May issue for "reasonable" cause 21 Monterey County 433,898 Virtual shall issue 22 Placer County 375,391 May issue for "reasonable" cause 23 San Luis Obispo County 281,401 May issue with outstanding "cause" 24 Santa Cruz County 274,146 No issue to regular citizens 25 Merced County 268,455 May issue with outstanding "cause" 26 Marin County 261,221 No issue to regular citizens 27 Butte County 225,411 Virtual shall issue 28 Yolo County 213,016 No issue to regular citizens 29 El Dorado County 184,452 Virtual shall issue 30 Imperial County 180,191 No issue to regular citizens 31 Shasta County 179,533 Virtual shall issue 32 Madera County 154,998 May issue for "reasonable" cause 33 Kings County 150,965 May issue for "reasonable" cause 34 Napa County 142,456 May issue with outstanding "cause" 35 Humboldt County 135,727 Virtual shall issue 36 Nevada County 98,877 Virtual shall issue 37 Sutter County 96,463 Virtual shall issue 38 Mendocino County 87,649 Virtual shall issue 39 Yuba County 74,492 Virtual shall issue 40 Lake County 64,591 Virtual shall issue 41 Tehama County 63,308 Virtual shall issue 42 San Benito County 58,792 Virtual shall issue 43 Tuolumne County 53,709 Virtual shall issue 44 Calaveras County 44,828 Virtual shall issue 45 Siskiyou County 43,554 May issue for "reasonable" cause 46 Amador County 37,001 Virtual shall issue 47 Lassen County 31,345 May issue for "reasonable" cause 48 Glenn County 28,017 Virtual shall issue 49 Del Norte County 27,254 Virtual shall issue 50 Colusa County 21,482 Virtual shall issue 51 Plumas County 18,409 Virtual shall issue 52 Inyo County 18,260 Virtual shall issue 53 Mariposa County 17,531 Virtual shall issue 54 Mono County 13,909 May issue for "reasonable" cause 55 Trinity County 13,069 Virtual shall issue 56 Modoc County 8,965 Virtual shall issue 57 Sierra County 2,967 Virtual shall issue 58 Alpine County 1,110 May issue for "reasonable" cause ``` Riverside and San Bernardino are the biggest counties that issue, and next in line is Sacramento County. Sacramento County only started issuing after a lawsuit. When you total it up by population it looks like this: ```auto 20,893,122 53% No issue to regular citizens 4,627,223 12% May issue with outstanding "cause" 3,567,280 9% May issue for "reasonable" cause 10,056,083 26% Virtual shall issue 39,143,708 ``` Outstanding good cause is extremely unlikely for a regular citizen - so 65% or so folks cannot carry. Starting at the Bay Area, if you live along the coast you will not get a permit. This is most people. Places like San Francisco with a population of 800K, has 2 permits. One of them used to be Diane Feinstein. In Los Angeles County where there are over 10M people, there are just over 500 permits. Just under 20% of those are judges. Overall CA has about 0.2% of its population with carry permits. That’s dramatically lower than the rate across the nation. More than 1/2 of the permits in CA stem from just 7 of the 58 counties. My application which was submitted certified mail receipt requested was returned, without any communication, unprocessed. Twice. > [@](#): > > My question was “if you meet certain criteria, can you buy a handgun in CA?” and it seems like the answer is “Yes. Yes you can” Therefore, I don’t personally feel that the rights of people who are able to meet the criteria are infringed. If you feel the criteria are too stringent, as to infringe on a large percentage of people, then that is another conversation to have. It’s not just that you can buy a handgun in CA. It’s that you can only buy one that is approved by the state. And the State isn’t approving any more semi auto handguns. Because they have implemented a requirement that is not currently possible to meet. Think of it this way - you want to publish a book. If you’ve already published it, that’s okay. But if you want to publish a new book for the first time, you need to be able to demonstrate that the book can levitate. If it can’t do that, you are not allowed to publish that book. Plenty of old books can be published though. Non-fiction books are exempt. Or if you are law enforcement, then you are exempt too. Does the number of people who’s rights are infringed matter? Shouldn’t no one’s rights be infringed? Do you feel the same way about Voter ID laws, where a small number of people may be disenfranchised, but most people are unaffected? \*i can’t make this table look good. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/166 "2016-05-05T16:26:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > We are talking about a fundamental enumerated constitutional right. There are not that many apt comparisons. The ability to purchase a book is a fundamental enumerated constitutional right? > [@](#): > > CA is a “may issue” state. CCW issuance is controlled at the county level. This seems to change your argument from “Ability to buy a handgun” to “Ability to get a CCW” > [@](#): > > It’s not just that you can buy a handgun in CA. It’s that you can only buy one that is approved by the state. And the State isn’t approving any more semi auto handguns. Because they have implemented a requirement that is not currently possible to meet. Think of it this way - you want to publish a book. If you’ve already published it, that’s okay. But if you want to publish a new book for the first time, you need to be able to demonstrate that the book can levitate. If it can’t do that, you are not allowed to publish that book. Plenty of old books can be published though. Non-fiction books are exempt. Or if you are law enforcement, then you are exempt too. This seems to imply that there are at least 2 manufacturers that can do micro stamping. Is that not the case? [Certification of Microstamping Technology Bureau of Firearms pursuant to Penal Code section 31910 subdivision (b)(7)(A)](http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf) > [@](#): > > Does the number of people who’s rights are infringed matter? Shouldn’t no one’s rights be infringed? Do you feel the same way about Voter ID laws, where a small number of people may be disenfranchised, but most people are unaffected? No, it doesn’t matter. But you stated that a majority of Californians could not bear arms. Just wondering where you got that information. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/167 "2016-05-05T17:49:23Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This seems to change your argument from “Ability to buy a handgun” to “Ability to get a CCW” You asked for a cite - I presented evidence. > [@](#): > > This seems to imply that there are at least 2 manufacturers that can do micro stamping. Is that not the case? > [Certification of Microstamping Technology Bureau of Firearms pursuant to Penal Code section 31910 subdivision (b)(7)(A)](http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf) It is not the case. While the AG declared the hurdles met, there are no firearms for sale that meet this requirement. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/168 "2016-05-05T19:49:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You asked for a cite - I presented evidence. True, you did present evidence. Was it evidence of the percentage of people who cannot bear arms in CA? Not so much. > [@](#): > > It is not the case. While the AG declared the hurdles met, there are no firearms for sale that meet this requirement. Well, good thing I didn’t ask if there were firearms for sale that meet that requirement. Are there manufacturers that can make firearms that meet that requirement, as my link seems to suggest? After all, you compared the requirement to have micro stamping to levitation, meaning to me something that doesn’t exist. In fact, you said “they have implemented a requirement that is not currently possible to meet” The link I provided states that it IS possible to meet it, and more than one manufacturer can meet it. Do you believe this to be true? why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/169 "2016-05-05T20:01:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > True, you did present evidence. Was it evidence of the percentage of people who cannot bear arms in CA? Not so much. Are you serious? Majority of people by population live in counties where they are not permitted to carry. What type of evidence were you thinking of? > [@](#): > > Well, good thing I didn’t ask if there were firearms for sale that meet that requirement. Are there manufacturers that can make firearms that meet that requirement, as my link seems to suggest? None are available. > [@](#): > > After all, you compared the requirement to have micro stamping to levitation, meaning to me something that doesn’t exist. In fact, you said “they have implemented a requirement that is not currently possible to meet” The link I provided states that it IS possible to meet it, and more than one manufacturer can meet it. Do you believe this to be true? why or why not? No. The link you provided does not state it is possible to meet. Your link says that the technology is unencumbered by patent. It may be theoretically possible as it is theoretically possible for the molecules in my hand to align to allow my hand to pass through a table. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/170 "2016-05-05T20:22:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Are you serious? Majority of people by population live in counties where they are not permitted to carry. What type of evidence were you thinking of? Wasn’t that a table showing statistics about CCW? Is your opinion that unless a person can get a CCW permit, they don’t have the right to bear arms? If a person buys a handgun and keeps it in their home for defense, isn’t that bearing arms? > [@](#): > > No. The link you provided does not state it is possible to meet. Your link says that the technology is unencumbered by patent. It may be theoretically possible as it is theoretically possible for the molecules in my hand to align to allow my hand to pass through a table. You may be correct here. However, various articles I’ve found show gun manufacturers are not including it because it is stupid (my word) and serves no purpose, which is true, but not that it is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/171 "2016-05-05T20:37:56Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Wasn’t that a table showing statistics about CCW? Is your opinion that unless a person can get a CCW permit, they don’t have the right to bear arms? If a person buys a handgun and keeps it in their home for defense, isn’t that bearing arms? Keep is distinct from Bear. Bear = carry. Since open carry is illegal in CA, the only way to bear is with CCW. > [@](#): > > You may be correct here. However, various articles I’ve found show gun manufacturers are not including it because it is stupid (my word) and serves no purpose, which is true, but not that it is impossible. My original statement is true. No new model semi auto firearms may be sold by an FFL in CA. It is currently impossible for me to purchase \*\*any \*\*new model semi auto firearm from an FFL. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/172 "2016-05-05T21:28:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > My original statement is true. No new model semi auto firearms may be sold by an FFL in CA. It is currently impossible for me to purchase \*\*any \*\*new model semi auto firearm from an FFL. So? There are thousands of _"old model_"guns being sold every day. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/173 "2016-05-05T21:31:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So? There are thousands of _"old model_"guns being sold every day. yeah, but they only shoot old bullets that kill old bad guys. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/174 "2016-05-05T21:34:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So? There are thousands of _"old model_"guns being sold every day. Do you concede the statement is true? And yes, I acknowledge you think this is acceptable. I do not think it is acceptable. What number must the “thousands” be reduced to for you to consider this a problem? Think of it this way - you want to publish a book. If you’ve already published it previously, that’s okay - but only if you pay a periodic fee to maintain your ability to publish that book. But if you want to publish a new book for the first time, you need to be able to demonstrate that the book can levitate. If it can’t do that, you are not allowed to publish that book. Plenty of old books can be published though. Non-fiction books are exempt. Or if you are law enforcement, then you are exempt too. Would your response be as sanguine in this scenario? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/175 "2016-05-05T22:40:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you concede the statement is true? And yes, I acknowledge you think this is acceptable. I do not think it is acceptable. What number must the “thousands” be reduced to for you to consider this a problem? Look, the law is really fucking stupid, yes. I said as much. Still, by no means are guns “banned” in California. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/176 "2016-05-05T22:54:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Look, the law is really fucking stupid, yes. I said as much. Still, by no means are guns “banned” in California. How many guns must be banned for you to construe that as guns being banned in California? Or alternatively, how many guns must be available for you to consider guns not being banned in CA? Do you dispute any of these facts: Some guns are banned in CA. Not all guns are banned in CA. The guns that are banned in CA include all new model semi auto firearms may be sold by an FFL. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/177 "2016-05-05T23:45:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Keep is distinct from Bear. Bear = carry. Since open carry is illegal in CA, the only way to bear is with CCW. So does that mean if you can’t carry a handgun in all places at all times, you feel that is unacceptable? > [@](#): > > My original statement is true. No new model semi auto firearms may be sold by an FFL in CA. It is currently impossible for me to purchase \*\*any \*\*new model semi auto firearm from an FFL. And my original statement is true - So what? As noted above, there are 1000s of OTHER models for sale. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/178 "2016-05-05T23:49:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How many guns must be banned for you to construe that as guns being banned in California? Or alternatively, how many guns must be available for you to consider guns not being banned in CA? How about ALL? Second question - Some. Maybe more than one, i don’t know. How many do you think must be available for you to consider guns not being banned in CA? Every single make and model of handgun ever produced by any manufacturer ever until the end of time? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/179 "2016-05-05T23:54:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Think of it this way - you want to publish a book. If you’ve already published it previously, that’s okay - but only if you pay a periodic fee to maintain your ability to publish that book. But if you want to publish a new book for the first time, you need to be able to demonstrate that the book can levitate. If it can’t do that, you are not allowed to publish that book. Plenty of old books can be published though. Non-fiction books are exempt. Or if you are law enforcement, then you are exempt too. Would your response be as sanguine in this scenario? Can’t you just publish it electronically? How detailed are the parameters for the levitation? I can’t answer your question unless you give a detailed review of the 2025 Book Levitation Act. Please cover all exceptions and the various forms, applications, and interviews one would need in order to publish a book after the effective date of said Act. Then I will be able to answer on how I felt about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/180 "2016-05-06T00:28:13Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > So does that mean if you can’t carry a handgun in all places at all times, you feel that is unacceptable? No - it means you were wrong. You confused “keep” with “bear” and I corrected you. You asked about the percentage of people in CA who couldn’t bear arms. I provided it to you. You thought the CA DOJ memo indicated that at least 2 manufacturers could do microstamping and I corrected you. > [@](#): > > And my original statement is true - So what? As noted above, there are 1000s of OTHER models for sale. And to continue this trend - no, this is wrong too. There are not 1000s of other models for sale. [There are 767](http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/)available models for sale by FFLs. > [@Slash1972](#): > > How about ALL? Second question - Some. Maybe more than one, i don’t know. How many do you think must be available for you to consider guns not being banned in CA? Every single make and model of handgun ever produced by any manufacturer ever until the end of time? I’ll be satisfied if the number includes all of the ones the police are able to purchase. Because under CA law, police are able to purchase handguns determined to be “unsafe”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127.md?page=10)