Why anyone would want a silencer for a .22 is beyond me. For the gun-haters, I have news, they aren’t loud to begin with. The sound of one firing is akin to a ladyfinger going off. And that’s pushing it.
I’d find it much easier to get upset about this if it weren’t California. But I trust we all have seen where Cali has been headed for years.
I still think we should “vote them off the island” then tax the shit out of their imports until they understand there are 49 other states that for the most part allow the residents reasonable freedoms. And if they kep this kind of shit up, they can be the westernmost sattelite of whatever country’s regime they want to join.
BTW, is the AG post a political office? Is this a Republican pushing this?
The registry has nothing to do with making people criminals. If they didn’t have the registry, they could just as easily have made the same ban. You’d still be a criminal if you possessed the weapon, registry or no.
Intuitively, it would seem to me that it a criminal wishing to fire a gun would like to make it quieter if possible, and the law is attempting to make that more difficult. I doubt that the law had .22’s in mind, the P22 is just caught in the <ahem> cross-fire. In my looking at the AG site, it seems that there are exemptions for “Olympic Pistols.” I don’t know if that refers to any kind of target gun, or only specific makes.
I’m convinceable on the fact that this piece of law as it applies to some guns is stupid, but honestly, in general it doesn’t seem totally out of line to me.
Sadly, there are many laws which hope to affect criminals which as a by-product add inconvenience to the lives of the rest of us.
Aw shit. And I’ve spent.wasted so much time defending some of them, thinking that one or two might be reasonable. To hell with it, I’m going Libertarian (the Leave Me The Hell Alone party).
How on earth would they ever enforce it against current owners of the Walther firearms in question without the registry?
And since it’d be virtually impossible to enforce, other than preventing sales of new Walther pistols in CA, there wouldn’t be much point in passing it, would there?
Then again, no criminal is going to look at this and say ‘Damnit, now I can’t keep/buy that Walther I like so much.’
A moderately effective one-time use silencer can be made of a plastic soda bottle with a tiny bit of knowledge (or Internet access). Works better if you use PVC. Also remember that any .22 short is not all that damn loud to begin with.
Same way they enforce other things. Wait for some dumbass to either commit a crime using it, or commit a crime with it in his possession then use it to tack on another year in prison or something. Plus, probably monitor gun sales in the state, etc.
Sorry, son, but if you want a better reaction, you’ll have to do better than that. I pretty much summed everything up with the :rolleyes: . The "idiot"was just the cherry on top that makes it just that much more delicious.
This is actually an example of certain local governments whipping themselves into a tizzy about concealed carry, when, despite all the hoopla, the aftermath of such legislation shows no increase in criminal use of guns by permit-holders.
Such restrictions are a back-door effort to negate the purpose of these laws, which is to allow a degree of self-protection for citizens (and purportedly to discourage crime, which is highly debatable). Not that this affects me personally, but legalizing concealed carry and then prohibiting its practical application in virtually all public places seems rather pointless.
I don’t know that the political stripe of the AG matters, and I don’t think the OP is framed properly. It’s not the AG that’s made the decision to criminalise this particular item - it’s a law passed by the legislative branch. The AG is just doing his job as a member of the executive, seeing that the laws are duly enforced. (And within that duty, he seems to have worked out a pretty reasonable way to get people to comply, without having to pay for the retrofit.)
You’ve got a beef here, isn’t the beef with the Legislature?
Given: Silencers are illegal in California. Of what use is a law banning a threaded barrel, when the only legitimate use for it is for a counterweight and you can’t legally get a silenver anyway?
That’s the point. The ban doesn’t make sense. Though it seems one ban-happy member takes exception to law-abiding citizens owning legal firearms.
Rationality among those wishing for a full ban on guns appears to be on level with Fred Phelps and Jack Chick. (There should be a new internet law named for this)
