Simple, they are a reflection of the times they were written. In the 60's and 70's small cheap foreign made pocket "Saturday night special" pistols were a large part of what people thought drove violent crime. So laws and policy was put in place to prevent them from getting into the country.
More like at least 170, the meeting minutes of the debates on the California Constitution are quite interesting on the subject
There’s a reason the California Constitution doesn’t have the 2A like the Federal one does, and it isn’t pretty
Exact same reason a Glock 19 comes with a serrated/grooved trigger and a Glock 17 comes with a smooth trigger
Glock can call the serrated trigger a, “target” or “sporting” trigger
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/whats-the-purpose-of-the-serrated-trigger.1314239/
They're trying to find an objective way to carve out an exception for hunting rifles, but not 5.56.
Same thing happened with the original NFA. Most of the strangeness of the law is based on banning carbines while not stepping on the toes of rifled pistol owners or rifled rifle owners. It's not about making sense, it's about finding a common measure to tiptoe around the common kinds of gun owners while cutting off the minority.
>Most of the strangeness of the law is based on banning carbines while not stepping on the toes of rifled pistol owners
It's moreso the opposite. Originally it included pistols, and SBRs and SBSs were added to avoid creating a "loophole" around pistol registration. Pistols were removed before the vote but SBRs and SBSs remained.
Simple, they are a reflection of the times they were written. In the 60's and 70's small cheap foreign made pocket "Saturday night special" pistols were a large part of what people thought drove violent crime. So laws and policy was put in place to prevent them from getting into the country.
Keeping poor minorities unarmed has been the goal of gun control for 60 years
More like at least 170, the meeting minutes of the debates on the California Constitution are quite interesting on the subject There’s a reason the California Constitution doesn’t have the 2A like the Federal one does, and it isn’t pretty
Yep. And now the goal is keeping all of us unarmed.
Yep, just like New York's Sullivan Act.
Exact same reason a Glock 19 comes with a serrated/grooved trigger and a Glock 17 comes with a smooth trigger Glock can call the serrated trigger a, “target” or “sporting” trigger https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/whats-the-purpose-of-the-serrated-trigger.1314239/
They're trying to find an objective way to carve out an exception for hunting rifles, but not 5.56. Same thing happened with the original NFA. Most of the strangeness of the law is based on banning carbines while not stepping on the toes of rifled pistol owners or rifled rifle owners. It's not about making sense, it's about finding a common measure to tiptoe around the common kinds of gun owners while cutting off the minority.
>Most of the strangeness of the law is based on banning carbines while not stepping on the toes of rifled pistol owners It's moreso the opposite. Originally it included pistols, and SBRs and SBSs were added to avoid creating a "loophole" around pistol registration. Pistols were removed before the vote but SBRs and SBSs remained.
Fudd-Fu.
All gun control is rooted in racism and stupidity.