BartsDaddy

That dosent change the fact that California requires the new vehicle coming from out of state has to have a minmum of 7500 miles on it to register it

no its not unamerican or socialist or woke. But it is trying to make people buy a certain type of car. i dont understand why you refuse to admit that. The lawmakers that are pushing this admit that i dont know why you cant.

Well since they reported what it actualy was how was thier reporting wrong?

Sure you can buy a new one out of state and then you have to put 7500 miles on it before you can register it in californa. And then have to spend the money to replace the valve seats to be able to run the unleaded fuel that is available. And then it still isnt new or as safe as a new model. So the people that obey Californias gun laws are just lazy? If I was to go out of state to buy a gun to bring back into California I would be breaking multiple gun laws.

You can only think of two explanations?

Just because the panic is coming from ordinary citizens dosent mean the government is being truthfull about the situation.

Yes and if i was black i could have been in the Tuskegee experiment that proved the government is allways truthfull.

yep all hysteria https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/uncovered-files-reveal-secret-operation-at-center-of-drone-invasion/ss-AA1w55fR?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=8c7c2cf94fef46d1a7539bf9373da19b&ei=24#image=2

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fury-as-california-gets-green-light-to-ban-all-gas-cars-in-dem-state/ar-AA1w7hBI?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3766606aa93a4131dd802e4ddd27b984&ei=26 California still at it

I think alot of things can be improved. But since i can not change any of them i dont spend much time dwelling them. the only thing that would come of posting them here is people would claim that i said "a" and therefore i support "b"and therefore im against "c" and "d" ad infinitum. thats why i dont post here verry much.

It applies to a lot of issues.

Because the state of california applealed it, it went to the 9th circuit court andthey issued a stay until it was setled. they then sent back to the lower court wich upheld the previous ruling then it was appealed again and now it is in en bock and who knows how long until they actualy rule on it. but the law stays in effect until they do. so they string it out as long as they can because they know they have allready lost

Wrong. Because he has no proof that it would have been denied because of that. Until someone gets denied for admitting that on form 4473 and file a law suit because of that they are able to keep the question on the form. There are plenty of gun rights organisations that would gladly take the case. Although it would take many years to get it changed, Because even if the plantif won it would be appealed and then held up in en bock for as long as posible. Thats the way government deals with gun cases. There are 3 cases now in California that the law was found to be unconstitutional that 10 years later are still tied up in courts.

That wouldnt have helped. He was charged with lying on a form 4473. If he would have told the truth on it and then been denied because of that than the 5th ciruits ruling may have helped him. As it stands his 2nd amendment rights were not infringed since he was able to purchase the firearm.

Just because you dont like the answer dosent mean i didnt answer