Skip to main content

The California legislature is currently considering a host of gun laws none of which would appreciably increase public safety.  I support sensible gun legislation, but California legislators prefer to go after gun owners by the death of a thousand cuts.  

The goal seems to be to put so many restrictions on law-abiding gun owners that many will just give up.

The two bills most likely to get to the Gov's desk first are AB 711, a ban on lead ammunition, and AB 231, a gun owner liability insurance bill.

The lead ban is silly, since hunting with lead shot is already banned for waterfowl, who ingest lead feeding in marshes.  A wide-reaching ban on lead bullets alreay exists in the range of the California condor.  The purpose of AB 711 appears to be to drive up the cost of shooting and hunting (and hence discourage these activities).  Non-lead ammunition is always more costly, often prohibitively so.

AB 231 makes gun owners strictly liable for any harm or injuries which are the result of the discharge of a firearm.  Up to $10,00 or $25,000 (depending on which section applies) maximum in addition to other monetary penalties allowed by law. So, if you never "accidentally" shoot out your neighbor's porch light you're good to go.

What this bill does which really chaps my hide is create a new criminal offense of "negligent storage in the 3rd degree." It can also be called the "what if...." crime.

Under this section, you are guilty of negligent criminal storage of a firearm "if it is possible" that someone under 18 could POTENTIALLY get their hands on it without your permission. Actually "getting their hands on it" is irrelevant. The crime is committed if it is "reasonably POSSIBLE." So we will now have anti-gun cops & DA's deciding if gun safes are good enough on a case by case basis because it "might be possible" that the neighbor kid could come over to borrow a cup of sugar while the safe is open and the kid could POSSIBLY get his hands on a gun unsupervised.

Very bad bill which will pass via supermajority and be sent to the governor even though most of the state's LEO's and DA's oppose it.

Naturally, all these bills carry felony penalties to add gun owners to the vast numbers of bogus felons created by our stupid drug laws.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn't "what if..." the very reason some gun owners (16+ / 0-)

    ... want to carry their weapons with them at all times?

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:36:46 PM PDT

  •  If people can buy lead bullets ... (6+ / 0-)

    won't they use them where they shouldn't, considering they're much cheaper? And it seems good go me not to get lead into the environment, even in places which aren't quite as environmentally sensitive as wetlands, streams, and California condor habitat. It seems reasonable to me to ban lead bullets everywhere except target ranges.

    The other bill looks like it's real overkill, and I hope it doesn't pass.

  •  So what are the positions of your (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus

    state senator and assemblyman/woman on these two bills?

    Just curious...

    © grover


    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

    by grover on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:41:56 PM PDT

  •  Against liability insurance... ? (14+ / 0-)

    ... take it up with ALEC and the NRA who refuse product liability suits and slew of other legal remedies.

    You have to buy insurance for you car. Buy a policy for you guns.

    A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude -- Pablo Neruda / Listen to The After Show and The Justice Department on Netroots Radio

    by justiceputnam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:42:25 PM PDT

    •  You have to buy a policy on your car as a (6+ / 0-)

      condition of using it on public roads.

      Not to park it in your garage.

      I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

      by JesseCW on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:30:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thus You're OK with Gun Owners (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allergywoman, UnionMade

        who want to conceal/carry or transporting their guns to go hunting or to the range-- they should have insurance?

        "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

        by Superpole on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:39:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Of course... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, Eyesbright, UnionMade

        ... if your car blows up in your garage and damages the neighbor's house, liabilty insurance mandated on both your car and house would "make whole" your neighbor's assets.

        Insure guns.

        A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude -- Pablo Neruda / Listen to The After Show and The Justice Department on Netroots Radio

        by justiceputnam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:05:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Liability insurance isn't mandated on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justiceputnam, ChadmanFL

          a car you don't operate on public roads.

          That's because the odds that such a vehicle will injure anyone but you or your immediate family are infentismal.

          If you leave that car idling with the keys in the ignition and some 13 year old steals it and kills some body, you can and should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment.

          The same should apply if you leave a firearm unsecured.

          You're not required by law to have homeowners insurance.  If you own your property free and clear, you can be an idiot and go without insurance, and lose everything when your dog nips someone or someone trips on your walkway and sues you.

          It's when you try to take dangerous equipment into public spaces and operate it that you're required to carry liability insurance to make sure that anyone you harm is covered.

          I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

          by JesseCW on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:19:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I just think... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChadmanFL, UnionMade, JesseCW

            ... that now is the time to require insurance.

            A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude -- Pablo Neruda / Listen to The After Show and The Justice Department on Netroots Radio

            by justiceputnam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:28:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I really don't have an issue with requiring (0+ / 0-)

              insurance to transport a weapon on a public thoroughfare, or to use it on public property including  National Forests, State Parks, BLM land, ect.

              To require that someone have insurance to keep a weapon locked in a safe at home, though, is like requiring they have insurance to have a car up on blocks in their back yard.

              Second is the question "insurance against what?".

              Your car insurance doesn't cover damages caused by a bank robber who steals your car and runs over a kid while fleeing from the cops.

              Is it reasonable to demand that your gun insurance cover a similar scenario?  You couldn't afford to insure damn near anything if the rule was "You must cover damages a thief may cause with this, despite your reasonable and prudent precautions".

              Homeowners policies, btw, already cover gun accidents at home in most cases.

              I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

              by JesseCW on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:37:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let me get this straight. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tobendaro

                You think if someone keeps a gun locked up tight in a safe at home, they shouldn't be required to have insurance.

                Then you say, "What if someone breaks into your home and steals your gun and commits a crime with it?" Wait a minute. What happened to the gun secured in a safe?

                Seems to me you can't have both.

                "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

                by Dbug on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:21:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you saying that if a kid jumps your (0+ / 0-)

                  six foot fence and operates the automatic cover you had installed over your pool and drowns, you're responsible?

                  You took all reasonable precautions to prevent it.

                  If someone does come at your gun safe with an acetylene torch and steals your firearms, you're no more at fault.

                  If someone car jacks you, and manages to batter open the locked hard case you had your firearms locked in in your trunk, you're no more at fault than if they had driven your stolen car into a crowd.

                  BTW - this is the case in all those countries with homicide rates less than a quarter of ours that we envy so greatly (and rightly).

                  If you think reasonable precaution = 100% proof against theft, you don't know what the word reasonable means.

                  I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

                  by JesseCW on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:20:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  As for the ammunition legislation (7+ / 0-)

    I found this, for the other side on the issue. Seems the sources the Audubon Society used expect that alternative ammo is available, and prices should go down for it as the demand goes up. I wonder what 'prohibitive' price it's at now.

    We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

    by tytalus on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:45:43 PM PDT

    •  That depends. It's not even 10% more for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh, i dont get it

      small rimfire cartridges.  That's mostly because those small bullets use very little material and most of the cost of the round is in the actual assembly, packaging, shipping ect.

      Even for larger calibers, though, it's still not that bad.  Maybe 20% more.

      They simply aren't available in a lot of less common calibers.  That's a bit more of an issue.

      I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

      by JesseCW on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:38:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good for them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, Miggles, tobendaro

    sounds like the anti-choice efforts undertaken by many states.

  •  the science on lead is interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hangpilot, oldpunk

    the CDC tells us lead from hunting has never poisoned anyone. And now that lead is not being used anywhere in the condor's range lead levels are up in condors. Why?

    Even funnier, the studies creating a supposed link to lead bullets aren't made public, only the results. If you want to recreate the experiments, or maybe look at the methods, you can't.

    People who live in rural areas and eat game shot with lead have lower lead levels than urban people who do not eat game. Why?

    The more lead and wildlife is studied, the less of a link is found. Audubon just plain old doesn't like hunters, they shoot birds.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:55:24 PM PDT

    •  ... (22+ / 0-)
      the CDC tells us lead from hunting has never poisoned anyone.
      .....................................................
      http://www.thedailygreen.com/...
      The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested 736 people, mostly adults, in six North Dakota cities and found that those who ate wild game had 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not eat it. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game, according to the study published last month in the journal Environmental Research.

      Those who ate wild game meat had average lead levels of 1.27 micrograms per deciliter, compared with 0.84 for those who ate no game. Most said they either hunted the animals themselves or obtained the meat from friends or family members.

      "What was most troubling is that as wild game consumption increases, the blood-lead levels increase," said study co-author Mary Jean Brown, chief of the CDC's lead poisoning prevention branch. "The strong recommendation we would make is that pregnant women should not consume this meat."

      http://www.nps.gov/...
      A recently published scientific study examined the prevalence of lead bullet fragments in packaged venison. Thirty different white-tail deer were harvested using lead rifle bullets and then given to 30 different game meat processors. Researchers randomly selected 324 packages of ground venison and whole cuts from the processors and x-rayed them to document how many contained lead bullet fragments. Of the 324 randomly selected packages of ground venison, 34% contained metal fragments; some packages contained as many a 168 separate pieces. Further analysis positively identified the metal as 93% lead and 7 % copper.
      http://www.cdc.gov/...
      CDC will emphasize that the best way to end childhood lead poisoning is to prevent, control or eliminate lead exposures. Since no safe blood lead level in children has been identified, a blood lead “level of concern” cannot be used to define individuals in need of intervention.

      Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

      by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:20:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Silly person (14+ / 0-)

        supporting your claims.  The interwebs are for bold unsupported statements.

      •  yes silly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        those people with 50% more lead in their blood also had less lead in their blood than the average in the US.

        Why?

        Because people pick up more background lead in cities than they do in clean North Dakota, even if they eat game meat.

        The amount of lead in game meat is more than zero, but much less than what a person in say San Francisco gets just by walking around.

        So go ahead and read the reports and get back to me.

        daily green indeed.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:59:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um (7+ / 0-)

          evidence?

          Since every other statement you made was shown to be false, why is this supposed to be taken as true?

          Let's see shall we? The only study I could find comparing urban v rural lead levels in children found that in North Carolina the odds of having high lead levels was nearly DOUBLE in rural counties compared to urban ones.

          I think we have now shown that every single statement you made is completely wrong.

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:04:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  read the CDC report (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:10:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You mean the one that says (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              UnionMade

              This?

              Participants who consumed wild game had 0.30 μg/dl higher PbB in comparison with those who did not consume wild game (Table 8). The multivariate model did not improve significantly when all two-way interactions between wild game consumption and other variables were considered in the model (data not shown). Participants who did not consume wild game within a month before data collection had significantly lower PbB for all game types (Table 9). Among those who reported consuming other game, a 0.40 μg/dl increase in PbB was associated with having an average serving size of ≥ 2 oz. compared with those who consumed a lesser amount.

              Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

              by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:04:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  keep reading and post the part that shows (0+ / 0-)

                people in ND who eat game have less lead than the general population in the US.

                Until you do that, you are being dishonest.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:25:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No (0+ / 0-)

                  I can read.  You see the study shows unequivocally that people who eat game meat in this study have significantly more lead than those who don't.  Which is the point.  For anyone who understands elementary logic, this notion that people in this North Dakota sample have lower than the geometric mean nationwide.  Well, yes, that will be typically true for many samples, but so what?  It doesn't show any comparison that is germane to any point you were trying to make.

                  Meanwhile, the study unequivocally shows that shooting animals with lead and eating them results in lead poisoning (since there is no safe level of lead).

                  Maybe you are struggling with this because you've eaten too much lead?

                  Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                  by Mindful Nature on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:51:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:20:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your link says this: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gramofsam1, tobendaro
              Findings from this study have limited generalizability. The study cohort was predominantly white, educated, and had higher incomes, and did not include persons who received donated wild game meat from food pantries or other charitable organizations. As high levels of lead were detected in the meat packs donated to local food pantries in North Dakota and the surrounding states (Smith 2008), this group may have greater exposure to lead-contaminated wild game meat.
              Plus, the results said people who eat wild game (deer, pheasants, etc.) in ND have higher levels of lead in their blood than people who don't eat wild game.

              The two things that caused the most lead poisoning have been eliminated: paint and gasoline. When paint contained lead, little kids would eat paint chips or breathe in the dust. Now that paint no longer contains lead, it's less of a problem. And leaded gasoline put lead in the air. When we switched to unleaded, the problem went away.

              "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

              by Dbug on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:44:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yup, lead levels are down (0+ / 0-)

                but still above the levels of people who eat game in ND.

                When they can bring the levels of lead in people from NYC or other urban areas down to the levels of people who eat game meat in ND, or lower, then they can lecture. But for now, those who are preaching, are getting more lead, than us rural people are.

                The study was very limited as they say in the study, yet people still misquote it's findings. Why?

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:23:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you sticking with this ? (0+ / 0-)
                  the CDC tells us lead from hunting has never poisoned anyone.
                  I ask because you seem to be saying that lead from hunting does poison people .
                  When they can bring the levels of lead in people from NYC or other urban areas down to the levels of people who eat game meat in ND, or lower, then they can lecture.

                  Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                  by indycam on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:49:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  and more (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:06:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  pay to publish? (0+ / 0-)

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:22:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Better than your evidence (0+ / 0-)

              Which is nil.   Every assertion you've made has been comprehensively disproven.  Even the source you cite show you are wrong.

              And yes, page charges are quite common

              Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

              by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:08:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Keep in mind friends (0+ / 0-)

              This is the guy who thinks that FDL are reactionary republicans while Obama is a true progressive.  Judge the source for yourself

              Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

              by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:10:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Where do you see "pay to publish?" (0+ / 0-)
              About Occupational and Environmental Medicine
              Aims and scope

              Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM) is an international peer reviewed journal covering occupational and environmental health. We aim to be the definitive source for current information on occupational and environmental health worldwide.

              OEM is adopted as the official journal of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians of London.
              Journal statistics
              Acceptance rate     15% for original research submitted in 2012

              Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

              by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:13:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  So someone who is in San Francisco (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i dont get it

          who eats "game meat"
          is a person who gets poisoned by lead from said environment and game meat
          yet somehow

          the CDC tells us lead from hunting has never poisoned anyone.
          Is that your story ?

          Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

          by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:18:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no that's your statement (0+ / 0-)

            I think both you and "nature" aren't worth responding to.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:28:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you fail to explain (0+ / 0-)

              how it is that poisoning is bad in S.F. but nothing elsewhere because you can't . You can't point a finger at some lead while saying that other lead is nothing .

              You have painted yourself into a corner .

              Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

              by indycam on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:28:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  this could not be more false (13+ / 0-)

      the science by Don Smith and Molly Church was published in Environmental Science and Techology and is publicly available  The isotopic link is absolutely unequivocal and definitive that lead shot is poisoning the condors.  Also, ongoing monitoring clearly demonstrates continued exposure of Condors to lead in the environment.  

      Also, eating lead shot meat raises lead exposure by 50% according to the CDC with potential mental impacts on rural populations eating lead contaminated food.

      Of course, the gun industry isn't the only one spewing lead into the environment, so it may be swamped by urban sources, but the notion that the lead in shot isn't harmful to both wildlife and humans is completely and unequivocally false.   I think it is time to stop spreading random pro-hunting falsehoods.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:25:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I seriously doubt (5+ / 0-)

      That the CDC has said "lead from hunting has never poisoned anyone."  They may have run studies that showed consuming meat from animals killed with lead shot or bullets was not correlated with higher blood lead concentrations among the population they tested, but that's not the same as the claim you've asserted.

      How hard have you tried to obtain details about the study to which you're referring? Have you searched technical journals in toxicology for descriptions of methods?  Have you formally inquired of CDC? Maybe even made a FOIA request?

      As to why blood lead levels for residents in some rural areas have lower lead levels than residents of urban areas, that shouldn't be much of a mystery, unless you wanted to prop up and knock down a strawman that someone has claimed lead ammunition is the only source of lead in the environment.

      Here's a hint: it's not.

      Soil contamination by lead is widespread in urban areas due to numerous factors:

      1. Historical industrial activities involving lead in what are now urban areas - this could involve smelting, glassmaking, pottery glazing, paint manufacturing and use of leaded paints on commercial products, battery manufacturing, circuit board manufacturing, electrical manufacturing of a wide range of objects from light bulbs to electric motors to generators, and on and on; all of which commonly occurred in urban areas.

      2.  Decades of lead deposition by exhaust from a large concentration of vehicles burning fuel containing lead additives

      3. The ubiquity of lead-based paint on structures and infrastructure, which is far more concentrated in old, urban areas than in lightly-populated rural areas

      Moreover, it is not unusual to find lead in urban drinking water due to the presence of old, out-of-code lead plumbing and lead-soldered plumbing fixtures in older apartments that has not yet been brought up to code.

      •  I read the report in it's entirety (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        I don't make FOI requests. Until I see something to be concerned about  I have other things to read about.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:03:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But did you do any research for methods? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1

          Did you note the authors to see if they published any papers in peer-reviewed journals about their approach and results? Did you research for any preliminary publications or file reports that described the proposed methods?

          If you haven't even tried to find the methods, how can you honestly state:

          Even funnier, the studies creating a supposed link to lead bullets aren't made public, only the results. If you want to recreate the experiments, or maybe look at the methods, you can't.
          In light of your explanation, perhaps that should have been worded:
          Even funnier, the studies creating a supposed link to lead bullets weren't provided in the one report I read about this, even though I haven't expended any effort whatsoever to find the methods because I have other things to read about. If you want to recreate the experiments, or maybe look at the methods, you can't unless you want to make some effort to find out, y'know, how they conducted their study.
        •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

          Why read when it is so much easier to just make shit up?

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:59:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Teflon coated tungsten carbide (0+ / 0-)

      might be a good substitute in .223 and .308 . . .

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:36:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  copper is pretty good, it's what I use in hunting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deward Hastings, oldpunk

        bullets, not because of lead but because of it's ability to hold together and for the bullet to create an exit even if it has three feet of animal to go through.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:04:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  copper's lower density (0+ / 0-)

          (compared to lead) gives higher velocity at the muzzle but it falls off faster.  Tungsten carbide is significantly denser than lead and packs more of a wallop.  Tears up the barrel, though, unless it's coated (or copper plated).  So which is better depends on what you're doing.  Both are reasonable substitutes for lead in the appropriate application.

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:37:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  oh, and about that ban? (6+ / 0-)

      Measured levels of lead in turkey vultures and golden eagles declined significantly  As cited in that paper, a lead ban also reduced mallard mortality by 64%.  NOtably:

      In non-migrant[] [golden eagles], there was a 100% reduction in prevalence from 83% (5/6, 95% CI: 41%–99%) pre-ban to 0% (0/9, 95% CI: 0%–28%) post-ban....
      The prevalence of elevated blood lead exposure (>10 µg/dL) in the vultures decreased from 61% (23/38, 95% CI: 45%–75%) pre-ban to 9% (3/33, 95% CI: 2%–23%) post-ban
      oh, and those condors and the 2007 ban, please look to figure 2A here (this is the same PNAS paper I cite above, which shows that while condor lead levels have not increased since the ban.

      IN short, your credibility on this issue just got shot to pieces, if you'll pardon the expression

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:09:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if those hippies in Santa Cruz would make their (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        reports public in their entirety they'd be a lot more believable. It's always the same people. What are they hiding.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:08:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You mean the biologists (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i dont get it

          From Davis that I cited?  Those results are public, as are the ones from the scientists at UC Santa Cruz, as I cited.  Now, if only you were scientifically literate, you could actually read them.   Honestly, you need to spend less time on those right wing gun nut blogs and visit reality more often

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:55:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If you read the studies, Ban Nock, you will (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1

      find that this is because many of the condors hunt outside of the lead ban area. Pretty simple.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:13:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  not really because it's important not to clog (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh

    courts with excessive prosecutions on firearms discharges which are not criminal nor injurious and to further attempt to mandate the general use of "green" ammo.

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 GOP Rep. Steve Stockman (TX):"If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted"

    by annieli on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:56:39 PM PDT

  •  I am not opposed to gun owners carrying special (7+ / 0-)

    insurance.  As for the "negligent storage" this will probably only be enforceable if there is in fact, negligent storage, e.g. that kid comes over for sugar, sees the gun safe open! and unattended!, takes the gun and accidentally discharges it into your neighbors house.  Sounds right to me.

    More likely, "responsible" gun owners, such as those filling up the #GunFail posts, are the ones to be charged, if they didn't kill themselves in the first place.

    Also, too.  It's a gun law... enforcement will be slack compared to drug laws.

    bonzo goes to bitburg should be required listening...

    by decitect on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:57:23 PM PDT

    •  I'm more worried about cops conducting bogus (0+ / 0-)

      searches of property for evil DWUGS and then arresting gun owners for negligent storage.  Even if the DA declines to prosecute, the citizen has an arrest on their record and is out of pocket for attorney's fees etc etc

  •  I'll repeat a comment I've made before (20+ / 0-)
     I'd like to suggest a new rule (9+ / 0-)

    It's this:

        Anytime, when the topic of gun ownership and/or regulation thereof is being discussed, the phrase "law-abiding citizen" or "law-abiding gun owner" is used, know that bullshit will most assuredly be along shortly.

    The phrase "law-abiding" is meaningless. It's an empty phrase.

     Everyone, including the most despicable mass murderer imaginable, is law-abiding up until the time that they aren't.  And it's the "aren't" part that is generally acknowledged to be the problem.

    If laws can be formulated and effectively implemented that will have a beneficial, if only incremental, effect on gun violence (if not today then in coming years, decades, and centuries as the plethora of firearms in this nation slowly corrodes away into useless objects) then we owe it to those who will inherit this deeply flawed nation from us to start along that path; rather than sit indifferently by while the perforated corpses of men, women, and children pile up in our morgues.

    by Ernest T Bass on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 10:46:56 AM PDT

    As to your first point, ammunition can cause pretty severe lead contamination, especially at firing ranges. I think banning lead ammunition is a reasonable measure to reduce this. Moreover, firing a lead round can cause the lead (a neurotoxin) to vaporize where it subsequently can be inhaled. Lead particles also can be taken home in clothing and on shoes, where exposure to children is an even greater concern.

    As for the second bill, that looks good to me.  The relevant section is this:

    (c) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm in the third degree” if the person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm, unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child.
    You've doctored the language of the bill by adding "potentially" in all caps.

    What "reasonable action" means I'm sure will be defined either by regulation or by litigation and will almost certainly include storing firearms and ammunition in a locked safe. The term negligent has been pretty well defined by case law in California, I would think.

    Your description of "anti-gun cops" and DAs "deciding" about reasonable action seems, well, a bit hyperbolic.  Not to mention it's judges that decide, not police or prosecuters.  

    Could you provide a reference for your statement that most of the state's law enforcement officers and D.A.s oppose this bill?

  •  These all sound very smart to me (16+ / 0-)

    First, the ban on using lead shot in condor habitat is imperfectly obeyed and harder to enforce than a ban on sale. (there are something like 400 condors left in the entire world and lead poisoning is a MAJOR cause of mortality).  If you ban the sale in the state, then it's much less likely that lead is used where it shouldn't be.  Furthermore, as you may know, lead is a very toxic heavy metal.  Why should anyone be allowed to spew a toxic heavy metal around the environment?  No one should be using lead shot.  Period.

    Second, why shouldn't gun owners be liable for the damange caused by their activities with abnormally dangerous items?  People who transport gasoline or deal with other items that are likely to cause damage are also strictly liable.  Frankly, if something goes wrong with them, it shouldn't be required that the victim has to prove some higher bar of negligence and the so forth.  Instead, the victims of gun injuries should just have a lower bar on the presumption that playing with guns is inherently dangerous, so the burden is on the person bringing the gun into circulation. Very sensible that the gun owners should bear this risk, not innocent parties.

    Third, the "reasonably possible" standard again puts the responsibility for injuries on the gun owners.  (note "might be possible" is not "reasonably possible"  Contrived causation wouldn't meet this standard) Typically, this sounds more like it is designed to ensure that idiots who leave their guns lying around can be charged for criminal negligence when a kid gets killed playing with the gun.  Again, this forces "responsible" gun owners to actually be responsible.

    Frankly, if you are in fact responsible, then none of these should be an issue. Only those who enjoy being irresponsible object here.  

    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

    by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:12:23 PM PDT

  •  Oh, poor babies. (11+ / 0-)

    Actually having to make sure no one steals their death machines and murders more children with them?!!!! I am outraged! How terrible! /sarcasm

    Really? This is the beach you want to die on? Wow. How ridiculous.

  •  Green bullets don't cost that much more. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert, wader, Joe Bob

    Maybe 10% if you shop around.

    It's more of an issue of availability when it comes to less common calibers.

    Under this section, you are guilty of negligent criminal storage of a firearm "if it is possible" that someone under 18 could POTENTIALLY get their hands on it without your permission. Actually "getting their hands on it" is irrelevant. The crime is committed if it is "reasonably POSSIBLE." So we will now have anti-gun cops & DA's deciding if gun safes are good enough on a case by case basis because it "might be possible" that the neighbor kid could come over to borrow a cup of sugar while the safe is open and the kid could POSSIBLY get his hands on a gun unsupervised.
    This should be much less ambiguous.  There should be minimum standards set forth bluntly for safe storage, the use of trigger locks being a minimum starting point.

    I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

    by JesseCW on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:27:29 PM PDT

  •  Read the whole thing please . (7+ / 0-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    Op-Ed Contributor
    Get the Lead Out of Hunting
    By ANTHONY PRIETO
    Published: December 15, 2010

    Santa Barbara, Calif.

    I’VE hunted elk, deer and wild pigs in the American West for 25 years. Like many hunters, I follow several rules: Respect other forms of life, take only what my family can eat and the ecosystem can sustain, and leave as little impact on the environment as possible.
    ..............

     The dozen friends I hunt with love shooting non-lead bullets, and it’s not just because they’re doing something good for the environment. The ballistics are better. I’ve killed more than 80 pigs and 40 deer shooting copper. These bullets travel up to 3,200 feet per second and have about a 98 percent weight retention — meaning they don’t fragment as easily as lead. Copper kills cleanly. It can help keep our hunting grounds clean as well.

    Anthony Prieto is the founder of Project Gutpile, a hunting group that advocates lead-free ammunition.

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:35:50 PM PDT

    •  Lead shot is a problem everywhere (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i dont get it

      Hunter shoots game. Leaves gut pile on the ground. Scavengers find gut pile. Scavengers ingest the lead.

      Condors may have a protected range in California, but in the rest of the country that's not the case for other animals. E.g.: bald eagle. The advice around here is to cover the gut pile but that's not always effective. You can cover it, some ground animal will uncover it and then the birds still find it.

      Also, the "prohibitively expensive" angle is just bullshit. For something like a slug you are talking about a 30 to 50 cent per round premium for copper vs. lead. What are we talking about here? An extra $5 per hunting trip at most? Considering what I see guys spending on guns, gear, ATVs, deer stands and everything else you "need" for hunting I don't see anyone hurting for $5 to buy shells.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:53:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know anyone who fires... (0+ / 0-)

        ...most of their rounds into animals (fortunately, as they would be horrible shots and cause untold suffering to the animals if they didn't practice occasionally).

        A complete ban in California on lead bullets (if that is really what is in the bill) would mostly impact, cost wise, those that practice shooting at targets as that's how the vast majority of bullets are expended.

        Indeed, this provision (again, if it's represented accurately) is clearly intended to increase the cost of practicing at the range -- probably not a good idea given that we would rather have people more, rather than less, experienced in the operation and use of their firearms.

        If the concern is lead in wildlife, ban the use of lead bullets for hunting. A total lead bullet ban sounds just like what the diarist suggests -- just a way to discourage gun ownership and use and training rather than serving any legitimate use.

        •  So please tell me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dbug

          cost for non lead vs lead ?
          Now factor in clean up , non lead vs lead ?

          If you are going to make a price argument ,
          you really should show the numbers .  

          http://www.infomine.com/...

          Copper USD/lb 3.27
          Lead USD/lb 0.92
          Nickel USD/lb 7.14
          Tin USD/lb 9.65
          Zinc USD/lb 0.84
          So just on the cost of shooting 1 pound of bullets
          the lead would cost 92 cents
          the copper would cost 3.27
          a 2.35 .
          The copper would fragment less and be recyclable .
          The lead would be more fragmented , cause far greater pollution to the shooter and the environment . The chances of the lead moving from the range has to be factored into the real costs of lead vs copper .

          I'm thinking when the externalities are seen / priced ,
          the copper is going to be cheaper .

          Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

          by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:26:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Prices are somewhat hard to get right now. (0+ / 0-)

            Unfortunately, it's hard to get current pricing on ammo online because most vendors are sold out of everything popular so I can't give you the prices easily.

            The cost of materials is not the entire cost -- manufacturing costs for different materials is likely different. Lead, for example, has a much lower melting point (621F) than copper (1981F) which may impact manufacturing costs and techniques.

            Note that there are other issues like cleaning copper vs. lead from barrels - more cleaning and more aggressive cleaning is likely to result in more toxic solvents being used.

            Lead is one of the most easily recyclable metals and it is recycled at ranges (what else would one do with it?). Modern ranges have air handling systems to help deal with lead.

            Fragments are not a problem at a range - they end up collected up with the rest of the lead.

            Lead Acid batteries that are not recycled properly also introduce lead into the environment. California would probably be better off banning these (after all, we have plenty of other chemistries - they just cost more and require different charging systems, even if consumers had to spend $750 changing their charging systems when they next replace their batteries, we would presumably want to do that for the sake of the environment).

            Given that this is being introduced with a rash of gun control bills, there's little doubt in my mind what the real purpose of it is.

            •  OK . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joe Bob

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              California would probably be better off banning these
              Nope , that's not true . The recycling rate is nearly 100% . That is not the case with lead bullets .
              Fragments are not a problem at a range - they end up collected up with the rest of the lead.
              This is so not true that you are completely uninformed or just posting outright lies .
              Unfortunately, it's hard to get current pricing on ammo online because most vendors are sold out of everything popular so I can't give you the prices easily.
              So you don't know , you just say its expensive . But when it comes to posting the numbers ...
              The cost of materials is not the entire cost -- manufacturing costs for different materials is likely different. Lead, for example, has a much lower melting point (621F) than copper (1981F) which may impact manufacturing costs and techniques.
              So tell me , how much more per bullet to cast copper than lead ?
              Do the math . Calculate the cost of the energy to melt a pound of copper and lead .
              Lead is one of the most easily recyclable metals and it is recycled at ranges (what else would one do with it?). Modern ranges have air handling systems to help deal with lead.
              You don't really believe this do you ? You can't be reading up on this subject and think you can pull this off do you ?

              You are saying things that are so far from the truth ,
              its like you are trying to pretend .
              Unfortunately things are not as you claim .
              In reality , in the real world ...

              Just making BS statements is fine and dandy ,
              try providing proof next time .
              I've studied this subject , I can tell that you have not or disregard the truth .

              Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

              by indycam on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:18:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Now that's not practical (0+ / 0-)

          How do you enforce hunting v non hunting bullets?  It's not like all hunters are just going to comply.  Maybe if there were jail time for using lead outdoors and permanaent loss of rights to own guns it might work

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:07:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  most hunting rounds fired in California are (0+ / 0-)

        shotgun rounds.  Where a deer hunter might fire a few rounds during the season, a serious bird hunter goes through hundreds of shotgun shells, both for practice rounds and dove and quail hunting.

        At this time, non-toxic shotgun shells in CA are about 50% more expensive than lead shells.

        I'd be happy if the legislation included some kind of monetary incentives for manufacturers to offer non-toxic shotshells.

  •  asdf (7+ / 0-)
    I support sensible gun legislation
    I suspect not.
    •  I fully supported the failed attempt (0+ / 0-)

      to ban assault weapons in the US Senate.  I have little empathy for gun owners who feel the need to own the latest military looking guns.  

      My sympathies are with responsible people who own a shotgun or rifle or two and maybe go plinking now and then.  People who have no desire to use a gun to "defend" themselves.

  •  I think you posted this on the wrong forum... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh, Eyesbright, UnionMade

    But thanks for posting it anyway.  These sound like measures I'd support 100% if I were a Californian.

  •  My sister and her husband were talking about (4+ / 0-)

    Non-lead shot for duck and goose hunting over 10 years ago.
    Isn't this old hat?

  •  I have to go send a thank you (5+ / 0-)

    to my state leaders. Good to know.

    "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

    by tb92 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:15:20 PM PDT

  •  Almost everything you've said about AB 231 (5+ / 0-)

    is inaccurate, including referring to it as a liability insurance bill. If you got the summary from another site, you might want to cross it off your list of reliable sources.

  •  In the midst of the uniquely horrific (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChadmanFL

    gun violence epidemic our country faces, there's simply no contest to the laws that could help save lives vs.  possible inconvenience to a responsible gun owner. Part of being a responsible gun owner is understanding the massive responsibility owning a gun brings and hopefully having the empathy and integrity to know that whatever small inconvenience you may come across in your quest to shoot targets, beer bottles or animals minding their own business  is small f'ing potatoes compared to the potential to save lives.

    To be blunt, if you do not suffer from seriously diminished mental capacity or the personality disorder that is right wing extremism and still vote Republican...I'd double check on the two previously mentioned conditions.

    by jellin76 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:29:52 PM PDT

  •  meant "no contest between the laws..." (0+ / 0-)

    :)

    To be blunt, if you do not suffer from seriously diminished mental capacity or the personality disorder that is right wing extremism and still vote Republican...I'd double check on the two previously mentioned conditions.

    by jellin76 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:30:50 PM PDT

  •  You are missing the point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, i dont get it
    The lead ban is silly, since hunting with lead shot is already banned for waterfowl, who ingest lead feeding in marshes.
    There is research--recent research--that shows that predatory birds get poisoned from this. And that is unacceptable.

    Keep the lead out.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:03:43 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site