California Wants To Video Every Gun Purchase—And Every Gun Purchaser
Article first appeared at NRAMedia.
First California’s anti-gunners said they only wanted a one-day waiting period for handgun purchasers … then three days … then five … then 15.
First California’s anti-gunners said they only wanted to register handguns brought from another state … then all long guns … then any and every newly purchased gun.
First California’s anti-gunners said, “We’re only banning certain semi-automatics and you can keep the rest so long as you register them.” … Then they turned around and said, “Oops! Many of those registered guns are actually banned!” and used those registration lists to demand owners get them out of the state or give them up. Got four video cameras, 300 hard drives and a place to store them for five years?
Now, in the latest chapter of California’s endless saga of broken promises and “give an inch and we’ll take a mile,” anti-gun politicians in Sacramento are pushing a bill requiring gun dealers to record video of every firearm and ammunition purchaser.
But the bill, AB 2459, introduced by Democrat Assembly member Kevin McCarty of Sacramento, goes much further.
The law would not only require dealers to record video of purchasers in the store, but also “all places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold or transferred; the immediate exterior surroundings of the licensee’s business premises; and all parking areas owned or leased by the licensee.”
That’s a lot of video cameras. And they’re going to need a lot of tapes. Because AB 2459 also requires that the video footage be stored and maintained on the premises for at least five years.
Even if it was digital, that’s a lot of hard drives. Let’s see: Four cameras recording 50 hours per week for 50 weeks per year times five years is 50,000 hours of video. At a resolution that “makes the facial features of the purchaser clearly visible,” that five years of footage is going to occupy 750 terabytes. Got 300 hard drives? Got somewhere “on the premises” to store them for five years?
That’s only the beginning.
In addition, firearms dealers will be forced to carry at least $1 million worth of insurance “against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business.” A similar mandate drove San Francisco’s last remaining gun dealer out of business last year.
And that’s not all!
AB 2459 also requires that such commercial insurance “contain an endorsement providing that the policy shall not be canceled until written notice has been given to the Department of Justice at least 30 days prior to the time the cancellation becomes effective.” And it requires dealers to provide proof—every year—that such a policy is in effect.
AB 2459 also bans firearms dealers from doing business out of their homes and carries penalties of up to a $2,000 fine per day per incident of non-compliance with any of its edicts.
It’s enough to make you wonder whose brother-in-law sells insurance or installs video monitoring systems.
But the effect of such a law is clear: It makes selling firearms too much hassle, expense, liability and trouble to be worth it.
Just look at San Francisco for proof: After the Golden Gate City imposed a city ordinance just like AB 2459, requiring gun dealers to capture and store video footage of gun purchasers, the city’s last remaining gun dealer, High Bridge Arms, closed its doors forever.
But maybe that was the point from the start.
And while it might be tempting to shrug it off as just more of California’s anti-gun liberal lunacy, the fact is, all too often, “As goes California, so goes America.”
Many of the gun bans we see at the national level get their start in California.
The Clinton so-called “assault weapons” ban is just one in a long line. All too often, “As goes California, so goes America.”
In fact, the anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence considers California gun control a “model” for gun laws across the United States.
So the next time you hear President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders say they “respect” the Second Amendment, and only want to impose “universal” background checks or this or that focus-grouped, soundbite anti-gun “solution”—look at California and see where it leads.
The anti-gun lobby isn’t about to shut down, pack up and go home after it wins “just one more law.” The fundraising ability of these groups, the livelihoods of their leaders, the political careers of their backers and their very existence depends upon them finding one “problem” after another—one “loophole” after another—to “solve” with their anti-gun schemes.
And they all lead to the same future for you and your children: a future where the Second Amendment means nothing, and where your right to own a gun to protect yourself and your family—or for any other reason—is buried under an avalanche of bans, restrictions, taxes, exceptions and mandates that put firearms out of reach of honest, lawful Americans.