View Single Post
Unread 07-11-2008, 10:11 PM   #13
Aaron
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vista, CA
Posts: 1,008
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Yes, but one could argue that obstruction of ownership of a gun is a defacto way of preventing gun ownership. California has made it impossible to buy a cheap, affordable gun by indiscriminately labeling many serviceable firearms as "Saturday night specials." It has also imposed unaffordable fees on gun purchases and transfers. The state has and continues to impose unreasonable restrictions on manufacturers which has significantly reduced the selection of guns available. Paying $35 or more to transfer a $50 .22 rifle is tantamount to prohibiting such a transfer, thus very possibly depriving a low income individual from acquiring a cheap weapon for home defense. Such laws can only be deemed "unreasonable."
Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote