this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
135 points (97.9% liked)
news
320 readers
483 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Better border control. Oh wait, California is not a country, so focusing on it's state laws is misleading when it's part of a country that has quite lax gun laws in some parts.
Even worse, you can sidestep most of those laws simply by buying out of state with a FFL. Sherrif departments around here hand them out to anyone even remotely conservative. I have a friend from deep oakland who bought a maga hat specifically for when he went to apply for his FFL. Lo and behold, legal suppressors, extended magazines, and all the modified guns he can afford.
You must be confusing a CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) permit with an FFL (Federal Firearms License).
A CCW is obtainable by almost anyone who is over 21 and not a convicted felon, and allows you carry a concealed weapon, such as a handgun or a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches.
An FFL is obtainable by business-owners who pass extensive background checks with the ATF and allows them to legally sell firearms to other people.
A CCW can be obtained over a weekend or two. An FFL takes months of paperwork, interviews, background checks, and filing fees.
If you don't believe me, please go try and obtain an FFL. I'd be very interested to learn how far you get.
I think they might be referring to a lower-tier FFL.
CCW doesn’t award you legal suppressors and large capacity magazines in CA.
Correct. To my knowledge, there is no legal way to possess a suppressor or high capacity magazine in California, under their current laws. In (almost) all other states, high capacity magazines are not regulated, and suppressors can be legally obtained with a $200 tax stamp and NFA form.
I'm not from California, so I'm not as familiar with their laws, but I find the idea of an easy loophole to suppressor ownership very difficult to believe.
I never said it was "easy". It's not. As the other guy pointed out, it's a months long, expensive, and personally invasive process to obtain a FFL. That being said, certain individuals are highly motivated to go through the process anyways. My original point was that the entire process becomes streamlined so long as you don't mind presenting yourself as a conservative. I've heard of people being turned down for a years old social media post, but somehow the redhats don't run into the same issues.
Well I'm glad you clarified then. For a minute there, I thought your original point was that an FFL was an easy loophole to legal machine gun and suppressor ownership in California. Since the ATF regulates FFLs, how does one "present themself as a conservative" during a presumably remote, paper-driven process?
There is at least one in person interview with a representative of the ATF. In my neck of the woods, that means someone down at the local sherrif department.
I'm well aware of the difference. FFLs aren't just for actual business owners. Plenty of private collectors run a "business" of reselling firearms specifically in order to make obtaining a FFL a lot easier. It also is possible to show that you are qualified for one with previous military or law enforcement service, as a firearms instructor, or simply with enough determination and charm around your local police academy.
I'm not certain if you're referring to the border with Mexico or the rest of the US, but if a weapon is banned in California, it's also banned to import one into California from another US state.
Setting up checkpoints and checking every car coming in for weapons would be a violation of every citizens' right to travel, and fourth ammendment right against unreasonable searches.
So, how do you propose to implement "better birder control" without violating the rights of citizens who have committed crime?
Fucking birders and their binoculars.
I love how every week this happens, threads are full of "welp, whaddya gonna do?" in the only country where this happends more than once a day.
I'm simply pointing out that California is part of a wider country therefore some problems can't be solved by local California legislation. The law must become stricter in the rest of the country as well, though not necessarily as strict as the strictest state.
Until the root causes and societal factors that contribute to violence are addressed, any ban serves only to disarm and criminalize what is an otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizenry.
We still control the border between states pretty strictly in California. Though we aren't looking for guns; we're looking for plants and animals that might be invasive.
Not really. There is a checkpoint, but it's been years since I've been stopped there. I travel to Cali 4 or 5 times a year, both through I80 and I15.
We do need to harden the border, much more than we need to control guns. Immigrants coming in from shit hole country are usually the ones who do this. We need to be damn sure none of those filth get over the sierras.
Is that so? Do you have any data to support this claim?
Yeah, why's that matter, and why would i dig it up for american filth?