Movin’ On with Prop. 63 and a New President

As the saying goes, “it’s all over but the shouting” and although we got sucker punched here in California, 2nd Amendment supporters have every reason to be hopeful, because what happens on the national scene will directly impact us on the west coast.

There’s a lot of hand-wringing going on post- election from every conceivable corner – the left is hopping mad that Trump bested Hillary, and the gun community is livid that Prop. 63 passed.  Are we disappointed?  You bet.  Are we surprised?  Nope.

We were outspent 3 – 1 and besides, the anti-gunners are very good liars.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom raised a lot of money from his entertainment sugar daddies, and spent the bulk of the $4.25 million prop63-002he raised just to get it on the ballot.  Our Coalition – which was financially supported by GOC, CRPA, the NRA and the Firearms Policy Coalition – plus many grassroots individuals and small businesses, raised over $1 million but that was still dwarfed by the money dumped in by Hollywood lefties.  GOC has been very open about the Coalition’s election strategy – understanding we had an uphill battle to climb given the huge fundraising gap, but if you want to know more, see our past posts on what we were doing.

We’re not just trying to be clever when we ask what everyone wants to know:  which asinine gun law trumps the other – the ballot initiative – or Senator de Leon’s legislation which was signed by the Governor this summer?  It’s gonna be a regulatory nightmare, but the mandates of each have been “merged” and the operative dates are as follows:

  • Reporting mandate of lost and stolen guns: July 1, 2017
  • “Large” capacity magazine possession ban: July 1, 2017
  • Illegal ammunition transfers: Effective immediately
  • Ammunition sales process (deadline for completion of regulations): January 1, 2018
  • Ammunition vendor licensing requirement and ban on internet sales: January 1, 2018
  • Limitations on ammunition displays: Effective date is unknown
  • Registration of ammunition sales: January 1, 2019
  • Ammunition purchase permits: January 1, 2019
  • Local regulation of ammunition – not preempted: Effective immediately
  • Confiscation of firearms from prohibited persons: January 1, 2018

The bottom line is that with the election of Donald Trump also comes an appointment to the Supreme Court.  His promise to uphold the 2nd Amendment will put us in a solid position to fight in the courts, and this is the best, most stunning news we got last night.

GOC’s message has not changed – and it never will.  Until we change the fannies that are sitting in the seats of power, we are never going to get anywhere.  And we will never kick anyone’s butt out the door until the gun owner community gets off their own comfortable posterior to do it.


  1. Michael Pintacura on November 9, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    I am very frustrated with gun advocates. All of the restrictions around guns goes relatively unopposed. We need to repeal some of the silliest laws in the nation.

    • watt webb on November 11, 2016 at 10:27 pm


      This may work:

      Trump announced defunding of Sanctuary cities on his website:

      The Second Amendment is highly restricted by states such as CA, NJ, NY and IL. If threatened by loss of Fed Funds, they would have to seriously consider repealing their unconstitutional laws to stave off severe economic collapse.

      I propose that we gather The Second Amendment Community to ask Trump to announce this ASAP. His website has a suggestion box where we can all let him know:

      Let me know what you think, who to contact and let’s get this rolling!!!


      • GP on November 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm

        Thank you for the link to President Trump. I just used it and sent it on to my associates. We have been dependent on organizations to protect us, with devastating failure. We are the backbone of the Second Amendment and are responsible for its collapse. We won’t go down without a fight, but to date, there’s been none.

    • nara on November 16, 2016 at 6:14 pm

      Other State gun owners must help out the gun owners in California to repeal prop 63 and educate the public of our constitution, 2nd amendment rights they don’t teach in grade schools.

      California is the test bed for gun confiscation blueprint for other American States.

      There needs to be a national petition to repeal duplicate overlapping gun restrictions in America.

      What happens in California, so goes the rest of clueless American States. Lied to by Liberals who want to control America to make it another European Union state.

      Gavin never-guns Newsom, is scheduled to be the next California governor by Liberal gun haters.

      • GP on November 17, 2016 at 10:29 pm

        Look how effective we were dumping Hillary. We can do the same for Newsom. Remember, the media is the enemy.

    • John on November 16, 2016 at 7:11 pm

      Gavin Newsom, to be the next gun hating California governor?

      We hope this Liberal never gets voted in, what did his parents do to make him this way?

    • Notmyreal Name on January 10, 2017 at 10:49 pm

      As a physician and one who has complied with all the crazy rules to date (registered my AR’s, tallied my mags to prove date of ownership etc.) I find it VERY troubling that CA can retroactively outlaw legally purchased and owned firearms and mags.

      Many of the guns I own came with the standard 15 round mags and to date I have been unable to find replacements which comply with the law. I assume that ones will be produced but for heavens sake, my .22lr target pistol came with a 15 rounder. Hardly an “assault weapon”!!!

      What we need is a lawsuit and a judge willing to put a hold on the law until the legal challenge is settled.

      This amounts to an unconstitutional ‘taking’ in that legally owned products are outlawed and must be removed from the state (liquidated) without financial compensation. It also infringes upon our 2nd amendment rights without justification of public interest, but in the whim on non-gun owners. What’s next, outlawing V8 engines by those driving electric cars?

      • Joe R. on February 3, 2017 at 1:14 am

        I agree with Notmyreal Name. Retroactive laws are in my opinion ex post facto laws, which are illegal and unconstitutional. I am a retired police officer and obtained my high capacity magazines while working as a cop. My department required that I purchase my own weapon and magazines. Why should I be required to turn them in now? Have I become morally corrupt and/or lost my good character since I retired in the last two years? I guess the new California laws (CPC 32310) will make folks like me criminals……Can’t we do more to challenge and reverse this unfair and unconstitutional law?

  2. AC on November 9, 2016 at 11:57 pm

    I don’t like the message of your closing statement.

    Gun owners did get off their asses by Huge numbers and voted against 63.

    • L.A. Paredes on November 10, 2016 at 12:13 am

      You are right; but a lot didn’t. We are deeply appreciative of those who exercised their right, but if every one who owned a gun took the time to be informed and then vote, we could get a lot more done.

      • Mike on November 10, 2016 at 1:08 am

        We gun owners that live in the country can’t compete against all the city dwellers, just can’t do it 🙁

    • Larry on November 10, 2016 at 12:51 am

      He is talking about the politicians.

    • Scott Wallace on November 10, 2016 at 1:18 am

      3,253,922 voted against prop 63. There are around 18m registered voters. Gun ownership is estimated, conservatively at 20%, which would be 3.6m.

    • Eric on November 12, 2016 at 2:11 am

      Prop 63 was a huge loss. 2/3 of California voters approved it. I just don’t understand how there is so little pro 2nd amendment, logical people in this state compared to the majority of anti-gunners.

      • Larry on November 17, 2016 at 6:56 am

        Hi, CA gun owner here…

        Can we all just take a breath for a minute and think about this a different way? Sure, there are some anti-gun people out here. To be honest, I don’t know what their numbers really are. But could the real reason prop 63 passed is that people are reacting to shootings that are over-amplified in the media? It is understandable that people are scared and are looking for a way to focus their fear. If you are a politician and don’t want to do anything about economic issues or social issues, the easiest thing to do is to play on people’s fears. In the case of Prop 63 is to make people afraid of law abiding citizens and those scary bullets they use for target practice or hunting. Until we come together and work on the larger problems of society politicians will continue to play us off each other and take away individual rights – whether it’s our 1st amendment rights or our 2nd amendment rights, etc…

      • Braden Lynch on December 1, 2016 at 4:56 pm

        Indeed, 2/3 of voting Californians are fools. If I put on a ballot measure that prevented their First Amendment rights like freedom of speech, practicing their religion (if they even have one) or the right to PEACEFULLY assemble, you can be sure they would be SCREAMING about the protection of the Constitution. Funny how they treat the Bill of Rights like it is a set of menu choices.

        Prop 63 and all the gun control laws, everywhere, are a violation of the Constitution. They should be declared null and void by any judge who can read the English language.

    • Don on December 27, 2016 at 4:18 am

      Maybe the votes for 63 were fixed demand s recount

    • John on December 7, 2017 at 5:10 pm

      Amen, l voted against #63

  3. David on November 10, 2016 at 12:27 am

    With Trump electing a new official to the supreme court, will gun owners be able to use the same media that the gay rights activists used to get their agenda approved?

  4. Gibby on November 10, 2016 at 12:29 am

    Well hopefully PREZ TRUMP will help us out !!!!

  5. Barbara on November 10, 2016 at 2:24 am

    As a Californian, I am devastated by the lack of upholding our 2nd Amendment, disappointed in the continual control everyone here seems to think they need, and I ponder…is it because we can not think for ourselves? Have we lost all ability to self sustain individually? Californian’s as a majority seem to support restrictive laws, it almost reminds me of being little and having to ask mommy and daddy for permission. The majority of voters here want to be controlled and told what to do. I for one, after 55 years of life in this state am fed up. I can’t burn firewood in the city on a no burn day to warm my house when money is tight for the utility bill….I can’t mow the lawn if it’s a spare the air day with my gas mower, blows my mind. In the heat of summer, we should not turn on our air conditioners during peak hours to avoid power outages, and we can not barbeque with charcoal either on those days. The majority of leadership in this state are so contradictory in that they must tell us how to live, survive, and be controlled. I can not believe I live in a state that is predominantly full of people that are either completely brain dead or just don’t vote because it’s too much trouble and believe it’s a no win situation. It is lazy. My deceased husband bought me a lifetime membership to NRA and I am proud to support its beliefs to this day. I don’t have money to politic, I survive alone, and will never do anything to turn my back on my Constitution. Thank you NRA.

    • Randall Delling on January 8, 2017 at 10:14 pm

      That’s why we call it the People’s Republic of California. Gavin Newsom is the head communist and Diane Feinstein is the hypocritical concealed carry holder puppet. Newsom is protected by men and women who have guns. What a hypocrite.

  6. BD on November 10, 2016 at 4:29 am

    Let’s outlaw the use of guns in Hollywood…If we can’t have them, why should they…

    • Rango on November 10, 2016 at 9:32 pm

      This is an excellent point that should be expanded. Hollywood has long had the privilege of having anything they want for he sake of making movies, i.e. making money. There is a privileged exception in the penal code that exempts the movie industry. Assault weapons intended for use in the film industry are allowed, with approval from the DOJ. Check 12020 pc. And this includes fully automatic weapons! How else could the “Expendables” blow up the world? They have been getting away with this for decades. And who decides how there weapons are stored and used? The DOJ. Ha!

  7. Guido on November 11, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Will Trump’s initiatives for National Right To Carry and 2nd Ammendment support force a rollback of CA gun restrictions?

    Can’t the Feds combine witholding of funds with legal action against CA until it changes?

  8. E S on November 11, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    The simple facts of life is this.

    1.) Criminals do not buy their guns in gun stores or any place where they have to take a test, do a background check or register their weapons of choice. Never did and never will.

    Therefore gun control accomplishes only one mission:

    2.) It cripples the law abiding citizens making them soft targets for criminals and terrorist, aiding in only one agenda ( highlite, right click, go to)

    It’s time to repel Prop 63 and attack the root problem of society – ( highlite, right click, go to)

  9. John on November 12, 2016 at 2:23 am

    “Illegal ammunition transfers: Effective immediately.”

    What does this pertain to? I can’t find anything telling what an “illegal ammuntion transfer” is.

    • L.A. Paredes on November 12, 2016 at 6:48 am

      According to both the initiative language and the statute, an illegal ammunition transfer is when anyone supplies, delivers, sells or gives ammo to any person you know or have cause to believe is not the actual buyer and with the knowledge of or cause to believe the ammo will be sold or transferred to a prohibited person. A prohibited person is defined as anyone who has committed a felony or one of the several disqualifying violent misdemeanors, as determined by statute in the Penal Code. A full list can be found below:

  10. Chris Meyer on November 12, 2016 at 2:43 am

    Well, the current SCOTUS nominee, just went into the trash bin. Ruth Bader Ginsberg hates Trump, and she has one foot in the grave. So Trump can give us a 6/3 on the Court. This is a good thing. The Court needs to reign in the 9th Circuit Court, and apply some discipline to to the circuit courts, so that there is consistency country wide. California has left the “reservation”, and needs to be hauled back under Amendment #2 of the Constitution to the standards of the law of the land.

  11. nara on November 13, 2016 at 4:48 am

    Proposition 63 was voted in by voter fraud of non-citizens voting in California during the presidential election. The one-sided California Sacramento dictatorship is corrupt.
    They had one of their own voting for gun control and selling illegal guns at the same time, go figure.

  12. Steve on November 14, 2016 at 8:41 am

    Mr. Paredes,

    Any federal statute (law) for nationwide “concealed carry” must be clarified to require that notwithstanding any State, county or local law to the contrary, ANY concealed carry license or permit issued by any State agency or political subdivision (i.e,. by a county government or sheriff or city police chief) SHALL be deemed valid across state lines, except when the person carrying concealed is a prohibited person under federal law (i.e., a convicted felon, under indictment or a fugitive for a pending FELONY–not a mere infraction or misdemeanor offense).

    Concealed carry (and open carry) locations should be governed by the firearm laws of the traveling state, NOT the CCW licensee’s issuing state; PROVIDED THAT no State, county or local government may enact or enforce any law banning the concealed carry of any lawful HANDGUN which was lawfully obtained and owned by the licensee or permit holder in his or her home state, including so-called high capacity magazines and hollow-point ammunition therefor.

    The open carrying of all legal long-guns should be subject to the visiting State’s laws (including Fish & Game laws), but consistent with the 1986 federal Firearm Owners Protection Act.

    This is necessary so CCW licensees from one State cannot be arrested and prosecuted while possessing and carrying different model HANDGUNS in interstate commerce that an anti-gun State may now or later ban from importation by its own residents, such as California’s approved list or roster of handguns.

    One or more of the bills now pending in Congress state that any “restrictions” on the CCW licensee in his home state shall also apply to carrying in the traveling state. This is UNWORKABLE because it would require other state and local governments to also know the gun laws and carry policies of 49 other issuing States and/or thousands of local sheriffs/police chiefs in addition to their own gun laws. It is also unworkable because some (California) sheriffs have arbitrarily added silly restrictions that their CCW licenses are not valid in OTHER States (beyond their jurisdiction), even though “validity” should be governed by the new federal law for nationwide “concealed carry” PROVIDED THAT the CCW license or permit is not revoked or expired.

    Also, any nationwide “concealed carry” RECOGNITION statute might be challenged in federal courts by one or more anti-gun states under the Tenth Amendment, so it is ESSENTIAL that Congress state and include the “constitutional basis and authority” for such nationwide “concealed carry” statute in the underlying House and Senate bills, including, but not limited to, (1) the Second Amendment, (2) the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause, (3) the Full Faith and Credit Clause, (4) the Interstate Commerce Clause, and (5) the “constitutional right to travel from state to state” under the Ninth Amendment (if that “right” resides there or elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution or federal case law).

    Recall that “Obamacare” was initially challenged by several States in federal courts claiming that is was “unconstitutional” under the Commerce Clause and other legal arguments; but the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld “Obamacare” under the TAXING Clause of the United States Constitution to the stunning surprise of the litigating parties and media.

    Please advise GOA and NRA to get on board and immediately amend any proposed nationwide “concealed carry” House and Senate bills to clarify the carry parameters, supra, and to withstand any potential legal challenges by anti-gun states such as California and New York to name a few.



    P.S. Please note the legal difference between CCW “reciprocity” policies and CCW “recognition” laws. The former are generally written voluntary agreements (contracts) between one or more State governments, whereas “recognition” laws are governed by written state laws stating that a State accepts ALL other State licenses or permits. Thus, nationwide “concealed carry” would be a federal “recognition” statute (NOT a contract) enacted by Congress under the authority of the United States Constitution, supra.

  13. Steve on November 15, 2016 at 12:33 am

    Mr. Paredes,

    It is not fair to “unfortunate residents” living in anti-gun states and/or anti-gun local jurisdictions (i.e., Los Angeles, San Francisco, D.C. and NYC) that refuse to issue concealed carry licenses/permits to “ordinary citizens” to carry in their home state, while other states would be required to honor other state licenses under a nationwide “concealed carry” RECOGNITION statute (new federal law).

    Also, IF the new federal law and/or someone’s home state requires them to first have a license issued from their home state, the “unfortunate residents” could not carry in their home state and anywhere in the United States. The only way to remedy this problem is to have the new federal law require that ANY “concealed carry” license or permit issued by ANY state or local government is valid anywhere in the United States (the 50 States and other federal territories and possessions). This will circumvent any anti-gun states and anti-gun local governments whom refuse to issue “concealed carry” licenses or permits to their own residents as well as non-residents. This is necessary since numerous states currently only honor their own licenses OR only honor so-called “resident” licenses issued by other states.

    Please advise GOA and NRA to act accordingly.


  14. John on November 16, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    Will California total ban all guns with Gavin Newsom in office?

  15. mick kerry on November 16, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Are we living in a anti gun nation?

  16. mary grise on November 16, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    What do AR gun owners do to protect their guns from confiscation?
    Some of us will not be able to afford the taxation on AR’s.

  17. mary grise on November 16, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Gavin Newsom the next California governor will abolish the 2nd amendment in California, but let the pot smokers break federal laws.

    • Don on December 27, 2016 at 4:34 am

      Yes and we should force the FBI to enforce Marijane federal laws in the states that have legalized it federal law Trumps state law

  18. GP on November 17, 2016 at 8:42 pm

    While the effects of Prop. 63 approach, more anti-gun bills are in progress. California’s goal is to become a gun free state, completely stripping our Second amendment right. We all understand that this will only effect the law abiding citizens.

    In regard to the portion of Prop. 63, (Ammunition), many gun owners will opt out of securing a permit and purchasing ammo locally. This has its disadvantage. California’s left would like to see every gun store in the state, out of business. A severe reduction in sales would allow that accomplishment.

    While many gun owners see anti-gun bills at face value, rest assured there are undercurrents to every bill.

    Our only hope is that responsible, law abiding gun owners will hold President Trump to his promise of protecting the Second Amendment, especially California.

    In an earlier post, a contributor offered a link to President Trump.
    Please use it. CRPA and NRA have not been successful.

    • John H. on November 21, 2016 at 11:58 pm

      I’m not sure I agree with the comment, “…Prop. 63, (Ammunition), many gun owners will opt out of securing a permit and purchasing ammo locally. ”

      First — lawful, non-registered purchases of ammo are in effect until Jan. 1, 2019. Barring some overturning of Prop. 63, CA gun owners can continue to purchase ammo without a permit / BG check for another 2 years, and will do so whether locally or online.

      After Jan. 1, 2019, however, I don’t see how anyone can speculate that gun owners will no longer buy ammo locally. If you have a gun and you range / hunt you NEED ammo. As long as gun stores continue to sell ammo people will continue to purchase it.

      • Aaa on November 26, 2016 at 11:21 pm

        Many CA shooters will buy ammo in another state and bring it back , rather than subject themselves to this hideous law.

      • Rich on November 27, 2016 at 5:48 am

        I think GP was implying that folks would go out of state (Nevada, Arizona) to buy their ammo.

  19. LS on November 30, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Working on a project that shares the stories of individuals in Southern California about to purchase a new gun. First-time buyer? Adding to a collection? Finally found a rare antique? If you’re open to sharing your story, please email Tell us about yourself and why you’re making the purchase.

  20. Rolans Hagopian on December 4, 2016 at 5:05 am

    Our political process is corrupt to the core.
    as civil rights advocates we should engage in massive civil disobedience. The sooner the better.

  21. Jeff Zucker on December 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    DO NOT COMPLY! Do not register your guns. Do not turn in your magazines. Resist. Yes, massive, complete total civil disobedience.

  22. Mike Moseley on December 25, 2016 at 12:00 am

    Trump being elected will have no effect on Calif. First off the US supreme court has refused 3 times to hear calif gun cases, twice on assault weapon ban and once on San Francisco city ordenance law. Calif is way to far left wing, now with a super majority. ive always said Calif will be the first state to totally ban all guns, and we are nearly there. And Newsom will be the next Gov. and we dont have enough money to stop him. So i am moving from Calif and moving back to the USA. Moving to the freedom state Texas. So il bid you farewell and leave you to fight this worthless battle against communism. There is nothing left in Calif except communists and ilegal mexicans.

  23. Anita on August 11, 2017 at 8:15 am

    Why is our right to protect ourselves being prevented, while government officials can carry or have body guards who carry. We are to ALL be treated equally, that’s what all the crazy fanatic’s are yelling about, so why would that not include our right to protect ourselves. With all the hoopla about guns killing people, rediculous, you put the gun, knife, axe, hatchet, pick, on a table it’s not going to kill or harm anyone, it’s humans who choose to pick it up and use it. If we are going to ban guns we need to ban the above mentioned including vehicles, aren’t trucks being used to run people down, vehicles are considered a weapon when it’s used to kill a person in a court of law, so are knives. We need to stop being so quiet and do something about this.