I took possession of my new to me Rossi Model 62 .22 pump action rifle yesterday after jumping through a few hoops. I showed up at Ammo Bros a little after 6pm to pick up my gun after the 10 day waiting period. In California the law states that all sales and transfers of firearms must be accompanied by a cable/trigger lock with a receipt from the last 30 days or proof you have a safe. Fine I'll buy a $5 cable lock, but the guy helping me noticed the chamber wouldn't accept a cable so I'd need a trigger lock. They didn't have any so it was off to Turner's to buy their last trigger lock (rung up at $30, but it had an old $20 sticker on it which they honored) and hurry back to AmmoBros before they closed.
So they check off that I have the trigger lock and receipt and hand me my gun. So now I have an unopened trigger lock and no lawful requirement that it actually be used. This is just one of California's wacky gun laws. They should pass a law saying all scooter/motorcycle sales (even private party sales) be accompanied with proof of ownership of a helmet, but then you don't actually have to wear one while riding. I don't see why I shouldn't return the trigger lock and reclaim my $22.
Off to Seattle tonight for a nice little vacation. I hit my one year with the county last week so I can actually use my vacation. Also, my promotion went throught last week so I'm now an Application Developer I.
Tagged with: california, guns, law
Posted under: Life Stuff
Politicians must think that if they don't pass a new law every two days then they aren't doing their job. The hands-free cell phone law is a great example of this need to pass legislation that is supported by absolutely zero reasonable thought.
At politician school you learn two things: find a legitimate problem and then create a dumb solution that doesn't address the actual problem. Firearm laws are a great example of this.
The new hands-free cell phone law is also a perfect example. There's two components to talking on a hand held cell phone: holding the phone to the side of your face and carrying out a conversation. The politician looks at this situation and sees two possibilities: make it illegal to hold a phone in your hand while driving or make it illegal to have conversations while driving. If I put my stupid politician hat on I immediately realize that holding a phone to your head drastically increases the risk of an accident and for the sake of public safety it must be stopped.
Removing the stupid politician hat I understand that my knee jerk reaction might not be valid and requires further investigation. Maybe scientists have done research into this problem area?
Hmmm how about that? It is quite possible that holding a
conversation makes up most of the increase of collision risk.
When I look at the situation and use common sense I come to the conclusion that to have any noticeable effect on collisions all activities that distract a driver have to be made
illegal, not just using a hand held cell phone. Here's a short list:
- Participating in any conversation
- Listening to the radio/music/talk radio
- Looking at billboards, bumper stickers, license plate frames or any other advertisements
- Consuming food or beverages
- Applying makeup
- Driving with one hand (manual transmission drivers would have a 3 second period between shifts to place both hands back on the wheel)
- Driving while holding any object
- Sneezing/Coughing/Yawning/Sleeping/Farting/Barfing/Laughing/Stretching/Waving/Smiling/Thinking
Okay I'm just kidding. Kind of. To spite the new law I might just drive around with a banana held up to my head blaring "Ring ring ring, banana phone" over my stereo. If it is illegal to talk on a phone in your hand surely I would get pulled over for doing the same with a piece of fresh fruit.
Tagged with: cell phone, driving, hands free, law, sarcasm
Posted under: Political Stuff
