‘House-To-House Confiscation’ Of Guns Will Be On California Ballot

Off the Grid News

California is poised to vote in some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation when voters go to the polls in November.

The ballot initiative, Proposition 63, would ban magazines larger than 10 rounds, which critics say would lead to house-to-house confiscation by police statewide.  

It also would:

  • Require ammunition sales be made through licensed vendors.
  • Require lost or stolen guns or ammo be reported to police.
  • Require buyers pass a background check prior to purchasing ammunition.

The magazine ban is drawing the most opposition.

“Millions of legal magazines will need to be sold out-of-state, taken out-of-state, or seized by law enforcement,” according to the Coalition for Civil Liberties, which opposes Proposition 63.

‘House-To-House Confiscation’ Of Guns Will Be On California Ballot

Image source: Pixabay.com

Many legal firearms will only operate with “magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, making them effectively illegal,” the coalition noted.

“This backdoor gun ban is not just on future sales, but forces you to surrender your existing private property to law enforcement,” it added.

The coalition asserted that Proposition 63, if passed, will lead to “house-to-house confiscation” of guns and magazines.

According to the text of theproposed law, anyone who is caught possessing an illegal magazine can be jailed for up to one year. Current owners of such magazines have three choices, according to the text: 1) remove it from the state, 2) sell it to a licensed dealer, or 3) surrender it to police “for destruction.”

Sheriffs from Butte, Shasta and Modoc counties told KHSL-TV that the proposal would turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.

“Proposition 63 is bad for gun owners and bad for California,” Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko told the outlet.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association opposes Proposition 63.

“This measure would do little to prevent the criminal element from acquiring guns and ammunition via the black market or through theft,” a letter from the association reads. “Instead, it would place additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens who wish to purchase ammunition for sporting or hunting use, retain guns and magazines that are currently legal for them to possess, and pass historical or family heirloom guns down to their next generation.

The measure, the letter reads, “will create a new class of criminals out of those that already comply with common sense practices that now exist.”


12 thoughts on “‘House-To-House Confiscation’ Of Guns Will Be On California Ballot

  1. So if it goes against the Constitution, or enschrined words like “Shall not be infringed” you just hold a vote among the braindead..

    Good that we have progressed so greatly, otherwise the South would still have her chained slaves if it came down to a vote.

  2. What’s a law abiding citizen? Is it them folks that have buckled under fear and allowed the absolute law, the 2nd. article of OUR Bill of Rights to be infringed? Yes, it is.

    People, grow a spine, get off your knees and put these fraudulent govt. impersonators down.

    Remember they are servants, not slave masters!

    1. Right on!

      To be “law abiding” is commendable ONLY when the laws make sense and are compatible with basic human rights. Laws that attempt to create or protect a monopoly on political power should be ignored, and attempts to enforce such laws should be met with fierce resistance.

      Rights aren’t things to be begged for. That would make them privileges. Rights are things to be TAKEN, then DEFENDED as needed.


    JD – US Marines – Dear Heavenly Lord,… PLEASE!,.. PLEASE let them start house to house confiscations!!!!!!! (… when the safety is off,… it’s in “let’s-party” mode!)


    1. We Californians are watching these scub bags, but also we are almost laughing knowing the 55gal Drum of WHOOP-A$$ that is going to be opened up and poored on them lavishly.

      In short? WE’VE HAD IT!!!

      JD! YOU ROCK!!!! 🙂 We love you brother!!!

  4. “… Proposition 63, would ban magazines larger than 10 rounds,”


    It’s been my understanding that that’s been the case for years. Maybe it is just 30 round mags or more, and anything less than 30 is still ‘legal’.

    “Current owners of such magazines have three choices, according to the text: 1) remove it from the state, 2) sell it to a licensed dealer, or 3) surrender it to police “for destruction.”

    There’s a fourth choice.


  5. You’d be surprised just how many Californians are going to defy any of this crap, and in spite of all the threats from the communist that seem to control the governments and police THEY WILL FIGHT!!! Based on what people have told me they may come out, but eventually they will run out of knuckle draggers to do their dirty work. California is an “OLD WEST” state. Never forget that.

    Again. They have a plan to ride the bear, but that is not the same thing as actually riding the bear.


  7. I have never met a person that would voluntarily hand their guns over, I hope I never do. House to house confiscation? Good luck with that!

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *