Google’s accidental promotion of an anti-gun law stance
Ev Williams
24832

Why do I have the strangest feeling that you wouldn’t be complaining at all if the result accidentally featured a pro-gun-law stance? Just for reference, “ca prop 63 2016” and “ca prop 63” produce merely neutral descriptive results.

*********

I’m afraid that you’re really quite hopelessly naive if you believe that a proposition that:

* Directly infringes on a constitutional right for of Californians (rendering the right to bear arms recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, [554 U.S. 570 (2008)] completely useless for anyone who does not buy a 4-year $50 permit to buy ammo after submitting to a background check.
* By default makes large purchasers of ammo (most likely to be law-abiding sport shooters) suspicious, recorded and “notable” in law enforcement databases for possible law-enforcement follow up for a completely legal and harmless activity. 
* And forbids all law-abiding RESIDENTS of CA from bringing in ammo from out of state, yet EXCLUDES NON-RESIDENTS from its provisions allowing Mexican and out of state criminals and terrorists to buy all they want anywhere they want, and legally bring it into California under Prop 63 [Ref. 30314. (a)]

…is a “historic and important bill.”

But hey, Ev, thanks for using your platform for naked political propaganda.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.