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.