Talk:Mulford Act

Racism?
While it's implied, has anyone written about this as a racist response? Citations? --Phil Wolff (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Article tense - "was a law"
Is the Mulford Act still on the books? It seems premature to say it "was" a law if it's still in force. rhyre (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically the act or the statutes that it created, are still on the books. More pedantic than premature... Kortoso (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Full NRA support of the Mulford Act
This is an issue that is commonly cited and a popularly 'fact checked' bit. This is cited in the article's references ( Arica L. Coleman (July 31, 2016). "When the NRA Supported Gun Control". []. Retrieved 12 October 2017) but the fact itself has been omitted from the article itself. Kharlos (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Another citation regarding NRA support: In an editorial, Senator John Schmitz wrote: “Members of the National Rifle Association in California should know that their organization, despite its record of opposing gun control bills in the past, favored this bill and that without NRA support it almost certainly would have been defeated.” Colonial Computer 13:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)


 * So far all sources are second hand, news outlets reporting that people said the NRA fully supported the bill. There is a primary source of NRA representative Gordon Powers opposing the bill, but Tod Sloan was a bit warmer to it, having suggested some edits, specifically about self defense. So at best we can say the NRA had mixed support for the Mulford Act. Maybe I'll find an online source referencing this primary source and edit (since primary sources aren't allowed here). QuilaBird (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Political bias
Why is (controlled by democrats) repeated in this article? Is this standard for all articles on U.S. laws? 2600:1702:3030:2500:B35C:B1C8:C7DF:F12C (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Mulford Act is often used to say Republicans are racist because Reagan signed it. I guess this spreads the blame, or credit as may be seen. QuilaBird (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I agree with the choice to document the partisan division of the California Congress at the time this bill was passed - I've never heard the racism accusations surrounding this bill's timing attributed strictly to Reagan or the Republicans - but this section being labeled as the Democrats controlling both the Assembly and Senate was factually wrong, so I've just fixed it. Which does eliminate the repetition of "controlled by democrats" that I agree felt odd and redundant - if it had been correct, I would've just noted that the democrats were the majority party of both houses at the time.


 * On May 27, 2020, an unregistered user changed the text, so that it stated the Democrats were in control of the Senate, 20:19 - it originally stated the Senate was split, 20:20. The unregistered editor cited an old book (available on Google) that documented all the bills and revisions for that congressional session, but I couldn't even find a roll call sheet of any kind in that book, and I checked every page to do with 1591, as well as the front and back of the book. I did find a full roll call list on the same docs that are the #1 page citation for this article (from the state's Chief Clerk's office), and personally counted both the Senate and Assembly members by party, to be sure the original data for both the Senate and Assembly were correct. I did see notations about one Senate member passing, but they were not on the final roll sheet, which should've been accurate when the Senate vote happened, in July.


 * Since this was a fairly old edit I was undoing, I wanted to clearly document how I confirmed the original data I was restoring. CleverTitania (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: BlackLivesMatter
— Assignment last updated by Jalencjones (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)