For the past few years, I've avoided traveling to places where it's obvious that I'm not welcome. Those places include cities, counties and states where I'm in danger of prosecution simply because I am in possession of a firearm. I don't draw any distinction because of caliber, capacity or purpose. If there's a gun in my vehicle (likely), checked in my luggage (occasionally), or otherwise in my possession, I avoid those areas. It's not because I'm afraid of prosecution, it's because I simply refuse to spend any money there to support their political position. If I absolutely have to pass through one of them, that's precisely what I do....I pass through . Anything I need, from fuel to bottled water, I try to get ahead of time. It's made for some irritating energy bar meals when stuck in airports in Chicago, Washington, D.C., New York City or Denver, but it's my personal form of protest. You don't want me, you don't want my money. Los Angeles has probably had the longest tenure on my "no-buy" list, but the latest bit of gun banning has made it obvious that I'm not likely to get back into the feature film business any time soon -at least nothing that requires my being in "LA" if I'm not referring to Louisiana or "lower Alabama."

LA Mayor Eric Garcetti signing the measure that ends legal possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds in Los Angeles. Photo from lamayor.org.

On Friday, Mayor Eric Garcetti signed a City Ordinance that turned anyone who owns a firearm magazine that holds more than 10 rounds into a criminal. The new ordinance, which bans possession of any magazine holding more than 10 rounds inside the city limits, was passed -unanimously- on July 28. Now that it has Garcetti's signature, it will become law in 60 days. (Editor's Note: You can read the ordinance for yourself at: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2013/13-0068_rpt_atty_06-26-14.pdf). There are, of course, exemptions -Hollywood prop masters, gunsmiths, law enforcement, museums (if the magazines are on display) and anyone with a "grandfathered mag" to a weapon to which there is no 10-round magazine produced (Gatling gun owners, rejoice). If you're an LA resident who's not a prop master, gunsmith, policeman or owner of a "grandfathered" weapon, you have sixty days to either: remove them from the city, sell them to a legal gun dealer, or turn them in to the LAPD. Yes, it's likely to be challenged in court. The NRA has already made the obvious points that the ordinance won't prevent violent crime or mass shootings -but does limit the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. They've also made the point that the majority of rifles and pistols popular today are equipped with "standard magazines" that put them in violation of the new ordinance. In response, City Attorney Mike Feuer, who drafted the law, says it's virtually "lawsuit-proof". In fact, he says he believes the ordinance might be challenged on the grounds that it is preempted by state law or violates the Second Amendment, but believes the ordinance "legally defensible on both grounds." That may well be the case, but it doesn't make me any less angry. Los Angeles has problems that range from a drought to a crumbling infrastructure -and those problems, along with everything from crime to garbage collection, require money to address. Instead of spending taxpayers' money fighting any of those real problems, this latest bit of feel-good legislation will likely mean another protracted legal battle over what is, essentially, a manufactured problem. Money that could be used for real problems is, once again, being headed into court for what is really nothing more than political pandering. This latest bit of political grandstanding isn't designed to fight crime. Councilman Paul Kerkorian, author of the ordinance, readily admits "these magazines may not be the cause of gun violence." But he insists when used by criminals or crazies, those same magazines enable "tragedies" to "turn into massacres." Maybe I'm slow, but it would seem to me that creating areas where people are in danger of going to jail for having the means to defend themselves would pose a greater overall threat. But I've never been able to see how making law-abiding citizens potential criminals deterred real criminals . What I have noticed- and has caused me serious concerns- is that my personal no-travel areas are expanding. And that's despite numerous legal victories that theoretically affirmed my ability to go there without worry. Instead, I have to worry that having an accident, becoming ill or, God forbid, running into a criminal intent on doing me or my family harm will turn me into a criminal this particular area has decided warrants more attention than the career denizens who prey on law-abiding people who -if they follow the spirit and intent of the law- will be unarmed. For me, it's simpler just to plan accordingly. --Jim Shepherd