State gun seizure law approved

April 19, 2013

gunA unique gun-seizure program in California will get additional funding following passage of a San Francisco Democrat’s bill Thursday by the full Assembly. (Sacramento Bee)

The program, called the Armed and Prohibited Persons Act, authorizes the expenditure of $24 million over the next three years for the taking of arms from people who purchased guns lawfully, but who have been convicted of a felony, a violent misdemeanor, a domestic violence  restraining order, or an official determination of mental instability. It was introduced by Sen. Mark Leno.

Supporters say that more than 20,000 people have been identified in California as possessing guns illegally.

Attorney General Kamela Harris said after the vote that the measure will allow her department “to double efforts to enhance the law and reduce the number of weapons illegally possessed by dangerous individuals.”

The bill heads for the governor’s desk after a Senate vote, where it will receive its anticipated final approval.


Loading...
Tacoma641

Why do we need this law. If it is already illegal for these people to own firearms and we already know who these people are. Why don’t the police go and confiscate their guns.

It sounds like the legislature is ramping up to create some new agencies and start back with overspending. Remember they got their tax increase that was supposed to get us out of debt. Now we are not in debt anymore so we can start going back into debt. What a bunch of idiots.


The Gimlet Eye

Why do we need this law?


Because we are in the hands of that good old “strong government” that old Alexander Hamilton lobbied so hard for and got (most of it) many long years ago.


Because this tradition has been continued by strong, “activist,” presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ, Tricky Dick, Bush the Elder, Slick Willie, W, and Barry the community organizer.


Heck, activist presidents have to leave their marks on somebody! It might as well be you and me! Who else is there to use in order to create their “legacies”?


This is what “strong government” means; to be told what to do and when to do it; to be monitored constantly, to be regulated, registered, and accounted for in all things, to be classified, counted, pigeon-holed, pushed, herded, stampeded, drafted, intimidated, threatened, and………terminated.


Anybody who stands in the way of the government snoops must be ostracized and branded a “terrorist” and a “traitor.”


Anybody who stands in the way of “gun control” must have “something to hide.”


Anybody who stands in the way of “big government” must be a cold hearted kook, disloyal, and bigoted.


“Overspending” is the price we all pay for this wonderful social phenomenon we call “big government.” Open your pocket books and bend over, everybody! “Big government” is here!


OnTheOtherHand

Given Senator Leno’s past history of pushing for stupid gun control legislation, I can understand the automatic suspicious reaction of people to any gun-related proposal from him. However, on the face of it, this legislative proposal sounds reasonable. As long as it well written to achieve the goals stated, I think that it is one I could support. (“The devil is in the details.”)


Don’t give the anti-gun folks a valid reason to call us hypocritical or unreasonable. This is what we have been saying needs to be done instead of adding more controls. Just because it is proposed by someone not worthy of trust doesn’t mean that it is itself bad.


WiserGuy

So it seems most of the people posting here believe convicted felons should be allowed to own and carry guns., yet they don’t seem willing to come right out and say it. Am I correct?


I am wondering: Does the average gun-nut believe that anyone should be denied the right to own and carry a gun? What about folks in jail or prison? Do Second Amendment rights apply to them as well?


zaphod

Does the average gun-nut

troll much?


SpeakTruth

You use the word “right” like it somehow means the same thing as “privilege”. Rights are not privileges. Rights are rights. In this country, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The only way your rights can be taken away is through a little thing called “due process”.


You brought up convicted felons. If a person is a convicted felon and is out of prison free and clear, has that person not served his or her time? Is that person not a human being with rights? Conversely, if a person is on parole or probation, then his or her situation is still within the purview of the rights withheld from him or her through a sentence derived from that pesky little thing again called “due process”.


As for “folks in jail or prison”; their rights have been usurped, and of course they should not be allowed weapons. When you attempt to a have a reasonable conversation with one of these “gun nuts”, please don’t put words into their mouths.


So far, the only legislation I’ve seen regarding weapons has had the affect of disarming good, honest citizens. A criminal doesn’t have regard for laws; that’s what makes them a criminal. Do you think a 30-round standard-capacity magazine ban is going to prevent a criminal from coming into your house with one? When it is illegal for you to have reasonable means to defend yourself, criminals will be more emboldened to do just that.


mkaney

Yes I believe convicted felons should be allowed to own guns. There you go, happy? See my separate comment for an explanation.


unlisted

And child molesters should be allowed to live near schools, too.


topper01

It was not that long ago that mere possession of marijuana was a felony/misdemeanor. Second arrest would almost assuredly be filed as a felony. Writing a NSF check over $200.00 was a felony. If a felony conviction can nullify your 2nd amendment, can it also nullify your first amendment? How about your 4th or 5th amendment. Ex-Felons now enjoy the freedom to vote, why not own a gun? …or are you talking only violent gun related felonies such as murder?


choprzrul

Two Chechyan brother move to the US,

successfully pull off a double bombing, rob a store,

kill a police officer, car-jack a mercedez,

throw grenades at police, while shooting at them with

automatic weapons….Then one escapes into a neighborhood…


And politicians want me to give up my semi-auto

weapons and standard capacity magazines….???


NOPE….Not gonna happen!!!


Gun rights are civil rights.


-choprzrul


zaphod
choprzrul

You missed the target. Here it is for you:


http://www.gunrightsarecivilrights.org/


WiserGuy

Personally, I have not decided if I would support enactment of this law, however I find it interesting that:


Local and very vocal gun advocate and prominent SLO County citizen Sam Cotton was on the Dave Congalton show recently saying he believes convicted felons should not be allowed to own firearms, but criticized the government for not doing enough about all the convicted felons who currently possess guns. He even quoted Vice President Joe Biden, who had said in public that the government didn’t have enough funding to enforce the laws prohibiting felons from owning guns. I wonder if Sam Cotton supports enactment of this law, or if his comments on the Congalton show were disingenuous in an effort to sound rational and tone down his image as a “gun nut.”


Of the folks who post on this forum who continually advocate for the proliferation of gun ownership and/or oppose this bill, I wonder how many of them are in the categories of people for whom gun owenrship is illegal.


Which brings up a further question: If someone is a convicted felon who has done his/her time and “paid their dues to society”, should they not have the same rights as other citizens when it comes to owning guns? I haven’t made up my mind about that and wonder what others think.


tomsquawk

good question. i’d start with looking at the recidivism rate


r0y

This is not a law, but an authorization (and commitment of money) to go and get the guns from people in violation of the existing law.


The money comes (basically, theoretically) from the state-imposed dealer fees (Dealer Record of Sale, DROS fees) – or the fund established by DROS fees.


Ironically, this bill shows how useless most of the 20,000+ gun laws in this country are; many are not enforced, not funded, etc. so they sit useless, and are only used to add one more prosecutable event to whomever the state deems worthy of litigation.


Jorge Estrada

So those who legally obtained and registered their fire arms will have stormtroopers ransack their homes while the thuggs enjoy their privacy and stolen weapons?


r0y

No. Those who legally bought a gun in the past, but then got convicted of a felony and are now no longer allowed to own firearms and did not voluntarily give up their property (guns) to the state will now have the stormtroopers come.


choprzrul

It is blatantly unconstitutional to separate a citizen from their civil rights without due process of the law.


This law will fail under even minimal scrutiny in the federal courts just like AB962 did. Californians will once again foot the bill for attempting to defend a terrible law in the courts.


Lynette_Tornatzky

So if a person was convicted of a felony, a violent misdemeanor, a domestic violence restraining order, or an official determination of mental instability this was NOT due process? Huh?


Justducky

Lynette writes: “…or an official determination of mental instability…”


The problem I see here Lynette is what qualifies as an “official determination of mental instability.” I have read one qualification would be a prescription for Xanax or some such other anxiety disorder medication, as reason enough. Heck, I know people who take that to help them through fear of public speaking. Shall we take their guns away because they have anxiety over public speaking?


My point here is we have to be very careful who gets to do the qualifying and what these so called “healthy minds” use as qualifiers, else we all be labeled unstable.


tomsquawk

a government panel will decide that


The Gimlet Eye

“Due process”? Give me a break! Please define your terms.


Did JFK get “due process”?


RFK?


MLK?


Lee Harvey Oswald?


Jack Ruby?


The 104 (some say as many as 300!) eye witnesses (and others, including investigators and police officers) to the JFK assassination who died under mysterious circumstances?


The dead have no voice other than the living. If the living are mere sheep instead of men, what then? Our knowledge of history fades into the nothingness of collective amnesia, and we become like little children lost in a huge, dark forest, with no past, and no future.


What is to stop them from getting “political” on us?


What is to stop them from “disappearing” us if we resist?


How do they keep track of all these gun owners? They would need a bureaucracy of a magnitude that nobody in his right mind would tolerate!


Plus, in a police state, they can pin any charge on you they want! And we DO live in a police state.


This legislation is ostensibly aimed at the “psychos,” etc., the ones that we all could agree should not be turned loose with weapons to facilitate their insanity, but can’t you see who the REAL target is?


WE are that target!


Surely you are not going to argue that California government officials are really that concerned about our personal safety that they would advance such legislation?


The cold, hard fact of life is that the vast majority of politicians care not a whit about public safety, at least not to this degree. On the contrary, they have quite another, hidden agenda.


There is nothing happening in this society posing so great a threat that our state government much propose such unprecedented legislation. It is government operatives who are stirring up all the trouble, trying to stampede us into giving up more of our rights, manipulating us psycholgically and emotionally, trying to bring out the worst in us, to the detriment of reason.


Learn from the past, and you will realize instantly that this is part of a much larger, more comprehensive plan to disarm the people and render than helpless before the police state.


Our guns are meant mainly for self defense, not “hunting.” We must defend ourselves from not only the street thug, but the thug of omnipotent government as well, and it is the latter who is the greater threat.


We should all be watching very closely how the government thugs define who is fit to carry a weapon, and who is not, and judge them accordingly.


The Gimlet Eye

render THEM helpless


topper01

That is correct, it is NOT due process. Due process would be if the state obtained a search warrant, based upon probable cause that a felony has been committed. So far all you alleged is that an ex felon has not reported to the state the disposition of a previously owned firearm. Something that is not required in most other states and a mere misdemeanor in California. The fact that he/she did not tell the state that he/she “gave” the firearm to his/her son does not constitute a crime, even in California as such transfers are legal without such reporting.


Myself

Here we go another worthless bunch of people to suck taxpayer dollars to do virtually no good, it will cost the taxpayer zillons to recover the few guns they will find.


tomsquawk

and of course the increased funding will go into the “general fund”


abigchocoholic

Agreed. Just another politician flapping his gums, increasing government spending and power. And his fellow gum flappers line up behind him because the subject is politically correct right now. A politician’s answer to any problem is more legislation. As it stands the legislation already on the books is absurdly overwhelming. No human on the planet could possibly know and follow all the local, state and federal rules. It’s just not humanly possible.


And in a year, this will all be forgotten and nothing will change–except the spending and power grab will survive.


easymoney

+1

“It was introduced by Sen. Mark Leno”

Another in a long line of wasted time and money bills authored by this legislator. Check out his legislative tenure and the bills with his finger prints all over them…


http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4990109&ct=5200789

http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/press-releases?page=3

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-marriage-up-to-governor-now-Landmark-2610923.php

http://www.cmta.net/page/legsample.php?leg=leno_mark


Why can’t he and his fellow legislators focus on coming up with a balanced budget on time, cutting wastefull spending and taxes, encourage business and streamline the process to ensure business grows here in CA?


tomsquawk

passing laws and asking for money is like a fundraiser and bringing out the gimp for the ask. only the charity is the government.


The Gimlet Eye

Well said, abigchocoholic.


r0y

From my understanding the $24 mil is being taken from the DROS funds (not taxpayers); DROS are the fees all dealers must charge when firearms are sold retail or consignment.


WiserGuy

What makes you think they wouldn’t find many guns? It seems to me there are plenty to find and they even have a list of people who own them.


Myself

Lets say you or I are on that list, and now they passed a law that they are going to send Gestapo goons to take them away from us, and we know this, I know they won’t find any guns here with me, how about you.


tomsquawk

” official determination of mental instability” you must be crazy to own a weapon?


kayaknut

So anyone who disagrees with those in office will receive a ” official determination of mental instability”??


tomsquawk

it’s looking that way


The Gimlet Eye

That’s about the size of it.


topper01

New York state has passed a law that requires psychologists and psychiatrists to “share” what their patients tell them in order to enforce their gun laws more stringently. California is only one liberal away from doing the same thing. A statement such as, “I was so mad, I could have shot someone.” will get you guns taken away and maybe even your children.