Front Page  »  

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...
Subjects:                 
Related:


50 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Many of the proposed “new” laws are already existing in California and other places, but if they tell you that, it would not be as sensational.” that’s true and how easy they are to break and how hard to enforce. Also noted is that the F.Gov has made their ‘phone people sound very knowledgeable and efficient but it’s still the same behind the scenes.


0

I could have sworn that the state said they did NOT maintain a record {or gun registry}! HUH! Must have miss understood. Now that they admit that they do maintain a record of all guns bought and sold, who needs a separate registry? The state already knows who owns the guns and how many they have. Can you say Police State?


0

A lot of the flavor-of-the-month gun “debate” is about a NATIONAL registry. So New York can know who in CA bought what.


Many of the proposed “new” laws are already existing in California and other places, but if they tell you that, it would not be as sensational.


Like everything else, the national government wants to federalize everything. Big. Central. Inefficient. Some people I talk to about this (generalized topic of big, central planning) think it will be great for certain thing. When I ask how was their last experience at the post office or DMV, they confess that it was far from reasonable (unless no one else was there). Then I ask, so how is giving a big centralized bureaucracy more control over more things going to make things better? I mean, if one is unhappy with how poorly the local State (CA) operates their DMV, what makes one think a federal version would be better?


0

If they can go out and confiscate guns (your personal property), what is to stop them from confiscating ANY personal property?


0

knock knock, we’re here to inventory your property. check for oversized colas.


0

Yep. And why not? Who will stop them?


0

Those of us not affraid to say NO…


0

‘No’ without the means to back it up means nothing.


.


0

Those who have engineered the workings of the modern state were very clever about how they created a structure which purports to allow freedom, while ensuring the perpetuation of the means of control by the few.


IF IT IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO PROTECT ONESELF, THEN IT NEEDS TO APPLY TO EVERYONE. NO ONE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM A RIGHT WHICH IS UNDERSTOOD TO BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.


Is it not TOTALLY obvious to people that taking away rights from people who are felons uses well intended, rational concerns in order to create the support for the framework which can then be used to prevent dissent, ultimately defeating the purpose (protecting good people). I really think that people are not understanding the idea of paradox and why it is so important here. Perhaps this concept should be taught more aggressively in public school. Felons are people. Yes, they have violated the law. But it is very easy to disarm dissent by simply making violations of law which tend to exhibit a disrespect for existing power structures into felonies.


Does this have downsides? Of course! But if your truly believe in keeping power in check, and you understand the result from not keeping power in check can be the death of TENS OF MILLIONS, then really a little less safety (which is arguable) in the present day to day doesn’t seem like a huge cost,


The idea of a PRINCIPLE (in this context a secular principle)is that you apply it universally even when it is not for your benefit because experience has demonstrated that it leads to better outcomes in the long run, This is WHY we have the freedom of speech, for example, even if it means we have to live with speech, art, and expression we don’t like or we believe.. This also is the idea behind the principle of “better ten guilty men go free then one innocent man be unjustly punished.


Look to see questionable changes in the definition of mental instability as soon as the public has grown accustomed to the basic process of gun grabbing.


0

It seems there is much confusion in the discussion thread about this bill. It is a bill which establishes an ACT (not a law) – it is merely a funding tool to fund authorities to go and confiscate personal property which the state (and fed) say certain private citizens (convicted felons) can no longer possess.


That is, if a woman legally bought a gun, but was convicted of a felony (even if time was served, etc) she would no longer be able to own said gun that she legally acquired prior to her conviction of a felony. Ergo, she *should have* given up the firearm (turned in, sold, etc) after the felony conviction. Many do not, and remain in possession of a firearm while being an ex-con – this is illegal in CA, and that law ALREADY EXISTS.


Again, this bill would just establish a fund out of the DROS fund to pay the public sector employees to go and uphold the existing law.


0

Forgot to add: I blame CAL COAST NEWS for the confusion, as their title of the article reads (incorrectly) that a gun seizure LAW was approved. This is incorrect, a fund to seize guns under existing laws was approved.


0

Wiserguy, it used to be in this country if you committed a felony you lost your constitutional rights. Let me ask you this, if your a Wiserguy why do you need to resrt to calling people who support gun ownership “gun nuts”. It serves no intelligent purpose but it does assist in keeping the divide so wide you can not cross it or help close it. I would think that you being the “Wiserguy” would understand that concept.


0
1 2