California begins gun confiscation

[Devonian]

I am confused, so now we are ok with felons having guns?

Just because someone is a felon doesn't make them dangerous. Also if someone is not permitted to own a firearm because they are dangerous why are they free to roam about and not locked up?

 

[Second Amendment]

My problem with this is that the public will get used to this idea.

 

[Robert]

So what's the message we are sending? We need to do something about violence, but let's not take guns away from criminals? Let's not do anything at all?

This thread should be deleted, it's an anti-2a person's dream. Pro-gun people getting upset when guns are taken from criminals.

You are equating Criminals with Violence. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. You can commit a dis-approving crime and not have any violent tendencies.

How about we start by incarcerating Violent Criminals with long, unchanged punishments.

 

[MDFF2008]

Just because someone is a felon doesn't make them dangerous. Also if someone is not permitted to own a firearm because they are dangerous why are they free to roam about and not locked up?

Do you want to see the tax bill required to put every borderline dangerous person in jail?

 

[Right2Carry]

Governor Brown just signed into law; funding to the tune of $24 Million dollars to confiscate guns from 20,000 gun owners who purchased guns legally but are now no longer legally able to posses guns.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-gun-bill-20130501,0,7674608.story

"taking handguns and assault rifles away from 20,000 Californians who acquired them legally but have since been disqualified from ownership because of a criminal conviction or serious mental illness.

 

[Al Norris]

The money is coming from the DROS (Dealer Record Of Sales) fund that every gun owner pays as part of the transfer fees. The fund has been operating with a surplus for years. Up to now, the fund was separate from everything else and could only be used to fund the eligibility search.

There is a lawsuit that claims these fees are a tax:

60. Bauer, et al v. Harris, et al: Filed on Aug 25th, 2011 in the Eastern District of CA. Case # 1:2011cv01440. Claims that certain fees that are charged to owners when buying firearms are in fact taxes. That the taxes are unlawful under the CA constitution, and in any event, that the taxes impose an impermissible burden on the acquisition of constitutionally protected firearms. Chuck Michel & Associates (NRA & CRPA), attorneys for the plaintiffs.​

This new law takes the money (the excess funds) and routes them to the confiscation meme. Add to this that there are quite a few violations that dispossess one of firearms in CA law. Generally, only for a set time period. The crimes are almost all misdemeanor crimes and have little or no violence attached.

The mental aspect is rather weird. (to me). If you have been placed under observation (voluntarily or not) you must get some sort of certificate from the State in order to own or possess firearms from that point onward. You do not have to be adjudicated as a mental defective. Voluntarily go to a treatment center for drug/alcohol rehab - you're denied firearms.

The list is quite broad.

All of that aside, the money is already there. The law simply confiscates the DROS fund for other purposes. Essentially, it is only the lawful gun owners paying for this action.

 

[Hopalong]

In principle, I am not opposed to government confiscating guns from violent criminals. And quite frankly, none of us should be if we're serious about reducing the number of crimes committed with guns.

What I worry about is how this is being implemented. What about people who are only temporarily disbarred, do they get their guns back? What about people who are seeking treatment and get the records cleaned, do they get their guns back? Who gets to make the final decision as to who they go after, politicians or judges/LE? Are they focusing on violent criminals first or picking at random? Is the funding provided sufficient to do the job, would it be better used elsewhere, etc.

It's not the principle I disagree with, but with the devil being in the details there is much room for abuse/corruption/general badness to come out of this.

Personally, I would much prefer to see that money going after dealers, whether legit FFLs or the "black market" sort, who are selling guns illegally to people who are already prohibited. But that's just me.

 

[aquaman]

So what's the message we are sending? We need to do something about violence, but let's not take guns away from criminals? Let's not do anything at all?

This thread should be deleted, it's an anti-2a person's dream. Pro-gun people getting upset when guns are taken from criminals.

You are a criminal, you just don't know it yet.

 

[HarCo2ANewb]

Just because someone is a felon doesn't make them dangerous. Also if someone is not permitted to own a firearm because they are dangerous why are they free to roam about and not locked up?

And just because you are a felon, you shouldn't have a gun, sorry, but those are the breaks. As to the second half, you effing got me there, the whole idea that we let sex offenders out but put them on a "list" is beyond ludicrous.



And yes, Inigoes, it is horseshit that they can vote as well.

 

[danb]

In principle, I am not opposed to government confiscating guns from violent criminals. And quite frankly, none of us should be if we're serious about reducing the number of crimes committed with guns.

What I worry about is how this is being implemented. What about people who are only temporarily disbarred, do they get their guns back? What about people who are seeking treatment and get the records cleaned, do they get their guns back? Who gets to make the final decision as to who they go after, politicians or judges/LE? Are they focusing on violent criminals first or picking at random? Is the funding provided sufficient to do the job, would it be better used elsewhere, etc.

It's not the principle I disagree with, but with the devil being in the details there is much room for abuse/corruption/general badness to come out of this.

Personally, I would much prefer to see that money going after dealers, whether legit FFLs or the "black market" sort, who are selling guns illegally to people who are already prohibited. But that's just me.

^^ this. Its not the confiscation of guns from felons that I dispute. Its the fact that the information in this cross referenced registry is insufficient to even support a warrant (see the Bloomberg article about this a month or so ago). What is there was a typo? What is the info should have been expunged (or is very old)? Confiscation with due process, not bureaucratic say-so.

 

[Robert]

You are a criminal, you just don't know it yet.

Indeed, and it will get worst sooner then later... Remember the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

More and more crimes that would have been considered a misdemeanor 10 years ago are now getting > 1 years sentences. Does anyone believe this is happening just by chance? I think not, there is a plan afoot.

 

[Docster]

This ^^^ exactly, all the States are crying poverty and cutting social services so how/why would they waste all this money on something that is so idiotic.

'Cause the more guns off the streets, the less $$ spent on crime....

 

[Dogabutila]

Shall not be infringed doesn't mean anything anymore I guess. Used to be you either got hung or did your time and got your guns back.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

I agree....
I'm ok with taking guns from bad guys

Until of course they decide that anyone with a gun who isn't a cop or soldier is a "bad guy".
If these people are so bad that they can't be trusted with guns, maybe they should be behind bars.
It's like that old quote..."There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

 

[jpo183]

Guys seriously...you really think they are going after ex criminals...heck no they are going after the ones they can define as ...well you shouldnt have a gun because of x...its not criminals they will go after because crimnals will shoot back.

Stop drinking the coolaid nothing is black and white anymore..we are the grey

 

[Tyeraxus]

Indeed, and it will get worst sooner then later... Remember the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

George Norris of Texas spent two years in federal lockup for... a paperwork violation related to his backyard orchid business. Fill out a form wrong = felon = no gun rights?

I'm all for keeping guns away from violent criminals, but there are so many "administrative felonies" out there anymore that it's difficult for me to draw the line at just "felon."

 

[Vile Shadow]

Just because someone is a felon doesn't make them dangerous. Also if someone is not permitted to own a firearm because they are dangerous why are they free to roam about and not locked up?

I have an Uncle who's not a violent man at all, but a felon nonetheless under the Mann Act. Apparently the woman he married back in 1963 or whenever it was was below the age of consent for MD, but not for WV.