California to start seizing guns from Prohibited Possessors

L

lcpiper

New member
Wow, is California actually doing something right or is it just an excuse to spend more money and grow the size of government?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/california-governor-signs-bill-to-speed-up-gun-seizures/?test=latestnews

One must wonder why they haven't been seizing these weapons all along.

Many of us, and the NRA, have been complaining that instead of new laws they just need to enforce the ones on the books, but it looks like California had to do one before they could do the other.

Is this what we have been asking them to do or is it something else?
 
In my opinion it's the right sentiment, wrong execution. If they were sending these people at or near the date of conviction it would be one thing. However, even then the issue is, even with registration, is knowing that someone once owned a firearm, enough to assume they still do? IIRC the previous incarnation of this, which does not seem to be changed by this new bill minus the funding level, a primary issue is that even the state lawyers do not believe its enough to go searching forcibly, as such, the agents show up, knock and say why they are there but cannot enter or search without the person's permission.
 
I saw a news article about this awhile ago and it's actually been going on for several months now. The targeted people were actually and surprisingly cooperative. Whether they surrendered all their guns is unknown.
 
the question is not, the reason for it, the legality of it, the stupidity or intelligence of it.

the question is, "why does the state of california have a list of 20,000 people who arent allowed to own guns, that havent been proven to be gunless?"

or better yat,

"why is the state allowed to take your guns, and prevent you from owning again just because the ex wife, ex girlfriend got angry after seeing you on a date and filed a ppo against you wich mandated a mandatory gun grab on your ass?"
 
When this came up over at MDShooters, many were suspicious of where the State had gotten the money to do this and of course, were thrilled that CA felons were being taken to task. Here's what I wrote, there:

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.​

So the State is not actively pursuing felons and the mentally ill (as adjudicated), they are going after people who have no idea, due to CA's convoluted gun laws, that they are prohibited persons.
 
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.

So the State is not actively pursuing felons and the mentally ill (as adjudicated), they are going after people who have no idea, due to CA's convoluted gun laws, that they are prohibited persons.
Click to expand...

Do you have some supporting material for that? The way they are selling this thing you would think they were going to take guns away from every bad actor in California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top