Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

California Governor Signs Law Funding Seizure Of Legally Purchased Guns


Recommended Posts

http://rt.com/usa/california-gun-control-law-729/

 

 

 

California Gov. Jerry Brown has approved legislation that will allocate $24 million to hire special agents that will track down and seize guns from 20,000 Californians who have been disqualified from owning them.

 

Thousands of Californians have made legal purchases of handguns or assault rifles, but have since become ineligible from owning them due to mental illness or a criminal conviction. The measure, SB 140, will provide the funds for agents to find these individuals and confiscate their weapons.

 

Mark Len (D-San Francisco), author of the new legislation, said California has a system that tracks cases in which gun owners became disqualified from keeping their weapons, but has always lacked the funds to go after them.

 

We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them, he said in a statement. However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day.

 

In a three-year period, about 20,000 Californians owning about 40,000 weapons became ineligible to keep them, according to the states Bureau of Firearms. The $24 million in surplus funds, which comes from fees paid when Californians purchase weapons, will provide dozens of agents the means to find the illegally owned firearms.

 

This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals, Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor, told the Los Angeles Times.

 

But opponents of the new legislation are disturbed that the money for the gun seizures comes from fees inflicted upon lawful gun buyers.

 

Going after criminals is a good thing, but the way they are paying for it is grossly unfair, Sam Parades, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told the LA Times, arguing that the program should be paid for by the state general fund. They are putting the entire burden on the back of law-abiding gun purchasers.

 

Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee), told the Huffington Post that the surplus funds should be used to conduct background checks, not to hunt down gun owners.

 

For example, if you go to the DMV and pay for a drivers license, that fee is for possessing the drivers license, not for setting up sting operations for catching drunk drivers, he said. If the legislature wants to raise extra funds for the DOJ, it would have to impose a tax on firearm sales, which requires a two-thirds vote.

 

Some Americans have taken a stand against what some call an unconstitutional attempt to disarm people.

 

But lawmakers who backed the new measure believe California will become a role model in regards to gun control, and that other US states will soon follow in its footsteps. Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program told Bloomberg News that as many as 200,000 people in the US possess firearms but are no longer qualified to own them.

 

In 2012, California Attorney General Kamala Harris seized about 2,000 weapons, 117,000 rounds of ammunition and 11,000 high-capacity magazines. And with $24 million to track down disqualified gun owners, the state of California is now working to seize 40,000 more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can they go after drivers licenses and voter cards while they're at it?

 

Thanks.

Hey we agree on this. If they're mentally unfit to own a gun which is a right they're unfit to drive which is a privilege. Votes already don't count for anything so ill just ignore that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said that this vote is going to come up again because it's "90 percent issue" for Democrats, and that it should come up again, but that they're going to have to include new language in there so that they can peel off a couple Republican votes. And he hopes that this new language doesn't neuter the bill, and whether or not they'll be voting on something that does anything.

 

He wasn't saying "background checks don't do anything." He was saying that the bill may be effectively neutered so that it's only a stylish vote. That's his concern - will you have a bill that does something or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CARVILLE: This thing is going to come up for a vote between now and election 2014.

ROBERTS: That's right.

CARVILLE: And it's going, and they're going to change something to somebody's fears and it's going to get out of the Senate and they're going to have to vote on it in the House.

ROBERTS: I think that's right.

CARVILLE: It's just going to happen --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Good.

CARVILLE: And the Democrats are going to make it happen because they got a 90 percent issue here --

ROBERTS: Right.

CARVILLE: And they're not going to give it up nor should they.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You think some of the Democrats who voted against it in (inaudible) and Arkansas are going to be facing --

CARVILLE: I do. I think they're --

MATALIN: I think they're on the wrong side of history.

CARVILLE: I think they're going to go and they're going to come with some kind of a thing says, oh now I feel better because the Second Amendment right is more protected. They'll make some change in the legislation and I think you're going to find a couple Republicans. I think there are more people that voted for this that are happy about their vote than there are people that voted against this that are happy about their vote. There's going to be another vote.

MATALIN: Just, can I just point out, it was the Democrats that defeated this.

ROBERTS: That's true, absolutely right.

CARVILLE: Four Democrats vote for it and 43 Republicans. It's all the Democrats fault. That's 4 to 43.

(CROSSTALK)

DEMINT: George all Americans want to do more to protect children, protect all of our citizens. The frustration is Congress always responds to some tragedy with legislation that has nothing to do with the tragedy. And so Republicans are in a difficult position. The public wants to do something. The president is not going to do anything substantive. And the fact is Congress can't solve this problem from Washington.

In a lot of states, a lot of communities, a lot of schools individually are doing more and more to protect people. And that's where we need to provide the resources.

ROBERTS: But this gets back to George's first question though Bill, I'd like to hear what you say about it as a former member of Congress. I mean this is a place where the president didn't seem to lift a finger. And call those Democrats and say to them, come on, I need your vote on this.

RICHARDSON: Well James will remember, we lost the House of Representatives in the Clinton years over a gun vote.

ROBERTS: I disagree.

RICHARDSON: I'm a Westerner. Second Amendment. But I think what eventually will happen, and again I'll agree with James. There will be a vote, later in the year, early next year that involves, I think background checks, gun shows, mental health, even school enhancement of security.

STEPHANOPOULOS: More security at schools, yeah.

RICHARDSON: That somehow will happen. That is my sense. Because this is a very powerful issue. Now the most effective and strongest lobby I've ever seen and I think will always be is the NRA. So this is going to be a Titanic.

ROBERTS: I think the AARP can give them a run for their money.

CARVILLE: One of the reasons we lost in '94 is the gun vote.

ROBERTS: I'd say health care.

CARVILLE: Probably other reasons. But at any rate, I agree with James (inaudible). I come back it whether it does any good or not, whether it's just a stylish (ph) vote or something like that. People want it and people are going to get this vote. There's going to be gun legislation out of the Senate --

(CROSSTALK)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whether it does any good or not: stylish vote.

 

in other words window dressing.

and that will be good enough for most people who are tiring of the issue already.

 

I think as we have discussed I support stricter background check criteria than you.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I did, that we will probably get some legislation that will do nothing because people want it.

now he may, in his heart, wish something better was on the table but realistically it's not.

 

but hey if it makes you feel all warm and cozy that's wonderful.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More pantywaist heckbunker stuff.

 

Nothing he doesn't like means what it means.

 

Nobody said anything he doesn't disagree with if they are in his pity party.

 

what an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I did, that we will probably get some legislation that will do nothing because people want it.

now he may, in his heart, wish something better was on the table but realistically it's not.

 

but hey if it makes you feel all warm and cozy that's wonderful.

 

WSS

 

No, you really didn't. Here's what you said he said:

 

"he said it won't do anything but the public wants it and they're gonna get it."

 

That's not it at all. Read the transcript. It's clear. He's saying there's going to be another bill before the 2014 elections. The language of that bill will determine whether the bill accomplishes anything or not.

 

He's not saying that the bill that we don't have yet is nothing but window dressing. Because we don't know what the bill will say. Because again, we don't have it yet.

 

Yet you're saying already knows - somehow - that the bill doesn't do anything. The one that hasn't been written yet.

 

Sometimes it's easier just to say you mischaracterized someone, especially since you do it all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The functionally literate?

 

That's isn't woodypeckerhead or Cysko, your two psycho groupies.

 

Now, it would have been Shep, to give him some kind of credit. But I think

 

sheply was stoned most of the time at his keyboard, which may have been

 

why he was so devoted to being your Gal Friday, Heckbunker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally I think you've got Cysko all wrong.

as far as I can tell the only issue he's left of center on is the gun control thing.

and that's not all that outrageous considering he's got kids.

 

and for those of you who don't remember shep, he was a smart guy but he was kind of a left wing version of Mr T.

 

My 2 cents.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) told CNN "he is willing to reverse his opposition to expanding background checks for guns if the Senate sponsors change on the bill's provision dealing with internet sales."

"Flake said the only reason he voted no was because of his concern that the requirement for background checks on internet sales is too costly and inconvenient, given the way guns are often sold among friends in his state of Arizona and others."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...