California also to allow for confiscation of firearms from felons.

[Atypical Liberal]

Caught on NPR this morning but can't find it on their web site.

There was some gun control initiative that I cant remember set to come in force in 2014, and also they have passed a law to enable the confiscation of firearms from convicted felons.

[jmg257]

1. Do they get to charge them with a crime since the guns are illegally possessed? nt

[one-eyed fat man]

4. Sort of, only some crimes

He can be charged with being a felon in possession, but he can't be charged with failing to register.

Haynes v US (1968) Since registration would require the felon to admit to having a gun he's not supposed to have, he would be incriminating himself if he did. So his failure to register is protected under the Fifth amendment.

On the other hand, if you are not a felon, you CAN be charged with failure to register.

So registration can only be enforced against people who are not felons. This makes perfect sense to gun control proponents. Every one else sees it akin to controlling drunk driving by taking car keys away from sober people.

[mvccd1000]

2. Redundant?

Seems like that's a redundant layer... felons are already prohibited from possessing firearms; why wouldn't they be able to confiscate the firearms under existing law?

(Note: many states have procedures to allow certain felons to restore their firearms rights or obtain CCW permits. Arizona has such a law, enacted by Napolitano.)

[slackmaster]

3. This is a funding bill. Fees collected by dealers will be redirected to enforce existing law.

http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=2570

[gravity556]

5. The gun owning felons are protected by their 5th Amendment rights.

Since having a gun if you're a felon is a crime in and of itself, requiring a prohibited possessor to register a firearm would be requiring self incrimination.

Of course, the anti-rights fools don't care, because their goal is not to reduce crime but to ban guns. And since criminals don't obey laws anyhow, the only folks who are affected are law abiding gun owners.

See, anti-rights views are easy to grasp-all you have to do is refuse to use logic, ignore facts, and keep repeating the same thing-if their opponent doesn't buckle, the anti-rights fools just yell louder and start calling names (gun nut, toter) and casting aspersions ("derp, what, are you compensating for? derp") and projecting (gunners are just looking for a reason to shoot it out over a parking space/some other preposterous reason, which leaps to the forefront of their minds because, well, that's what *they* would do if they had a gun. since they can't trust themselves not to go on a killing spree over a spilled latte, they don't trust anyone else not to either)

[LAGC]

6. Some states don't allow for permanent confiscation of guns even from convicted felons unless...

...the gun is found to be stolen or actually used in a crime.

Here in Idaho, if you are a felon and get caught with guns you bought legally (through a paperless private-party transaction), the cops will "secure" the firearms and keep them in storage, but once you serve your time and get released from prison, the guns are still legally yours, you just can't legally possess them until/unless you petition to get your gun rights back. But you can release them to a third-party who can either hold on to them for you until you get your rights back, or just turn around and sell them for you and give you money from the proceeds. It is your property, after all.

So presumably this California law would put a stop to that and allow the police to permanently confiscate even guns that weren't stolen or used in actual crimes.