HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » California Assembly OKs m...

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:54 AM

 

California Assembly OKs money for gun-seizure program

SACRAMENTO, Calif. California’s one-of-a-kind program to seize guns from felons, the mentally unstable and others prohibited from owning them is close to receiving more money after an Assembly vote Thursday.

A bill from state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, was approved on a vote of 57-10, with all the opposition votes coming from Republican lawmakers. It authorizes $24 million over three years for the Armed and Prohibited Persons program to hire more agents to seize weapons.

The vote comes a day after the U.S. Senate rejected a gun control package, including a proposal to expand background checks.

The state program checks databases to identify people who bought guns legally but are no longer permitted to own them because of a felony conviction, a violent misdemeanor, a determination that they are mentally unstable or a domestic violence restraining order.

http://www.mydesert.com/viewart/20130418/NEWS10/304180014/California-Assembly-OKs-money-gun-seizure-program

25 replies, 3495 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply California Assembly OKs money for gun-seizure program (Original post)
SecularMotion Apr 2013 OP
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #1
pipoman Apr 2013 #2
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #3
CreekDog Apr 2013 #4
gejohnston Apr 2013 #5
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #6
gejohnston Apr 2013 #7
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #8
CreekDog Apr 2013 #10
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #11
CreekDog Apr 2013 #9
friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #12
CreekDog Apr 2013 #13
Bazinga Apr 2013 #15
CreekDog Apr 2013 #16
Bazinga Apr 2013 #18
holdencaufield Apr 2013 #14
CreekDog Apr 2013 #17
holdencaufield Apr 2013 #19
Bazinga Apr 2013 #20
holdencaufield Apr 2013 #21
CreekDog Apr 2013 #22
holdencaufield Apr 2013 #23
CreekDog Apr 2013 #24
holdencaufield Apr 2013 #25

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:18 AM

1. Sounds good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:24 AM

2. They have been letting these people

 

go free in favor of filling the prisons with drug offenders..now they are seeing a legalization movement which could dramatically increase the number of empty beds in some very expensive buildings..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 01:50 PM

3. Seizing guns from convicted felons?

 

Works for me. That's "reasonable gun control."

So are expanded background checks, crackdowns on straw purchasers, and more than a few other proposals. There is common ground between reasonable people on both sides. The extremists can go fuck themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to CreekDog (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 02:36 PM

5. he might be refering to

issues with SKS rifles in 1989 or 1990 in California. Rather than just assuming it is some "right wing conspiracy theory" why not ask him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 02:47 PM

6. Are you saying Krispos is engaging in "right wing hysteria?"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 02:54 PM

7. the impression I get

guns is a litmus test, where a gun owning democratic socialist would still be "a right wing gun nut".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 04:43 PM

8. I think you're right. If you're going to stigmatize, go all the way!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 04:57 PM

10. well these statements are lies and they mock your own post in the thread supporting the law

Definition of legal firearm? Arbitrary.

Currently, it's any gun that's not an "assault weapon".

Definition of "assault weapon"? Also arbitrary.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=300713

so which is it? did you take the wrong position? or did that poster get it wrong? i think they got it wrong, worse, i think they may have intentionally lied about the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:54 PM

11. I think you need to deal with the post you have a problem with, not mine.

 

And I believe that was suggested to you.

Any law which is violated is subject to prosecution. That's my position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 04:50 PM

9. i don't know where the right wing meme of arbitrarily and unfairly collecting legal guns originated

but whomever originated the idea has stated a falsehood about the law actually passed and what that law actually does and it's being done to stop the law from going into effect and to falsely portray California gun laws in order to undermine them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:45 AM

12. Possibly from the very real seizure of SKS rifles in 1989-90?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 03:04 AM

13. but not based on this law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:15 AM

15. Not directly, no.

But red flags do go up when a politician claims they will never use a registry to confiscate legal guns, and yet we can point to an event where a law was passed that turned legal guns into illegal ones and then the registry was used to identify those who now owned "illegal" guns.

I believe the principle at play is this; there is prudence in the government and the public knowing who may[\u] and who may not [\u]own guns, but they have no business knowing who actually does.[\u]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:01 PM

16. heaven forbid we take away the guns of felons and domestic abusers

heaven forbid we know what guns to confiscate from felons and wife beaters.

get your way and that doesn't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:51 PM

18. You're right. It is unfortunate.

But at the risk of sounding "black helicopters paranoid" it may be preferable to a situation where a list of civilians doing nothing wrong becomes a list of criminals who also need their guns confiscated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 03:19 AM

14. My favourite bit ...

 

"Legislators said the money they allocated would pay for 36 additional agents to capture 39,000 guns from people who bought them legally but were later disqualified because of a subsequent conviction or court order."


$24 Million to hire 36 public employees -- no wonder California is broke.

If they took the same money and bought guns at full-market price -- they could "seize" 40,000 weapons direct from the manufacturer and save on paperwork. I'm sure they gun makers would even give them a volume discount.

I would point that out in the "other forum" but they don't let me post -- personally, I don't think they like my avatar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:03 PM

17. $24 million to hire 36 agents for 3 years, what's the issue?

these are law enforcement personnel who will require those types of salaries (would you like them to make Wal Mart wages?) and as hires they will require extensive training (or would you like them to do their jobs poorly)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:24 PM

19. Having spent time in state government ...

 

... I can tell you precisely what will happen.

1. They won't "seize" anywhere near 39,000 guns. Law Enforcement stats like this are routinely inflated; i.e. the local drug bust that turns into a multi-million dollar drug trafficking seizure for the news.

2. These won't be LEOs in the traditional sense. They will be closer to Nigerian Finance Minister scammers. They will generate tens of thousands of form mails to registered users full of scary language like "subject to prosecution" and "felony offense". A certain percentage of owners will be frightened into turning in their weapons while the vast majority will ignore them or claim "Oh THAT firearm? It was lost and I forgot to report it ... silly me"

3. 24 LEO's, no matter how exorbitantly paid they might me, aren't going door-to-door over 160,000 square miles of California searching for weapons. They will never leave the office except to go to Carl's Junior for lunch.

4. This won't end in three years -- if they don't find a single weapons, they will claim to need more time and the program will be expanded because the obviously need more manpower OR they will find a few and claim that such a "successful program" needs to be expanded to ensure even greater success. Government programs NEVER go away. I'm sure if you dig deep enough in the California State Government, you will find an office of Buggy Whip and Saddle Maintenance Regulation and Compliance still working away every day.

A state so dangerously close to the financial precipice as California can ill-afford to spend millions of dollars on what is essentially a boondoggle show-piece that will no doubt delight anyone who gets a husband's bulge from the very idea of guns being seized, but won't make anyone any safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

20. Not to mention,

$24 million for 36 people for 3 years is $222,000/yr each. I'm all for paying police officers what they're worth, but that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:05 PM

21. Maybe they have to provide their own office supplies?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:33 AM

22. You just compared California LE agents to Nigerian scammers, why are you here at DU?

are you done with us? is this your swan song?

how long can you compare state law enforcement hired to enforce gun laws to scammers who break the law and steal money?

just go, really, just go. obviously just disrupting here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:40 AM

23. Actually ... I did just the opposite

 

I was pretty clear that these new hires won't be acting in the honorable capacity of LEOs. They will be sending out threatening letters trying to coerce compliance without due process.

You realize there is a group where you can hang out and no one is allowed to disagree with you. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in such an environment. I know how divergent opinions can be quite upsetting for some people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:45 AM

24. you said what you said, how about taking responsibility for it

2. These won't be LEOs in the traditional sense. They will be closer to Nigerian Finance Minister scammers.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #24)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:47 AM

25. Which of those words is unclear to you?

 

"These won't be LEO's in a traditional sense"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread