Posted on 05/03/2013 5:27:10 AM PDT by Altariel
In a state facing over $34 billion in debt, Gov. Jerry Brown signs a bill spending $24 million on literally going after guns bought legally by people who later entered a status that the government thinks should bar them from a key tool for the basic human right of self-defense.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
The state will send dozens of new agents into California neighborhoods this summer to confiscate nearly 40,000 handguns and assault rifles from people barred by law from owning firearms, officials said Wednesday.
The plan received the green light Wednesday, when Gov.Jerry Brown signed legislation providing $24 million to clear the backlog of weapons known to be in the hands of about 20,000 people who acquired them legally. They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness.....
"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," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.
"Potentially dangerous." We are now confiscating property and denying core constitutional rights based on potential.
And why is it that gun owners shouldn't care about gun registries, again?
California is the only state in the nation to operate a database that cross-references gun owners with those who are subsequently disqualified from owning firearms. But budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the list, which grows by 15 to 20 names every day, officials said.
The new funds will allow the department to hire 36 additional special agents and support staff, with the first officers expected to hit the streets in July....
The new agents will work primarily in cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Riverside, which have requested additional help, Gledhill said. The effort is expected to take three years.
"Our reinvestment in this tracking program gives us the opportunity to confiscate" guns from those who should not have them, said state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), author of the legislation.
Never let the "opportunity to confiscate" fade, Senator! Already existing programs for this purpose "investigated nearly 4,000 people and seized about that same number of weapons, including 300 assault weapons, during the last two years, officials said."
It needs to be said often: even these "common sense" measures overwhelmingly violate the rights of those who would never, ever use their weapons to harm anyone far more than they contribute to public safety.
Until recently, the FAA banned all airmen from taking any anti-depression drugs. They insisted it was better to have depressed, suicidal pilots flying airplanes rather than mellowed-out pilots on Prozac flying them. They recently changed their policy for reasons not announced.
Principled~:” What an excellent 2 min video. I mean excellent.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo
Yes , but it needs to be shortened to under 60 seconds to get televised air time.
And yes ,.. there will be blow-back
I've considered this line of thought in the past... say one comes into a situation whereas agents of the gub'mint are violating your rights or posing a serious threat your or your family's life.
You stage a successful defense.
When the event is taken apart and recast/retold by the gub'mint, no matter the reason for their engagement (including wrong address/persons) would the defense given make you a "a dangerous individual" thereby retroactively justifying the gub'mints actions?
I’m a binary thinker on this. There are two issues here that I see.
1. People, due to crimes they have committed or other reasons no longer have the right to posess a firearm. One can agree or disagree with the reason, on an individual basis, but we all agree that there needs to be some sort of criteria allowing the state to prevent some people from posessing a firearm. So, in principle I am not concerned about this part.
2. They are taking guns away from these people. This part is the problem, but not because they are taking the guns, per se. It is because they apparently “know” that these people have guns. I have a problem with that. It is why I am against registering guns. It’s why I will only purchase from private parties. I don’t want the government to know what items I keep in my home. It’s none of their business.
The problem is that if the state gets too “agressive” they can find all sorts of reasons to prevent a person from owning a gun - thanks to the squishy mental illness caveat
I thought the Democrats had a super majority in California.
I wonder how many Republicans actually voted for it to make it bipartisan.
AS it has been said, they’ll never tell the military or police to attack a patriotic American, they’ll call them “Domestic Terrorists” first.
In Kali’s case, they will say they are no longer “qualified” to possess firearms.
Sorry officer, I lost those guns in a canoeing mishap. Yep, all 22 of them.
At which point you are arrested and beaten to sh*t. That statement is for children that think these thugs are playing games, and they aren’t.
And I still have my guns. Eventually, everybody takes a beating. It wouldn't be my first.
“And I still have my guns.”
So? Standing at your doorway with your arms in the air and an M-4 pointed at your head telling them that childish story isn’t using them.
That's not the situation I would intend to use them. I pick my battles more wisely than that. And I'll still have my guns. But hey, it you want to turn yours over go right ahead.
/johnny
Bump
That only becomes a problem when you agree with this:
but we all agree that there needs to be some sort of criteria allowing the state to prevent some people from posessing a firearm.
Shall not be infringed really does mean something, that's why it is the only right that is written that way. Otherwise it becomes subjective when you think that "some people" should be prohibited their God Given rights....
ping
Forget Mexico, put the fence around the California.
They should not be able to move and take their crazy ideas with them. Ask Colorado.
The do not issue warrants for these confiscations. They go to peoples homes and ask them to come inside. Then they pressure them to turn the guns over.
Most people do not know enough to say “Do you have a Warrant?” Then “Come back when you have one.”
The first step of resistance at your house is to say NO! to entry without a warrant.
Thanks TM
Have a great weekend!
California is like some strange foreign land.
That only becomes a problem when you agree with this:
but we all agree that there needs to be some sort of criteria allowing the state to prevent some people from posessing a firearm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.