*California Governor Signs Bill to Speed Up Gun Seizures*
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: *California Governor Signs Bill to Speed Up Gun Seizures*

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    2,825

    Thumbs down *California Governor Signs Bill to Speed Up Gun Seizures*


    SACRAMENTO, Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown announced Wednesday that he has signed legislation expanding the ability of state agents to seize firearms from nearly 20,000 Californians who are not allowed to have them.

    They collectively own more than 39,000 handguns and 1,670 assault weapons but are prohibited from owning firearms because they have been convicted of crimes, ruled mentally unstable or are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

    The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program. The money will go to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.

    The program, which is unique to California, cross-checks five databases to find people who bought weapons they are no longer legally allowed to own.

    SB140 by Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authorizes $24 million to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.

    The bill is the first of numerous firearms bills introduced by lawmakers in response to recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado. The Democratic governor signed the bill without comment.

    "California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety," Attorney General Kamala Harris, who oversees the state Department of Justice, said in a statement.

    U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat from St. Helena, introduced HR848 earlier this year to create a U.S. Department of Justice grant program for states that want to develop similar programs.


    California governor signs bill to speed up gun seizures | Fox News
    Fascist's are Magicians...They can make our Property, our Freedom's & even our Children 'Disappear'.
    ~Outlaw~

  2.   
  3. #2
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Question - one that demonstrates neither my support nor opposition to this move.

    We have been arguing for years that what is needed is not more gun control, but better enforcement of existing laws. Better enforcement would, it would seem, not only include ensuring that those who are not legally able to own firearms are prohibited from purchasing them, but also that those who currently possess them illegally lose those firearms. How does a program such as this fit into that argument for better enforcement? Or doesn't it?

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    ezkl2230.... to exasperate the issue, if an agent came to one of these individual homes and said, "sir, on such and such a date you purchased such and such, but since this date you should not be able to own them any longer. Please hand the firearm over".... now the individual responds, "oh... the darnedest thing happened, I was on a canoe trip and it tipped over, lost that gun and could never find it again". What then?

    Whether or not one feels this is correct or not (I'm not weighing in on that), can any person really justify the spending of that amount of money ($24 mill) for what seems to be a wild goose chase?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Sense we already have laws on the books that deal with this issue and we don't take the time to enforce the current law. How is making a new law to enforce the old law going to solve anything? Once again this will solve nothing but boy do the liberal elites have good intentions.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  6. #5
    As fuhr said, laws are already on the book. Why not just enforce those laws rather than make up new laws? This is a lot of hoopla to make the Libs feel good and, if the state had been doing it's job all along, the guns would have already been removed from the hands of criminals. I am curious to see how that goes over when the police go into gang neighborhoods. Talk about a shooting gallery!

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    ezkl2230.... to exasperate the issue, if an agent came to one of these individual homes and said, "sir, on such and such a date you purchased such and such, but since this date you should not be able to own them any longer. Please hand the firearm over".... now the individual responds, "oh... the darnedest thing happened, I was on a canoe trip and it tipped over, lost that gun and could never find it again". What then?
    I would be willing to bet they would come in anyway and search.
    "Beware the fury of a patient man." --John Dryden,
    British poet, critic and playwright

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    As fuhr said, laws are already on the book. Why not just enforce those laws rather than make up new laws? This is a lot of hoopla to make the Libs feel good and, if the state had been doing it's job all along, the guns would have already been removed from the hands of criminals. I am curious to see how that goes over when the police go into gang neighborhoods. Talk about a shooting gallery!
    They will never go there. The LEOs will most likely go only into the middle income neighborhoods. They will stay away from the Hollywood and gang crowds!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast