Monday, September 12, 2011

California's Improving Gun Control

The Pasadena Star-News reports 

Two bills that would tighten regulation of firearms in the Golden State made it out of the Legislature this week.

Assembly Bill 144, authored by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, would ban the "open carry" of unloaded handguns in public.

And under Assembly Bill 809, by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-West Hollywood, the state would keep records of rifle sales, as it currently does for handguns.

In recent years, A.B. 144 proved controversial among Southland "open carry" enthusiasts who made it a point of gathering at public places to display unloaded guns strapped to their hips.

Carrying loaded guns is already illegal in California.

"It only takes a few seconds to load and fire," Portantino said in a statement. "This bill is a sensible public safety protection that will make such an occurrence less likely."

The article says "Two bills that WOULD tighten regulation of firearms."  I believe that means it's not law yet.  In fact I read in another place how the pro-gun crowd plan to thwart these efforts by letting the bills die prior to final approval. We'll see what happens.

But what do you think of the merits of these bills?  Aren't the open carry demonstrators more of a pain-in-the-neck for everybody than a serious rights advocacy group?  Don't the police have a good point that they shouldn't have to waste time and resources investigating every report of a man with a gun? Don't many gun-rights folks themselves oppose the Open-carry movement?

What about keeping "records of rifle sales?" Is that such a problem? Haven't the AK-47-style rifles become more and more popular? Isn't there more of a need to control these types of weapons now as opposed to 10 years ago, say? Don't you think the old argument "registration leads to confiscation" should be put to rest? I figure the ones still using that argument either don't really believe it but keep using it anyway as an arguing point, or if they really believe that nonsense they suffer from that peculiar brand of paranoia called grandiose victimism.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

41 comments:

  1. Let me see if I have this straight. The open carry idjits be walkin' round half-strapped--all iron, no lead--offering themselves and their gunz up to some bad person who doesn't obey the law and happens to be carrying a LOADED Glock? And they think we're stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What about keeping "records of rifle sales?" Is that such a problem?"

    I don't think the article was very clear on this. California already registers all of their assault rifles. I believe this bill would make those records available to all law enforcement, even in patrol cars.

    "Don't you think the old argument 'registration leads to confiscation' should be put to rest?"

    California is actually one of the places in this country that did change the rules and confiscate rifles after they were correctly registered. If you want to put that argument "to rest", California isn't the place to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Demo,

    You mean criminals will not obey the law and carry their guns illegally anyway? And this law won't stop that wave of crime?

    No California open carrier has ever been convicted of suddenly loading his gun and going on a crime spree. So this law will make us all safer?

    Perhaps if we did something to thwart crime instead of punishing the law abiding, we might actually accomplish something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FWM, there are plenty of legal gun owners who HAVE loaded their guns and gone on a shooting spree.

    I doubt your claims about Claifornia, but if I have time later today i'll do a check on the mass shootings in CA.

    It is clear that fewer guns in countries with more restrictions results in far fewer criminals with guns as well, making those countries safer than this country.

    I'm waiting for you to explain that. While there will always be some people who don't obey the law, limiting firearms does work. More restrictive firearm regulation is legal, and it works. More guns and looser restrictions don't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Back up with sources FWM that registered guns in CA were confiscated.

    Of course, you will have to demonstrate that they were legal in the first place, and that this was not an example of disqualified people - you know, felons, drug users, dangerously mentally ill people - having a firearm confiscated, or a firearm that is in an illegal category.

    I look forward to your sources...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can you provide a valid, reputable reference to the California Gun Confiscation, FWM?

    I found articles that alleged this happened, but none with solid evidence that the guns were actually confiscated.

    Registration of firearms no more punishes the law abiding than registering automobiles.

    Another tired cliche.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Demo,

    You mean criminals will not obey the law and carry their guns illegally anyway? And this law won't stop that wave of crime?"

    Conflation, FatWhiteMan is thy name.

    I'm fairly certain that I've never said that criminals wouldn't be criminals just because other folks weren't. As has been pointed out, hundreds if not thousands of times, on this here blog--FEWER gunz would prolly result in fewer bad peoples havin' teh gunz. Now, it took many, many years for allathem illegal gunz to slowly be lost and stolen and get out into the criminal subculture (although the flow seems to have accelerated lately), so it will, likewise, take some time to haul them back in.

    But giving the badperpz the news that allathem stonetype2A's are "shootin' blanks", in a manner of speakin' might not be the best idea that the gunzloonz have had in a while.

    So, Laci, does the unloaded carry feature make the Glock a little more like the ceremonial Kirpan? Is the Glock really just a fetish, a totem for the gunligious?

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/dossltrs.html

    http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/dropappeal.html

    You can only charge an otherwise law abiding citizen with failure to register a firearm. Prohibited persons cannot be so charged because of the 5th Amendment. Haynes v. U.S. (1968)

    Registration schemes are a dog and pony show aimed only at subjugating the law abiding. Criminals are a protected class in registration schemes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I said, actual proof of confisaction from a reputable source:

    http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/dossltrs.html

    http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/dropappeal.html

    Both come from the NRA and allege that these rifles were subject to confiscation.

    NO actual documentation of confiscation.

    Again, the request was for a reputable news source: AP, Reuters, or other newsgathering organization.

    Weekly World News or the National Inquirer doesn't count.

    Likewise, neither does the NRA unless they can actually back up the firearms were confiscated. You report merely states:

    The decision by AG Lockyer to drop the appeal paves the way for the Department of Justice to proceed with plans to force gun owners, who both registered firearms after the deadline AND who abided by the law as interpreted by the Attorney General, to turn them in.

    Lockyer intends to ask the state legislature to appropriate funds to compensate those who have turned in their firearms. Gun owners who are affected by the Attorney General's decision will receive notification of their status from the DOJ and will have 90 days to comply. Those who do not comply within that time period will be identified from the registration list concerning the confiscation of their firearm(s).


    Additionally, this mentions compensation for any firearms that were turned in.

    Sorry, that doesn't help you too much in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You can only charge an otherwise law abiding citizen with failure to register a firearm. Prohibited persons cannot be so charged because of the 5th Amendment. Haynes v. U.S. (1968)"

    Well, shucks, the SCotUS did say that, as per the 5th Amendment, that registration of guns by a felon would be self-incrimination if his possession of said guns was illegal.

    You can also only charge thieves, arsonists, murderers, con artists, embezzlers, bank robbers, sneak thieves, wife beaters, pederasts and a host of other criminals AFTER they've been apprehended. They are not required by law to announce their crimes before or after they have committed them.

    I think it's some sort of cognitive dissonance amongst gunzloonz that somehow allows them to believe that those of us who are anti-assholez with gunz types don't know how criminals operate. I must assure you that we do. We, in fact, expect them to do illegal things because that is, by definition, what criminals do.

    What your argument leaves out is that Miles Haynes or any other convicted felon who breaks the law and is caught is subject to prosecution under whatever jurisdiction he resides in and is subject to conviction and punishment for those laws he breaks in accordance with the applicable statutes. Whether it's for failing to register a gun or some other crime he is no more immune to prosecution than anyone else. That he's stupid/brave enough to flout the law is another issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. James Huberty mainly used a 9 mm Uzi semi-automatic in the McDonalds at San Ysidro which left 21 dead and 19 wounded.

    Patrick Purdy legally purchased the Chinese-made AK-47 derivative that he used at the Cleveland School.

    Huberty and Purdy bought their guns legally. They loaded up and started shooting people.

    Your NRA propaganda, Fat white Man, is a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fat White Man, I have searched for actual instances of gun confiscation in California. You know, that happened to real people in real places who live in reality.

    So far, no reputable source has provided an instance of this happening.

    Even unreputable sources have not mentioned specific examples.

    This is an urban myth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "James Huberty mainly used a 9 mm Uzi semi-automatic in the McDonalds at San Ysidro which left 21 dead and 19 wounded."

    So where is the part of the story that said he legally open carried his pistol unloaded before he entered the McDonalds?

    "Patrick Purdy legally purchased the Chinese-made AK-47 derivative that he used at the Cleveland School."

    Sorry, you can't legally open carry an AK-47 in California.

    My statement that no legal California open carriers have suddenly decided to commit a crime of gun violence. Thanks for trying though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Again, the request was for a reputable news source: AP, Reuters, or other newsgathering organization."

    Fair enough. The same will of course need to apply to the other side as well. If the NRA cannot be used as a source than neither should Brady, VPC and the like or their bogus "studies" be used as sources either.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Demo,

    I am sure that Laci could better describe it in more paragraphs and with more impressive words but what the court said in their 8-1 decision was that registration is only for the otherwise law abiding. Prohibited persons cannot be guilty of failure to register a firearm.

    Registration is not aimed to stop crime.

    No registration--no thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. or their bogus "studies" be used as sources either.

    Bogus, as in peer reviewed in scientific journals?

    Hardly bogus.

    The NRA doesn't qualify as a source since it is a political advocacy group. If they can't back up their assertions with facts, that makes them unreliable.

    On the other hand, if they can provide specific verifiable instances rather than vague allegations, all the more power to them.

    Vague unsubstantiated allegations don't cut it.

    Your NRA cites only provided vague unsubstantiated allegations that were unable to be verified independently of the NRA claims.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fat White Man, there are no instances anywhere or at any time in the US of people who are unarmed committing massacres.

    There is no problem with open carry/concealed carry, full-auto/semi-auto, or a gun used just as a club.

    Unarmed people don't commit massacres.

    Unarmed people also don't commit individual shootings.

    ReplyDelete
  18. FWM makes one of the dumber comments when he says:
    what the court said in their 8-1 decision was that registration is only for the otherwise law abiding. Prohibited persons cannot be guilty of failure to register a firearm.

    First off, you don't give a complete cite for the case, which is Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).

    That means you probably didn't read it, let alone understand it.

    Additionally, this case comes from 1968. the Court held that the requirement then in the statute that one presently in possession of a covered firearm must register it, which the court felt violated Fifth Amendment self-incrimination standards. The Haynes decision was followed by an amendment eliminating that requirement from the law. Now, the only persons who must register a covered firearm themselves are the manufacturer, maker, or importer, and the transferor, who must register the firearm in his transferee's name.

    Someone can be prosecuted for failure to register a firearm and the Fifth Amendment defence no longer applies.

    The analysis you provide, Fat White Man, is out of date and incorrect.

    Of course, you wouldn't know that since you don't know about Shepherdising to verify that the law, or case law, is still valid.

    Democommie is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Fat White Man, there are no instances anywhere or at any time in the US of people who are unarmed committing massacres."

    I guess you will need to define "unarmed." We just celebrated the 10th Anniversary of the 9/11 massacre where people without guns managed to kill several thousand people.

    Also, how many does it take to be a "massacre." There are several cases where people have driven cars into large crowds killing several people and wounding many others..

    http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/mathis-pleads-no-contest-to-driving-his-car-into-a-crowd-of-people

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=4073873

    Were these drivers "armed?"

    ReplyDelete
  21. Laci,

    I thought Freed argued that he didn't know he had to register his destructive devices, not that he was a prohibited person and could not do so as with Haynes. So what does Freed have to do with the 5th amendment or with Haynes for that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, but how frequent are these incidents you mention, Jim?

    Your arguments are getting into the absurd for the amount of times that cars or planes are used to kill as opposed to being used as transportation.

    Your 9-11 argument is the ultimate in stupidity since the hijackers were armed with boxcutters when they performed the hijacking. Of course, some passengers fought back.

    How many cars are there in the US, how many miles are they driven?

    Two incidents such as this get you into the silly bugger category when you try to argue that they cause as many problems as firearms, Jim.

    If anything, a comparison of firearms to vehicles demonstrates that firearms need more regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Did you read Freed? Did you understand it?

    In Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 , the Court held invalid under the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment provisions of the National Firearms Act, which constituted parts of an interrelated statutory scheme for taxing certain classes of firearms primarily used for unlawful purposes, and made the potentially incriminating information available to state and other officials. To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them.

    The revised statutory scheme of the amended Act, which significantly alters the scheme presented in Haynes, does not involve any violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.


    Your statement of the law is no longer valid--plain and simple.

    Haynes made no sense anyway.

    Failure to register a firearm should not grant immunity under the law. The entire idea is that criminals DO NOT register firearms. To grant them immunity based upon the Fifth Amendment is silly.

    They failed to comply with the law and should be punished.

    Seriously, If I fail to pay my taxes, can I claim a fifth amendment right against prosecution (Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968)?

    Anyway, the analysis given in Haynes is no longer valid due to changes in the law.

    GOT THAT--NOT VALID!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. "...is no longer valid due to changes in the law. GOT THAT--NOT VALID!!"

    Got it. Like Miller, no longer valid.

    Sorry, I couldn't help that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Let's see Miller was a unanimous decision. Heller-McDonald were 5-4.

    The four justices followed Miller civic right interpretation in Heller.

    Figure that one out.

    Still valid law.

    As far as I can tell, Fat White Man, you know dick about the law.

    Which is why they can tell you all sorts of shit and you believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Since Heller and McDonald were only a 5-4 decision, were Chicago and DC legally required to change their laws based on these decisions?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Yes, but how frequent are these incidents you mention, Jim?"

    More often than never as proposed by Dog Gone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "As far as I can tell, Fat White Man, you know dick about the law.

    Which is why they can tell you all sorts of shit and you believe it."


    I actually burnt myself on my tea when I read that. Good grief.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jim sez:
    Since Heller and McDonald were only a 5-4 decision, were Chicago and DC legally required to change their laws based on these decisions?

    Only if they had the unlimited funds of the Koch Brothers backing them the way Cato did.

    Jim, do you like it that US Justice is bought and sold to the highest bidder?

    More often than never as proposed by Dog Gone.

    But, Jim, you need to quantify this rather than spout a nebulous phrase.

    9-11 was only three planes that made it to their target.

    Whoop dee doo? You gonna ban air travel for that? You trying to redefine airplanes based upon three incidents? Guns are designed to be lethal weapons.

    As for cars into crowd. Probably more frequent that airplanes, but the same issue arises. They are designed for transportation, not as weapons.

    Do you read the newspapers? Do you watch TV? Do you listen to the radio?

    Gun are used far more frequently as weapons. The purpose of a firearm is to kill or wound, they are designed as weapons.

    I don't know why you keep pushing this discredited argument.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jim, you are the master of cermonies in the theatre of the absurd.

    sadly you are not a serious contributor to the discussion with these questions and comments.

    They remind me of the silly things todlers ask babysitters--like can I dig a hole to China?

    You're digging your hole deeper and deeper, but not getting anywhere.

    Other than down a hole.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jim, people sometimes people choke on marshmellows, but that doesn't make them weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Look DG - you stated as fact that never in the history of America has an unarmed person commited a massacre. I was merely trying to understand your notion of "armed" and "massacre" since I did point out a few instances when this did indeed happen. Nowhere did I suggest that planes or cars need more regulation. Nowhere did I suggest that marshmallows are lethal weapons. That was all you and Laci.

    So in review - DG makes an absurd statement that only guns and weapons lead to massacres, I point out where she is wrong, and I am the toddler asking questions here?

    As to my question on the 5-4 decision, it seemed that Laci was implying that a unanimous court decision had more legal weight than a 5-4 decision. I was asking for her legal advice on whether a 5-4 decision was binding onto these cities, because it looked like maybe she thought it was not.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jim, according to Shepherds, Miller has not been specifically overturned. That means it is still good law!

    Of course, you don't mind the fact that the Heller-McDonald cases was funded by the Cato Institute in order to wear down the cities of DC and Chicago.

    Sure, the Cities could appeal, but they don't have the money that the private industries do.

    You like the fact that American justice goes to the highest bidder?

    Do you know the meaning of the term justice?

    As for comparing guns to cars, planes, trains, and other vehicle--that's just plain stupid.

    Got it--stupid??????

    No, you are the toddler by coming up with silly analogies which are the exceptions.

    Is that because you are part of the community of morons that has appropraited the term Conservative in the USA?

    I've met conservatives in other countries and they make sense.

    You a conservative? or just an asshole?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jim, lots of things can be used as a lethal weapons. But that doesn't mean they were designed sprecifically for that purpose.

    For example, vehicular homicide, makes a vehicle into a weapon--not by design, but by misuse.

    If you want to use any massacre that used poison, I would give you credit, but not vehicles.

    First off, you are using extreme exceptions to the rule.

    Secondly, many individuals who use vehicles as weapons are also armed with other weapons.

    Thirdly, the 9-11 attacker were armed with box cutters, bladed weapons, a fact which you keep ignore or keep trying to deny. At least one individual on the 9-11 flights was stabbed with those weapons.

    So, I repeat, find for me instances when unarmed (without an instrument for causing harm) persons committed mass killings in the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Simple English, Jim, a split decision cannot overrule a unanimous one.

    Can DC fight the Heller ruling? Yes.

    Should DC fight the Heller ruling? Yes!

    But what is the mechanism for righting a legal wrong in the US system?

    The system of judicial review of laws for their constitutionality does not come from the Constitution--it comes from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803),, but that didn't provide a framework for further appeal if there is judicial impropriety.

    Heller-McDonald is a case of serious judicial impropriety, but it can't presume to overturn a unanimous decision.

    Especially one that has been precedent for nearly 70 years.

    The US is heading for a serious constitutional crisis.

    Will it survive?

    probably not.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In a side conversation, Laci asked me to provide an example of an incident where a masscre involved first driving a vehicle into a crowd of people, but also use of a firearm (or at least a firearm was present also).

    So......here is an example: the Luby's restaurant massacre in Killeen Texas on October 16th, 1991. George Jo Hennard drove his pick-up truck into the restaurant, and subsequently shot and killed 22 people, wounded 20, and did the usual with a suicide at the end.

    Wikipedia provides a handy, if incomplete, list of events termed massacres. They also have a list of 'spree killers' and a variety of similar listings, some broken down by number killed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What the pro-gun guys don't want to admit is that registration would serve a great purpose. Combined with licensing gun owners and prohibiting personal sales without a background check, registration of guns would eliminate straw purchasing and pretty much end the gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys.

    With proper licensing and registration, criminals would only get guns through theft which accounts for the least of it now.

    All that talk of "registration leads to confiscation" is a smokescreen. The benefits of these types of gun control laws are so obvious and indisputable that it's no wonder the gun guys are squirming and reacting like they are.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "So, I repeat, find for me instances when unarmed (without an instrument for causing harm) persons committed mass killings in the United States."

    Ok, I asked you to define what you meant by "Armed" and now you have provided that box cutters and vehicles count as weapons. I will admit that all massacres occur by using something that can cause harm.... is that really suprising? Isn't it kind of hard to kill people without causing them harm? What is your point with that question?

    Laci - are you suggesting that five supreme court justices were in essence bribed into their rulings on Heller and McDonald? You keep mentioning that justice was bought by the Cato institute, which to me means you think the Supreme Court is corrupt. If that is indeed the case, then yes I would agree that America is in big trouble.

    What exactly would DC and Chicago do to appeal a ruling of the Supreme Court? I thought by its nature that the Supreme Court has the final say on whether or not legislation is considered to be Constitutional. I guess DC and Chicago could try to get a new Constitutional Amendment passed through the legislature and approved by the states, but that is not really an "appeal" is it?

    I admit you know much more about the court system than I do, which is why I asked if a decision being 5-4 made it less valid than a unanimous decision.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "registration of guns would eliminate straw purchasing and pretty much end the gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys...criminals would only get guns through theft which accounts for the least of it now."

    And you have a credible source for that?

    ReplyDelete
  40. are you suggesting that five supreme court justices were in essence bribed into their rulings on Heller and McDonald?

    Well, they sure as hell didn't bother with precedent.

    Scalia had bias on the topic as well.

    Heller-McDonald stinks to high heaven.

    You keep mentioning that justice was bought by the Cato institute, which to me means you think the Supreme Court is corrupt.

    You betcha it can be bought.

    One law for the rich, one law for the poor.

    Cato would have won these cases by either wearing down their opponents or getting judges that are on their side.

    Note that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas attend Koch events--the Kochs are big funders of Cato.

    Still, my analysis of how the law works says something extralegal happened to get the crappy decisions.

    Of course, when one splits the baby--then we know something is wrong.

    It's not me who says Miller is still good law--Shepherds says it hasn't been overruled.

    ReplyDelete
  41. FWM asks, "And you have a credible source for that? "

    Yes, my brain. I thought about it.

    ReplyDelete