California Gov. Jerry Brown speaks at a news conference in Sacramento last month. (Renee. C. Byer / Associated Press / April 24, 2013)
Los Angeles Times
Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed legislation aimed at taking handguns and assault rifles away from 20,000 Californians who acquired them legally but have since been disqualified from ownership because of a criminal conviction or serious mental illness.
The measure, the first of several gun-related bills to reach the governor, allocates $24 million in surplus funds to hire dozens of additional special agents to tackle a backlog of 40,000 weapons in the hands of people not allowed to possess firearms.
“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.
The state operates a database that cross-references a list of gun owners with those disqualified later from owning guns. But, budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the growing number of people on the list.
I really can't wait to hear the pro-gun objections to this one. I know we can count on some of our regular commenters, they never disappoint.
Please leave a comment.
It's weird. I could swear gun rights advocates have been dismissed as "paranoid" for standing against gun registration, because registration leads to confiscation. I must be misremembering, though, because now that registration is facilitating confiscation, such charges of "paranoia" are clearly dead wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd we all know that forcible citizen disarmament proponents are never that grotesquely wrong, don't we?
Only the most extreme extremists would have a problem with disarming convicted felons and mental patients. That's not "confiscation" as you intend it. That loaded word is meant to convey the forced removal of guns from responsible and qualified people, something which will never happen in the USA. But that doesn't stop you guys from continually referring to it as if it's right around the corner.
DeleteSo, no, this doesn't count as "registration leads to confiscation." This counts as registration enables the cops to do what they were already supposed to be doing, and not just in CA. This is the law in EVERY state.
Well, I hate to get nit-picky, but your title of this post is
Delete"California to CONFISCATE Guns..."
so I see no reason why you would object to that word being used.
orlin sellers
"never happen" is way too strong of language. California just proposed doing exactly that with registered "assault weapons". It is probably not going to happen this time, but it is close, and there are clearly people in power who want to do it.
DeleteAlso they probably will ban grandfathered magazines, it is just that they are not registered. But other states are imposing registration on magazines right now. Following California's lead and later reneging on the grandfather clause doesn't seem too far fetched. But it is not much better without registration. They are still turning people into criminals for something they legally bought, and that's the worst part of it.
Orlin, you're right. That's a "nit-picky" attempt at a gotcha. I use words like "confiscation" and "accidental shooting" a bit sarcastically in my titles.
DeleteIt's odd you didn't catch my sarcasm.
Deleteorlin sellers
Sorry I didn't respond sooner--I apparently forgot to subscribe by email, so I hadn't noticed that there were any replies.
DeleteThat's not "confiscation" as you intend it.
It's not, eh? And what, pray tell, do you think I "intend" confiscation to mean? I "intend" confiscation to mean forcibly seizing something from its owner--is that not what's going on here?
And I agree with TS (thus becoming one of his "followers," according to Mikeb). Doing away with the grandfather clause with regards to so-called "assault weapons" and eleven-round magazines has become all the rage in states worst afflicted with the scourge of "gun control"--a category into which California fits perfectly.
Once-legal guns will suddenly become "illegal," with no regard for the responsible, law-abiding character of the owners, and California will send its hit squads out to confiscate them.
Two objections:
ReplyDelete1. Government shouldn't have a list of the things citizens own.
2. What constitutes a "serious mental illness" depends on how much control the government wishes to assert.