California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes,

[lostinblue 1,989]

California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure

The California state legislature passed a bill Thursday approving $24 million to expedite the confiscation of the estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons illegally owned by Californians.

SB 140, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), seeks to remedy the gun-confiscation backlog that has left thousands of illegal guns on the streets, including those owned by those with criminal convictions or serious mental illness.

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

The measure will take $24 million from the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) surplus funds and give it to the California Department of Justice, which is in charge of confiscating illegal guns. The DROS account holds fees that are imposed upon every transfer or sale of a firearm in California.

Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he voted against the measure because the fees that make up the DROS funds are intended to cover the cost of background checks -- not confiscations.

"For example, if you go to the DMV and pay for a driver's license, that fee is for processing the driver's license, not for setting up sting operations for catching drunk drivers," he said.

"If the legislature wants to raise extra funds for the DOJ, it would have to impose a tax on firearm sales, which requires a two-thirds vote," he added.

Brandon Combs, executive director of the gun advocacy group Calguns Foundation, agrees that gun confiscation should be paid for out of the state's general fund. His and other pro-gun groups have argued that California's fees on gun buyers are exorbitant.

"The state should not be stealing millions of dollars from gun owners who were overcharged," Combs said.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) told the Los Angeles Times that he voted against the measure because it is “a dangerous practice” to “send SWAT teams into our neighborhoods” to collect the firearms.

The funds will go toward enforcing the California DOJ's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, which began in 2007. APPS cross-references various databases to check people who have legally purchased handguns and registered assault weapons since 1996 against individuals who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

APPS also cross-references gun owners with individuals who have reported to the state DOJ as mentally ill. Doctors and hospitals are required to report to the state individuals who were found to be a danger to themselves or others, or who were certified for intensive treatment for a mental disorder.

Lynda Gledhill, spokesperson for the California DOJ, said that of the individuals deemed unfit to own guns, about 30 percent have a criminal record, 30 percent are mentally ill, 20 percent have a restraining order out on them and a small percentage have a warrant out for their arrest.

California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. Because gun-confiscating agents do not obtain search warrants, their job involves convincing people to let them into their homes and hand over their guns. If an individual does turn over a gun, he or she can be arrested on suspicion of illegally owning a firearm.

Over the past five years, agents conducting twice-weekly sweeps have confiscated more than 10,000 guns. Using the $24 million from SB 140, the California DOJ says it would take three years to catch up with the backlog of confiscated illegal guns.

Leno's bill returns to the Senate for approval of some noncontroversial amendments before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown’s (D) desk. If SB 140 is signed by the governor, it would take effect immediately.

"This makes enormous sense and is one of the only ways available to reduce access to already purchased firearms," Deborah Azrael, associate director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. "Universal background checks, as much as we should have them, can affect only the next gun purchased, not the sizable reservoir of guns already out there."

Adam Winker, UCLA law professor and expert on constitutional law, commented on the passage of the California bill after the U.S. Congress' failure to enact national gun background checks.

"We're likely to see much more activity at the state level in the wake of Congress's failure to act," Winkler said. "The gun-control movement's best options now are gun-control laws at the state."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html#slide=more291219

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The funds will go toward enforcing the California DOJ's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, which began in 2007. APPS cross-references various databases to check people who have legally purchased handguns and registered assault weapons since 1996 against individuals who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

APPS also cross-references gun owners with individuals who have reported to the state DOJ as mentally ill. Doctors and hospitals are required to report to the state individuals who were found to be a danger to themselves or others, or who were certified for intensive treatment for a mental disorder.

If they pass a law, it can't be illegal.

The bill takes guns away from criminals and mentally ill folks, that the gun nutters complain the government should be doing anyways.

So where's the beef? You should be happy now.

Edited April 20, 2013 by The Patriot

[Darnell 8,478]

That is so cool ! I smell some new business headed my way.

See ? Reading VJ is sometimes better than the Federal Register or each State's News.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The bill takes guns away from criminals and mentally ill folks, that the gun nutters complain the government should be doing anyways.

I said it before and I'll say it again - the NRA and the gun nuts want criminals and the mentally ill to have firearms. They fight tooth and nail for every criminal and every sicko in this nation to be armed to his and her teeth. There's more blood shed that way. And that's just how they like it.

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

I said it before and I'll say it again - the NRA and the gun nuts want criminals and the mentally ill to have firearms. They fight tooth and nail for every criminal and every sicko in this nation to be armed to his and her teeth. There's more blood shed that way. And that's just how they like it.

[GandD 5,966]

I said it before and I'll say it again - the NRA and the gun nuts want criminals and the mentally ill to have firearms. They fight tooth and nail for every criminal and every sicko in this nation to be armed to his and her teeth. There's more blood shed that way. And that's just how they like it.

You're missing their obsession with the slippery slope. Take a gun away from johnny no brains over there and then they'll target me. Therefore, we need johnny no brains as a buffer.

[himher 634]

I said it before and I'll say it again - the NRA and the gun nuts want criminals and the mentally ill to have firearms. They fight tooth and nail for every criminal and every sicko in this nation to be armed to his and her teeth. There's more blood shed that way. And that's just how they like it.

I said it before and I'll say it again - the NRA and the gun nuts want criminals and the mentally ill to either be locked up or clearly identified on a public, easily accessible database. They fight tooth and nail for every criminal and every sicko in this nation to be either controlled or dead. There's more blood shed that way but at least innocent, law-abiding people are safe. And keeping innocent, law-abiding people safe is just how they like it.

Libs like BigDog are too concerned with the privacy rights and good treatment of criminals and sickos to ever allow that. Because criminals and sickos are voters too and those votes are critical to keeping people who govern violent cities like Atlanta and New Orleans and Chicago and DC in power. The more votes the better and screw the safety of families and children and if this little power game is challenged then they will whine about it like helpless babies for weeks and weeks.

NRA and gun nuts: Screw the criminals and sickos. We want the right to pop them.

BigDog and the libs: Screw the families and children. We want to protect the privacy of criminals and sickos and we want them out there doing their thing as long as they can vote.

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I said it before and I'll say it again - the NRA and the gun nuts want criminals and the mentally ill to either be locked up or clearly identified on a public, easily accessible database.

They are identifiable. The NRA and gun nust fight tooth and nail to ensure that private transactions do not need to consult those databases, however. Hence, no matter how good those databases are, they won't prevent a single gun transfer unless they are universally applicable to all gun sales and transfers. So that is where, thanks to the NRA and the gun nuts, the criminals and the mentally incapable get their guns.

Oh, and you cannot seriously advocate that any and all persons that are not eligible to purchase a firearm be locked up. Or has your nuttery just risen to whole new level?

It's not a conspiracy. It's dangerous idiocy on the part of the gun nuts and the NRA.

[himher 634]

They are identifiable. The NRA and gun nust fight tooth and nail to ensure that private transactions do not need to consult those databases, however. Hence, no matter how good those databases are, they won't prevent a single gun transfer unless they are universally applicable to all gun sales and transfers. So that is where, thanks to the NRA and the gun nuts, the criminals and the mentally incapable get their guns.

Oh, and you cannot seriously advocate that any and all persons that are not eligible to purchase a firearm be locked up. Or has your nuttery just risen to whole new level?

It's not a conspiracy. It's dangerous idiocy on the part of the gun nuts and the NRA.

any and all persons that are not eligible to purchase a firearm be locked up

Did I say locked up or did I say locked up or easily and publicly identifiable? They are not identifiable (I'm stunned that a lib would out and out lie about something) and I cannot call in and do a background check today unless I have an FFL number that I of course PAID the government for. So I have to pay a fee to do a background check. You want more money from me - suck wind. You want background checks pass out the number.

Noted however is your shock at the idea of actually keeping felons off the streets and how dare I mess with a whole class of lib supporters. Please accept my non-sincere apology if I offended one of your core values that violent people belong on the streets as long as law-abiding private citizens prevent them from getting a gun.

Otherwise you're wrong about the background check issue and have no clue as to why it was rejected. Gun owners are quite happy to conduct the background checks. We are not going to be able to accept fees for the right to do it, or handling of paperwork, or storing of paperwork, or transfer / mailing in of paperwork, or fees for the paperwork itself, or all of the OTHER difficult process that is involved in making a sale under the lib umbrella of "if you want to do anything, we should collect some fees and make you fill out and handle all sorts of government forms to allow you the right to do it".

Get it? That's why your bill crashed and burned. NO other reason. If you can manage to do it easily and without attaching fees and taxes to it then get to work. I say no lib every got anything done that wasn't attached to forms and fees. The background check bill was just another "revenue raiser" for a limp government that cannot find a way to arrest felons who fail the background checks that are already in place.

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

Oh, and you cannot seriously advocate that any and all persons that are not eligible to purchase a firearm be locked up. Or has your nuttery just risen to whole new level?

missed the word OR i see in his statement. context matters...

It's not a conspiracy. It's dangerous idiocy on the part of the gun nuts and the NRA.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

NRA and gun nuts: Screw the criminals and sickos. We want the right to pop them.

Vigilante justice?

[himher 634]

Vigilante justice?

Self-defense isn't "vigilante justice". They can always be saved by being segregated from society OR save themselves by respecting other people and their property.

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

NRA and gun nuts: Screw the criminals and sickos. We want the right to pop them.

I see. So now you want to go hunting for the mentally ill. Kill 'em all, eh?

[himher 634]

I see. So now you want to go hunting for the mentally ill. Kill 'em all, eh?

Criminals "go hunting" and mentally ill nutjobs who snap also "go hunting". Self defense against a snapped nutjob however is not "going hunting".

Except in the dark, scrambled, convoluted world of liberal logic. You can save the dangerous nuts by segregating them from honest law abiding people or they can save themselves by respecting other people and their property.

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Criminals "go hunting" and mentally ill nutjobs who snap also "go hunting". Self defense against a snapped nutjob however is not "going hunting".

Except in the dark, scrambled, convoluted world of liberal logic.

You said you want the right to pop the mentally ill - you referred to them as nutjobs. You didn't say anything about self defense. You just want to "pop them". You may not have noticed, but you're quite the nutjob yourself. So maybe you start there...