It's just registration, they said.....no one will ever take your guns, they said.....

[BaiHu]

I understand what Sean is saying and unless there is a clear ex post facto clause in this fiscal appropriation, I don't see this as 'bad'. Although I do understand the concern for the slippery slope, I'm not sure I'm seeing it here.....yet-after all, it is Kaleefornea, so I also see everyone else's concerns too.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

[RoyGBiv]

If you read the article, this bill authorizes the funds to enforce the existing law. So the scenario offered is directly relevant to the fact they know they have these guns in illegal possession, but lacked the resources to enforce. The bill was passed to get the resources to enforce. No where does it say find the legally owned guns, register them, and take them away.

You are correct. This bill is not the problem.
The fact that the state of California maintains a registry, and their legislators are on record as stating their desire to confiscate all guns... This is the problem.

Yes.. I know she's a US legislator...



ETA: Here's Cuomo on the record saying confiscation is "an option" on the table..

[Drang]

I think the concern here is the dude who buys a gun legally, and later becomes a felon overnight because the government changes the law and retroactively makes that legal purchase illegal.

There was a kid in my last unit in the Army who needed a waiver to enlist, and could not be issued an individual firearm (but the door guns on the Blackhawks were just hunky dory), because he had a misdemeanor Domestic Violence conviction on his rap sheet.
He and his brother got into a fight.
Under the laws in that place and time, fighting with a family member counted as DV.

Now, it's easy to have no sympathy at all for a wife beater, but some guy who got in a fight with his brother?

What else might be made a disqualifying crime, retroactively, without due process? That's our concern.

[WDW]

There was a kid in my last unit in the Army who needed a waiver to enlist, and could not be issued an individual firearm (but the door guns on the Blackhawks were just hunky dory), because he had a misdemeanor Domestic Violence conviction on his rap sheet.
He and his brother got into a fight.
Under the laws in that place and time, fighting with a family member counted as DV.

Now, it's easy to have no sympathy at all for a wife beater, but some guy who got in a fight with his brother?

What else might be made a disqualifying crime, retroactively, without due process? That's our concern.

How can a guy be admitted into the armed forces under the stipulation that he is not to be issued a weapon? The Army really will take anybody wont they?

[Le Français]

The Army really will take anybody wont they?

I don't think the Army is accepting any moral waivers right now, meaning that even some traffic tickets will prevent enlistment.

[Dan_S]

The Army really will take anybody wont they?

Yeah, maybe in the last century they would have...

I couldn't enlist, and that is with a squeaky-clean record...so, take that for what it is worth.



With all due respect to Sean_M, I gotta wonder...

With all the things that can get one a felony conviction these days, anyone that says that just because you are a felon you should not have access to weapons, well... That is pretty out of touch with reality. When a person can get a felony for shooting a wild animal, well...lets see how much sense that really makes...

[mnealtx]

If you read the article, this bill authorizes the funds to enforce the existing law. So the scenario offered is directly relevant to the fact they know they have these guns in illegal possession, but lacked the resources to enforce. The bill was passed to get the resources to enforce. No where does it say find the legally owned guns, register them, and take them away.

I can see the concern brought up by TLG, but that is not what happened here.

Perhaps I need to just take a break from gun owners and the gun owning community, because taking a fact, and turning it into a fear mongering projection of " oh no, what if they do XYZ next? That is where all of this is heading! It must be, look at what the Nazi's did!" has grown tiresome for me.

Godwin? Really, dude?

I did read the article after I had already replied - I misunderstood the initial context of the article and apologize for the confusion created by my post.

Now, with that out of the way - did you note the part that mentioned that they've *already* been doing these sweeps twice a week for the last five years?

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.

I like this part, too:

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.

So, they don't have a warrant to search the place, you're supposed to just let them in to do their thing? And if they *do* find a gun, they get to arrest you?

Assemblyman Jones made, I believe, a good point:

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.

Then, you have things like this happen:
Link: http://gunssavelives.net/blog/law-ab...spitalization/

According to TheBlaze.com, a man in CA, who, as far as can be determined, is law abiding and has no history of mental illness had his 3 guns confiscated by state agents in bullet proof vests because, wait for it, his wife voluntarily checked herself into a mental facility due to complications with medication she was taking.

Tell us again how wondering if the state is going to overstep it's bounds means we're tin-hat paranoids.

[Drang]

...
With all due respect to Sean_M, I gotta wonder...

With all the things that can get one a felony conviction these days, anyone that says that just because you are a felon you should not have access to weapons, well... That is pretty out of touch with reality. When a person can get a felony for shooting a wild animal, well...lets see how much sense that really makes...

A misdemeanor DV conviction is all it takes under the Lautenberg Act. Retroactive, no due process. But, hey, domestic violence, so who cares, right? Like I said, fighting with your brother may be all it takes.

[Drang]

How can a guy be admitted into the armed forces under the stipulation that he is not to be issued a weapon? The Army really will take anybody wont they?

I retired 13 years ago, Clinton was still president.

The post Cold War draw-down had gone far enough that, yes, waivers were being granted for having smoked dope, or misdemeanor convictions for DV. As I noted in my post above, thanks to the Lautenberg Amendment, soldiers with the latter could only be armed with crew-served weapons.

I'm sure every cop in the country with a DV rap was let go...

I don't think the Army is accepting any moral waivers right now, meaning that even some traffic tickets will prevent enlistment.

That is my understanding. Education ones, either. Bad economy, drawing down again, recruiters will be flooded with prospects with Bachelors Degrees and higher.

[GOTURBACK]

If you read the article, this bill authorizes the funds to enforce the existing law. So the scenario offered is directly relevant to the fact they know they have these guns in illegal possession, but lacked the resources to enforce. The bill was passed to get the resources to enforce. No where does it say find the legally owned guns, register them, and take them away.

I can see the concern brought up by TLG, but that is not what happened here.

Perhaps I need to just take a break from gun owners and the gun owning community, because taking a fact, and turning it into a fear mongering projection of " oh no, what if they do XYZ next? That is where all of this is heading! It must be, look at what the Nazi's did!" has grown tiresome for me.

Respectfully Sean NYC did exactly this they demanded registration of certain types of firearms, then years after decided that the same firearms could no longer be possessed legally within the city. THEY CAME KNOCKING ON DOORS and it was not to deliver christmas cookies. Maybe You Do need to take a break ?