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

[DanH]

Personally, when a government says they need extra money to enforce a current law I have to ask, "WHAT THE HELL DID YOU SPEND THE REST OF YOUR MONEY ON!"
I mean, I realize that times are tough everywhere, and especially in California, but if your state government is spending money on anything other than the most basic functions of government, especially in a shitty economy, the problem is not your laws but your lawmakers.
But then again, I also believe that we get the government we deserve, especially at the state and local levels.

[Odin Bravo One]

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 ?

Still has nothing to do with the bill authorizing funding for LE in CA to do their job of removing firearms from felons, which is the facts of the case here. Not felons who were made felons by a law change, felons who were made felons by breaking already existing laws.

As for what did they do with the rest of their money?

It's their money, they spend it as they see fit. A bill is passed for defense budgets every year and no one throws a tissy asking where the Feds spent all of the rest of the money.

He majority of the arguments in this thread have zero to do with the price of tea in China, or the actual bill that was passed. They have been about could be, might be, look at this place, what about, what if, what next?

My issue with those arguments is that I have heard the same propaganda garbage being spewed by the NRA and others for more than 20 years. Same exact bullshit year in and year out. And what I have seen is that the sun continues to rise and set. Political power and influence ebbs and flows. Laws change, then change back. DOJ and ATF interpretations tighten up, then slack. The Supreme Court occsionally makes a ruling either way, and still no jack booted thugs in black helicopters have fast roped onto my lawn to seize my registered guns. They have never even knocked on my door.

[fixer]

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.

Way too much room for error in this type of system. you have the state data mining information for people who aren't allowed to own guns. It is a witch hunt and a fairly arbitrary one. They don't do this, I'm assuming, for "felons" who are trying to vote or utilize some other right they have forfeited as a result of a conviction.

You have errors in judicial proceedings. You have errors in policing. You have errors in legislation that result in unintended consequences. This type of "error stacking" is never considered when programs like the above are designed. The end result is only considered.

To me the ends do not justify the means. If someone particulary enjoys living in a police state, more power too them.

[Odin Bravo One]

If someone particulary enjoys living in a police state, more power too them.

Indeed. A point I have avoided so far, but relevant just the same.

CA, NYC, ChiTown and others have a grossly lopsided population perspectives and opinions, making reasonable thought and hope for sanity in elections impossible. But if someone chooses to stay, I have little sympathy for the rights they are giving up to live in their promised land. Then whine about.

[RoyGBiv]

But if someone chooses to stay, I have little sympathy for the rights they are giving up to live in their promised land. Then whine about.

I agree up to a point. I fled NYC as soon as I was able to support myself elsewhere (17). However, why should someone who grew up in Chicago or NYC and wants to stay nearby their friends and family be forced to choose between starting over or living with infringements on their enumerated rights.?

And at what point does the brainwashing and inroads of despotism flourishing in Chicago, LA and NYC become a threat to me in Texas?
Better to help those that decide to stay in these places fight the fight, in their town, before it comes to my town.

[BaiHu]

I agree up to a point. I fled NYC as soon as I was able to support myself elsewhere (17). However, why should someone who grew up in Chicago or NYC and wants to stay nearby their friends and family be forced to choose between starting over or living with infringements on their enumerated rights.?

And at what point does the brainwashing and inroads of despotism flourishing in Chicago, LA and NYC become a threat to me in Texas?
Better to help those that decide to stay in these places fight the fight, in their town, before it comes to my town.

I agree, the battle needs to be fought at the front lines, or at least at the borders of these inane locales. Teh dumb, it leakz.

[MBrook]

I'm wondering if that's a typo in the article. It would make more sense if they were charged with suspicion of possessing a firearm if they DIDN'T hand over the firearms in question.

I doubt their strategy is to sweet-talk their way into someone's home, get their gun(s), and then punish them for complying with their demands.

Also, I assume CA knows whether or not any of these people may have legally sold off a firearm? So if someone claims that they no longer have a gun, CA will either verify it was legally sold or charge them with suspicion of possession or illegally transferring a firearm?

[John Ralston]

I'm wondering if that's a typo in the article. It would make more sense if they were charged with suspicion of possessing a firearm if they DIDN'T hand over the firearms in question.

I doubt their strategy is to sweet-talk their way into someone's home, get their gun(s), and then punish them for complying with their demands.

Also, I assume CA knows whether or not any of these people may have legally sold off a firearm? So if someone claims that they no longer have a gun, CA will either verify it was legally sold or charge them with suspicion of possession or illegally transferring a firearm?

Not a typo...they are going after people who failed to surrender their firearms when ordered to. If you are prohibited and you hand one over, you are being charged with illegal possession.

[mnealtx]

I agree, the battle needs to be fought at the front lines, or at least at the borders of these inane locales. Teh dumb, it leakz.

Hence, Colorado.

[mnealtx]

Not a typo...they are going after people who failed to surrender their firearms when ordered to. If you are prohibited and you hand one over, you are being charged with illegal possession.

Nice Catch-22, isn't it?

Seems to me it sort of runs foul to that whole 'self-incrimination' thing, as well.