California Looks To Go After Illegally Owned Guns

….wait, California?

(SFGate) In the divisive debates over gun control, here is something all factions should agree on: Deadly weapons should be taken out of the hands of those who have been deemed a risk because of felony convictions or episodes of domestic violence, mental health conditions or drug addictions.

California is the only state that has the ability to cross-check records of gun registrations against the list of those who are legally forbidden to possess firearms.

State Attorney General Kamala Harris has been making a concerted effort to confiscate guns from those on the banned list, but it’s a monumental task. At a legislative hearing last week, a representative from her Department of Justice said that about 20,000 registered gun owners in the state are ineligible to possess firearms – and that list is growing by about 3,000 a year.

The confiscation of firearms from felons and owners with court-certified issues with anger management, mental illness or addiction poses no danger to the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

See, this is a common sense idea, going after those who aren’t legally entitled to own a gun. Of course, in some cases, someone is restricted simply because they are a felon but aren’t a danger. Consider, Martha Stewart was convicted of 4 felonies, making her ineligible to own a gun. Is she a danger or a threat?

And, this still means that there are quite a few serious criminals running around California who won’t get a gun legally. There are no shortage of gangs in the Golden State. But, this is at least a start which doesn’t attempt to deal with the gun issue with a blanket decree that ends up hurting law abiding citizens who are legally entitled to own a gun.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

4 Comments

Comment by gitarcarver
2013-02-05 15:16:59

Consider, Martha Stewart was convicted of 4 felonies, making her ineligible to own a gun. Is she a danger or a threat?

She may not be depending on how you view her cooking, decorating and “homey” view of the world and whether that is a threat or not. ;)

However, both Federal and California State law allow for the application of a waiver for convicted felons to obtain a weapon. The waiver is based upon the original crime, need, and behavior after being released from prison.

I agree with you that the approach California is taking is a good, sensical one so I wanted to add that “reformed” and “rehabilitated” felons in need of a weapon can apply for a waiver to obtain a gun.

I see that approach as making sense as well. Just as we allow felons to apply to regain the ability to vote, we should examine those who wish to regain and avail themselves of their Second Amendment rights.

 
Comment by john
2013-02-05 15:30:09

GC please tell us how many waivers from the feds have been issued I believe it is close to zero. So what about the children of felons? why should they lose the right to be protected by their previously convicted parent(s)? And since “arms” seems to be undefined in the 2nd Amendment why can’t I openly carry a RPG? they only cost 150 dollars on the open market and THAT would be serious deterrent to crime.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-02-05 16:26:40

john,

Let me answer your questions one at a time:

GC please tell us how many waivers from the feds have been issued I believe it is close to zero.

I have no idea how many waivers the Feds have issued. If the Feds want to ignore the laws on the books and you support them doing that, that says more about you and the Feds than it does about gun control.

why should they lose the right to be protected by their previously convicted parent(s)?

The right of self protection is an individual right john, not a community right. even so, the better question is “why would someone do something that would cause them to not be able to defend their children?” (Why are you in favor of arming criminals? Why are you supporting those who break the law?) The odd thing is that you support disarming all people, so while you moan and groan about children of felons not being “protected,” you want all children to be unprotected as well as all citizens.

And since “arms” seems to be undefined in the 2nd Amendment why can’t I openly carry a RPG? they only cost 150 dollars on the open market and THAT would be serious deterrent to crime.

Grenades, and therefore RPG’s, are tightly controlled under the 1934 Firearms Act, john. Most people see this as a reasonable as grenades and RPGs are not good for crime deterrent or self protection. They are good for defense against a military so if you really want to advocate for personnel ownership of RPG’s, you are advocating for less gun and weapons controls as well as the ability of the average US citizen to have access to military grade weapons systems.

Those are the long answers, john. The short answer is that every question you posed shows that your solutions are both ill conceived and based on ignorance.

Now go back to your bridge.

 
Comment by proof Subscribed to comments via email
2013-02-05 21:16:09

Don’t worry about Martha Stewart. She can kill you with her bare hands…while you’re thanking her for the privilege!

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8877 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE