PDA

View Full Version : NY Times supports AB962


berto
10-04-2009, 10:18 PM
No surprise but it means we need to double our efforts. Keep the pressure on with phone calls, emails, faxes, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05mon3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

October 5, 2009
Editorial
Waiting in California

Two innovative bills recently approved by the California Legislature are on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. One would make the state’s justice system fairer and more efficient. The other would improve public safety. Neither would add to California’s fiscal woes, and both would set a worthy example for the nation.

The first bill would expand legal services for the poor. The nation as a whole does a dismal job of providing the indigent with legal counsel in child custody and domestic violence cases, foreclosure actions and other civil cases where basic rights are in peril.

The bill seeks to narrow that gap by investing about $11 million a year from existing court fees in a pilot program to make legal help for the poor routinely available. The bill — the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act — is named, appropriately, for Mr. Schwarzenegger’s father-in-law, who helped build the national legal services movement in the 1960’s.

The second measure seeks to strengthen the web of laws aimed at protecting people from gun violence. It would require ammunition dealers to obtain a purchaser’s identification and take a thumbprint. These records would be available to local law enforcement, which could then cross-check them against the state’s list of felons, gang members and other prohibited purchasers. People who buy bullets on the Internet would be required to pick them up from a store and undergo the same checks.

Mr. Schwarzenegger vetoed an earlier version of this bill five years ago because he questioned the benefit. Since then, the police in several California cities with similar local ordinances have successfully used dealer records to identify, track and arrest felons and others who illegally bought ammunition.

Expanding the program statewide would prevent criminals from traveling to other communities to buy ammunition. The gun lobby reflexively objects to this measure. But that should not deter Mr. Schwarzenegger from standing up for public safety.

HondaMasterTech
10-04-2009, 10:25 PM
I agree that the Governor should stand up for public safety.

hoffmang
10-04-2009, 10:47 PM
I sense that even the NYT understands that this is the last stand...

-Gene

dexter9659
10-04-2009, 10:47 PM
Explain to me how adding more unenforceable laws makes for a more efficient system.

artherd
10-04-2009, 11:29 PM
The omission of the 50-round limit is both glaring and telling.

hollabillz
10-05-2009, 1:55 AM
No way! People still read the NY Times? :eek:

Dwight K. Schrute
10-05-2009, 2:59 AM
Neither would add to California’s fiscal woes, and both would set a worthy example for the nation.

Lies!

jakemccoy
10-05-2009, 7:08 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05mon3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

...Since then, the police in several California cities with similar local ordinances have successfully used dealer records to identify, track and arrest felons and others who illegally bought ammunition...

Assuming that statement is true (and I doubt it is), what does that have to do with the proposed bill? If the felons bought ammo illegally, then then felons will continue to do so if the bill is passed. Also, I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what it means for "others" (non-felons) to illegally buy ammunition. What exactly is happening there?

RaceDay
10-05-2009, 7:17 AM
No surprise but it means we need to double our efforts. Keep the pressure on with phone calls, emails, faxes, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05mon3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

October 5, 2009
Editorial
Waiting in California

Two innovative bills recently approved by the California Legislature are on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. One would make the state’s justice system fairer and more efficient. The other would improve public safety. Neither would add to California’s fiscal woes, and both would set a worthy example for the nation.

[snip]

Mr. Schwarzenegger vetoed an earlier version of this bill five years ago because he questioned the benefit. Since then, the police in several California cities with similar local ordinances have successfully used dealer records to identify, track and arrest felons and others who illegally bought ammunition.
[snip]


Is there any proof of the items in bold? I thought the state's financial assessment was that AB962 would cost money that we didn't have. And are these extensive records really helping to solve crime or just filling up warehouses (I imagine them getting pushed next to the Ark at the end of Raiders).

bulgron
10-05-2009, 7:22 AM
I do know that Sacramento used their ammo registration scheme once to send the police to a completely innocent man's house and harass him for buying a few boxes of 9mm.

Can you imagine how useful that data must be to the cops?

"Oh, there was a shooting with a 9mm last night."

"Well, pull all the records of people that bought 9mm in the area over the last couple of weeks."

"Geeze, that's two thousand people...."

Lancear15
10-05-2009, 7:24 AM
No way! People still read the NY Times? :eek:

I don't, but I hear those that do, only read it for page 6. They lost their thunder a good while back.:rolleyes:

RRangel
10-05-2009, 7:49 AM
The second measure seeks to strengthen the web of laws aimed at protecting people from gun violence. It would require ammunition dealers to obtain a purchaser’s identification and take a thumbprint. These records would be available to local law enforcement, which could then cross-check them against the state’s list of felons, gang members and other prohibited purchasers. People who buy bullets on the Internet would be required to pick them up from a store and undergo the same checks.

The New York Times is as dishonest as the LA Times. They always attempt to put a positive spin on the ultra politically correct, even the outright abridgment of our Constitutional rights. These overt but soft counterrevolutionaries need to keep their Marxist noses out of California. I look forward for the New York Times being even less relevant in the near future and disappearing.

gazzavc
10-05-2009, 10:21 AM
I wouldn't wipe my ar*e with a copy of the NY Times.


1) It's too rough

2) It leaves ink smudges

and 3) It's disgraceful liberal-ridden drivel which has no business commenting on politics here in CA.

sd_shooter
10-05-2009, 10:36 AM
The omission of the 50-round limit is both glaring and telling.

What does the removal of the 50-round limit tell us?

Blackhawk556
10-05-2009, 11:49 AM
What does the removal of the 50-round limit tell us?

i thought the 50 round limit was removed from the bill?????

G17GUY
10-05-2009, 9:03 PM
What does the removal of the 50-round limit tell us?

That it would not have gotten this far with it? just a guess??

navyinrwanda
10-06-2009, 1:28 AM
"People who buy bullets on the Internet would be required to pick them up from a store and undergo the same checks."

This is pure disinformation, right? There isn't any real possibility that in a post-AB 962 California, out-of-state ammo dealers would ship to local FFLs, who would willingly stock ammo for pickup by local customers? And all without significant new fees and taxes?

artherd
10-06-2009, 1:44 AM
Never-mind I blew the date on the OP and date of article. It's still clearly deliberate (rather than omissive) in it's bias.

Sunwolf
10-06-2009, 5:42 AM
Who cares what the NYT thinks?They were irrelevent 20 years ago.