PDA

View Full Version : Another 962 thread, but for Gene


locosway
10-15-2009, 11:19 PM
Governator admited that in Sacramento there is a similar law which has helped catch 200 felons after they purchased ammo.

So we know this law does nothing to stop the immediate purchase of ammo. It also doesn't help with straw purchases of ammo.

Now, could we get records to show how the Sacramento law attributed to the capture of these felons?

How many were tracked down solely on the purpose of buying ammo? Or was the ammo tacked on only after they were stopped and then found with a firearm?

Are there records of more than 200 felons buying ammo? If so, why haven't all of them been caught and brought to justice?

If no active checking is being done with the records, is it safe to assume that the records are of no real use unless a DA is looking to add *more* charges onto a felon, and if so, do those charges add enough sentence time to offset the cost imposed on the city and ammo sellers to justify it's use?

Perhaps these questions will not matter with your current drafting of how you will attack this, but I was just curious of any of these will matter.

Dr Rockso
10-15-2009, 11:39 PM
I imagine that CGF is already on this. There have been comments by BWiese (I think, not 100% on who it was) hinting that those numbers are heavily massaged.

locosway
10-15-2009, 11:44 PM
I know they're working on another route, I was just wondering if anything here that I've said could be used. Probably not as they're far smarter than I in this area.

Whether the numbers are inflated or not could be irrelevant if the only people picked up for this supposed law were people who were already going to be charged with weapons violations.

Alaric
10-15-2009, 11:45 PM
IANAL and I'm certainly far from the awesome that is Gene, but in my humility I'd offer my opinion. That would be that the distinctions that you offer are too obtuse and the lines drawn too fine. Most sheeple with the greatest squint they could muster would be left crosseyed with dubious wonderment with your magic.

Even the judiciary, in their judicious logic might see a maze where you see a pattern, for instance. These things must be delineated and defined with clear certainty, in uncertain terms, without quoting political speeches that interpret results and without room for interpretation. If you wish to pursue the statistics, by all means follow through, but this tack seems akin to casting a line to me, fishing as it were.

locosway
10-15-2009, 11:50 PM
IANAL and I'm certainly far from the awesome that is Gene, but in my humility I'd offer my opinion. That would be that the distinctions that you offer are too obtuse and the lines drawn too fine. Most sheeple with the greatest squint they could muster would be left crosseyed with dubious wonderment with your magic.

Even the judiciary, in their judicious logic might see a maze where you see a pattern, for instance. These things must be delineated and defined with clear certainty, in uncertain terms, without quoting political speeches that interpret results and without room for interpretation. If you wish to pursue the statistics, by all means follow through, but this tack seems akin to casting a line to me, fishing as it were.

I was just wondering that if there was a way to show that the record keeping costed $XXXX per felon found in violation of this law, and that the added sentence for said felon was in X years. And that this law was only invoked once a felon was first charged with a weapons charge before the records were even pulled to see if they indeed commited another crime by purchasing their own ammo.

It's already illegal for a felon to own a gun, and it's illegal for them to own ammunition. It's also illegal for them to purchase ammo or a gun. This law does nothing to stop the purchase, it's only use is to later look and see if indeed they purchased their own ammo, which at best may confirm they did. If they didn't, then what? It's of no use.

It's just another law to make something already illegal, more illegal.

Alaric
10-16-2009, 12:07 AM
I was just wondering that if there was a way to show that the record keeping costed $XXXX per felon found in violation of this law, and that the added sentence for said felon was in X years. And that this law was only invoked once a felon was first charged with a weapons charge before the records were even pulled to see if they indeed commited another crime by purchasing their own ammo.

It's already illegal for a felon to own a gun, and it's illegal for them to own ammunition. It's also illegal for them to purchase ammo or a gun. This law does nothing to stop the purchase, it's only use is to later look and see if indeed they purchased their own ammo, which at best may confirm they did. If they didn't, then what? It's of no use.

It's just another law to make something already illegal, more illegal.

There you go, now you're wordsmithing your analysis! What else? How about the political aspect? The Legislature and the governator only crafted this piece of shamislation to appear tough on crime, but the statistics show that the cost added XXX to each felony conviction based on YYY number of investigations into ZZZ number of ammo retailers that cost the retailers VVV earnings and thus cost the state WWW tax dollars.

I think there may well be something to pursue here, but it's just a matter of finding the right frame to place it in.

locosway
10-16-2009, 12:10 AM
I think if there is a way to show that the records did not directly contribute to the arrest of felons that it could be shaken down as a double law that has no merit. Granted, they do want to just add the wording into 373 I believe it is, so I'm not sure how that changes the CGF stance on how they're going to pursue attacking this.

Dr Rockso
10-16-2009, 12:12 AM
There you go, now you're wordsmithing your analysis! What else? How about the political aspect? The Legislature and the governator only crafted this piece of shamislation to appear tough on crime, but the statistics show that the cost added XXX to each felony conviction based on YYY number of investigations into ZZZ number of ammo retailers that cost the retailers VVV earnings and thus cost the state WWW tax dollars.

I think there may well be something to pursue here, but it's just a matter of finding the right frame to place it in.

This sort of attack works well for some things, like the arguments against 'ballistic fingerprinting.' Show that it's a big investment with little to no return and convince people that the money can be better spent elsewhere. DeLeon amended AB962 to try and kill that argument. Most of the cost of compliance now comes out of the dealer's pockets, not the government's.

I think what the OP is saying is legitimate; how instrumental was the ammo registration in Sacramento, really, in catching criminals?

locosway
10-16-2009, 12:14 AM
More costly regulations on an already heavily regulated industry. So basically, they took something that is already illegal, and dumped enforcement and record keeping on the shop keeper. Sounds illegal to me...

Dr Rockso
10-16-2009, 12:16 AM
More costly regulations on an already heavily regulated industry. So basically, they took something that is already illegal, and dumped enforcement and record keeping on the shop keeper. Sounds illegal to me...
Unfortunately people only care if you're wasting their money. If you waste someone else's money nobody gives a ****.

locosway
10-16-2009, 12:18 AM
Unfortunately people only care if you're wasting their money. If you waste someone else's money nobody gives a ****.

I wonder if there's a way to tie it back to the governments money. There must be something, somewhere to tie it together.

Alaric
10-16-2009, 12:21 AM
In effect, an undue burden upon the retailers that cost them revenue to little or no real law enforcement value. In this day and age when LEA's are laying off officers and are hard pressed to even respond to calls for service, is there any room for legislation that purports to tie up even more LEO's chasing straws at retailers?

locosway
10-16-2009, 12:23 AM
I'm still wondering if criminals even have to legally submit to giving their info when purchasing. Seeing as how they can't self incriminate.

Alaric
10-16-2009, 12:24 AM
The tie in to .gov spending is that local agencies are now burdened with the "responsibility" to pour through tons of dealer records in the faint and negligible hope of finding a link to a criminal that very likely does not exist.

locosway
10-16-2009, 12:26 AM
The tie in to .gov spending is that local agencies are now burdened with the "responsibility" to pour through tons of dealer records in the faint and negligible hope of finding a link to a criminal that very likely does not exist.

True, especially if the system is not electronic. It must take thousands of hours to find one *potential* suspect. Then, what do you get them on, a misdemeanor?

Alaric
10-16-2009, 12:30 AM
True, especially if the system is not electronic. It must take thousands of hours to find one *potential* suspect. Then, what do you get them on, a misdemeanor?

If they can even be found. How many criminals would be purchasing ammo using a legitimate ID that wasn't forged or out of date?

This sort of legislation doesn't give another tool to law enforcement, it gives another investigative burden to already overburdened local agencies.

bodger
10-16-2009, 12:59 AM
I'd say leave it to the lawyers that are already on this. They'll probably get the right issues (or the ones most likely to get a win) in their crosshairs and take it from there.

It's mind boggling that this piece of crap became law.

dantodd
10-16-2009, 8:13 AM
I'm still wondering if criminals even have to legally submit to giving their info when purchasing. Seeing as how they can't self incriminate.

That is interesting.

jamesob
10-16-2009, 10:56 AM
criminals have ways around this by simply giving false i.d and a smudged print. it's a waist of money and time.

hoffmang
10-16-2009, 12:39 PM
There have been arrests made from Sacramento - however there have also been false accusations made against innocent people. The data is being pulled together.

-Gene

darkwater
10-16-2009, 1:37 PM
This was posted in other threads: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=35069&d=1255406459

If you read the cover letter, the Sacramento program requires merchants to electronically submit each purchaser's identifying information for all ammunition purchases to their department within 5 days of the purchase. This allows the department to quickly run the names through their databases and come up with hits for purchases by prohibited persons. The letter goes on to state that they are not certain that program is economically sustainable given the extra resources it requires for follow-up investigations.

AB962, in contrast, does not require a proactive approach like the Sacramento program, it will all be on paper sitting at the merchant's business until law enforcement decides to take a peek at it. Even if the 3% figure (prohibited persons purchasing ammo) is correct for this period in Sacramento, AB962 will not be anywhere near as useful in fighting crime because it is a more passive system. It is doubtful 100% of purchases under AB962 will be examined, unlike the Sacramento program. AB962 could be a stepping stone, however, to a more proactive approach, once DeLeon gets people used to the idea of registering their ammo purchases. Given the state's current economy, he had to water the bill down as it is to get it passed.

dantodd
10-16-2009, 1:47 PM
I didn't realize the Sacto law required the names to be submitted to the PD or SO. That's really scary. I can't imagine this would pass a preemption test. Greater fear though is if we kill it on grounds of preemption the legislature might just pass it for all of CA.

curtisfong
10-16-2009, 2:58 PM
AB962 could be a stepping stone, however, to a more proactive approach, once DeLeon gets people used to the idea of registering their ammo purchases.

Yup. He will cast it as "closing the ammunition loophole".

loather
10-16-2009, 4:47 PM
criminals have ways around this by simply giving false i.d and a smudged print. it's a waist[sic] of money and time.

It is a waste of money and time. Even the stupidest (intentional) criminal could get around this with ease.

GuyW
10-16-2009, 7:46 PM
...maybe there's a market for latex finger-films with Donald Duck's print pattern....
.

Greg-Dawg
10-16-2009, 10:13 PM
In five years from now, just like Washington DC, it will not dramatically make it safer on the streets.