PDA

View Full Version : When will someone sponsor a bill to exempt the 10 day wait?


wilit
12-14-2009, 10:23 PM
Please, someone propose this bill. It is absolutely ridiculous that I need to wait 10 days for a firearm when the background check is instantaneous and I already own multiple firearms. At least make an exemption for C&R + COE holders. [/whine]

bwiese
12-14-2009, 11:26 PM
We probably won't get that politically except thru a "barrel of a gun", so to speak, from court action.

There's no reason someone like you or me or many other Calgunners, some of us who own N firearms (enough to destabilize a typical Latin American country!) should have to wait 10 days for gun # N+1. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Esp. as the background check is instant - the remaining 9.999 days are just there to irritate us.

California polity will probably always have a waiting period for someone's first gun purchase.

gotgunz
12-14-2009, 11:34 PM
I'd just be happy with an exemption for CCW holders to go along with the HSC exemption.

Spyder
12-14-2009, 11:45 PM
Hey Bill! When do you sleep?!

bwiese
12-14-2009, 11:46 PM
Hey Bill! When do you sleep?!

Not tonite.

IrishPirate
12-14-2009, 11:49 PM
I'd just be happy with an exemption for CCW holders to go along with the HSC exemption.

that would be nice, and i can see the 1st gun waiting period. but it really shouldn't be 10 days. It's there as a "cooling off" period to stop people from walking into a store, buying a gun, and then committing a crime of passion. How often that really happened before the waiting period?........not sure. This is something that will probably be challenged once incorporation happens, right now there are bigger fish to fry

aermotor
12-15-2009, 12:23 AM
Ah yes. The laws are just ridiculous. Hopefully we'll see change in the next 5 years, though the way this country is heading, we might not even be one by then...

hoffmang
12-15-2009, 12:30 AM
Heh. What Bill said. Soon.

-Gene

Lone_Gunman
12-15-2009, 12:35 AM
Heh. What Bill said. Soon.

-Gene

I love these kind of posts.

Spyder
12-15-2009, 12:41 AM
Not tonite.

Ha, well, if I make it to Oaklander's place on Saturday, I'll bring ya a couple of redbulls.

CHS
12-15-2009, 8:26 AM
The sad thing is, the background check is far from instant in CA.

It's taken the DoJ almost right up until the 10-day wait is over to call up with denials before.

I know of one guy who worked in a shop where the DoJ called up about a denial AFTER the 10-day wait was up and they had already released the firearm to the person.

The problem is that California is TOO thorough when performing the background check. They don't just make a call to NICS, they reference all kinds of other records and it can take days to perform one.

Other states just call up NICS and get a yes or no.

tiki
12-15-2009, 8:52 AM
Florida has an exemption for CCW holders. That makes sense. I think we may get that here, but we'll never get the waiting period lifted completely. I don't think I would want that either. I like the idea of felons not being able to buy guns "legally".

benelli shooter
12-15-2009, 11:09 AM
It is a trick question. If you are out of jail, you should be free. If you are not worthy of being free, you should be in jail.

Our government has created different classes of citizens by releasing bad people into society. They then use this as a tool to take our rights away.

We lose both ways by having criminals in our midst and not having the ability to protect ourselves. Why do they do this? Simple. It perpetuates their monopoly on "protecting" us. Job security.

Of course, we all know they really can't protect us.

erik
12-15-2009, 11:40 AM
Personally, this is *way* far down on my list. There are other items which could benefit from the effort. My wish list:


Shall Issue
10 round magazine capacity limit
Victim Disarmmament zones
"AW" ban / .50 ban
Roster
Zombie Pony Unicorn



As for bwiese's suggestion of the 10-day wait for first time rights exercisers, I'd like to see that extended to bloggers, journalists, and politicians. ;)

Gio
12-15-2009, 11:44 AM
Personally, this is *way* far down on my list. There are other items which could benefit from the effort. My wish list:


Shall Issue
10 round magazine capacity limit
Victim Disarmmament zones
"AW" ban / .50 ban
Roster
Zombie Pony Unicorn



As for bwiese's suggestion of the 10-day wait for first time rights exercisers, I'd like to see that extended to bloggers, journalists, and politicians. ;)

+1 to that and Amen!

-Gio

Sgt Raven
12-15-2009, 12:46 PM
I'd just be happy with an exemption for CCW holders to go along with the HSC exemption.

Why, do you like divide and conquer? You're OK with laws as long as you got yours? :TFH:

wash
12-15-2009, 1:13 PM
I'm pretty sure the way things will shake out is that we will develop cases that are a slam dunk, build upon our victories, using them to develop the more difficult cases like "high capacity" magazines.

I think that will mean that the 10 day wait is attacked sooner than later.

I wonder about the checks they do in CA too. I've heard parking tickets can trigger a denial. I'm not sure that it does but if it does, what is it about a parking ticket that removes your second amendment rights? That's the kind of case we'll be able to make post inccorporation.

Cougar
12-15-2009, 1:20 PM
Personally, this is *way* far down on my list. There are other items which could benefit from the effort. My wish list:


Shall Issue
10 round magazine capacity limit
Victim Disarmmament zones
"AW" ban / .50 ban
Roster
Zombie Pony Unicorn



As for bwiese's suggestion of the 10-day wait for first time rights exercisers, I'd like to see that extended to bloggers, journalists, and politicians. ;)

Great post.

The 10-day wait is moronic. I would put it ahead of Zombie Pony Unicorn.

As is the one purchase per 30 day (AB202) limitation bologna.

.... And the out of state registration (harassment) of businesses who dare to sell to us inmates of California.


In total, there is no question that the pile of laws are only camouflaged as "safety issues". Their primary goal is to make the entire situation difficult, expensive (time & money), complex and convoluted at every level with hefty penalties handing over your head like the Sword of Damocles if you err, in order to frustrate sales, transfers and ownership. To which they have succeeded.

And a point which deserves to be stressed is that the entire scheme translates into dramatically higher prices.


.

gotgunz
12-15-2009, 2:19 PM
Why, do you like divide and conquer? You're OK with laws as long as you got yours? :TFH:

Not in the context that you have provided here but think about it. The 10 day "cooling off period" was promoted as a way to stop domestic violence; the thinking (however irrational and flawed that it is) was that if you had to wait 10 days (or the original 15) before taking possession of a gun any desire to kill your significant other would have passed.

Frankly I find it to be total b.s.; if I wanted to kill my wife I sure as hell am not going to go buy a new gun, I am going to use one that I already own and will give the $500 to my attorney to help save me from the chair.

The whole process is flawed; I have an unrestricted ccw which means that I can carry a loaded firearm concealed most anywhere in the state and at anytime that I please. Hell, if I wanted to further destroy my lower back I could carry all three that are on my ccw, but I have to wait 10 days to pick up another gun that I've purchase?

Sorry, but that is just stupid.

And what is wrong with divide and conquer? :p

Untamed1972
12-15-2009, 2:51 PM
I have a thought though. Since the 10day wait applies to all firearms, not just handguns, if your first firearm purchase was a longgun, and longguns are not registered and record of the background check is destroyed after 15 or 30 days or whatever it is........then how would DoJ know it was your 2nd+ firearm purchase if the first one isn't recorded?


I know in AZ having an AZ CCW even exempts them from having to call in for the instant NCIC background check at the time of purchase, show them your CCW and AZ ID, hand them money and walk away, you can be in and out of an AZ gunshop with a new gun faster then buying a box of nails at homedept on Sat. morning, and you can conceal under your shirt on the way out the door! Now that's freedom baby!

CHS
12-15-2009, 3:07 PM
I have a thought though. Since the 10day wait applies to all firearms, not just handguns, if your first firearm purchase was a longgun, and longguns are not registered and record of the background check is destroyed after 15 or 30 days or whatever it is........then how would DoJ know it was your 2nd+ firearm purchase if the first one isn't recorded?


The rationale is that the 10-day wait is there to prevent you from committing a "crime of passion".

If you show up to an FFL WITH a gun, even if it's not yours, that should automatically exempt you from the 10-day wait. Doesn't matter if its your first purchase or not. The 10-day wait is there to prevent you from committing a crime of passion, so if you've already got a gun in hand, you're clearly not going to do that.

Legally, that should be all that would be required.

glockman19
12-15-2009, 3:07 PM
We probably won't get that politically except thru a "barrel of a gun", so to speak, from court action.

There's no reason someone like you or me or many other Calgunners, some of us who own N firearms (enough to destabilize a typical Latin American country!) should have to wait 10 days for gun # N+1. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Esp. as the background check is instant - the remaining 9.999 days are just there to irritate us.

California polity will probably always have a waiting period for someone's first gun purchase.

I agree...If you own guns then you should be exempt for the 10 day wait. However, I think it's still a good idea for firs time buyers.

Why?

A woman bought a S&W 442 at Turners Pasadena, waited the 10 days. Picked up the gun and a box of ammo. took it home and came back the next day to return it for $225. I bought it for $325 30 days later. We believe that the woman...a cancer patient...was going to do someting bad and came to her senses and returned the gun.

Had she been able to walk in buy the gun and walk out I believe she would have killed her self. Durring the 10 day wait she obviously thought about her decision and eventhough she picked up the gun...returned it the next day...unfired.

This is one example of where the wait may have been a good idea. I also got a great deal.

But to make someone who already has one or more firearms wait makes no sense.

CHS
12-15-2009, 3:09 PM
I agree...If you own guns then you should be exempt for the 10 day wait. However, I think it's still a good idea for firs time buyers.

Why?

A woman bought a S&W 442 at Turners Pasadena, waited the 10 days. Picked up the gun and a box of ammo. took it home and came back the next day to return it for $225. I bought it for $325 30 days later. We believe that the woman...a cancer patient...was going to do someting bad and came to her senses and returned the gun.

Had she been able to walk in buy the gun and walk out I believe she would have killed her self. Durring the 10 day wait she obviously thought about her decision and eventhough she picked up the gun...returned it the next day...unfired.

This is one example of where the wait may have been a good idea. I also got a great deal.

But to make someone who already has one or more firearms wait makes no sense.

I don't believe in legislating against suicide.

Untamed1972
12-15-2009, 3:12 PM
The rationale is that the 10-day wait is there to prevent you from committing a "crime of passion".

If you show up to an FFL WITH a gun, even if it's not yours, that should automatically exempt you from the 10-day wait. Doesn't matter if its your first purchase or not. The 10-day wait is there to prevent you from committing a crime of passion, so if you've already got a gun in hand, you're clearly not going to do that.

Legally, that should be all that would be required.


Well yes.....that would work. I was just thinking that there would hafta be something more official to document that you have in fact purchased a gun before. But if they'd let you do it that way.....then that would be just fine.

CHS
12-15-2009, 3:19 PM
Well yes.....that would work. I was just thinking that there would hafta be something more official to document that you have in fact purchased a gun before. But if they'd let you do it that way.....then that would be just fine.

I see what you're saying, and I agree.

However, there's pretty much no better proof than just showing up with another gun :) I can't think of anything more "official" than that.

Quiet
12-15-2009, 3:33 PM
CA has had a waiting period since 1923.
So, it might not fully go away.

I can see it ending up like the (Nevada) Clark County handgun waiting period. Which, wouldn't be bad.

(Nevada) Clark County handgun waiting period is 3 days [Clark County Code 12.04.080]. Only applies to anyone who does not have a handgun registered with the LVMPD [Clark County Code 12.04.090].

So for CA, waiting period for new buyers with current registered handgun owners being exempt.

Untamed1972
12-15-2009, 3:37 PM
I think that CA likes to use the wait period and the required background check for each purchase as a convenient means to keep tabs on people that fall thru the cracks so to speak, like we've been hearing about people getting dinged for 10yr old parking tickets and stuff. By forcing you to hfta go to the state vs. directly to FBI like most other states due they can keep direct tabs on things.

Untamed1972
12-15-2009, 3:37 PM
CA has had a waiting period since 1923.


It has?

Quiet
12-15-2009, 3:51 PM
It has?

Yes.
In 1923, a one day waiting period was enacted.

tiki
12-15-2009, 4:19 PM
Yes.
In 1923, a one day waiting period was enacted.

Waiting just pisses me off more.

wash
12-15-2009, 4:38 PM
I like the bring a gun, don't wait idea.

If it comes down to a compromise, I would be OK with 2-3 days. I'm not saying I want to compromise but that wouldn't be too bad, Nics and then wait but I would like to take the state out of the loop.

I get the idea of a "cooling off" period. It probably does very little harm (beyond the inconvenience) and probably does stop some crime. But if you're not prohibited, you're not prohibited and Nics should be able to determine that quickly.

We should even be able to do a Nics 2-3 days before a gun show so we are set to cash and carry when we get there.

GearHead
12-15-2009, 4:45 PM
Waiting periods are idiotic. If somebody wants to commit a crime with a gun, they will do it, 10 day waiting period or not.

Hopi
12-15-2009, 4:48 PM
Waiting periods are idiotic. If somebody wants to commit a crime with a gun, they will do it, 10 day waiting period or not.

The bigger wtf is if a person is too dangerous to possess the means for self defense, why the hell are they not in the appropriate place to keep them from getting their hands on a 2-ton truck or chainsaw.

"Prohibited person" is a person too dangerous to trust with tools yet safe enough to be allowed to walk amongst us unsupervised....Brilliant.

five.five-six
12-15-2009, 4:50 PM
Esp. as the background check is instant - the remaining 9.999 days are just there to irritate us.


think if there was a 10 day wait on any other consumer item, cay cars, or TV's it would be catastrophic to sales, which is the goal here

wash
12-15-2009, 5:01 PM
Prohibited person is a deterrent and a punishment. I like the concept.

I like the concept of rehabilitation also but it's a slow process. After a person spends time in prison, most of the time they can't get a decent job and crime becomes pretty attractive. Prohibitions should keep them on the straight and narrow or else make it easier to violate their parole and send them back to prison.

Our prisons do not produce model citizens and there is no better system of justice in the world so prohibited persons is the price we pay.

Hopi
12-15-2009, 5:06 PM
Prohibited person is a deterrent and a punishment. I like the concept.

I like the concept of rehabilitation also but it's a slow process. After a person spends time in prison, most of the time they can't get a decent job and crime becomes pretty attractive. Prohibitions should keep them on the straight and narrow or else make it easier to violate their parole and send them back to prison.

Our prisons do not produce model citizens and there is no better system of justice in the world so prohibited persons is the price we pay.

Yours and my definitions of inalienable differ. Luckily the constitution was written in language that is easy to understand...that should prevent people from misinterpreting it......oh wait.

mastadonn
12-15-2009, 5:44 PM
Been there, done that. Still needs to be done in my opinion.

The CAAG's comments were disingenous at the time but still killed the bill.

No one took the time to try to rebutt his assertions.

CA LEG Info 2004-2005

SB 305, as amended, Morrow. Firearms.
Existing law generally regulates the transfer of firearms,
imposing various requirements, including a waiting period for
delivery, as specified, and various exceptions to those requirements.

This bill would provide exceptions to certain waiting periods for
the delivery of a firearm for persons who possess a valid license to
carry a concealed firearm or a certificate of eligibility, as
specified.

1. Need for This Bill

The author states that:

The purpose of this proposed legislation is to exempt a
holder of a valid license to carry a concealed weapon ("CCW
permit") or a certificate of eligibility from the ten day
waiting period when a licensee is purchasing another
firearm. In order to obtain a license, section 12050
requires that a licensee undergo the payment of substantial
fees, training, and background record checks to determine
eligibility. An applicant for a license may also be
required to undergo psychological testing by the local
issuing authority.

The Department of Justice monitors the list of licensees
for any action that would place a licensee in a category of
persons prohibited from possessing a firearm. Upon a
finding that a person has become prohibited from possessing
a firearm, the Department must immediately notify the local
CCW license issuing agency. The local issuing agency (a
sheriff or police department) must revoke the license of a
person upon being notified by the Department, or upon its
own finding, that the person may no longer lawfully possess
a firearm. If the local issuing agency revokes a license
pursuant to its own findings, it must notify the Department
of Justice of that fact. Certificates of eligibility are
issued only by the Department after a records search is
completed and a determination is made by the Department
that the applicant is not a person who is prohibited from
possessing firearms. The Department monitors the list of
certificate holders for any actions that would place a
person in a prohibited category.

It is therefore apparent that a person holding a valid
license to carry a concealed weapon or a certificate of
eligibility is not in a category of persons lawfully
prohibited from possessing a firearm. Thus, to require a
current licensee or certificate holder to undergo an
additional waiting period when purchasing another firearm
is unnecessary. Such a person already possesses at least
one firearm and is known not to be in a category prohibited
from possessing one. The proposed legislation would
rectify this unnecessary waiting period redundancy.

7. Opposition to This Bill

The April 28, 2005, letter from the Attorney General in
opposition to this bill includes:

On April 5, 2005, our office sent a letter opposing your
measure, Senate Bill 305, as introduced. Since that time,
many of the issues that our office raised as concerns were
addressed by your staff and the sponsors of your measure.
? We appreciate the efforts undertaken by your office to
address these concerns.

Unfortunately, while many of the issues concerning
California law were addressed, we do not believe the bill
can be implemented due to the federal law issues we
previously discussed. Over the last few weeks, the
Department has determined that in order to comply with
federal law (18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.), the CCW issuance
process would have to radically change. In short, in order
to provide an "instant check" thereby ensuring that a CCW
holder would be legally entitled to receive a firearm under
federal law, the systems in place in California that
monitor a person's criminal record, mental health status,
and residency status would have to be drastically altered.
Unfortunately, some of these systems are not fully
automated, and still require a great deal of manual
tasking. Hence, California's background check typically
takes a full ten days to complete. In order for these
systems to provide an "instant check" as allowed by federal
law, the Department would have to expend a great deal of
money and resources to improve these systems. At this
time, the Department can only provide a rough of estimate
that the costs involved would be upwards of several
millions of dollars. Even after a dramatic retooling of
the CCW issuance process, however, CCW holders would still
be subject to a 3-day waiting period required by federal
law.

In short, while the Department appreciates your efforts to
ensure that law abiding CCW holders receive their firearms
as quickly as federal and state law allows, we do not
believe that CCW holders would reap any real benefits by
changing California's background check system so that a
firearm may be transferred seven days sooner. Instead, we
believe that current and future CCW holders would be faced
with substantial increases in their initial application and
renewal fees in order for the Department to fund your
measure.

In light of the foregoing, the Attorney General's Office
must respectfully maintain its opposition to your measure.
Thank you again for your assistance in this matter. We
hope to work with you in the future to improve California's
firearms laws.

wilit
12-15-2009, 6:16 PM
It has?

California has also had a waiting period for handgun sales since at least 1923. The California Legislature increased the handgun waiting period from one to three days in 1955, to five days in 1965, and to the current 15 days in 1975. [2] Figure 1, "California Handgun Waiting Periods & Murder Rates" plots the murder rate per 100,000 Californians during the period 1952 through 1990. [3] (The use of a murder *rate*, which counts murders relative to the size of the population, eliminates changes in the number of murders caused by changes in the number of people living in California.)

The increase from one to three days in 1955, and from three to five days in 1965, had no apparent effect on rising murder rates. Indeed, the California murder rate went from a bit above 2/100,000 people in 1952, to over 10/100,000 by 1975. While it is certainly true that murder rates rose throughout the United States during this period, as Figure 1 shows, California's murder rate rose *even faster* than the murder rate for the rest of the United States.

The first full year of the fifteen day waiting period, 1976, showed a 1% decline in murder rates - followed by continually rising murder rates, peaking in 1980. In fact, murder rates didn't start to decline until 1981, five full years after the new waiting period took effect. Can the advocates of waiting periods take heart from the fact that California's murder rates *eventually* fell?

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.waiting.html

So, here's a summary.
1923-1955, 1 day waiting period.
1955-1975, 3 day waiting period
1975-1997, 15 day waiting period
1997-Present, 10 day waiting period (dropped to 10 days with the addition of NICS)

Bill seems to recall that the 10 day was enacted in 1991 when all PPT required an FFL transfer, but I think it was changed when AB671 passed in '96.

Given the history of the waiting period, I would believe we could get an exemption for existing owners or COE/CCW holders.

CCWFacts
12-15-2009, 8:28 PM
Personally, this is *way* far down on my list. There are other items which could benefit from the effort. My wish list:


Shall Issue
10 round magazine capacity limit
Victim Disarmmament zones
"AW" ban / .50 ban
Roster
Zombie Pony Unicorn


That is exactly the order of my wish list as well, although I'm not sure what you mean by #3. CCW holders can carry almost anywhere in this state; we have among the very best CCW laws in the country, other than the "may issue" aspect of it.

toopercentmlk
12-15-2009, 9:29 PM
That is exactly the order of my wish list as well, although I'm not sure what you mean by #3. CCW holders can carry almost anywhere in this state; we have among the very best CCW laws in the country, other than the "may issue" aspect of it.
Disneyland is a gun-free zone, it's the few that are just ridiculous! Being such a huge target for an "incident" I hope they have some tactical security unit at the ready and I'm not talking about Anaheim PD!

wash
12-15-2009, 9:49 PM
Yours and my definitions of inalienable differ. Luckily the constitution was written in language that is easy to understand...that should prevent people from misinterpreting it......oh wait.
I want our criminal justice system to have some teeth.

A felon is not a good citizen. Why should they have all of the priveledges and immunities of a citizen? I think they should have to re-earn those priveledges and imunities after they screw up so badly (comitting a felony).

I don't see anything wrong or inconsistent with that.

It might be nice to think about a lock them up and throw away the key justice system but that just isn't practical. How would you like it if you or a relative got locked up for life because you were at fault in a car accident?

The prohibition of certain civil rights for a felon is a practical deterrent. We don't live in a perfect world, we need to do what works.

There are some people who don't deserve the full rights of a citizen and it's there own fault. I don't think it's too much for ask for a bit of responsibility in return for those priveledges and imunities.

CCWFacts
12-15-2009, 9:52 PM
Disneyland is a gun-free zone, it's the few that are just ridiculous!

It's legal to carry a gun in Disneyland. They can expel you if they find out, but I don't believe any offense has occurred.

Being such a huge target for an "incident" I hope they have some tactical security unit at the ready and I'm not talking about Anaheim PD!

Ha ha ha. I wonder what their security options are. Maybe they could declare the Monorail to be a transit authority and start their own PD.

Hopi
12-15-2009, 10:10 PM
I want our criminal justice system to have some teeth.



China has a criminal justice system with some teeth. Just sayin'......

wash
12-15-2009, 10:23 PM
Would our justice system be any better if it was all gums?

We need to make it as good as we can. We've got all of our civil rights up until the point that a person is convicted.

While some mistakes are made and some people abuse the system, it's the best we can do.

Hopi
12-15-2009, 10:39 PM
The bottom line for me is that the 'prohibited persons' nonsense is a bandaid for an overburdened justice system filled with laws that perpetuate the police state.

We cannot afford to jail all the people we've made into criminals, so we play the roulette wheel with the truly dangerous. We release them and hope that they aren't smart enough to figure out that there are effective ways to kill and assault folks without a gun. Or they get lazy and go buy an 'illegal' gun.

We all know that criminals will get the guns anyway if they want to, how does the current 'prohibited persons' system actually affect the positive change on crime that you're implying?

Are the concessions to the integrity of our BOR worth the trade-off? Seems like more 'common sense' gun law babble to me....

wash
12-15-2009, 10:57 PM
We will always have different classes of people with different civil rights. A five year old child does not have the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms and his parents might have a lot to say about that child's freedom of speech.

Mentally incompetent people don't have the same set of rights.

A felon is socially incompetent.

kcbrown
12-15-2009, 11:11 PM
I want our criminal justice system to have some teeth.


Make the jail terms truly appropriate for the crimes committed and it will have teeth.



A felon is not a good citizen. Why should they have all of the priveledges and immunities of a citizen? I think they should have to re-earn those priveledges and imunities after they screw up so badly (comitting a felony).
Um, that's why they go to prison -- to pay their dues as a result of committing a crime. Once they get back out, they should have all their rights restored in full. If they shouldn't get their rights back then they shouldn't be getting out of prison.



I don't see anything wrong or inconsistent with that.
I do.

If you believe they shouldn't be allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights after getting out of prison, then what about their 1st Amendment rights? What about their 4th Amendment rights? Shall I go on?

If you cannot trust someone who gets out of prison to wield a firearm then you cannot trust them to be in society in general. It's that simple.



It might be nice to think about a lock them up and throw away the key justice system but that just isn't practical. How would you like it if you or a relative got locked up for life because you were at fault in a car accident?
Getting locked up for life for some trivial crime isn't what we're talking about. Again, the proper way to deal with this is to have prison terms appropriate for the crimes.



The prohibition of certain civil rights for a felon is a practical deterrent. We don't live in a perfect world, we need to do what works.
Nonsense. No criminal decides against committing a crime because he'd be forbidden access to firearms after he gets out of prison! That's clearly absurd on its face.

Prohibition of rights after a prison term is served does not work! If a convicted felon decides he wants to commit another crime with a firearm, guess what? He'll get a firearm!

The bottom line is this: laws against possession of firearms doesn't work, because only law-abiding citizens obey them. If someone is a law-abiding citizen, even if they were just released from prison then you needn't worry about them wielding a firearm. If someone isn't a law-abiding citizen, regardless of whether or not they've ever been to prison, they will simply ignore the law, which is what criminals by definition do!



There are some people who don't deserve the full rights of a citizen and it's there own fault. I don't think it's too much for ask for a bit of responsibility in return for those priveledges and imunities.Responsibility automatically comes with rights. Violation of that responsibility is what gets people tossed in prison to begin with.


The jail term one is subject to should be a function not just of the crime that was committed, but also of how many previous times the person has been convicted of a crime. That latter number should be used as a modifier against the "default" jail term. One could imagine, for instance, that the prison sentence the person should get would be what he would have gotten doubled by the number of times he'd been convicted of a crime previously. So someone who as a first time offender would get a sentence of 5 years would instead get a sentence of 40 years if he'd been convicted of a crime 3 times in the past (5 doubled 3 times is 40).


One last thing: I do believe that if someone is released on probation, they should have their rights stripped for the probation period, but not because they cannot necessarily be trusted with their rights, but rather because they are still paying their dues.

Hopi
12-15-2009, 11:12 PM
We will always have different classes of people with different civil rights. A five year old child does not have the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms and his parents might have a lot to say about that child's freedom of speech.

Mentally incompetent people don't have the same set of rights.

A felon is socially incompetent.

Interesting perspective. Separate but equal huh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)?

Hopi
12-16-2009, 7:59 PM
Taken from another thread and appropriate here...

Dear Mr. Dando:


Thank you for writing to me about gun control legislation. I appreciate hearing your views.


I understand the right of hunters, sportsmen and other law-abiding citizens to be able to own a gun. I believe, however, that we can still respect this right while working to curb the incidence of gun violence and firearm-related fatalities through sensible gun control laws.


In keeping with this, I have supported legislation such as the Brady Bill, the Child Safety Lock Act and efforts to close the so-called "gun show loophole." These measures are designed to make firearms safer and to help keep them out of the hands of people who are not legally allowed to own them. They do not interfere with the right of lawful citizens to purchase or own guns.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator



I hope I'm not the only one to see the implication....

mastadonn
12-16-2009, 8:36 PM
Has anybody checked to see if the CAAG's 2005 arguements against SB305 are still valid?


In short, in order
to provide an "instant check" thereby ensuring that a CCW
holder would be legally entitled to receive a firearm under
federal law, the systems in place in California that
monitor a person's criminal record, mental health status,
and residency status would have to be drastically altered.
Unfortunately, some of these systems are not fully
automated, and still require a great deal of manual
tasking. Hence, California's background check typically
takes a full ten days to complete. In order for these
systems to provide an "instant check" as allowed by federal
law, the Department would have to expend a great deal of
money and resources to improve these systems. At this
time, the Department can only provide a rough of estimate
that the costs involved would be upwards of several
millions of dollars. Even after a dramatic retooling of
the CCW issuance process, however, CCW holders would still
be subject to a 3-day waiting period required by federal
law.

It is my understanding that the Feds required that state mental health records be automated after the Virginia Tech shootings. I think the feds even provided the money to do the automation.

Aren't criminal records automated through CLETS?

Aren't residency requirements automated through DMV?

How do other states get around the 3 day federal waiting period? I thought it went away as part of the federal instant check legislation?

In short, IF these questions can be answered, it would seem to be reasonable to find a friendly legislator to re-introduce similar legislation.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-04-2010, 10:46 PM
Has anybody checked to see if the CAAG's 2005 arguements against SB305 are still valid?


In short, in order
to provide an "instant check" thereby ensuring that a CCW
holder would be legally entitled to receive a firearm under
federal law, the systems in place in California that
monitor a person's criminal record, mental health status,
and residency status would have to be drastically altered.
Unfortunately, some of these systems are not fully
automated, and still require a great deal of manual
tasking. Hence, California's background check typically
takes a full ten days to complete. In order for these
systems to provide an "instant check" as allowed by federal
law, the Department would have to expend a great deal of
money and resources to improve these systems. At this
time, the Department can only provide a rough of estimate
that the costs involved would be upwards of several
millions of dollars. Even after a dramatic retooling of
the CCW issuance process, however, CCW holders would still
be subject to a 3-day waiting period required by federal
law.

It is my understanding that the Feds required that state mental health records be automated after the Virginia Tech shootings. I think the feds even provided the money to do the automation.

Aren't criminal records automated through CLETS?

Aren't residency requirements automated through DMV?

How do other states get around the 3 day federal waiting period? I thought it went away as part of the federal instant check legislation?

In short, IF these questions can be answered, it would seem to be reasonable to find a friendly legislator to re-introduce similar legislation.


I'm bringing this out of last years dust pile and Christmas wrap because I think these are valid questions mastadonn brought up. There must be more than 2 of us wondering about this CCW waiting thing.

Another is the Certificate of Eligibility to skip the 10 day wait, particularly where a handgun has been previously purchased. As it is now we must have an FFL to accompany the COE in order to walk out with same day purchase.

Anyone researched this lately?
Pros? Cons?

Vick

formula502
02-04-2010, 11:00 PM
If you show up to an FFL WITH a gun, even if it's not yours, that should automatically exempt you from the 10-day wait. Doesn't matter if its your first purchase or not. The 10-day wait is there to prevent you from committing a crime of passion, so if you've already got a gun in hand, you're clearly not going to do that.

Seems to be relatively standard practice for ranges to not rent guns to a solo shooter unless you've brought one with you.

I suppose that's a suicide thing, but the concept is certainly in use.

bubbapug1
02-04-2010, 11:04 PM
I'd rather see them roll back the CA assault weapon ban. 80% - 90% of the AW's bought before the ban are still not registered, which means the state made felons out of a lot of folks who didn't do anything except own a gun legally.

hoffmang
02-04-2010, 11:31 PM
Anyone researched this lately?


Yes. :42:

-Gene

crackerman
02-05-2010, 2:35 PM
Yes. :42:

-Gene

I hate when Gene does this. :D

I know its strategic but my instant gratification brain wants to know NOW!!

Keep up the great work CGF!:clap:

timdps
02-05-2010, 2:54 PM
I have a thought though. Since the 10day wait applies to all firearms, not just handguns,

Except for C&R firearms with C&R license and COE. No wait if the FFL knows the law.

Tim

Can'thavenuthingood
02-05-2010, 7:41 PM
Yes. :42:

-Gene


Well, okay then.
I'll sit down now.:popcorn:

Vick

wilit
02-05-2010, 7:59 PM
Yes. :42:

-Gene

You're such a tease... :D

Window_Seat
02-05-2010, 8:17 PM
Here is my "wishlist":


CCW Reform
Large-Capacity Magazines
Roster
AWB
10 day waiting period lifted


Now... After reading through this thread, I paid more attention to the parts where some feel that the fact that "felons" are "prohibited persons" is not such a bad thing after all. I can certainly understand this opinion, after all I have the same opinion, that if a person is a felon, they must have done something REALLY BAD to get to where they were, right? Not so fast...

This is where I have a serious problem with the PP agenda:

No Further Jail Time for Bremerton Man Convicted of Firearms Crime (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jan/29/bremerton-man-convicted-firearms-case-be-sentenced/)

Erik.

hoffmang
02-05-2010, 8:40 PM
You're such a tease... :D

I'm not a complete tease... A complete tease never delivers the goods...

-Gene

Fyathyrio
02-05-2010, 11:41 PM
So, at what point is it OK to limit rights? Some here agree it's OK to have a 10 day wait to prevent crimes of passion. I could go club my sleeping wife right now with any number of tools in my garage...should Craftsman also require a 10 day wait?

How about we apply a 10 day wait to some of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution. Perhaps it would be OK of the media had to wait 10 days before publishing or broadcasting a story?

How about a 10 day "cooling off" period in jail until you could plead the 5th? Would the people agree to that?

Perhaps a 10 day wait before a lawful search warrant can be issued despite valid probable cause?

Hmmm, looks like the speedy trial is pretty much gone, guess the 6th is shot!

Congress, the courts, the media, and the people would never agree to curtailing any of the other rights granted by the Constitution...even by a "reasonable" time frame of 10 days...why is the 2A any different? GAH!

N6ATF
02-06-2010, 12:33 AM
Congress, the courts, the media, and the people would never agree to curtailing any of the other rights granted by the Constitution...even by a "reasonable" time frame of 10 days...why is the 2A any different? GAH!

It's the only right that shall not be infringed. No means yes to these Constitutional rapists™.