PDA

View Full Version : Disarming those without gun rights


vantec08
02-06-2011, 5:49 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06guns.html

interesting

SanPedroShooter
02-06-2011, 6:04 AM
I like how they slip in the info about a inpending sweep comming in the spring. Ha ha better get to digging! You know who you are....

Thanks for the tip NYT!

Jack L
02-06-2011, 6:06 AM
Instead of talking about taking away our gun rights or adding laws, they just need to enforce the laws already on the books. Don't blame guns, blame the shooter and fix the system.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-06-2011, 6:37 AM
This is actually pretty good. The NYT seems to have finally acknowledged that 'keeping & bearing' IS a Right. They aren't saying that because some people shouldn't have have guns, all guns should be taken. They're saying that guns should be taken away JUST from those who aren't allowed. We here all agree with that.

This is a big step. Especially for the NYT.


The Raisuli

docflash
02-06-2011, 6:48 AM
Wow. For once the NY Times printed an article about guns that wasn't hysterical. I'm shocked. Seems to me that if the anti-gun folks want to do something that's useful they should spend their efforts trying to get more funding for police to get guns out of the people who shouldn't have them instead of wasting their time trying to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Also, I take comfort in knowing that Californians bought a buttload of guns in 2009:coolgleamA:

Jeff

PatriotnMore
02-06-2011, 6:58 AM
I am all for keeping guns from hands that are mentally unstable. What concerns me is when the list, or criteria is abused and used as a political tool. Like anything, it can be used for good, or its opposite, I think it is important to keep a close watch on how and who, and why, people get listed.

SigAlert
02-06-2011, 7:07 AM
Wow. For once the NY Times printed an article about guns that wasn't hysterical. I'm shocked.

The comments, however, were typically hysterical. Will somebody please explain to them that the NRA gets it's power 25 bucks at a time by 4 million or so law abiding Americans, and not some secret cabal of lobbyists bent on handing Uzi's to mental patients.

The NRA has more in common with the AARP. (except the AARP is lobbying for the financial gain for a specific part of Society. The NRA simply wants to give people their rights back)

On the plus side, I'm glad to finally read an article focusing on the person holding the gun. That's a first.

hoffmang
02-06-2011, 8:46 AM
This was what Jerry Brown shifted BoF's focus to. As long as people can correctly get off the list if they get well or behave correctly, I see little problem with it.

-Gene

racky
02-06-2011, 8:52 AM
"tragic boating accident" lol

timdps
02-06-2011, 9:12 AM
California is unique in the country, gun control advocates say, because of its computerized database, the Armed Prohibited Persons System. It was created, in part, to enable law enforcement officials to handle the issue pre-emptively, actively identifying people who legally bought handguns, or registered assault weapons, but are now prohibited from having them.

The list had 18,374 names on it as of the beginning of this month — 15 to 20 are added a day — swamping law enforcement’s ability to keep up. Some police departments admitted that they had not even tried.

The people currently in the database are believed to be in possession of 34,101 handguns and 1,590 assault weapons, said Steven Lindley, acting chief of the firearms bureau in the state’s Department of Justice. He estimated that 30 percent to 35 percent of the people on the list were there for mental health reasons.


A pretty damning admission... The laws are on the books and the mechanism for preventing felons and the mental ill from owning guns is in place, but the law is not being enforced.

Tim

trashman
02-06-2011, 9:13 AM
This is a big step. Especially for the NYT.


I agree, and I'll echo what Gene says -- as long as there is a way to have your rights restored (get your name out of the APSS), it's difficult to argue against it from a politics/policy perspective.

IMO the piece was a bit 'leading' in that an undercurrent of "we just don't have enough police" was pervasive throughout.

But on the other hand, it rather nicely makes the implicit point that agencies across this great state, starting with BoF, have unarguably more important things to focus on than trying to shape firearms/AW/OLL policy in Sacramento.

--Neill

Acer
02-06-2011, 9:47 AM
Their is one major problem i see in this. Any of you read the article a few months back about the findings that "liberalism is genetic" http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html

Hmm.... Couldn't see them trying to use that at any-point. Although of the course we could always make the counter argument.

erik
02-06-2011, 9:58 AM
Wow, comments already closed on the article. First post at 5:38, last at 10:14.

I'm *amazed* at the lack of reading comprehension expressed by some of the anti comments. Some referenced just enough to imply that they read the article, but it was clear that they missed the content.

RRangel
02-06-2011, 10:13 AM
The premise of the article is based on the difficulty in having those on the list of prohibited persons disarmed. It highlights the deficiencies in such laws. Because they look good on paper but in reality they don't work well. Something that Second Amendment advocates should be all too familiar with.

Consider that police have no duty to protect individuals. So while the authors are claiming a "serious vulnerability" they omit a glaring one. Then you wonder why law enforcement doesn't seem to be rushing to make use of such lists of prohibited persons. It does make sense that they don't have the manpower.

I also never miss that such writers love to cite the usual biased gun prohibitionists.

wazdat
02-06-2011, 12:02 PM
And people wonder why I want a CCW permit...

Dreaded Claymore
02-06-2011, 1:07 PM
This is an article about guns, printed by a very mainstream news organization, and it's not an alarmist rant about blood flowing in the streets. I'm both shocked and pleasantly surprised.

JJE
02-06-2011, 2:24 PM
This looks like a PR goldmine for our side: "The police enforcement loophole".

Why do mentally unbalanced people have guns? Because of "the police enforcement loophole".

What's worse, normal people buying guns from other normal people, or that the police can't be bothered to take guns away from adjudicated mental cases because of "the police enforcement loophole"?

What does Michael Bloomberg think about "the police enforcement loophole"?

Where does the Brady Bunch stand on "the police enforcement loophole"?

masameet
02-06-2011, 4:33 PM
Just like the NY Times to come up with a story none of the major newspapers in California could.

I see one major fallout from stepped-up enforcement -- more dead cops.

It's bad enough that cops are killed during warrant/probation searches. Now we're going to be reading about cops killed by 5150'ed people who don't want to give up their guns.