PDA

View Full Version : SB 1366 (DeSaulnier) 2012: report stolen firearms 48 hours


Librarian
02-25-2012, 7:28 PM
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1366&sess=CUR&house=B&author=desaulnier

SB 1366, as introduced, DeSaulnier. Firearms: lost or stolen:
reports.
(1) Existing law requires each sheriff or police chief executive
to submit descriptions of serialized property, or nonserialized
property that has been uniquely inscribed, which has been reported
stolen, lost, or found directly into the appropriate Department of
Justice automated property system for firearms, stolen bicycles,
stolen vehicles, or other property. Existing law requires that
information about a firearm entered into the automated system for
firearms remain in the system until the reported firearm has been
found. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to implement
an electronic system to receive comprehensive tracing information
from each local law enforcement agency and to forward the information
to the National Tracing Center.
This bill would require every person, with exceptions, to report
the theft or loss of a firearm he or she owns or possess to a local
law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss
occurred within 48 hours of the time he or she knew or reasonably
should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost, and
requires every person who has reported a firearm lost or stolen to
notify the local law enforcement agency within 48 hours if the
firearm is subsequently recovered. The bill would make a violation of
these provisions an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed
$100 for a first offense, and a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by a fine
not to exceed $1,000, or both that fine and imprisonment, for a
subsequent offense. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any
person to make a report to a local law enforcement agency that a
firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing the report to be false.

RRangel
02-25-2012, 10:23 PM
Completely wrong headed and an affront to gun owners in California. We know the purpose of this is to make it more of a legal hazard to own firearms than it already is. DeSaulnier can shove it. For all the civility, that gun owners continually muster in our state, everyone should be hot about this one.

morfeeis
02-26-2012, 12:55 AM
wait so i could go to jail for 6 months for not telling a LEA my guns were stolen? so if they dont find them in 48 hours can i fine them?

Quiet
02-26-2012, 5:37 AM
Hrmmm...
... civil liability protection for any illicit use of your stolen firearms.

The bill would provide that everyone who complies with the above
provisions by reporting the loss or theft of a firearm shall be
immune from civil liability for the illicit use or possession of the
firearm occurring after the theft or loss, provided the person was
not negligent with respect to the theft or loss of the firearm.

Nor Cal Scot
02-26-2012, 6:58 AM
More and more laws...I guess that's why they are called lawmakers. Need to change that to lawtakers...

Riflewizard
02-26-2012, 7:12 AM
go to prison for 6 months for being a victim, eh? Pay 100 dollars?

Insult to injury much...


But it might make a decent law with some revision.

mjmagee67
02-26-2012, 8:30 AM
Do I hear a second for a PART TIME LEGISLATURE????

But on a sidenote if any of my firearms gets stolen I will definatly be filling out a police report. To me this is a law looking for a problem to fix. Not a problem that we "need" to fix with another crappy feel good do nothing law!

Zimz
02-26-2012, 9:32 AM
How about an addition to this law: If a police department recovers a lost or stolen firearm and it is not being held for evidence to a crime, they are required to notify the owner within 48 hours of a proper time to pick up their property. Failure to do so or summary destruction of the firearm by the police department will result in compensating the owner the full price of the firearm.

littlejake
02-26-2012, 9:36 AM
Do I hear a second for a PART TIME LEGISLATURE????

yes -- 2 terms. One in the Legislature and one term in prison.

Helpful_Cub
02-26-2012, 9:37 AM
Failure to do so or summary destruction of the firearm by the police department will result in compensating the owner the full price of the firearm.

Retail or resale value, which ever is higher... I could see them trying to pass it off as used and only worth $10.

C&Rtrader
02-26-2012, 9:37 AM
wait so i could go to jail for 6 months for not telling a LEA my guns were stolen? so if they dont find them in 48 hours can i fine them?

+1 on this.

arc
02-26-2012, 10:07 AM
There goes the whole "lost my guns in a tragic boating accident" excuse when they finally get around to confiscation.

-James

Southwest Chuck
02-26-2012, 12:15 PM
There goes the whole "lost my guns in a tragic boating accident" excuse when they finally get around to confiscation.

-James

Naa.... you lost them in a tragic boating accident.... Out of State !!!

glockman19
02-26-2012, 1:10 PM
How about an addition to this law: If a police department recovers a lost or stolen firearm and it is not being held for evidence to a crime, they are required to notify the owner within 48 hours of a proper time to pick up their property. Failure to do so or summary destruction of the firearm by the police department will result in compensating the owner the full price of the firearm.

Why only the price of the firearm? As a landlord in CA I am liable for 3X for not returning a security deposit within 21 days :confused:

ALSystems
02-26-2012, 1:45 PM
I think 10x the full retail value of the gun is more like it.

kcbrown
02-26-2012, 3:18 PM
This one will pass for sure. Bank on it.

gobler
02-26-2012, 11:15 PM
"I just got back from a fishing trip out of state and was about to call you... All my guns went over board when our boat tipped over. Tragic to lose them all...".

Is what I would say the day they come for my guns.


Sent from somewhere in space & time...

BigFatGuy
02-26-2012, 11:33 PM
I know someone (claimed to be a 2a supporter) who swore up and down all gun crime would stop if everyone had to have their gun collection inventoried by the police every year, because all guns used in crimes were stolen, and if we had to report them stolen somehow everything would just fix itself. I'll bet he thinks this is the One Great Law that will solve all of CA's issues.

the stupidity of some people just amazes me...

Kavey
02-27-2012, 1:08 AM
This one will pass for sure. Bank on it.

If kcbrown is correct and this nonsense is destined to pass, maybe we can have our supporters in the legislature work their magic by getting the bill ammended with something that would make it a "little" less obnoxious.

For example: If you report the theft of your gun(s) within a specified time period (48 hours is way too short) you will be granted immunity from any civil action that may result from subsequent criminal misuse of your stolen gun(s).

In today's climate of victims suing everybody who has ever even "looked" at a gun used in a crime, this kind of a tradeoff might be worth it if we can't kill the bill outright.

Any other ideas?

Please remember, I'm only suggesting trying this idea in the event we are unable to stop this bill.
____________________________

I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen every episode of Judge Judy.

glbtrottr
02-27-2012, 1:13 AM
Methinks some liberal pedophile molested the likes of Desaulnier given their irrational fear and hatred of guns.

m03
02-27-2012, 6:43 AM
If kcbrown is correct and this nonsense is destined to pass, maybe we can have our supporters in the legislature work their magic by getting the bill ammended with something that would make it a "little" less obnoxious.

For example: If you report the theft of your gun(s) within a specified time period (48 hours is way too short) you will be granted immunity from any civil action that may result from subsequent criminal misuse of your stolen gun(s).

In today's climate of victims suing everybody who has ever even "looked" at a gun used in a crime, this kind of a tradeoff might be worth it if we can't kill the bill outright.

Any other ideas?

Please remember, I'm only suggesting trying this idea in the event we are unable to stop this bill.

That's already in the bill:

The bill would provide that everyone who complies with the above
provisions by reporting the loss or theft of a firearm shall be
immune from civil liability for the illicit use or possession of the
firearm occurring after the theft or loss, provided the person was
not negligent with respect to the theft or loss of the firearm.

ja308
02-27-2012, 9:00 AM
yes -- 2 terms. One in the Legislature and one term in prison.

Why would you want legislators who are A rated by NRA/GOA to spend time in prison?

ja308
02-27-2012, 9:06 AM
NEVER ever identify the political party proposing and passing this legislation.

Until sportsman become unified as single issue voters , we can expect more and more laws designed to punish and discourage gun owners.

does anyone know what party this desalner represents? i have not seen iot listed anywhere .

frankm
02-27-2012, 9:16 AM
Is it any wonder there's a black market in guns!

Librarian
02-27-2012, 11:55 AM
does anyone know what party this desalner represents? i have not seen iot listed anywhere .

I don't think he represents anyone, but his party affiliation is 'D'.

duggan
02-27-2012, 12:15 PM
Who decides if the owner was "negligent with respect to the theft or loss of the firearm". As we've all heard, any safe can be cracked/defeated with the right amount of time, tools and drive. What happens in the case of a gun being stolen from someone that may not do a nightly inventory, said gun ends up being used in a crime and the owner hasn't yet reported the theft because he doesn't know it's missing? Too many variables that have the potential for fail and a "need" for ALL guns to be registered so they know who to come looking for when/if a gun is used in a crime.

Wherryj
02-27-2012, 12:26 PM
Hrmmm...
... civil liability protection for any illicit use of your stolen firearms.

If I promise to report my car stolen within 48 hours, can I be help harmless as well. Oh, wait, I already am. Somehow, with a vehicle, the person actually committing the crime is held liable. What a novel concept.

Wherryj
02-27-2012, 12:28 PM
How about an addition to this law: If a police department recovers a lost or stolen firearm and it is not being held for evidence to a crime, they are required to notify the owner within 48 hours of a proper time to pick up their property. Failure to do so or summary destruction of the firearm by the police department will result in compensating the owner the full price of the firearm.

I believe that it is customary to use "triple damages" for such situations.

Kavey
02-27-2012, 3:00 PM
That's already in the bill:

Sorry. Next time I'll be sure to read the "entire" bill before adding my two cents.:facepalm:

misterjake
02-27-2012, 7:25 PM
So, if you're on vacation or out of state and you get robbed and do not return from 3 days of the robbery...


You are fined and face potential criminal charges?

RRangel
02-27-2012, 10:28 PM
So, if you're on vacation or out of state and you get robbed and do not return from 3 days of the robbery...


You are fined and face potential criminal charges?

Exactly. Such a law would be an affront to our freedom. It is the continual assault on the Constitution we rely upon. The political elite that create such laws, appear to care very little about the negative impact they create, for the society they purport to serve with such outrageous legislation.

vantec08
02-28-2012, 4:09 AM
About the time you think it cant get any sillier . .. . . message to politicos - get your government footprint off our necks.

al123
05-20-2012, 9:57 AM
The bill was amended twice since Feb. 24 2012. Passed by the Senate on May 14th.

njineermike
05-20-2012, 10:10 AM
So, if my gun is stolen and I don't know it until the police contact me about my stolen gun, I'm now a criminal........







And some people still think this state is salvageable.......

gregs887
05-21-2012, 10:33 AM
So what happens if someone breaks into my house and steals my guns while I'm on vacation? You can't report a theft if you don't know anything has been taken.

njineermike
05-21-2012, 10:38 AM
So what happens if someone breaks into my house and steals my guns while I'm on vacation? You can't report a theft if you don't know anything has been taken.

You also can't report a theft if you have your gun stored and don't check on it every 48 hours.

SilverTauron
05-21-2012, 11:32 AM
within 48 hours of the time he or she knew or reasonably
should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost, and
requires every person who has reported a firearm lost or stolen to
notify the local law enforcement agency within 48 hours if the
firearm is subsequently recovered.

And so comes the Trojan horse of the "safe storage" requirement.This law lays the foundation for a Europe type "safe storage" law which may or may not include police access to stored guns.

As the status quo is there are circumstances which can lead to someone having their guns stolen without immediate knowledge. Posters like gregs887 have illustrated some specific instances of how that can happen.

When the cases come up of vacationers and deployed military members having their weapons stolen, the "solution" will be advanced in the form of-drumroll please-ANOTHER LAW! Indeed, how can we keep the children safe if there is no way for the state or the owner to know if a gun is stolen?

Enter the "safe storage" law. With a government approved safe built to specs that specify access by police ( which makes a TRO warrant much easier to serve eh?) and instant warning capabilities, now the poor California gun owner is forced to not only report when someone steals their property, but will be compelled to store their collection in a government approved container.

Wrangler John
05-21-2012, 11:36 AM
yes -- 2 terms. One in the Legislature and one term in prison.

Your comment proved to me once again that hot coffee makes a poor nasal douche. :)

loather
05-21-2012, 11:54 AM
SilverTauron has this right - This lays groundwork for later bombshells.

VOTE THEM ALL OUT. ALL OF THEM.

greg36f
05-21-2012, 2:02 PM
If you get your gun stolen, you have to report it within 48 hours. That releases you from liability and helps the police catch crooks.

For those of you on vacation, it even adds "reasonably knows" and "with exceptions".

Other than angering the NO ONE tells me what to do (even if it's the most reasonable thing in the world) crowd, I fail to see what is wrong with this?

vantec08
05-21-2012, 2:13 PM
Up until some years ago, I held out hope for CA. The recent complete sweep of the 9 Big Ones pretty well demolished that.

dantodd
05-21-2012, 2:50 PM
If you get your gun stolen, you have to report it within 48 hours. That releases you from liability and helps the police catch crooks.

For those of you on vacation, it even adds "reasonably knows" and "with exceptions".

Other than angering the NO ONE tells me what to do (even if it's the most reasonable thing in the world) crowd, I fail to see what is wrong with this?

"reasonably knows" is horse hockey and the DA can put you and your "reasonableness" on trial.

Release of liability is a canard, you have no liability to begin with, unless you were negligent and the law doesn't cover negligence. So, what libility, exactly, does the law release you from that you would be responsible for under the current system? The answer is none.

nick
05-21-2012, 2:59 PM
If you get your gun stolen, you have to report it within 48 hours. That releases you from liability and helps the police catch crooks.

For those of you on vacation, it even adds "reasonably knows" and "with exceptions".

Other than angering the NO ONE tells me what to do (even if it's the most reasonable thing in the world) crowd, I fail to see what is wrong with this?

Not surprising, coming from you, but I'll bite:

1. Many people have large gun collections. They don't do inventories daily, either. Reasonably should have known opens a path for prosecution/persecution (because this is what gun laws usually amount to, especially in CA). As with most laws open to interpretation, you may still win, but it'll cost you a lot of money to defend yourself, with no recourse against the government employee, who decided to prosecute you under this law.

2. Same thing as above, but sans large collections. This opens another avenue to prosecute a gun owner, who committed no crime. Basically, it creates another crime out of thin air. We have enough madeup crimes as it is.

3. This opens an avenue to prosecute a victim of the crime, based on him being a gun owner. You don't get prosecuted for failing to report your car stolen (I hope so, anyway). You don't get prosecuted for having your knife stolen, and not having reported it.

4. As for helping the police, I don't think so. Most people would report their guns (or most other valuable property) stolen as soon as they discover it. So this law doesn't really add anything to it, other than opening an avenue for persecuting gun owners. Moreover, it may make some people not report such theft, if the guns weren't registered (a lot of people legally have unregistered guns, including the long guns that never went through an FFL (which is still a form of registration)), and they discovered their disappearance after 48 hrs. Why risk potential prosecution (and before you object, are you going to claim that people never get arrested for having perfectly legal OLLs, for example, or for not breaking other such laws?), and potentially spend tens of thousands of dollars for the potential return (and that's not a certainty, especially given the reluctance of a lot of PDs to return firearms in general, added to the likelihood of that gun being found, which isn't that great, and added to the fact that if it was ever used in a crime, it'll be in the evidence room for years anyway) of a gun worth a few hundred dollars? So this law isn't likely to improve on much, even taking its claimed purpose at face value, and it can also work against the claimed purpose.

5. As was pointed out before, it does look like slippery slope towards European-style storage requirements. Once again, before you claim that governments don't operate that way, and we can trust the government (which is what your arguments usually amount to), you'd have to explain how we went from NFA to the current state of gun laws.

greg36f
05-21-2012, 3:02 PM
"reasonably knows" is horse hockey and the DA can put you and your "reasonableness" on trial.

Release of liability is a canard, you have no liability to begin with, unless you were negligent and the law doesn't cover negligence. So, what libility, exactly, does the law release you from that you would be responsible for under the current system? The answer is none.

Well, I think that the "reasonable" clause works for you, not against you (like innocent until proven guilty) and I see no harm (and possibly some good) in having it written down in a law that you are not liable. It may not change much in regards to criminal law, but it could help in civil law.

I still do not see what the issue is with this law.

Are people here saying that they would not report their guns stolen or that it is not reasonable to report your guns stolen?

njineermike
05-21-2012, 3:03 PM
Not surprising, coming from you, but I'll bite:

1. Many people have large gun collections. They don't do inventories daily, either. Reasonably should have known opens a path for prosecution/persecution (because this is what gun laws usually amount to, especially in CA). As with most laws open to interpretation, you may still win, but it'll cost you a lot of money to defend yourself, with no recourse against the government employee, who decided to prosecute you under this law.

2. Same thing as above, but sans large collections. This opens another avenue to prosecute a gun owner, who committed no crime. Basically, it creates another crime out of thin air. We have enough madeup crimes as it is.

3. This opens an avenue to prosecute a victim of the crime, based on him being a gun owner. You don't get prosecuted for failing to report your car stolen (I hope so, anyway). You don't get prosecuted for having your knife stolen, and not having reported it.

4. As for helping the police, I don't think so. Most people would report their guns (or most other valuable property) stolen as soon as they discover it. So this law doesn't really add anything to it, other than opening an avenue for persecuting gun owners. Moreover, it may make some people not report such theft, if the guns weren't registered (a lot of people legally have unregistered guns, including the long guns that never went through an FFL (which is still a form of registration)), and they discovered their disappearance after 48 hrs. Why risk potential prosecution (and before you object, are you going to claim that people never get arrested for having perfectly legal OLLs, for example, or for not breaking other such laws?), and potentially spend tens of thousands of dollars for the potential return (and that's not a certainty, especially given the reluctance of a lot of PDs to return firearms in general, added to the likelihood of that gun being found, which isn't that great, and added to the fact that if it was ever used in a crime, it'll be in the evidence room for years anyway) of a gun worth a few hundred dollars? So this law isn't likely to improve on much, even taking its claimed purpose at face value, and it can also work against the claimed purpose.

5. As was pointed out before, it does look like slippery slope towards European-style storage requirements. Once again, before you claim that governments don't operate that way, and we can trust the government (which is what your arguments usually amount to), you'd have to explain how we went from NFA to the current state of gun laws.

Come on. Everybody knows the government always has your best interests as free citizens at it's core, and will always put your freedoms ahead of it's own intentions.


Just ask the Cherokee.......




WOOHOO!!! 1000 posts, and not one useful thing to say. Mission accomplished!

greg36f
05-21-2012, 3:20 PM
Not surprising, coming from you, but I'll bite:1. Many people have large gun collections. They don't do inventories daily, either. Reasonably should have known opens a path for prosecution/persecution (because this is what gun laws usually amount to, especially in CA). As with most laws open to interpretation, you may still win, but it'll cost you a lot of money to defend yourself, with no recourse against the government employee, who decided to prosecute you under this law.

2. Same thing as above, but sans large collections. This opens another avenue to prosecute a gun owner, who committed no crime. Basically, it creates another crime out of thin air. We have enough madeup crimes as it is.

3. This opens an avenue to prosecute a victim of the crime, based on him being a gun owner. You don't get prosecuted for failing to report your car stolen (I hope so, anyway). You don't get prosecuted for having your knife stolen, and not having reported it.

4. As for helping the police, I don't think so. Most people would report their guns (or most other valuable property) stolen as soon as they discover it. So this law doesn't really add anything to it, other than opening an avenue for persecuting gun owners. Moreover, it may make some people not report such theft, if the guns weren't registered (a lot of people legally have unregistered guns, including the long guns that never went through an FFL (which is still a form of registration)), and they discovered their disappearance after 48 hrs. Why risk potential prosecution (and before you object, are you going to claim that people never get arrested for having perfectly legal OLLs, for example, or for not breaking other such laws?), and potentially spend tens of thousands of dollars for the potential return (and that's not a certainty, especially given the reluctance of a lot of PDs to return firearms in general, added to the likelihood of that gun being found, which isn't that great, and added to the fact that if it was ever used in a crime, it'll be in the evidence room for years anyway) of a gun worth a few hundred dollars? So this law isn't likely to improve on much, even taking its claimed purpose at face value, and it can also work against the claimed purpose.

5. As was pointed out before, it does look like slippery slope towards European-style storage requirements. Once again, before you claim that governments don't operate that way, and we can trust the government (which is what your arguments usually amount to), you'd have to explain how we went from NFA to the current state of gun laws.


You don't know me, so how about you back off on the personal attacks.

You keep talking about "prosecution". It's an infraction! With a max $100.00 fine! A token punishment at best. Traffic court.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to report a gun stolen?

This law, like most laws is not made for you or me or for most / all of the people here on Cal Guns. They are made for the lowest common denominator. The "I didn't know that I should report my gun stolen idiot" who hides behind the "Well, you didn't tell me".

That is where most laws come from and it's too bad, but that is the society we live in.

Clownpuncher
05-21-2012, 4:03 PM
So, when they come for my guns and I realize that all my guns are lost or stolen it only costs me $100. Ok, money well spent.

njineermike
05-21-2012, 4:20 PM
You don't know me, so how about you back off on the personal attacks.

You keep talking about "prosecution". It's an infraction! With a max $100.00 fine! A token punishment at best. Traffic court.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to report a gun stolen?

This law, like most laws is not made for you or me or for most / all of the people here on Cal Guns. They are made for the lowest common denominator. The "I didn't know that I should report my gun stolen idiot" who hides behind the "Well, you didn't tell me".

That is where most laws come from and it's too bad, but that is the society we live in.

Unfortunately, this is not the issue. The issue is making it a criminal act, which could EASILY be followed by an amended law making it more than a $100 fine.

SilverTauron
05-21-2012, 4:34 PM
You don't know me, so how about you back off on the personal attacks.

You keep talking about "prosecution". It's an infraction! With a max $100.00 fine! A token punishment at best. Traffic court.


Today that's the case. Between now and the time Joe Crackhead jacks your gun safe, who knows what inflation and an eroded tax base can do to a "fine". It might be $1000 per gun.



Are you saying that it's unreasonable to report a gun stolen?

No. It is unreasonable for any government to mandate someone do so against the threat of punishment, subject to a nebulous and ill defined criterion.Perhaps we should focus on punishing the scumbag who stole the gun?


This law, like most laws is not made for you or me or for most / all of the people here on Cal Guns. They are made for the lowest common denominator. The "I didn't know that I should report my gun stolen idiot" who hides behind the "Well, you didn't tell me".

That is where most laws come from and it's too bad, but that is the society we live in.

Wrong. This law is made for ALL gun owners. See, the problem is that there is no 100% foolproof way to secure a gun collection. It doesn't matter which safe you own or how well hidden or built into the home it is:with time, effort, and planning anything can be stolen. If government maintained firearms which are stored, tracked, barcoded, serial numbered, and counted in military bases with millions of dollars in security protections get stolen-how can Joe Gunowner 100% ensure his collection is safe from theft? Its not possible and the anti's know it.

Not only can "reporting" laws be used yet again to discourage gun ownership-as its no fun driving to the range wondering if today's the day your car is broken into-they can be used to jail VICTIMS OF A CRIME!That, among other reasons already mentioned, is enough grounds to shut this fecal law down.

How would you feel if your car was stolen and the cop put YOU in handcuffs?You may have lost your pride and joy, but the 'greater good' demands that you be punished for someone else's criminal behavior. After all , you just gave a crook a car capable of outrunning law enforcement.

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 4:39 PM
Well, I think that the "reasonable" clause works for you, not against you (like innocent until proven guilty) and I see no harm (and possibly some good) in having it written down in a law that you are not liable. It may not change much in regards to criminal law, but it could help in civil law.


You mean like how the "reasonably should have known" clause in the GFSZ law works "for" you?

vantec08
05-21-2012, 4:47 PM
If you get your gun stolen, you have to report it within 48 hours. That releases you from liability and helps the police catch crooks.

For those of you on vacation, it even adds "reasonably knows" and "with exceptions".

Other than angering the NO ONE tells me what to do (even if it's the most reasonable thing in the world) crowd, I fail to see what is wrong with this?


I have a better idea: Lets get government with its microscopic out of our bowels. For those of you out-to-lunch and never returned.

scarville
05-21-2012, 6:18 PM
So, when they come for my guns and I realize that all my guns are lost or stolen it only costs me $100. Ok, money well spent.
That's only for the first offense. Any subsequent guns are six month and $1,000. The DA will make each failure a separate charge so ten guns stolen and not reported by the arbitrary deadline will get you 4.5 years and $9,100 in fines.

So if your guns are stolen while you're out of town and your wife/girlfriend/SO/etc reports them but you don't can the *****s nail you for not reporting? Seems like there is lot of room for legal mischief in this bill.

This is really just another ambush law aimed at the law abiding gun owner.

nick
05-21-2012, 6:22 PM
You don't know me, so how about you back off on the personal attacks.

Oh, please. Claiming personal attacks has become a tool in arguments here, and a pathetic one, at that, kinda like in a kindergarten. I honestly don't envy the mods their pastime (can't really call it a job, since they don't get paid).

Sure, I don't know you. But then, I don't need to - I'm not arguing with you, but with your opinion. And I have seen enough of your posts to get a pretty good idea of what these opinions are. Which is why I'm not surprised that this particular opinion came from you - it fits with the other opinions you have expressed. Do I need to digest it further, or are you still going to be claiming personal attacks, rather than dealing with the issue at hand?

You keep talking about "prosecution". It's an infraction! With a max $100.00 fine! A token punishment at best. Traffic court.

First of all, an act that's not a crime should not be criminalized, regardless of the punishment for it. Is it ok to criminalize kissing one's wife, if the punishment is only $100? What about if it's only $50? What about $5? It's still wrong, regardless of the amount.

Secondly, a lot of things started small. Remember those "only $20" cell phone tickets? The ones which, with all the court fees, were actually about $200? Oh, and the fine is $143 now, before the court fees (about $450 with the court fees, I believe). Besides, I'm tired of people being liberal with my money and my freedom. If it's not a real crime, it should not be made into one, period. It's plain wrong.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to report a gun stolen?

I'm saying that forcing me to do so under the threat of punishment is unreasonable. There's a big difference here.

This law, like most laws is not made for you or me or for most / all of the people here on Cal Guns. They are made for the lowest common denominator. The "I didn't know that I should report my gun stolen idiot" who hides behind the "Well, you didn't tell me".

Huh? The law is made for EVERYBODY. I must be missing the thought here.

That is where most laws come from and it's too bad, but that is the society we live in.

Well, our society has become fairly screwed up. If that's what you mean, we agree there. However, we're talking about what it should be, that's where the evaluation of whether the law is right or wrong comes from. In the words of Alan Gura, "just because the states have grown accustomed to violating the civil rights of their citizens doesn't make this behavior right", or something to that tune.

And you haven't really addressed any of my points, you sidestepped them instead. Any reason for it?

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 6:39 PM
Well, our society has become fairly screwed up. If that's what you mean, we agree there. However, we're talking about what it should be, that's where the evaluation of whether the law is right or wrong comes from. In the words of Alan Gura, "just because the states have grown accustomed to violating the civil rights of their citizens doesn't make this behavior right", or something to that tune.


"Justice Sotomayor, states may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is Constitutional." -- Alan Gura, in the McDonald v Chicago orals. :43:

nick
05-21-2012, 6:44 PM
"Justice Sotomayor, states may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is Constitutional." -- Alan Gura, in the McDonald v Chicago orals. :43:

Thank you, that's the one.

dantodd
05-21-2012, 9:31 PM
Let's look at this from the other side for a moment. What state interest does the law fill?

Does it deter illegal transfers later hidden as a "stolen" gun? Of course not, you are the one who said that it was only an infraction and only $100 fine so it is not even all that inconvenient if you violate the law.

Does it aid law enforcement? There are millions of undocumented guns on the streets, illegally possessed firearms, guns bought before registration was required, guns brought I. From out of state before VolReg was required, home built guns, intrafamily transfer of long guns, transfer via bequest of long guns. So, does knowing that one more .308 rifle is out there in 48 hours rather than in a week really qualitatively enhance law enforcement?

What the law does do is make it that much incrementally more difficult to own and possess a firearm. This has a chilling effect on firearm possession. That is the real reason for the law.



Well, I think that the "reasonable" clause works for you, not against you (like innocent until proven guilty) and I see no harm (and possibly some good) in having it written down in a law that you are not liable. It may not change much in regards to criminal law, but it could help in civil law.

I still do not see what the issue is with this law.

Are people here saying that they would not report their guns stolen or that it is not reasonable to report your guns stolen?

Let's say that I am going on a hunting trip to Montana. I clean my guns all up and get them ready the week before my trip. On the morning that I am leaving I head down to the safe and pack my rifle cases for the flight. I suddenly notice that my Beretta 92 isn't on the shelf in the safe. Is it at the cabin? In the boat? I don't remember it being missing when I was cleaning the guns last weekend. But I don't remember it being there exactly either. So, do I miss my flight so that I can legally report the gun missing within 48 hours? Do I assume it is at the other house? If I find out that it really is missing when I returning a week what do I do? Do I lie and say I just noticed it missing? Do I not report it at all because I've missed the deadline and filling out a report now would be self-incriminating?

This is simply bad juju. It does nothing to make the state safer and has a potential chilling effect on a constitutionally protected right.

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 9:46 PM
Let's look at this from the other side for a moment. What state interest does the law fill?


This one will probably be evaluated with rational basis. The "state interest" can be purely conjectural and it'll still pass muster.

Courts aren't concerned about the misuse of the law, nor do they seem to be terribly concerned with "corner cases".

greg36f
05-22-2012, 10:25 AM
Upon further reflection, I do see how this law could and would upset some people. I do not see it as a terrible thing or something that is an attack on gun owners, but I get it. It's one more gun law.

Sometimes I read these threads and I see; "the sky is falling", "they are out to get us" and the whole slippery slope argument "today they want us to report stolen guns within 48 hours, that means that tomorrow they will be gunning us down from black Huey's" and I go a little strong in the opposite direction.

Tha's probably what I did here.

In closing, I still don't think it's a bad law; I do think that its intent is in the right place (Hey, if your gun gets stolen, report it), but it's a little heavy handed. So, a no vote.

dantodd
05-22-2012, 10:41 AM
In closing, I still don't think it's a bad law; I do think that its intent is in the right place (Hey, if your gun gets stolen, report it), but it's a little heavy handed. So, a no vote.

Thanks Greg, for reflecting further rather than simply digging in. I do agree that it is not a "sky is falling" sort of restriction, it is simply one more (IMO intentional) impediment to lawful owning of firearms. I would suggest that reporting a stolen or missing gun as soon as possible is generally a good idea, just like any other valuable. However; I think we disagree on the actual intent. Particularly in light of the author.

greg36f
05-22-2012, 10:54 AM
Thanks Greg, for reflecting further rather than simply digging in. I do agree that it is not a "sky is falling" sort of restriction, it is simply one more (IMO intentional) impediment to lawful owning of firearms. I would suggest that reporting a stolen or missing gun as soon as possible is generally a good idea, just like any other valuable. However; I think we disagree on the actual intent. Particularly in light of the author.



Yeah, I did not take the author into account. Probably should have.

Sometimes I do find myself "digging in" rather that taking a breath and re-evaluating my position.

That or I see what I believe is an extreme viewpoint and I counter with the other extreme (It's not that I don't believe in MY viewpoint is correct, it's just that I go a little more extreme as a counterpoint).

They are both bad habits and I am working on it…..

dantodd
05-22-2012, 10:57 AM
They are both bad habits and I am working on it…..

They're habits we all have. They can easily be exacerbated in an environment like CalGuns.

njineermike
05-22-2012, 11:21 AM
Yeah, I did not take the author into account. Probably should have.

Sometimes I do find myself "digging in" rather that taking a breath and re-evaluating my position.

That or I see what I believe is an extreme viewpoint and I counter with the other extreme (It's not that I don't believe in MY viewpoint is correct, it's just that I go a little more extreme as a counterpoint).

They are both bad habits and I am working on it…..

Keep in mind the background of this whole situation. Each and every one of these "small steps" was greeted with "how bad can it be?" As the saying goes "A journey of a thousand miles is started with a single step". We are very far into that journey, and several steps are already in place. We can fight, but the laws can be passed and amended much faster than we can fight them. Yes, it's only a $100 fine today. Add in court costs and the price may double or triple. But once a law is enacted, amending it is very easy, much easier than enacting it in the first place. The base cost may be triple at that point, and the fact that a second offense (which could EASILY be in the same incident if multiple weapons are involved), this could be dropped to a first offense punishment with the stroke of a pen, and suddenly, the vague "reasonable" issue becomes one which the victim of a theft is now facing jail time. If you think it doesn't happen when a DA is trying to pad his record because he wants to run for higher office, that's being naive. We have simply become tired of the "It's only a small law" argument that allows the ones who would remove our freedoms to continue to chip away. We do see the sky as falling because to us, the timeline we are at, it's been falling for a while now.

I would highly reccomend becoming part of the NRA, the CGF, the 2AF, or any other gun rights group and help if you honestly feel as we do, that freedom is being eroded one small step at a time.

CBruce
05-22-2012, 11:47 AM
There goes the whole "lost my guns in a tragic boating accident" excuse when they finally get around to confiscation.

-James

Tragic boating accident yesterday.

kcbrown
05-22-2012, 3:08 PM
Keep in mind the background of this whole situation. Each and every one of these "small steps" was greeted with "how bad can it be?"


Beware asking "how bad can it be/get?". For if you ask that question, you are likely to find out.

(this is a corollary of asking "what could possibly go wrong?")

njineermike
05-22-2012, 3:42 PM
Beware asking "how bad can it be/get?". For if you ask that question, you are likely to find out.

(this is a corollary of asking "what could possibly go wrong?")

The problem is that we have a large group of voters who look at something, see it as benign since it isn't a problem they currently face, then get caught by surprise time and again when it comes into their back yard.

Cylarz
05-22-2012, 10:57 PM
I still do not see what the issue is with this law.

Are people here saying that they would not report their guns stolen or that it is not reasonable to report your guns stolen?

I'd like to add something to the discussion.

Some people - especially those whose weapons are registered (either registered assault weapons, handguns that were purchased after the point-of-sale registration went into effect in CA, long guns purchased after Jan 1, 2014, etc)...might conveniently "lose" their weapons. As in, not actually lost or stolen, just hidden someplace by the rightful owner.

Why would someone do this? Because they may have run afoul of some statute that's disarming them, and they don't want to give up their weapons. Examples: Having a restraining order taken out against them (without or without good cause, an RO requires you to immediately relinquish your gun collection, no conviction of any kind required, no questions asked).

Or, maybe they've been indicted for some crime that requires them to disarm until this is sorted out....or are on probation after serving their time for such-and-such offense. (Some crimes - any felony and certain misdemeanors - require you to disarm permanently; others require you to do so for the duration of your probation, which one may be sentenced to with or without a jail sentence.

Before you say, "Oh, criminal? Oh, well in that case I want such people disarmed!" remember that there are a lot of "BS" crimes being created by our Legislature...such as the one working is way through the Legislature right now that allows the government to charge you with a felony for driving onto school property to pick up your child while having a toy gun or BB gun or airsoft gun in your car, even without your knowledge. That's what it has come to in this state.

Long story short - whether justified in your eyes or not - some people simply are not prepared to surrender their registered weapons. So when the police show up to collect them, they'd prefer to say, "Oh, my 9mm Glock? Yeah....I'm not quite sure what happened to that. I think it may have fallen overboard from my fishing boat last year...."

Under this requirement-to-report legislation, the police can now ask, "Did you report the weapon lost within 48 hours? No? Then you're under arrest." Right now, there isn't much the police can do to you. Maybe you're okay with that. I'm not. I'm not in any way OK with another law making a criminal out of someone who simply fails to report a lost firearm.

Keep in mind, this exact same scenario can unfold even with people who have committed no crimes whatsoever, even with no restraining orders against them either. How, you ask? When the several gun registration schemes that the State of California has set up, inevitably turn into gun confiscation schemes a few years from now...after one of our esteemed legislators like DeLeon, Leiu, Ammaniano, or one of the other more rabidly anti-gun members, after years of chipping away at our rights in this state, finally decides that it's time to go for broke and finish the job on us gun owners, in the name of "public safety."

Do not kid yourself that the State has our interests in mind. As others have pointed out, those who are victims of actual gun theft will go to the police on their own without threats of criminal prosecution as an "incentive."

vincewarde
05-22-2012, 11:53 PM
Hrmmm...
... civil liability protection for any illicit use of your stolen firearms.

The low fine for first offense is also interesting. With a bill like this, the devil is in the details - and the motives of those enacting the current bill and potential future amendments.

I am sure that police investigations from time to time run into people who contend that the gun in question was "stolen" when in fact they gave it to someone else or used it in a crime. I don't think a $100.00 fine (or a $1,000.00 fine) is going to stop that - at best they are going to be able to cast a bit more doubt on their story.

I am also sure that it is aimed at the fictional "gun traffickers" who buy guns in CA and then resell them by the hundreds. In reality, they would be much more likely to buy them in another state, in which case CA registration records would be none existent.

If we can't stop this, we need to get some protections into it to prevent abuses, such as happened in Canada where a man whose safe was broken into while he was on vacation for several weeks ended up being charged.

This state get worse very year.

BusBoy
06-18-2012, 10:45 AM
Looks like this may have gone a couple of steps closer to becoming a reality? Some please tell me this will die later in some other committee or the floor?

Feel free to leave comments... many people in the East Bay read this blog.

http://claycord.com/2012/06/17/assembly-panel-approves-desaulnier-bill-to-require-reporting-lost-or-stolen-fire-arms/#comments

ojisan
06-18-2012, 11:34 AM
"or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been stolen..."

Very subjective here...allows lots of prosecution opportunities...could be considered "reasonable" that gun owners should run an inventory daily.

Gotta log-off and go count my guns now.

jdberger
07-01-2012, 12:59 PM
If you get your gun stolen, you have to report it within 48 hours. That releases you from liability and helps the police catch crooks.

For those of you on vacation, it even adds "reasonably knows" and "with exceptions".

Other than angering the NO ONE tells me what to do (even if it's the most reasonable thing in the world) crowd, I fail to see what is wrong with this?

You fail to see what's wrong with this?

Perhaps this story can provide a little instruction. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/01/victims_mother_sues_gun_owner_in_nh_shooting/?page=1)

Victim's mother sues gun owner in NH shooting


BOSTON—Gail Jones says she has forgiven the man who shot and killed her 23-year-old son during a botched robbery at a New Hampshire Army surplus store five years ago.

But she is hoping her son's death, in which a stolen gun was used, will prompt gun owners to be more careful about locking up their firearms.

Jones is suing the grandfather of the man who killed her son and two other men, alleging that his failure to secure his gun properly enabled his grandson to steal it and use it in the shootings on July 2, 2007.

<snip>

"That is where I've taken this, not out of retaliation because it's not that," she said. Instead, her hope is that "maybe something else can become of it, and in this instance, just maybe trying to stiffen up the gun laws in New Hampshire or putting some responsibility on a homeowner that owns guns."

<snip>

Jones' lawyer, Roberto Tepichin, said Woodbury had seen his grandfather briefly about a month before the shootings, and that Secord should have known Woodbury might try to steal the gun.

"His grandson was familiar with the gun, he had used it growing up, he was familiar with the cabin, he knew there was a hidden key and he could have pushed the door open to get in, given his history of breaking and entering, and bank robbery," Tepichin said. "In that situation, it's like dangling meat in front of a lion, so to speak."

<snip>


What do you think it costs a gun owner to defend against a case like this? How much extra when it goes to an Appeals court?

Do you have that kind of money? I sure don't.

This bill is bad law and its bad policy.

darkwater
08-23-2012, 11:00 PM
This one passed in the Senate today (again) to concur with Assembly amendments, so now it is heading to the governor's desk.

mmayer707
08-24-2012, 12:13 AM
I really think I am going to move. I can't take this **** anymore.

Wherryj
08-24-2012, 11:45 AM
If I'm not certain if my firearms have been stolen (such as while I'm here at the office today) and want to be an "upstanding citizen", should I just go ahead and report them stolen "just to be safe"?

How many times a day should I report them? Is reporting them only every 36 hours prudcent?

Wherryj
08-24-2012, 11:46 AM
wait so i could go to jail for 6 months for not telling a LEA my guns were stolen? so if they dont find them in 48 hours can i fine them?

I believe that the appropriate amendment would be to fine them $100 for the first day's failure, $1000 for the second day's failure to recover, then a 6 month jail term for any future failure to recover.

YubaRiver
08-24-2012, 12:09 PM
Prescription drugs are a leading item used illegally and with dangerous
results. How about a law requiring reporting of stolen or lost drugs? How
would that go over with the electorate?

adampolo13
08-24-2012, 1:03 PM
[QUOTE=greg36f;8623515]
Sometimes I read these threads and I see; "the sky is falling", "they are out to get us" QUOTE]

I have to say that from my perspective "the sky is falling" mentality that you claim we have in these threads is out of touch with reality, is false.

It is called incramentalism or death by a thousand cuts. The goal is to get people accustomed to Civil Rights control (I am no longer refering to it as gun control) a little at a time. We accept this bill because it's "not so bad" or "I can understand their point" and we gave up just a little more ground.

This is not just a 2A issue, there is a 4A issue in this Country as well. How many people get stopped by Boarder Patrol everyday, asked for papers, undergone searches.

Laws like these repressent the governements attempt to control everything we do. The framework for the U.S. Government is the Constitution, which was intended to LIMIT the governments power. The only thing the government is suppose to do is protrect my natural rights as a human being. Life, Liberty, Property.

Most of the time when laws are written, the people assign the governement more power. OPPOSITE of the Constitution!!!! At this point, we have so many freaking Laws in this Country we don't need any more. Lets enforce the ones we have, and get rid of the ones we dont need. The more power the government has, the more currurpt it becomes. Just look at the TSA... Massive powers given following 9/11 to "protect" USA from Terrorist. What has happened? Now my wife gets padded down to the point of humiliation. I call B.S. on the Government.

Sorry, I'm rambling here. But my point is we don't need more laws that dictate we do or don't do things. As long as my actions don't violate some one elses natural rights leave me the FU** alone!

rogervzv
08-24-2012, 1:07 PM
Completely wrong headed and an affront to gun owners in California. We know the purpose of this is to make it more of a legal hazard to own firearms than it already is. DeSaulnier can shove it. For all the civility, that gun owners continually muster in our state, everyone should be hot about this one.

+1 ... exactly right. The idea here is to keep making the ownership of a firearm a bigger liability to the owner. Well, you people keep electing these Democrats.

frankm
08-24-2012, 1:26 PM
So we can be sued for all crimes committed with our stolen firearms, even if we report them stolen?

adampolo13
08-24-2012, 1:46 PM
So we can be sued for all crimes committed with our stolen firearms, even if we report them stolen?

A person can be sued at any time for almost anything....

Jason P
08-24-2012, 2:28 PM
wait so i could go to jail for 6 months for not telling a LEA my guns were stolen? so if they dont find them in 48 hours can i fine them?

Yes, but they are not going to pay you.

Wherryj
08-24-2012, 3:00 PM
Do I hear a second for a PART TIME LEGISLATURE????

But on a sidenote if any of my firearms gets stolen I will definatly be filling out a police report. To me this is a law looking for a problem to fix. Not a problem that we "need" to fix with another crappy feel good do nothing law!

So long as part time means NO TIME.

Wherryj
08-24-2012, 3:02 PM
A person can be sued at any time for almost anything....

Yes, but law suits cost money and most lawyers don't want to waste their time on a case with little or no chance of success. It wastes their time and money.

That's probably why you don't see many cases where someone gets sued for having their gun/car/hair dryer stolen and used in a crime.

Wherryj
08-24-2012, 3:04 PM
Not surprising, coming from you, but I'll bite:

1. Many people have large gun collections. They don't do inventories daily, either. Reasonably should have known opens a path for prosecution/persecution (because this is what gun laws usually amount to, especially in CA). As with most laws open to interpretation, you may still win, but it'll cost you a lot of money to defend yourself, with no recourse against the government employee, who decided to prosecute you under this law.

2. Same thing as above, but sans large collections. This opens another avenue to prosecute a gun owner, who committed no crime. Basically, it creates another crime out of thin air. We have enough madeup crimes as it is.

3. This opens an avenue to prosecute a victim of the crime, based on him being a gun owner. You don't get prosecuted for failing to report your car stolen (I hope so, anyway). You don't get prosecuted for having your knife stolen, and not having reported it.

4. As for helping the police, I don't think so. Most people would report their guns (or most other valuable property) stolen as soon as they discover it. So this law doesn't really add anything to it, other than opening an avenue for persecuting gun owners. Moreover, it may make some people not report such theft, if the guns weren't registered (a lot of people legally have unregistered guns, including the long guns that never went through an FFL (which is still a form of registration)), and they discovered their disappearance after 48 hrs. Why risk potential prosecution (and before you object, are you going to claim that people never get arrested for having perfectly legal OLLs, for example, or for not breaking other such laws?), and potentially spend tens of thousands of dollars for the potential return (and that's not a certainty, especially given the reluctance of a lot of PDs to return firearms in general, added to the likelihood of that gun being found, which isn't that great, and added to the fact that if it was ever used in a crime, it'll be in the evidence room for years anyway) of a gun worth a few hundred dollars? So this law isn't likely to improve on much, even taking its claimed purpose at face value, and it can also work against the claimed purpose.

5. As was pointed out before, it does look like slippery slope towards European-style storage requirements. Once again, before you claim that governments don't operate that way, and we can trust the government (which is what your arguments usually amount to), you'd have to explain how we went from NFA to the current state of gun laws.

This is why, if this law passes, I intend to file DAILY reports that I have "reason" to believe that my firearms were stolen. After all, you never know WHEN they MIGHT have been. No reason to take the risk of being charged.

TimRB
08-24-2012, 3:33 PM
Do I not report it at all because I've missed the deadline and filling out a report now would be self-incriminating?

Now that's an interesting observation. This law would seem to be literally unenforcable, using the same reasoning that felons cannot be required to register firearms since they are not supposed to have them in the first place, thus making registration an admission of a crime.

Tim

readysetgo
08-24-2012, 4:07 PM
Email Governor Brown to veto the bill.
http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php

My message to the Governor:
Please veto this bill. Making criminals out of victims of theft is unreasonable. Thank you.

I'm sure he'll respect my wishes! :rolleyes:

Mg911guy
08-24-2012, 4:19 PM
Sent Moonbeam an email also!

Mesa Tactical
08-24-2012, 4:35 PM
If you get your gun stolen, you have to report it within 48 hours. That releases you from liability and helps the police catch crooks.

For those of you on vacation, it even adds "reasonably knows" and "with exceptions".

Other than angering the NO ONE tells me what to do (even if it's the most reasonable thing in the world) crowd, I fail to see what is wrong with this?

If someone stole one of your screwdrivers, how many months would go by before you realized it? Isn't a good thing there is no legal requirement to report stolen screwdrivers within an absurdly short timeframe?

Schlyme
08-24-2012, 4:51 PM
Wrote my letter just now. I think it's the third one on this bill I've written lol

rogervzv
08-24-2012, 5:07 PM
The worst part of this wretched totalitarianist bill is that it requires you to report a firearm stolen within 48 hours of when "you should have known...." Who gets to determine that? Big Brother, of course. And forget about prosecutors exercising reasonable discretion here. They are looking for convictions, not justice.

frankm
08-24-2012, 7:23 PM
Yes, Officer, yes, 47 hours ago, I'm sure of it. :rolleyes:

Theseus
08-24-2012, 7:56 PM
Well, I think that the "reasonable" clause works for you, not against you (like innocent until proven guilty) and I see no harm (and possibly some good) in having it written down in a law that you are not liable. It may not change much in regards to criminal law, but it could help in civil law.

I still do not see what the issue is with this law.

Are people here saying that they would not report their guns stolen or that it is not reasonable to report your guns stolen?







You mean like how the "reasonably should have known" clause in the GFSZ law works "for" you?

This. In my 629.9 case, it was argued that, since I lived in Alhambra, 1.2 miles from the school, I reasonably should have known there was a school.

It doesn't matter how unreasonable the reasonably should have know is, the jury will bite, especially in a gun related situation.

The DA will argue that, as a gun owner, I have a heightened responsibility than other people as to the location of schools, and knowledge of the law, and likely the location of my gun at all times.

Sent from my Razr Maxx using Tapatalk 2

VAReact
08-24-2012, 8:29 PM
emailed the Governor...will call Monday.

Dreaded Claymore
08-24-2012, 8:35 PM
E-mail sent to the Governor.

I want to urge everyone who reads this to contact Governor Brown (http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php) and ask him to veto SB 1366.

Before anyone says it, I'll save them the time by countering it: It's foolishness to say that such efforts are useless. For one thing, Brown makes liberal (that is, generous) use of his veto. He's vetoed lots of other bills before, including "public safety" "nanny state" bills, like one that made helmets mandatory for minors while snowboarding. He wrote that he was concerned about the transfer of parental power away from parents to the state. For another thing, the contact form is very well-put-together. People don't take all the trouble to have someone create a useful Web form if they intend to let all the e-mail rot in the mailbox. They do it because someone's going to read and tabulate the responses.

Cylarz
08-24-2012, 11:19 PM
Called his office today and actually got through to a real person. She told me that she would "register my opposition" to this bill.