Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:31 AM
SpaceMan's Avatar
SpaceMan SpaceMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 822
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Exclamation California Gun Confiscation Bill passes (Leno's SB 140 DROS fee theft)

For those who don't know.


http://monderno.com/news/california-...n-bill-passes/

Demand a VETO from the Governor! (916) 445-2841 or direct email http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
__________________
WTB:
M&P 45, Glock 20sf, matched AR10 receivers, benelli M2 field, Rock Island M5
Power pistol, Accurate no. 7, Green Dot

WFT for 300 Blackout
.400/.401 Projectiles up to 180gr
.452 Projectiles 200gr - 230gr
.458/.459Projectiles 300 gr - 405 gr
45-70 & .450 Marlin brass
Large/Small Pistol & Large Rifle Primers
Updated: 4/16/2016

Last edited by SpaceMan; 04-23-2013 at 9:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:33 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,357
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

title shouldnt be "confiscation of firearms passed" but "illegal use of DROS fee passed" since that is the real problem here
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:36 AM
SpaceMan's Avatar
SpaceMan SpaceMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 822
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
title shouldnt be "confiscation of firearms passed" but "illegal use of DROS fee passed" since that is the real problem here
+1

Seems like a mess trying to figure out all the PPTs and such?
__________________
WTB:
M&P 45, Glock 20sf, matched AR10 receivers, benelli M2 field, Rock Island M5
Power pistol, Accurate no. 7, Green Dot

WFT for 300 Blackout
.400/.401 Projectiles up to 180gr
.452 Projectiles 200gr - 230gr
.458/.459Projectiles 300 gr - 405 gr
45-70 & .450 Marlin brass
Large/Small Pistol & Large Rifle Primers
Updated: 4/16/2016
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:37 AM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
title shouldnt be "confiscation of firearms passed" but "illegal use of DROS fee passed" since that is the real problem here
I think that's how I see it too.
I don't think we are actually against known prohibited persons having their firearms confiscated, are we?

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:42 AM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
I think that's how I see it too.
I don't think we are actually against known prohibited persons having their firearms confiscated, are we?

A.W.D.
True. Our camp is always on about "enforce the laws we have!" The problem with this one was that they are using DROS fees for something that they are (were) never supposed to be...
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:47 AM
zonzin's Avatar
zonzin zonzin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free state of Idaho!!
Posts: 799
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
I think that's how I see it too.
I don't think we are actually against known prohibited persons having their firearms confiscated, are we?

A.W.D.
Mark my word, this is the beginning of the expansion of the definition of "Prohibited Persons". Once they get you comfortable with confiscation they will slowly expand the reasons for doing so. Had a speeding ticket in the past ten years? Youíre prohibited. Itís coming. Itís an easy way to accomplish their ultimate goal.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - Second Amendment T-Shirts


ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ - Go Greek. Lifetime member Kappa Kappa Bang (KKB) Fraternity
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:47 AM
cr250chevy cr250chevy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 814
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The problem with the antis is that they truly do not care about a safer community. All they want is total gun control and full confiscation. This bill is not about making society safer, it is about raising costs on guns therefore reducing our purchase power. There is a surplus in our over taxed DROS fund NOW. But once they get their hands into the money they will not stop and they will burn through all of it quickly. Then They will pass bills to raise the DROS fees...
If they truly cared they would have pulled funds from the general fund to this program years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:47 AM
TheDigitalPicasso's Avatar
TheDigitalPicasso TheDigitalPicasso is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,656
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

How do they determine who can posses a weapon or not. Can someone please point me to the right direction where I can read and understand what they mean by 20K people that own/posses illegal firearms or they are prohibited to own firearms?

If these people are not allowed to have firearms then how did they purchase them in the first place, how did they pass a background check? This here shows that they created a loop hole so later (Now) they can drain the State of more money so they can put money in their pockets. If the DOJ did their jobs right the first time then this stupid SB-140 wouldn't have been necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:53 AM
SilentPea SilentPea is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 515
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDigitalPicasso View Post
How do they determine who can posses a weapon or not. Can someone please point me to the right direction where I can read and understand what they mean by 20K people that own/posses illegal firearms or they are prohibited to own firearms?
These are people who the state is pretty sure owns firearms (Handgun registration, whatever) who later became prohibited, via criminal convictions or restraining orders etc.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-23-2013, 8:56 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,869
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDigitalPicasso View Post
How do they determine who can posses a weapon or not. Can someone please point me to the right direction where I can read and understand what they mean by 20K people that own/posses illegal firearms or they are prohibited to own firearms?

If these people are not allowed to have firearms then how did they purchase them in the first place, how did they pass a background check? This here shows that they created a loop hole so later (Now) they can drain the State of more money so they can put money in their pockets. If the DOJ did their jobs right the first time then this stupid SB-140 wouldn't have been necessary.
Do a search on Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS). It has been discussed in this forum.

Basically, it's a system that cross-references existing databases (NICS, etc.) and matches them with records of registered firearms in the state (which until January 1st means RAWs and handguns purchased after 1990). When a prohibited person is found to own a registered firearm, the APPS raises a flag.

Last year (first year the APPS was up and running), the DOJ did two sweeps - one focused on felons, and another one on people with a history of mental illnesses.

The problem is that the state doesn't have the resources to raid all those prohibited persons who are found to possess (at least on paper) those firearms. Which is why you're seeing several bills trying to raise money to fund those raids - by hijacking the DROS fund, by advocating a 5-cent tax on every round sold, etc.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:00 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

It passed but has not been signed by Governor Brown yet.

Click here to demand a veto. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=747855
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:02 AM
SpaceMan's Avatar
SpaceMan SpaceMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 822
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
It passed but has not been signed by Governor Brown yet.

Click here to demand a veto. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=747855
Demand a VETO from the Governor! (916) 445-2841 or direct email http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
__________________
WTB:
M&P 45, Glock 20sf, matched AR10 receivers, benelli M2 field, Rock Island M5
Power pistol, Accurate no. 7, Green Dot

WFT for 300 Blackout
.400/.401 Projectiles up to 180gr
.452 Projectiles 200gr - 230gr
.458/.459Projectiles 300 gr - 405 gr
45-70 & .450 Marlin brass
Large/Small Pistol & Large Rifle Primers
Updated: 4/16/2016
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:11 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,875
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

This thread indicates why the "pro-gun" agenda will never become main stream. Most of the posts show totally circular reasoning. Sure, we don't criminals having guns, but hey, who defines "criminal" and of course once we have a system to disarm ANYBODY we assume THEY will then come for us so therefore we can't have ANY system that takes guns from ANYONE. (Right?)

I've seen the same thing with posts about the mentally insane or unstable, "sure we don't want them to have guns, but ...who defines mentally ill and well we think they'll use that as an excuse to take all the guns...so vote no on that as well.

Folks, we have to start somewhere and we can't keep spitting into the wind.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:14 AM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zonzin View Post
Mark my word, this is the beginning of the expansion of the definition of "Prohibited Persons". Once they get you comfortable with confiscation they will slowly expand the reasons for doing so. Had a speeding ticket in the past ten years? Youíre prohibited. Itís coming. Itís an easy way to accomplish their ultimate goal.
I'll follow you on that, to a point. 'Tis a slippery slope indeed.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:15 AM
richard chese's Avatar
richard chese richard chese is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Take her out to Wasco and Shafter
Posts: 435
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceMan View Post
For those who don't know.


http://monderno.com/news/california-...n-bill-passes/

Demand a VETO from the Governor! (916) 445-2841 or direct email http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
Im diggin the comments there
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:25 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,357
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
This thread indicates why the "pro-gun" agenda will never become main stream. Most of the posts show totally circular reasoning. Sure, we don't criminals having guns, but hey, who defines "criminal" and of course once we have a system to disarm ANYBODY we assume THEY will then come for us so therefore we can't have ANY system that takes guns from ANYONE. (Right?)

I've seen the same thing with posts about the mentally insane or unstable, "sure we don't want them to have guns, but ...who defines mentally ill and well we think they'll use that as an excuse to take all the guns...so vote no on that as well.

Folks, we have to start somewhere and we can't keep spitting into the wind.
opposing this doesnt need to have anything to do with what the actual use of the fund is, but that the fund exists in the condition it does. The DROS law specifically prohibits charging more than the actual cost of performing the DROS. The fact that there is a $24million surplus shows they have been charging way too much and the fee should go down, and the $24 million spent on DROS related costs as necessary.

I dont disagree that circular reasoning does exist on here, I think we have all seen it. You would see more support for the prohibited person's database if it could be shown to have significant bipartisan oversight that wouldnt allow for easy expansion of who is "prohibited" and didnt allow for people who shouldnt be prohibited to become prohibited.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:27 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,869
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
I dont disagree that circular reasoning does exist on here, I think we have all seen it. You would see more support for the prohibited person's database if it could be shown to have significant bipartisan oversight that wouldnt allow for easy expansion of who is "prohibited" and didnt allow for people who shouldnt be prohibited to become prohibited.
Bingo.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:31 AM
SpaceMan's Avatar
SpaceMan SpaceMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 822
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
opposing this doesnt need to have anything to do with what the actual use of the fund is, but that the fund exists in the condition it does. The DROS law specifically prohibits charging more than the actual cost of performing the DROS. The fact that there is a $24million surplus shows they have been charging way too much and the fee should go down, and the $24 million spent on DROS related costs as necessary.

I dont disagree that circular reasoning does exist on here, I think we have all seen it. You would see more support for the prohibited person's database if it could be shown to have significant bipartisan oversight that wouldnt allow for easy expansion of who is "prohibited" and didnt allow for people who shouldnt be prohibited to become prohibited.
Well said.
__________________
WTB:
M&P 45, Glock 20sf, matched AR10 receivers, benelli M2 field, Rock Island M5
Power pistol, Accurate no. 7, Green Dot

WFT for 300 Blackout
.400/.401 Projectiles up to 180gr
.452 Projectiles 200gr - 230gr
.458/.459Projectiles 300 gr - 405 gr
45-70 & .450 Marlin brass
Large/Small Pistol & Large Rifle Primers
Updated: 4/16/2016
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:33 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zonzin View Post
Mark my word, this is the beginning of the expansion of the definition of "Prohibited Persons". Once they get you comfortable with confiscation they will slowly expand the reasons for doing so. Had a speeding ticket in the past ten years? Youíre prohibited. Itís coming. Itís an easy way to accomplish their ultimate goal.
^^^concur^^^

Which was my biggest objection to the federal background check bill. Once you create the bottle neck of having to go thru Gov't for permission they will just keep finding reasons to add to the list of why you're prohibited.

Look what happened to the guy in NY having his guns confiscated because of something his young son said in school.

Their intent it make the list of prohibiting reasons as LONG as they possible can.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:36 AM
DavidR310's Avatar
DavidR310 DavidR310 is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Yucca Sucka
Posts: 3,180
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
This thread indicates why the "pro-gun" agenda will never become main stream. Most of the posts show totally circular reasoning. Sure, we don't criminals having guns, but hey, who defines "criminal" and of course once we have a system to disarm ANYBODY we assume THEY will then come for us so therefore we can't have ANY system that takes guns from ANYONE. (Right?)

I've seen the same thing with posts about the mentally insane or unstable, "sure we don't want them to have guns, but ...who defines mentally ill and well we think they'll use that as an excuse to take all the guns...so vote no on that as well.

Folks, we have to start somewhere and we can't keep spitting into the wind.
You sound like all the rimfire guys who could have gave a rat's arse about voting against an assault weapons ban because they were excluded.

You give our California gov't just an inch and I guarantee they will take a mile.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:04 AM
redline redline is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 235
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Veto requested on the Gov's contact site. On the drop-down menu for "PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR SUBJECT", there's an entry specific to SB 140 (SB00140\Firearms: Prohibited persons) that you can select. It's currently second from the bottom.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:10 AM
Rickrock1's Avatar
Rickrock1 Rickrock1 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino CA,
Posts: 4,361
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

This is just be Tip and as always we will continue to be trend setters and examples for other Leftist States.
__________________
....Steer hard Right Rand Paul 2016.....


ďSilence makes cowards out of the best of menĒ ĖAbraham Lincoln

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldnít be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no way to defend ourselves and our families.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:13 AM
Loco45's Avatar
Loco45 Loco45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What part of shall not be infringed do they not understand?
__________________
NAGR & NRA member, soldier in the CSM, political/street rapper, family man, avid shooter of airguns and firearms and contestant of the 2013 season of the TV Show American Airgunner.
My Airgun collection: Colt Defender, Colt Special Combat, Crosman 357, Crosman Phantom, Hatsan Striker 1000s (in .22 Cal), Umarex Legends Parabellum Pistole P.08, Umarex XBG, Umarex Steel Force, Umarex Steel Storm.
Firearm collection: What firearms??? Don't know what you're talking about
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:43 AM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco45 View Post
What part of shall not be infringed do they not understand?
A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:52 AM
SFgiants105's Avatar
SFgiants105 SFgiants105 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr250chevy View Post
But once they get their hands into the money they will not stop and they will burn through all of it quickly. Then They will pass bills to raise the DROS fees...
If they truly cared they would have pulled funds from the general fund to this program years ago.
That's exactly what is going to happen. It's appalling that CA legislators can pass laws like this with no consideration for monetary consequences. There should be a new law that says you can't run for office unless you are a CPA; that might help our budgeting problems.
__________________
Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal

-Immortal Technique


Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:00 AM
Frito Bandido's Avatar
Frito Bandido Frito Bandido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 555
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Convicted felons should not be allowed to have guns, period. If they want their 2A rights restored, they can follow a process similar to having their rights to vote restored. I'm all for them taking guns from felons, but if the DOJ is running that kind of surplus on the criminal background check fee, they need to lower the fee. Come up with some other method of raising funds to provide the manpower to enforce the laws already on the books.

My suggestion would be a $25 fee for shall-issue CCW permits, and then use that money to take guns from prohibited persons, but that's wishful thinking
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:06 AM
CooleyWatch's Avatar
CooleyWatch CooleyWatch is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We at CooleyWatch also posted something about this issue as well. You can read the whole post here, but this is a snippet:

Quote:
This past week Assemblyman Ken Cooley voted for Senate Bill 140 (Leno), which appropriates $25 million from the Dealers Record of Sale Account (DROS) to end a 19,000 case backlog of firearm background investigations.

While laudable, we at CooleyWatch are troubled that this Legislature would simply appropriate money and HOPE that something gets done. We wrote a post about this issue several weeks ago (you can read it here) and we stick by that same premise today.

Amendments were offered to SB 140 that would appropriate more money and give it to local law enforcement. Assemblyman Ken Cooley voted against those amendments as well. Foregoing the true leadership that could make our communities safer. If California wants to get guns out of the hands of dangerous people then support more money towards the people who are actually going to get them.

If you recall the General Election of 2012, Californians were sold on Proposition 30 because it would help education and public safety. But instead of using that revenue for these purposes, we are using special funds from fees collected to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. These investigations are then shared with local law enforcement in order to recover guns that are in the hands of people who are legally not supposed to have them…like dangerous criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:18 AM
formula502 formula502 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 87
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frito Bandido View Post
My suggestion would be a $25 fee for shall-issue CCW permits, and then use that money to take guns from prohibited persons, but that's wishful thinking

It's kind of hard to make the argument that lawful gun owners should bear the financial burden for a wider public safety issue.

Gasoline tax for road repairs b/c drivers' vehicles contribute to the wear & tear on the highways and exclusively enjoy the benefits of fixed potholes? Sure.

But we have nothing to do w/ creating armed prohibited persons and the benefit of disarming them is shared by all.

Last edited by formula502; 04-23-2013 at 11:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:38 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frito Bandido View Post
My suggestion would be a $25 fee for shall-issue CCW permits, and then use that money to take guns from prohibited persons, but that's wishful thinking
Why do want to penalize people that pay for a background check, finger printing, process fees, and a 16 hour training class?

Would it be because you don't have a CCW or that those that do have a CCW are contributing to felons with guns?

I will wait for an answer. Think real hard before posting please.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:46 AM
Safety1st Safety1st is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 589
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frito Bandido View Post
Convicted felons should not be allowed to have guns, period.
If they're dangerous and can't be trusted then why are they out of prison? And does that apply to financial crimes as well?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:51 AM
.30-06 .30-06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hacked
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frito Bandido View Post
Convicted felons should not be allowed to have guns, period. If they want their 2A rights restored, they can follow a process similar to having their rights to vote restored. I'm all for them taking guns from felons, but if the DOJ is running that kind of surplus on the criminal background check fee, they need to lower the fee. Come up with some other method of raising funds to provide the manpower to enforce the laws already on the books.

My suggestion would be a $25 fee for shall-issue CCW permits, and then use that money to take guns from prohibited persons, but that's wishful thinking
Agreed its the dangerous people who ruin gun rights for the rest of us. Or at least give anti's incentive to take away more of our rights.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:00 PM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 932
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redline View Post
Veto requested on the Gov's contact site. On the drop-down menu for "PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR SUBJECT", there's an entry specific to SB 140 (SB00140\Firearms: Prohibited persons) that you can select. It's currently second from the bottom.
Now that's funny, they added that since yesterday
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:04 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Amendments were offered to SB 140 that would appropriate more money and give it to local law enforcement. Assemblyman Ken Cooley voted against those amendments as well. Foregoing the true leadership that could make our communities safer. If California wants to get guns out of the hands of dangerous people then support more money towards the people who are actually going to get them.
Because how much you wanna bet almost NONE of the money is actually going to be spent on going after those guns?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:04 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,357
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlyworking View Post
Now that's funny, they added that since yesterday
I went to search for his website and started typing in Moonbeam before I caught myself

link for those looking http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:07 PM
tophatjones's Avatar
tophatjones tophatjones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 1,371
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Dear Mr. Brown,

I strongly urge you to veto SB0140. It is ethically wrong. The original intent of the DROS fee was to cover the state's cost of processing paperwork and registry transfers of firearms sales. Although us gun owners were required by law to pay the DROS fee, we had few moral qualms with it because it was the price to pay to process the paperwork. The intent of the fee was clear and directly related to our purchases. That there is a surplus, reveals the fact that the state enthusiastically overestimated the amount of funds required to do said job. The surplus funds should be used to make DROS more efficient. By sihponing the funds to do another job, gun confiscation, the state is embarking on a self righteous crusade and expensive crusade funded by stealing from law abiding gun owners. Please veto the unethical bill, SB0140.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:22 PM
AeroEngi's Avatar
AeroEngi AeroEngi is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 2,883
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Just emailed the governor with various reasons urging him to veto SB140.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:27 PM
MotoriousRacing's Avatar
MotoriousRacing MotoriousRacing is offline
Deemed Irrelevant
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Orange County - 949
Posts: 1,907
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
It passed but has not been signed by Governor Brown yet.

Click here to demand a veto. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=747855
Not fancy, but here is was...

Quote:
I am against increased gun control legislation as proposed this year (2013) in the state of California. Additional and/or more strict gun control measures will not stop criminal behavior. California has existing and effective gun control measures that simply need to be enforced, many of which already infringe on civil rights ensured by the United States Constitution.

On behalf of responsible and law-abiding gun owners, please veto (or do not sign into law) any and all new gun control bills that come from the California State Legislature.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:36 PM
Spyguy's Avatar
Spyguy Spyguy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Marin County, CA
Posts: 7,388
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
Our camp is always on about "enforce the laws we have!"
And that is where much of "our camp" is wrong. It should be, REPEAL the gun laws we have because they are all in violation of the Second Amendment.

To me, "shall not be infringed" is as clear as daylight. The ONLY time a person forfeits his natural rights is when he is imprisoned. If a person is deemed too dangerous to be entrusted to own a firearm, then he is too dangerous be free amongst the rest of society.
__________________
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failedówhere the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once." - Justice Alex Kozinski, 9th US Circuit Crt of Appeals
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:51 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
I think that's how I see it too.
I don't think we are actually against known prohibited persons having their firearms confiscated, are we?

A.W.D.
That depends on weather the prohibited person should be prohibited or not. Many are who should not be.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-23-2013, 1:11 PM
michiganboy's Avatar
michiganboy michiganboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 262
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I just sent a letter, hopefully others will follow suit. Others should spread the word to as many others as possible to contact brown to veto these and let him know where we stand.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:06 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.