2024 Gonzalez SB-1253 FSC for POSSESSION not ACQUISITION

[Tarmy]

[AlmostHeaven]

Democrats fully strive to eventually disarm all civilians via salami slicing tactics. Totalitarian tyrants understand that attempting to outright ban guns in one swoop would generate too much backlash, so instead the laws incrementally grow stricter every legislative session.

[Rickybillegas]

These same people probably don't store their firearms in rostered containers either so they will be guilty of 2 firearms related "crimes". If ever caught, they will almost certainly have their firearms confiscated, be prosecuted and thereafter be prohibited persons. Lovely. Won't prevent a single crime but hey! these clowns don't care about crime.

And they won't even have the slightest knowledge that they committed a 'crime'. Whos' gonna tell them? If they don't belong to gun forums, they probably won't even know until the authorities find out
for whatever reason. Thinking they are perfectly law abiding.

[AlmostHeaven]

And they won't even have the slightest knowledge that they committed a 'crime'. Whos' gonna tell them? If they don't belong to gun forums, they probably won't even know until the authorities find out
for whatever reason. Thinking they are perfectly law abiding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson:

• Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).

• "Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United StatesState v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

[jcwatchdog]

[Preston-CLB]

That's good news, indeed. The requirement for a person moving into CA should be scrapped, as well because it still implies a new resident must have an FSC to possess firearms.
-P

[Rickybillegas]

There was an article online that speculated a number of gun bills in the suspense file will never make it out of committee because of Newsoms budget crisis.

[Silence Dogood]

Good news.

[AlmostHeaven]

There was an article online that speculated a number of gun bills in the suspense file will never make it out of committee because of Newsoms budget crisis.

Could you explain? How does requiring an FSC for possessing firearms worsen the budgetary situation, when the FSC generates positive revenue for the state?

[AlmostHeaven]

?
I had fully expected this legislation to pass as a "reasonable compromise" after the crushingly onerous annual registration bill died. I feel great to have ultimately ended up too pessimistic.

[Rickybillegas]

Could you explain? How does requiring an FSC for possessing firearms worsen the budgetary situation, when the FSC generates positive revenue for the state?

The article was not specific to this bill, but was a general fret by a leftist source that several gun bills have been amended/gutted and are threatened by the budget crisis which has created a lot of turmoil among
legislators. I'm sure you're right that long term this bill will generate $, not cost $, but the process could possibly have negative cost implications during implementation?
Remember, this bill has already taken a big hit and been gutted.

[splithoof]

[chris]

It will be back again and again and again until it becomes law.

[chris]

The article was not specific to this bill, but was a general fret by a leftist source that several gun bills have been amended/gutted and are threatened by the budget crisis which has created a lot of turmoil among
legislators. I'm sure you're right that long term this bill will generate $, not cost $, but the process could possibly have negative cost implications during implementation?
Remember, this bill has already taken a big hit and been gutted.

Given that the state has a massive deficit and these morons are doing this instead of actually fixing real problems instead creating them. While this is a guess this state has much bigger issues than firearms. However the obsession with gun control DemoKrats have here and SJW nonsense. Those idiots really need to address real problems instead of this crap over and over again.

But they really don't care about spending other people's money.

[AlmostHeaven]

The article was not specific to this bill, but was a general fret by a leftist source that several gun bills have been amended/gutted and are threatened by the budget crisis which has created a lot of turmoil among
legislators. I'm sure you're right that long term this bill will generate $, not cost $, but the process could possibly have negative cost implications during implementation?
Remember, this bill has already taken a big hit and been gutted.

I suppose if the "Golden State" intends to insult every resident by digging itself into a $45 billion fiscal hole, the least the legislature could do is ease up on the civilian disarmament agenda.