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

[RRangel]

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]

About the time you think it cant get any sillier . .. . . message to politicos - get your government footprint off our necks.

[al123]

Senate Bill 1366 passed by a vote of 23 to 14

The bill was amended twice since Feb. 24 2012. Passed by the Senate on May 14th.

[njineermike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

SilverTauron has this right - This lays groundwork for later bombshells.

VOTE THEM ALL OUT. ALL OF THEM.

[greg36f]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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!