Quote of the Day: Bucking Up Edition

“We know for the safety of our communities that these people should not possess guns, and our reinvestment in this tracking program gives us the opportunity to confiscate them.” – State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) in Gov. Brown OKs funds to confiscate guns from criminals, mentally ill [via latimes.com]

comments

  1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

    We know the nazis, for the “prosperity” of their cominuties uethenasiad the mental challenged a defficited… Including Hitlers own family, yet these nut jobs are, in my opinion, more dangerous than charles manson with a chainsaw… Po

    1. avatar some guy says:

      Aaaand Godwin’s Law is invoked on the very first post. Classy

      1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

        What’s Godwin’s law? Must have something to do with proofreading.

    2. avatar Hal says:

      Funny how the word “confiscate” just rolls off the tongue…

    3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      WTF? am I the only one who had a really difficult time reading the above response?
      “Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!”

      1. avatar Taurus609 says:

        DAM, Mothers Against Dyslexia!

        1. avatar Bob says:

          MADD
          No, not Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
          Dyslexic Drunks Against Mothers.

    4. avatar William Burke says:

      I don’t know what’s more unnerving, “cominuties” or “uethenasiad”. Maybe a drink will help me decode them. Though it doesn’t seem to have done right by you.

  2. avatar IHATECT says:

    Whoo. This should be interesting…and dangerous.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      It’s California. They’ll roll over and give them anything the government thugs want.

  3. avatar Hill Country Dog says:

    The article in the Times quotes Senator Leno, who uses the term “common sense.” Anytime a politician uses that term, liberty is about to be infringed. “Common sense”, “for the children”, “if we can save but one life” etc etc etc ad nauseum. Code words to elicit emotion but prevent critical thinking.
    The Senator is quoted as saying “…which takes the money from fees paid when people buy guns…” $24M is a lot of fees.
    This really amounts to a way to raise the cost of ownership to make it more painful to own a gun. It is de facto gun confiscation except that there won’t be that troublesome period of gun ownership!

    1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

      & exercising a fundamental right should “cost us money”? As I have said such as freedom of speech or to vote or to incriminate ones self.

      But wait, even more to the point it is making good people “pay” for the crimes, or even worse, the “potential” crimes of others!

      This is moraly wrong and constituionaly ILLEGAL!

    2. avatar Nate says:

      CA managed to run a program – state version of NICS (DROS) – that was under budget. So instead of sticking to the law requiring them to only charge enough to cover the cost of the checks, the antis grab the $$ and use it to link legal firearm ownership with criminals. Disgusting. I’m sure they are hiring the best and brightest from the DMV to help with the system and balloon costs.

      FWIW I heard their BG checks were taking ~30 days for some people instead of the usual 10, do any CA people have first hand experience with this?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I just bought a shotgun in California. I’ve never had a delay or problem with the background checks. The Background checks are run off my DL and are usually done before I’m finished filling out the papers. One mans experience.

        Of course I’m still waiting for the 10 day waiting period to expire before I pick up my new gun. Explain to me why I need a waiting period after I pass the background check?

        Cooling off period? I already own a safe full of guns and they already know this. If I was looking to kill in a rage I wouldn’t need to stop at a gun shop.

  4. avatar Gtfoxy says:

    So what are the guidelines of this “mentaly ill” deffinitions? Their ideal proposal would be anyone who dissagre with their other policies or intentions, could it not?

    We need to give bolster to the Supreme decision of “Reasonable Regulations” a more specific terminology & not a “clean sheet” to add in what ever these “Unreasonable” people term as reasonable in their own minds….

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The definition of mental illness is statutory and has been in effect for a long time. There are two levels of bans. First, if you have been involuntarily detained pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code 5150 for a 72 hour evaluation because you are a threat to yourself or others, there is an automatic five year prohibition on the ownership of firearms. If that detention has been extended pursuant to section 5250 (which requires an actual adjudication by a judge of the existence of a mental defect or disease that makes one a threat to self or others), then it is a lifetime ban. This new law does nothing to change the definitions–it only provides money for LEOs to go around collecting guns when the statutory procedures have been followed.

  5. avatar Gtfoxy says:

    Was this one of their openly homosexual representatives? If so I automaticaly give no credability to any of his discussions or thought due to the fact his very thought process is “mentaly ill” & containing un-reasonable thought rationale.

    Not a hater, just a hater of Sin & it’s progressive dillusional pathways.

    1. avatar Steve Case says:

      You most certainly are a hater. Equating someone’s sexual orientation to mental illness based on your personal or religious beliefs is dangerous. I also disagree with the state senator from California but it has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

    2. avatar Hal J. says:

      So….not a fan of the Pink Pistols, I take it?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_pistols

      Do they believe in the right to self defense because their thought processes contain “un-reasonable thought rationales”?

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      I’m not a proponent of homosexuality either, but being one does not mean that a person could not be rational.

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        What do you mean “proponent”?

        Sexual orientation isn’t some gang you can choose to be a member of or not.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          I’m not an advocate for homosexuality. If people want to live that lifestyle, that is their choice. I choose not to celebrate it.

          I disagree that sexuality does not involve choice. A man could be attracted to twelve year old boys, that doesn’t mean he should act out those desires. Some people get their kicks trying to turn other people into lampshades.

          Nor do I make statements that all gay people are X, Y, Z.

        2. avatar Swarf says:

          So you think gay people are in the same category as pedophiles and serial killers. Good to know. I respect many of the things I’ve seen you post here, but we’re going to have to disagree on this one.

          No matter how much you may wish it to be so, fundamental human physiology is not a matter of choice.

          Also, why do so many people who claim to be against homosexuality act like it’s some awesome sinful candy bar that it takes massive amounts of will power to resist? I don’t suck dick because it doesn’t interest me, not because I’m winning some daily struggle to keep dick out of my mouth.

        3. avatar Bob says:

          SWARF,
          No matter how much you may want to believe it is so, there is NO proof that homosexuality is the result of some difference in one’s “fundamental human physiology”. There is not a gene for homosexuality.

          Homosexuality is a matter of choice, whether you like it or not. Several things in one’s upbringing may influence whether one makes that choice, but it is a choice.
          I know that there are some choices one can make which benefit society, harm society, or are neutral (neither benefit or harm). I believe that the homosexual choice is harmful for society, and therefore society should discourage it.

          You should know by now that the TTAG community will allow you to have a differing opinion, but they will not allow you to use false ‘facts’ to support that opinion.

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          Swarf,

          I was merely stating that operating on sexual desire is a choice. The gender of that person who triggers the attraction may not be a choice. If only one person has the choice, that is either rape or sexual assault. You misunderstood me if you think that I was comparing homosexually to murder or pedophilia.

    4. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Human sexuality isn’t usually very rational. At any rate, whether a person has an innie or an outie, and whether they prefer to rub up against like or unlike, doesn’t determine capacity for reason in my experience.

      1. avatar John E> says:

        Up until 1986 homosexuality was a mental illness according to the Diagnostic and Statitical Manual.

        Every time a new edition is published, mental illnesses change, are revised or added. For instance, the newest edition will revise the category of Autistic Disorders.

        I would ask the lawmakers of CA: will they revise the laws on the books to reflect what is considered mental illness and what isn’t? I think they will not. Therefore we shouldn’t supplant our natural rights for the laws of politicians who only want control and power.

        As an aside, does anyone think this guy is paying the tanning bed tax under the ACA?

  6. avatar John Boch says:

    They don’t think *anyone* should possess guns.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      This. Any they let it slip sometimes.

  7. avatar DJC1012 says:

    When I used the link to LA Times article, up popped a quick poll question giving the reader a chance to “vote” on whether or not CA’s confiscation program should become the national model.
    Interesting. Over 96% of the LA Times readers have voted “NO” so far.

    If you have a mind to read the article and way in on the poll we could drive the NO point home. (how many subscribers to TTAG do we have? 😉

    Just a suggestion.

    1. avatar Taurus609 says:

      I watched the CA AG on AC360 last night. And besides the common sense line, she blurted out…..what California does so goes the nation, or whatever that line is! She was almost gleeful when talking about what CA had just done and wanted it to be the policy of the nation.

  8. avatar dwb says:

    wow, tracking down 20,000 names in a database – is that all it takes to cure homicide? Why didn’t I think of that.

    Btw, they failed to mention that the police who come to your house to take your guns don’t have a warrant. Turns out, they can’t get one based on this database. The people they take guns from are, in essence, voluntarily cooperating. I am pretty sure those are not the people the AG’s office are looking for, so my bet is that this makes nary a dent in CA homicide statistics. Too bad those 20,000 don’t have an outstanding arrest warrant or something. That might be progress.

  9. avatar Greg Camp says:

    The eternal cry of the tyrant who wants to win over the love of his victims: I’m doing this for your own good; trust me.

    Dear would-be tyrant, read what Machiavelli said about your kind trying to be loved.

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

      ― Robert A. Heinlein

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        I never get tired of reading that quote.

  10. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    This will be the outcome for some:

    A man sits deep in thought
    of the freedoms he has lost

    Today’s paper lays on a chair
    as he wipes his rifle in despair

    How can they do this to me
    I’m a G.I. who fought for liberty

    The rumble of trucks comes down the street
    Then he hears the stomping of the booted feet

    Dressed in gear that he once wore
    They will have to kick in his door

    He will NOT open when they ask
    he takes a breath amongst his last

    He takes a stand as he looks at the paper
    decision made to meet his maker

    The door flies open, they yell “Put it down”
    as the old soldier hears his last sound

    His eyes close, he retains his grip
    As he begins his final trip……

    I hope the politicians have thought long and hard about the can of worms they are about to open. For there likely will be G.I.’s like those I describe above.

    1. avatar AM says:

      Source on that poem?

      1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

        Written by yours truly, as such the only source will be this page @ TTAG. All are free to copy it, I just ask attribution. Andres ‘Pantera’ Vazquez..

  11. avatar ron jones says:

    So if you are at all a god fearing man you might find something wrong with this in California…… Gay = Welcomed //// Guns = Bad and un-welcomed…..

    One more reason California should snap off into the ocean.

    Does he have bodyguards with guns? Does he live in a private community?

    If so he should be the first one to give up the guns!

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      I’m not “god fearing”, but I suspect California wouldn’t welcome me, either.

  12. avatar mediocrates says:

    aren’t there Constitutional guarantees about seizing private property without due process? The burden continues to grow.

    1. avatar SAS 2008 says:

      Consitutional guarantees do no good when those wishing to control others are willing to ignore the constitution and those being controlled don’t fight back, either out of ignorance or apathy.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yes, but those due process considerations have already been met. This bill merely provides money to seize guns from people who have become prohibited from ownership under some other statute, e.g. DV convictions, violent misdemeanors and felonies, persons against whom civil restraining order have been entered, and certain persons permanently disbarred from ownership of firearms because of mental illness or disease.

  13. avatar DaveL says:

    We point to the acts of criminals and crazy people as the true source of harm done using firearms, and demand (reasonably, I believe) that these groups not be conflated with law-abiding gun owners for the political purpose of restricting the latter’s rights. We therefore must accept that we are essentially saying these groups should not have guns. Heck, I’ll say it: criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should not have guns. It follows that when a person who already owns guns proves themselves by criminal acts or serious mental illness to have crossed over that boundary, that they should not be allowed to continue owning their guns. So the confiscation of which the article speaks is not the problematic part.

    What is problematic is how lax they’ve apparently been in enforcing these laws, and how little they’re willing to do in order to do better. Lacking the funding and manpower to collect the firearms from criminals and crazy people known to own guns, they’ve allowed a huge backlog to build up. Finally, they propose to increase funding for these purposes, but they’re apparently not willing to spend one more red cent that does not come directly out of a legitimate gun owner’s pocket. Apparently the anti-gun people don’t care enough about enforcing the law to spend any of their hard-earned money on the problem, either that or they’re more interested in punishing law-abiding gun owners than they are in actually solving the problem. Probably both.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      This. The $24 million in the bill comes from previously collected dros fees charged by the state of California for many years. As noted above, the state has been slightly overcharging for years, and funds have accumulated. But rather than cutting fees and returning the excess, the Legislature appropriated the money for a purpose other than for which it was intended.

  14. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

    I really wouldn’t have a problem with this confiscation process if the determination of criminality and degree of craziness was fairly and accurately executed. But I know it’s not, so screw ’em.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The legal system is not perfect, but it is still the world’s best. No one has come up with a better system.

  15. avatar DerryM says:

    Cal Guns reported they (the Cal State Legislature and Gov Brown) took the $24 Million FROM the Background Check/Tracking Fund to use elsewhere in our Debt Drowned State. This post sounds like they are taking it to apply to the Background Check/Tracking System (which is woefully inadequately maintained per Cal Guns). There are so many infringements on our 2A rights in the works in California right now that it hardly matters since the Dems control the State Government and can/will do what they want.

    1. avatar DerryM says:

      Here’s an excerpt from a message I just got from CRPA:
      “SB 140, by Senator Leno, was signed into law despite strong opposition against the bill, by CRPA. The bill supposes to allow the State DOJ to use background check fees for purposes other than their authorize purpose. CRPA and NRA have filed a law suit challenging the illegal use of the fees. The court case is pending at this time. ”

      So the “use elsewhere” is within Cal DOJ, but not necessarily to improve the Background Checking System.

  16. avatar Mike says:

    Now let’s change the wording to: “checks the homes of convicted drug users to ensure they no longer use drugs.” (for the children, it’s a common sense way to close a loophole in the law).

    How long would it take for the ACLU to defend the Bill of Rights if that were the casue. But, you know, guns are icky.

  17. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Hmmm… if they’re going after known gang bangers and such, fine, but “mentally ill” is SO damned nebulous…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      No its not–it is just defined elsewhere, not in this bill. All states have some process for barring the mentally ill from possession of firearms, and it generally requires judicial process and a finding that a person is a danger to himself or others.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Existential question of the day: Does the definition of “mental illness” include hoplophobia?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Unfortunately, not under California statutes.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      I don’t expect a hoplophobe WILL own a gun, so I think the point is moot.

  19. avatar DrVino says:

    Stupid libtards see throwing money at something as the best solution. (worked out so well for Grey Davis).
    In this case is doubly stolen money – first stolen from individuals (OVER)paying the background check fee, and now from the account where those overcharges had accumulated.

  20. avatar Lance says:

    Nice to see what gun grabber truly want from this fascist pig.

  21. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    I’m guessing Sen. Leno can’t own firearms. He’s obviously a nut job.

  22. avatar GS650G says:

    All the problems CA has, this one get’s new funding.
    They should disarm the politicians, especially this winner.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email