Quote of the Day: Yes, Yes It Would Edition

california-legislature

“Many of the people on this (prohibited persons) list are on the list incorrectly. If we can clear those people off so we can focus on the people who are a real threat to the community, that would be a good thing.” – California Senator Joel Anderson in California falters in confiscating guns from felons, mentally ill [at sfgate.com]

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    The state will spare no expense to justify locking people up, putting people on lists, denying people various rights and liberties.
    When it comes to exonerating people, clearing names from lists and protecting peoples various rights one man hour is too many to waste and one dollar spent is a sign of wasteful bureaucracy.

    Caveat, agent of the state gets on one of those lists and all hands are brought in to right the horrible injustice.

    1. avatar Jack Burton says:

      Well, there’s no profit in exonerating people, only in incarcerating them. The worst decision made in terms of law enforcement was privatizing prisons. I’m constantly amazed that nobody in government seems to see the inherent problems in for-profit prisons. It’s a terrible system.

  2. avatar the ruester says:

    So many millions spent… has the crime rate dropped at all? Domestic violence homicides? Why can’t they cough up THOSE numbers?

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      ‘Those’ numbers wouldn’t feed Harris’ and the Democrats’ justification for the APPS program.

      My take is that the CA DOJ’s APPS enforcement action is directed at mostly law abiding people who pose no threat but at some time in their past ran afoul of CA law in some regard and are targeted for that vulnerability.

      Actual bad actors aren’t gonna register or keep guns that are known to the state, so this confiscation action will have absolutely no affect on the active criminal element.

      Another case of going after those who will voluntarily comply because they obey the law, and doing nothing of value to reduce crime, e.g., a “feel good” anti gun program.

      At the behest of DOJ, the legislature raided the DROS fund to pay for extra enforcement of APPS. What the legislature SHOULD BE DOING is providing more funding and resources to task forces going after known active criminals, especially gang activity. If there are any bad actors who actually have registered guns that fall into the APPS category then the “prohibited person” issue would be concurrently addressed.

  3. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Make a program, sell the program, fund the program, hire to enforce the program, not accomplished goal of the program, complain about the program being underfunded, speak about the errors of the program, hope that the program funding is renewed, note people object to the program, note the facts to start the program were questionable, so in the end the program is a colossal waste of money that didn’t really solve the problem related to the program.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Then come up with newer, more expensive program that requires twice as many people to implement. Then fail.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Then come up with newer, more expensive program that requires twice as many people to implement. Then fail.”

        But, Tom, they meant well! That’s all that matters!

        *gag*

  4. avatar TM says:

    In Kalifornia the rights of society/government outweigh the rights of the individual. There is a reason why they are on that list. That is a form of gun control by having them on the list. They don’t care about the criminals on the list. They care about their ideology and enforcing it by any means possible.

  5. avatar rammerjammer says:

    What do you want to bet that it’s damn near impossible to get your name off of that list?

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      What do you want to bet you don’t know you are even ON the list until they come busting down your door?

  6. avatar Removed_californian says:

    As we all know, just because one is on a list that says that they cannot, does not mean they will not.

    Laws are only as good as they are enforced, and it’s truly impossible to enforce a good majority of the insane laws of the state…

  7. avatar Bob says:

    Ah the “Prohibited Persons List”, a list of people so dangerous and unstable that they just require the catalyst of a gun to go out and wreak havoc and mayhem on the unsuspecting populous. Yet those same people could be in line with you at the Starbucks, sitting a booth over at your local restaurant, driving next to you on the freeway, or hanging out next to the swing set at the local playground, where you kids play. It’s a good thing that no one ever used a their hands, a blunt object, a sharp object, or a car, to commit havoc and mayhem. Because that would mean when it comes to your safety, “the List” is a farce.

    Don’t even get me started that the people on the list are allowed to breed. What’s more dangerous than any weapon? Defective, morally bankrupt, humans. Because no weapon ever harmed anyone without a human operating it. Garbage in ; garbage out.

    1. avatar Jay says:

      Oh, don’t worry about that. AB-529 will tie the APPS list to the DMV and deny you the ability to register/renew a car registration/license if you’re on the APPS list.

      No, I’m not kidding.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        Thanks for that eye opener. For anyone curious about it, you can find the text here.

        http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB529

        Basically, if you’re on the list, no renewal of licenses or transfer of title. Pretty screwed up.

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    What a depressing article. $9.4 million spent, about $2800 per gun owner. Not from the general fund, but from money paid by gun buyers only. And they want more. I wonder how that could be? The DROS fund keeps on accruing excess fess, and the government will undoubtedly keep taking it. Next they will tell us that the fees are going to go up (currently $25 per handgun)–because of course it is gun owners who are the whole reason for this “problem.”

    1. avatar foodog says:

      Yep. As I recall, two years ago, the CA DOJ justified raiding the DROS fees bucket (rather than give money back, or reduce future fees) in order to hire something like 16 new officers to work on the 40% error rate in their own database.

      Looks like some at CA DOJ were more intersted in setting up their own private po po:
      http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/206356/

  9. avatar Jack Burton says:

    I’m so glad I moved out of California.

  10. avatar John B Thayer says:

    Unless you have been deprived of your 1st Amendment rights you should not be deprived of your 2nd Amendment rights either. We need just as many laws regulating our right to keep and bear arms as we do our right of freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

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