Screen Shot 2015-08-25 at 9.03.07 AM

“The horrific tragedy that happened nearly a year ago in Isla Vista has strengthened the resolve of so many of us that we must do more to prevent gun violence. We know that those convicted of nonviolent firearm-related offenses are more likely than the average person to commit very serious crimes in the future. They are five times more likely to be charged with crimes like murder, seven times more likely to be charged with other nonviolent firearm offenses, and four times more likely to be charged with new violent offenses. This bill helps keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them and keeps our communities safer.” – California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson [via press release]

 

 

Recommended For You

31 Responses to Quote of the Day: Bring a Bullet to School, Lose Your Gun Rights for Ten Years Edition

  1. Pre-crime much?

    While we all must be responsible and accountable for our ammunition, mistakes do happen. You’re at the range, and you pocket a stray round, then maybe pick your kid up at school and set off the metal detectors because one stray 9mm round was in your pocket…

    Or what about if a child brings a bullet to school? Will he or she lose their 2A rights? I distinctly remember a kid in my 1st grade class bringing a .22LR round to show-and-tell. It was boring. No one said a word.

    • The anti’s goal in all of this is to make anything with even the *hint* of any type of aggressive act (real or imagined) to make them a prohibited person.

      Argue or raise your voice to someone?

      Prohibited person.

      Speeding over 10 mph?

      That’s aggressive driving and indicates you can’t be trusted with a firearm.

      And so forth. Only if you are a quiet, docile sheep will you be determined stable enough to possess a weapon.

      They will slowly make more and more things disqualify you for firearm ownership.

      One little law here, one little ‘reasonable’ law there, over many years they will strip us of those rights.

      It’s a Progressive idea known as ‘nudge’, no big changes, little ‘reasonable’ changes…

      • Awful sick of it personally. It’s come to a point where I’m supporting the idea of removing the prohibited person designation entirely.

        You are either

        1: considered competent to possess a firearm, or
        2: locked away from the rest of society.

        If you’re considered competent to mingle with civilized folk, then you should be considered capable of being responsible with a firearm. If you prove either to the contrary, then what are you doing out in public? In short, if you can’t be trusted with a gun, then you should be locked away. If whatever you did is not serious enough for room and board at the state’s expense, then it wasn’t serious enough to lose gun rights either.

        Anyone who has served their time should be restored ALL rights after a probationary period of no greater than 3 years. It’s shown time and time again that the vast majority of recidivism takes place within that timeframe. Anyone who has made it that long is probably going to be ok.

        Yes I realize that this will never happen as it would require a bottom to top revamp of the criminal justice system as it stands.

  2. What’s a “non-violent firearms offense,” and where are all her stats supporting this nonsense coming from? I can’t think of one non-violent thing I can do with a gun that would be considered a crime.

    • Also, I guess in her strange and frightening world, those three Isla Vista victims killed without guns either don’t count, or are considered “gun violence” victims, uh because a gun was used on the others? I guess?

    • The first one that comes to mind is regular trespassing versus “trespassing with a firearm”. Though this may be Oregon specific…

    • A “non-violent firearms offense” is generally running afoul of all the new laws states like California put in place in an attempt to make firearms ownership illegal. Like having a standard capacity 9mm magazine in your possession when your state makes owning one capable of holding more than ten rounds illegal.

    • Improper storage, improper transportation, not knowing NJ has banned your hollowpoints, having a shoulder thing that goes up in states where shoulder things that go up are banned, having a loose .22 round in your trunk when you parked at the post office or school..

      you know, bullshit things.

  3. In order for these laws to work we need to have televised court for all violent offenders. For example, 2014 Isla Vista killer needs to be dug back up and thrown into a chair where Hannah Beth Jackson would proceed to list her charges. And because no crime can go unpunished Hannah would then proceed to beat the shooter’s dead body for everyone to see. Surely after few of these spectacles one would realize that laws are not of concern here.

    • That’s not “non-violent” by William Aprill’s definition of violence: the use of force, or the THREAT of the use of force to accomplish a specific goal.

      Pointing a gun at someone, by that definition, is most certainly “violent” whether shots fired or not.

      • “the use of force, or the THREAT of the use of force to accomplish a specific goal.” Isn’t that what this politician and all of government works?

  4. “We know that those convicted of nonviolent firearm-related offenses are more likely than the average person to commit very serious crimes in the future.”

    So if we pass nonsensical bullshit laws that create firearms offenses out of thin air, that will mean the people who do these things will be more likely to commit serious crimes, and then we can punish them for the things our bullshit laws say they are more likely to do in the future.

  5. I’d like to see the breakdown of these nonviolent firearm offenses. Because it shouldn’t knock anybody’s socks off that somebody convicted of being a felon in possession is, well, a felon. However, I very much doubt that the dude in D.C. who was charged with possessing bullets for an unregistered muzzle loader (that didn’t have to BE registered) is likely to turn to violent crime.

    • Your details are off. He had a percussion pistol (seized though legal and legally not registered for which no charges were made), an expended rifle casing from a successful hunt for a rifle stored in Virginia (under an ordinance prohibiting the possession of any ammo or ammo component for a firearm not registered in the city) and an unexpended shotgun round (also for a firearm not registered in the city).

  6. Whatever happened to people being given the power of discretion in situations. I accidentally brought ammo to school once or twice, wasn’t a big deal. That was a few years ago but it happens. I’ll end up having to tell my kid in a similar situation that they shouldn’t tell anyone ever and keep it to themselves so they don’t go to jail. It’s not like it’s a pistol or something.

  7. Another unnecessary legal pitfall which gleefully targets responsible gun owners. I’ve taken ammo and guns into schools dozens of times and it’s never turned into a school shooting. My Orange County CCW friends carry guns and ammo into schools and it’s never been a problem.

    Currently CA allow CCW holders to carry in schools. They are frantically trying to close that “loophole” even though I’m not aware of a single CA CCW holder attacking a school. I’m doing everything I can to get a legitimate conservative Republican like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Scott Walker into the White House in 2016. If we can get legitimate SCOTUS justices, there’s a chance we can peacefully make most of this anti-gun BS go away.

  8. Following this logic if a kid steals a candy bar that kid should lose their 4th amendment rights for 10 years and be subject to being searched (and having their home/vehicle) searched whenever LE wants to.

    It would cause a huge outcry but yet people think that this restriction on 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.

  9. A misdemeanor has a “10-year ban on firearm possession and purchases”. What moronic BS is that?

    It is AMAZING the number of things “known to the State of California” that the rest of the world are unaware of.

  10. Wow. That sounds so bad, “seven times more likely.” Clearly, something must be DONE NOW!!!

    The problem, from a public policy perspective is that the incidence of violent crime involving a handgun that results in death is a pretty rare thing, statistically speaking. The likelihood of anyone being involved as a victim of such a crime is low. Saying that someone is seven times more likely to be involved as an actor in that scenario still results in a low number.

    By all means, let’s make public policy decisions – particularly those that infringe on someone’s civil rights – based upon statistical outliers.

  11. As I said before, the government will not outright show up at our door and take our guns, but will increase the violations that will cause their loss. So now in the PDRC People
    s Democratic Republic of California), just having a bullet on school grounds will cause you to lose your gun RIGHTs for 10 years. Pay attention folks, as in a couple of years, the list that causes this will grow to include such heinous offenses as jay walking or spitting on the sidewalk. The sad thing is that the sheeple of California, who have been inculcated to be victims, will never look up from their iPhone to fight this Orwellian law.

  12. Hey, no worries. As the most populated state tightens the noose on its residents remaining rights, the other states will certainly not follow California’s lead…..oh wait…..

  13. Anyone here ever read Watership Down? People like this lady would be right at home in Cowslip’s warren (never mind the deadly shining wires).

  14. Progressive “thinking” at it’s most evolved: Someone with some degree in something, said that statistimecally, some of those who were at some point convicted of something arbitrarily named “firearms offense”, whatever that may be, went on to be convicted of a violent crime at some later point. So, since having a bullet in ones pocket is arbitrarily classified by some tax feeder as a firearms offense, sneaking a bullet into some kid’s pocket makes him a future murderer.

    As the TShirt says: Don’t blame Me, I’m With the Terrorists

  15. This makes sense.

    What with our school systems falling apart, poor education, zero tolerance rather than escalation and common sense, emphasis on taking part rather than competing, lifer untouchable useless teacher etc. etc. etc…

    We should be disarming our future American landscapers and ditch diggers hell one day they may feel slighted and decide to react to their Chinese and Indian engineer/doctor/scientist employers? Nobody wants that.

    Or you know we could fix the education system and have kids leaving school with job and quality further education prospects and an understanding and respect for a potentially dangerous tool (just like, power tools in Shop Class and the 3+ ton metal potential death dealers in Drivers Ed.)

    As for the rest of the potential laws meh it’s Commifornia one day they will collapse and I like to think a more sensible, thoughtful, awesome and sexy State (say for instance Alaska or Canada (that a done deal yet?)) gets to take over and set things right.

  16. This dingbat holds little political sway. If I pegged the name right, she tried last year to pass a bill that would have given Oakland home rule so it cold enact its own gun (ban) laws. I bet she’s from Bezerkley.

  17. She wants to make it illegal to sell ammo to any one under the age of 21. But isn’t it LEGAL for 18 year olds to buy and own long guns? Where do these people come from, some alien planet of illogic and confusion?

  18. .22lrs get into everything… I just bought a car and guess what I found under the seat? If my son drove it to school? I guess he’s likely to be a murderer in the future? This fuckwit politician deserves to die.

  19. Ahem, when we’re talking about non-violent firearms crime as an indicator of malum in se violent crime, there’s a distinction to be made between when the police take an illegal gun off of a convicted felon drug dealer and the legal technicalities the ATF murders honest citizens with no criminal record over for unknowingly violating. I believe that someone who unknowingly and while being oblivious to nonsensical federal law shortens his shotgun barrel to 17.5″ isn’t “five times more likely to be charged with murder” than the average citizen. We know concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the general population. These laws are assaults on the gun culture, but much of the firearms “crime” people in the gun culture are guilty of is only malum prohibitum legal technicality victimless “crimes”. The kid who accidentally brings a .22LR cartridge to school in the bottom of his backpack after going shooting over the weekend is unlikely to be an aspiring gang member who needs the government to treat him like a violent criminal and try to ruin his life in order to be “scared straight”.

Leave a Reply

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