Previous Post
Next Post

Senator Mark Leno (courtesy

“When it comes to preventing gun violence in California, we are at a distinct advantage because we are the only state in the nation that utilizes a unique system to identify persons who are barred from possessing firearms. However, we have only been able to confiscate a small number of these illegally possessed weapons due to lack of resources. Our reinvestment in this statewide identification program will help eliminate a troubling backlog and growing mountain of illegal weapons, which threatens public safety in our communities and prevents us from enforcing existing firearms laws.” – Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) on SB-140California Gun Control: First Of 30 Post-Sandy Hook Bills Approved By State Legislature [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “When it comes to Kalifornia we are the leading assholes of the country! We have Dianne Frankenstein on our side!”
    There fixed it for him.
    BTW: he looks like he is givin an elephant a blowjob.

    • “BTW: he looks like he is givin an elephant a blowjob.”

      Leno was the first openly gay man to serve in the California Senate. Typical KKKalifornia politician. I’m surprised this site’s nanny-filter did not block the use of a certain word starting with the letter “b”.

      • Forgot about that. Does explain his character and beliefs though. Most gay men seem to be jealous of Anything with a bigger barrel than they have!
        Yea working weekends makes my Smartass sarcasm levels go up!!! LOL!!

  2. If you pay taxes in CA, NY, et al., you are funding the grabbers, thanks to the democratic process letting 50%+1 hijack 100% of revenues.

  3. The gun grabbing has always been happening even in other states. if you get felony conviction or become a prohibated person, someone is coming for your guns. The real issue is that gun owners are being forced to pay for the gun grabbing by a $19 fee on the background check. If this gun grabbing is supposed to make whole state safer, why are gun owners fronting the bill? This more of a penalty versus a benefit. This just more stupid CA style politics.

  4. timeout. If you are a legal gun owner, and then commit a felony, they come and ‘seize’ your weapons? How do they know what you have? Registration? How are the seizures exercised? Swat tanks?

    “The gun owners typically acquired the firearms legally, before being convicted of a felony or diagnosed with mental illness. Each year, the state investigates and seizes the guns of about 2,000 people on the Armed Prohibited Persons list, Lindley said, but each year about 3,000 names are added to the list. “

      • Nah!! The worst they will do is slap you with their pink man purses and them stomp their foot down like an impatient 8 yr old little girl! 🙂

    • FOPA only applies to the Feds. California maintains a state-wide data base for all handgun purchases through an FFL (and all sales of all firearms have to go though an FFL). As of Jan. 1, 2014, all firearm sales will be recorded by the Cal. Dept of Justice. And if you are the registered owner of any firearm, that gives the police probable cause to search when you become a prohibited person.

  5. I used to suggest moving out of CA but one look at CO shows the CA mindset has migrated there. We need a wall along the CA border and a permitting system for anyone wishing to leave. Lets start with voter registration and go from there.

    • The insurgents from Cali are more dangerous than the ones coming from the national boarders. I want a fence around and excommunication of Leftifornia.

    • i keep telling people what happens in california will happen in other states. This is where the last AWB got started. The cancer spreads outwards from california.

      The place to fight gun control is in california. If you want to protect your rights in Texas and Arizona and Colorado you need to support pro gun groups in california.

      Every time a pro gun person flees california it’s further weakening gun rights nation wide.

  6. “… we are the only state in the nation that utilizes a unique system to identify persons who are barred from possessing firearms…”

    Ummmm, false?

    “However, we have only been able to confiscate a small number of these illegally possessed weapons due to lack of resources…”

    Isnt that part of why y’all legalized marijuna?

    “Our reinvestment in this statewide identification program will help eliminate a troubling backlog…”

    And that changes your lack of recources to enforce it how?

  7. So whats to say they dont use that $24M to track people who might be misidentified by the system?

  8. The Golden State has NO BUSINESS bankrolling religious fanatics. (And, YES, the anti-self defense milieu is a fanatical religion. They’re pretty much indistinguishable from the Hare Krishnas, and a LOT more annoying.)

  9. The really sad thing is that this legislation got its start in a lawsuit brought to require the State to refund excess fees charges at transfer. For years, the DOJ had amassed a pot of millions of dollars in fees in excess of cost to maintain its background check system (which does not use NICS). ice the fee charged was only supposed to cover that cost, it should have been refunded and the fee reduced. But faced with having to refund tax dollars to gun owning citizens, the legislature authorized the DOJ to spend the money on another ;aw evforcement program altogether that has nothing to so with background checks or gun registration.

  10. I have to say, I am not against this specific legislation. We the people of the gun have always said that the law enforcement should enforce the laws we already have. This specific bill actually does this.
    Yes, California is unique. We can cross reference registered gun owners and also mental health records etc. We know there are about 20,000 people who for one reason or another are on the prohibited list for purchasing a firearm. While this doesn’t begin to deal with the illegal guns in the state, it is a step.
    I don’t agree that they should confiscate weapons from people who might only have a restraining order due to a divorce. This is somewhat of a common practice, even though there might not be any history of violence etc. I don’t know what the criteria will be, or how it will be carried out which is of great concern. I can however say that if it were a convicted felon for instance, their possession of a firearm is illegal and if they were stopped in possession of a firearm they would be arrested. It is a slippery slope I admit, but they are simply attempting to enforce our current laws.

    • I don’t think anyone has a problem confiscating gun s from prohibited persons, the laws requiring this have been on the books for a long time. What is disgusting is that they are essentially charging gun owners to pay for a law enforcement activity, rather than taking the money out of the general fund. WE’ve been overcharged for background checks, the state has OUR money, not just regular tax revenue, under a law that was specific to the background check system. Why should gunnies be burdened with the cost of confiscating firearms, when this is just another police activity? It is legalized theft, that’s what it is.

Comments are closed.