Since California Won’t Put Those Convicted of Gun Crimes Away Long Enough, The Federal Government Is Doing it For Them

Barack Obama laughing

Former U.S. President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)

California is more than happy to pile on more and more gun control laws that almost exclusively affect law-abiding citizens. But when it comes to keeping criminals convicted of gun crimes off the street, they’re not  particularly interested.

California has some of the nation’s strongest gun control laws, with 15 more signed into law Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Gun control advocates here are quick to criticize the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate for failing to pass strong gun safety laws. At his bill signing, Newsom called out U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky again for failing to bring gun legislation to a vote, calling him “cowardly in the face of this moment” and saying he “lacks resolve, character and leadership on this issue” with “people’s lives … hanging in the balance.”

But as happened in Selma, local police in California have increasingly been turning to federal authorities for help prosecuting gun crimes. The reason? [Criminals like William Carl] Adkins and people like him face far more time behind federal bars than they would if they were prosecuted under state law.

The program under which his case is being handled, Project Safe Neighborhoods, got its start in 2001 under President George W. Bush. It fell out of favor during the Obama administration, but the Justice Department under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions reinstated it.

– Barbara Harvey in California’s tough gun laws aren’t tough enough, it turns out — and guess who’s stepping in

comments

  1. avatar Narcoossee says:

    It costs money to keep someone in prison. I wonder if that could be part of what’s driving California’s “strategy”?

    1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

      Im sure saving money is a nice side-benefit. Then again, the Cali gov’t has never had a problem with spending their people’s money.

      1. avatar Omer says:

        True, but if the Feds run out of money, they can steal it from everyone by inflating the money supply.

        1. avatar Thixotropic says:

          Excellent point.

          The one who controls the printing presses is NOT EVEN A FEDERAL AGENCY!

          AUDIT the Fed than dissolve this Bankster Racket.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The one who controls the printing presses is NOT EVEN A FEDERAL AGENCY!”

          In one of my Econ classes, it was amazing to learn that the Federal Reserve prints/coins the currency at some cost, but the US Treasury buys the “money” at the face value of the “money”. Nice profit for the Federal Reserve, and they can still claim that they only make money on arbitrage between federally chartered banks that loan funds overnight to each other.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      There are two factors. First and foremost is that California is under a federal court order to eliminate prison overcrowding, an order that has been in effect for several years now. At the time, there were 35,000 more prisoners than beds in the California prison system. California did not have the money (at the time) to build more prisons, so yes, money was an issue. What it did to comply was to deem certain prisoners “not dangerous” felons who could be transferred to county jails to serve out their sentences (for up to two years) and them moved to the parole/probation (again county) system. That transfer did NOT come with the money needed to implement the plan. This program was ultimately reduced to state law. The Counties receive the majority of their annual budgetary funding from the State, but with no increases in budgets, the counties did not have funds to build more jail space or to hire correctional officers to keep people in jail. So the jails quickly became overcrowded. That means for most new arrests, it is catch and release on OR. That will become state law after the first of the year when the bail system is eliminated.

      P.S. Noisome likes to brag that the State has a budgetary surplus (which he owes to the fiscal management of Jerry Brown), but sti8ll no money is being diverted to these programs. And as to guns, the State is raising the fees on everything. For example, there used to be a state limit on how much could be charged for a CCW; now counties can set their own rates based on costs to investigate backgrounds, mange their programs, and enforce those programs. A new tax is being imposed on guns sales, again money being diverted to the DOJ to pay for its (failing) gun confiscation program (i.e., gun buyers are being required to pay for state enforcement of criminal possession statutes as to now prohibited persons.)

      The end result is that we will have more felons on the street, theoretically fewer guns, clearly fewer ccws (although the costs will be highest in counties that do not issue any way), and then Gavin will complain that the state “isn’t doing enough” when the crime rate rises. Maybe it is time to escape from Manhattan, because clearly the crooks are in charge..

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        “Escape from Manhattan” is a good idea as long as they don’t bring bullshit Cali politics with them.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        I also see a mass decrease in compliance. Many of the gun laws in CA are completely ignored. Ignored by cops, citizens, everyone. The laws exist so that IF the police want to get you, they have the tool to do so.

        By CA just increasing the number of laws at their disposal, and the citizens mostly disregarding them (at their peril, but none the less, disregarding them) what you’ll have is just another version of the speed laws.

        A law written to be ignored, is a bad law.

        1. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

          They are not written to be ignored, they are written to be selectively enforced at the discretion of law enforcement. With over 600k legal infractions on the books, everyone is guilty of something at any given time, which is intentional.

    3. avatar ZA says:

      Maybe, when, if, this works to reduce violent crime then no doubt they will credit their tough gun control—not putting bad guys in prison.

    4. avatar American Patriot says:

      Duhhhh, ya think.

  2. avatar jram01 says:

    If Trump would stop spending government money to vacation himself and his family to those “wonderful” golf courses of his, then maybe the government plan can help with these street violence crimes and keep these creeps in prison a hell of a lot longer.

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      I’d rather see Trump playing golf every freaking day, then PAY for all the free Odumbbutt phones and freebies the last 2 morons in office gave away!

      1. avatar Marty says:

        Actually, they’re Bush phones. He started it NOT obamanation.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Actually, I think it was Reagan that started the free phones.

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      So, if it wasn’t for Trump (and, of course, guns!) all would be right in the world?

    3. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      Srsly?

      Oh, wait. Troll-bot spouting programmed pattern-match bleat. What was the response the terminator settled on, again?

      1. avatar MovieBuff says:

        FU, A!

    4. avatar Merle 0 says:

      You have very little understanding of how both crime, and the government works. That’s quote the ignorant statement. I don’t have time to educate you. You need to read up on how the federal government works and follow that up with some books (yes actual books, not Wikipedia) on crime in the US.

    5. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      You know, in the last administration we learned some things.

      – Alinsky’s rules.
      – Motte n Bailey obfuscating rhetoric.
      – “Undulating Lies”.

      All ways the anti-people come at guns, gun owners, and even good government types who just ask: how does that help? and who? Who knew these things had names.

      There’s gotta be a name for half-right, half-true projections of Those People doing a tenth of what Our Team actually did. President Trump plays golf at his own properties, when he happens to be in the neighborhood doing his job. The trips aren’t for golf.

      The last one was all the time tacking some piece of “govt business” on trips for other reasons, like the endless party fund raisers. BTW, who paid Biden Jr’s airfare to that meeting in China where he just happened to land a private equity deal.

      Maybe if the anti-people “leadership” focused on the work, they’d have gotten some legislation on guns when they controlled both branches. Or maybe they’d rather have the issue than progress, and don’t care how many people die because of it, so long as their “troll-bots” have fodder. (I’m gonna be stealing “troll-bot.” That’s good.)

    6. avatar MLee says:

      @ jram01
      If you would grow a brain, I wouldn’t feel the need to treat you like an idiot.
      Blow it out your a–

      1. avatar jram01 says:

        ” MLee says:
        October 15, 2019 at 11:04″
        Hey MLee, here’s just a few things just read that Trump has accomplished in
        the last 1,000 days.
        300 days at Trump’s branded-properties.
        237 days at Trump-branded golf properties.
        13,000+ false or misleading claims.
        80% turnover rate of senior officials around him.
        The last White House briefing was 7 months ago.

        How about them apples MLee! Blow that out your Ass, A**H***.

    7. avatar daveinwyo says:

      Annnnd another schiff for brains squeaks!
      How ’bout all you TDS suffering fools give it a rest already?

    8. avatar tom says:

      ur an ass. Omomerr spent more gov money then Trump. Quit thinking out ur ass and make sense iu simple libfuck.

    9. avatar GS650G says:

      He’s got a long way to go to catch Michelle or Hillary on travel expenses, pal.

  3. avatar OBOB says:

    California does not want to PAY to house criminals….they have FAR too many Illegal aliens to take care of that the F-ing FEDS left on the state’s door step decades ago!

  4. avatar enuf says:

    As a tool against career criminals this is exactly right. Prosecutors from agencies local thru state and federal should always review cases and determine which of them has the best legal position to punish the repeat offender, to keep them locked up the longest.

    Go after the worst examples of criminal scum, hurt them as hard as whatever existing laws we have can hurt them. A sound strategy, no where near to being applied often enough!

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I have reservations about the tactic of federalizing gun crime.

      A principle of our federal form of government is that states would handle local affairs while the Feds would handle inter-state and international affairs. Yet, over time, many heretofore state crimes have been made federal crimes as well. Many bad behaviors with predominantly local impact have been made federal crimes. And, with Federal subsidies to states, the Feds are forcing states to adopt policies formulated at a national rather than local level. I’m deeply troubled about whether there is a net benefit from this evolution.

      If a local government (municipal or state) sees fit to de-prioritize one crime and prioritize some other crime shouldn’t it be free to make that choice? And, to suffer the consequences whether they be good, bad or ugly?

      For the most part, gun crime is clearly a local matter. People who live, sojourn or travel in a given precinct suffer from gun crime indulged there; not somewhere else.

      This isn’t to say that some gun crimes – such as manufacturing or selling without a license, moving guns across state lines, and the like – don’t have an interstate/international nexis. Some do; and, for the most part, these are properly federalized.

      (I’m not, here, taking up the debate of which behaviors ought to be illegal; that’s a completely different subject. Rather, if a behavior is presumed to be the Constitutional subject of regulation, is it properly federal or state?)

      Why should taxpayers in the 59 states subsidize those in a state with gun crime which chooses not to enforce its own laws?

      Suppose we are of mixed mind as to whether a law is worthwhile; e.g., laws regulating open (or concealed) carry. Shouldn’t states be allowed to use their discretion in adopting and enforcing such a law? Why should we applaud when a majority of Representatives and Senators adopt such a law, apply it to the entire country, and then tax us to imprison violators? Maybe a law regulating open (or concealed) carry doesn’t make a lot of sense in Alaska or Hawaii.

      Arguably, it’s in our collective interest to see to it that those who commit violent crimes with guns are incarcerated so that gun-crime statistics improve. Yet, it might be more important to know what constellation of gun laws and enforcement policies have the greatest impact on gun-crime statistics.

      Don’t we want to know that CA, IL and MD have strict gun laws + lax enforcement yielding high gun-crime statistics? Don’t we want to know that ID, VT, MN have moderate gun laws + aggressive enforcement yielding low gun-crime statistics? (Assuming these examples conformed to the respective characterizations.)

      1. avatar Clark45 says:

        59 states? Did I miss something?

        1. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Looks like someone was asleep during the annexation of Canada.

      2. avatar Sam Hill says:

        I have a solution to the problem and it’s inherent expenses and since everyone is in the law passing mood here is a law that would eliminate all the worries. Live by the gun die by the gun. The end.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You are arguing for “federalism” as conceived at the founding. That ended with the 14th Amendment. Even the founders had difficulty moving away from the idea of a monarchy ruling over a single nation composed of provinces. And an affinity for centralized control of the nation is with us to this day.

        Under the original concept of federalism, the States remained sovereign, separate, and individual. Many today do not realize, or can even comprehend, that prior to the Kennedy assassination, it was not a federal crime to kill the president (or any elected official). People may be familiar with the photo/video replay of the shooting of Oswald, but ignorant of the fact he was in Dallas Police custody, being transported from city jail to county lock-up. The feds had no jurisdiction at that time.

        Don’t know if people are just lazy about knowing the history of the country, or it is just too much brain work to understand that the federal control over states and individuals today creates a mental speed bump in grasping how things were arranged in 1789, and that using a contemporary mindset to view history leads inevitably to wrong conclusions about the relationship between the central government and the states (little “s” intentional).

        (for anyone who would like to understand then and now, take the free constitution course at Hillsdale College:
        https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/schedule

      4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “For the most part, gun crime is clearly a local matter.”

        Yes, but when the locals *refuse* to deal with it, like *cough* Chicago, *cough*…

  5. avatar John Galt says:

    Where is the attorney general protecting citizens from loss of rights under color of law…….in violation of thensupreme law of the land?

    Where is the denial of funding for states violating the constitution?

    Where are citizens with torches, pitchforks and autorifles?

  6. avatar John Galt says:

    Hey enuf……..

    I liked your post but I could see it used to add firearm enhancements for mere weapon possession to “scare gun owners silent and off the streets” (law abiding gun owners……..the criminals seem to have some sort of serving the objective revolving door)

    Eventually, WE are going to be “the worst kind of scum”

    The NBA would be fine with that……it’s just the type of government action they bow down and suck DICK$ for.

  7. avatar Mac Dre Fan says:

    I remember when California was a white state, with Reagan as governor.

    Those days are long gone. Whites have been ethnically cleansed

  8. avatar kawowon says:

    I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us. >>> ➥ http://www.2cashbag.com

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      Yeah the website was probably porn hub.

  9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The three L’s who run california like having rapists and murderers run around free. They say it’s much better than sending people to prison. In fact they complain that there are too many people in prison. So it makes perfect sense to let criminals come and go as the please.

    The three L’s don’t think like normal people.

  10. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Bring back the hang man & use him.
    The victim will never repeat again.
    Unlike the criminal put on release, like the bleeding hearts want.

  11. avatar Dude says:

    “Gun control advocates here are quick to criticize…”

    Where are the criminal control advocates?

  12. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy." possum says:

    Im confused, how can fed government enforce a State law

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Im confused, how can fed government enforce a State law”

      It happens when there is overlap in state and federal laws…

  13. avatar Alan says:

    In plain English, the governor of California, and the state legislature are Full OF IT. As to where to place the blame for the establishment of these clowns in the positions of power they hold, no need to look beyond the voters of California.

  14. avatar Dale Menard says:

    Locking up real criminals would reduce the Democratic voter base.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      And if they got the crime down, what excuse would they use to push for more gun control? The California’s leftist leaders need those violent criminals out there, giving them pretext for passing laws that criminalize us.

  15. avatar joefoam says:

    Make all gun laws federal laws, get rid of all the rest of the BS passed by states, then maybe the goofs in gun control states would have to adhere to only those passed by congress rather than the maze of restrictive measures enacted by the left leaning states. Congress would be loathe to enact the stuff that Newsom just signed. The legislators know they’d be risking their jobs.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Yep, that’s exactly what we should do. Let big government in Washington decide our laws, no need for a local/state to have any power at all.

      We’ve had enough of that states rights stuff, now it’s time for more Federal government to control our lives on the local level.

    2. avatar Sam Hill says:

      There should be NO gun laws to begin with, neither local, state, or, federal. Read the second amendment, better yet read the entire Constitution and enlighten all of us exactly where that document allows for the creation of any gun laws.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Hear, hear!

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

  16. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Newsom is, I don’t know of a word severe enough to cover him, but he needs to read the Constitution and “The United States v. Emerson” where, as part of it’s ruling the court stated that the social cost of the 2nd did not outweigh its utility, its utility being the Amendment itself and the defense of freedom in general. He should also read some Ronald Dworkin and his thoughts regarding the social cost of maintaining liberty and freedom. And maybe Cesare Beccaria. If he argues he should be made aware there are social costs to amendments1 and 3 through 8, all of which protect the rights of the individual. He’s the kind of ass like that Swedish “ecological” girl is; If I have to I’ll kill you for your own good. Anybody ask Newsom what kind of clubs and sticks his guards carry/

  17. avatar Aleric says:

    California should just post on each new law, “For White People Only”, since they never prosecute minorities for the full extent of the laws they expect everyone to obey.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      You are correct.
      But it also needs to be said “Guns are for White People only” since the 1967 Mulford Act was embraced by the current White Liberal leadership, in the not so golden state.

  18. avatar Darkman says:

    I wish President Trump would remove all federal law enforcement employees from California. Then position them along the border in neighboring states. Especially CBP,FBI,Coast Guard. Do the enforcement from outside of California and let Newsom and the rest of the California leadership deal with their own sinking ship. The state is a lost cause. Just like Venezuela. It must be aloud to fail completely before it can be rebuilt. If it is worth rebuilding. Wasting money at this point attempting to prop it up. Is a Fool’s Errand. As can be said about many of the Liberal/Democrat control States and Cities. Many good people will have to suffer indignity and death but, that is happening now. People make choices every day that define their lives. Choosing to allow others to destroy your life and livelihood. Is what is going on in these States and Cities. Even if you didn’t vote for the leadership. You still allow it to happen. Each person can choose their lot in life. Regardless of current circumstances. It only requires Courage and Due Diligence. Unfortunately for most it has become easier to blame others for their lot and expect Big Brother to provide their livelihood. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  19. Obama is the best person ever

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