Barack Obama laughing
Former U.S. President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)
Previous Post
Next Post

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

Previous Post
Next Post

56 COMMENTS

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

    • 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.

        • Excellent point.

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

          AUDIT the Fed than dissolve this Bankster Racket.

        • “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.

    • 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..

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

  2. 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.

    • 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!

    • Srsly?

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

    • 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.

    • 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.)

      • ” 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***.

  3. 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. 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!

    • 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.)

      • 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.

      • 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

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

    Those days are long gone. Whites have been ethnically cleansed

  8. 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.

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

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

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

  10. 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.

    • 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.

  11. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  12. 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/

  13. 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.

    • 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.

  14. 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here