Gun control I can support

Shockingly enough, it comes from California; where the Attorney General of the State got the crazy idea to actually go and enforce the gun laws that were on the books.

The goal of this investigation was to prevent violent crime in California by disarming individuals who were the most likely to use their unlawfully held guns to commit violent crimes. To identify the highest risk cases, analysts from the California Department of Justice created investigative case files on persons who legally acquired firearms in the past, but failed to relinquish the weapons after a violent felony conviction.

Department of Justice agents typically take action when firearm owners should have relinquished weapons after events such as:

• Felony convictions

• Violent or firearms-related misdemeanors

• Domestic violence incidents

• Protective orders, probation conditions, and other court orders

• Involuntary commitments under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 or 5250

I’ll probably take some heat for supporting this, but the fact is that I’ve never supported violent felons, domestic abusers, or the mentally incompetent owning firearms.  I am pleased that California made the decision to actually remove guns from the hands of people who were forbidden from owning them, instead of going after law abiding citizens to take their guns.

I’m quite surprised that California gave me an opportunity to congratulate them on actual, effective gun control as it should be practiced, by enforcing the existing laws barring violent people from owning guns.

10 thoughts on “Gun control I can support”

  1. I would support it to if it weren’t a felony to, for example, import lobster tales in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes.

    Felony classification should be only for egregious crimes. Not crap.

  2. On the whole I agree with you and pleased to see them enforce the current laws, instead of making up new ones that will not get enforced and only make gun owners live more miserable. As to what Uncle stated, it is way too easy to get charge with some silly nanny state charge in Kalifornia.

  3. It’s a felony to import stories about lobsters in plastic bags?

    I wouldn’t doubt that that’s a felony too actually.

  4. Totally agree. The key-word being “violent”. Martha Stewart is hardly a risk of using a gun when she should be using her words. Meanwhile the type of person who gets agrivated assault charges has some communications issues that should NEVER be augmented with a gun.

    If we actully enforced the law, and followed them up with real punishment, this would be a better place overall.

  5. No, I definitely agree about that; felonies should be classified correctly; and I agree that the “no guns for felons” rules could be verily easily exploited by making (even more) inane crap into felonies.

    That being said, at least (in this case) Kalifornia isn’t going after law abiding gun owners.

  6. Firearms related misdemeanors……….. such as not seeing a 3×5 transparent “no guns” sign on a glass storefront……… Any law, sufficiently lawyered, can be construed to mean just about anything. You can have all the justice you can afford.

  7. In that specific instance, it’s actually only trespassing. “No guns” signs in stores don’t have force of law inasmuch as it’s a firearms related offense.

    For example, the hotel I used to work for had a “no guns” policy for guests. If we found a firearm, we could evict the guest for violating their agreement with the hotel, but if we decided to press charges it would have been for trespassing, nothing firearms related.

Comments are closed.