TexasCHLforum.com

http://news.yahoo.com/top-california-of ... 14538.html

Think seriously people. This could spread if we let it.

Administrator - if this is not allowed please remove.

This part made me snicker a bit...

"— Felons must relinquish weapons: California courts would set up a clear process to relinquish weapons. The authors say that more than 17,000 Californians who are prohibited from owning firearms currently have guns."

b4aftr wrote:This part made me snicker a bit...

"— Felons must relinquish weapons: California courts would set up a clear process to relinquish weapons. The authors say that more than 17,000 Californians who are prohibited from owning firearms currently have guns."

it was a good thing i finished my coffee before reading the story...

This is how those loony socialists think, or more accurately, feel.

Felons are now prohibited from possessing firearms by law, so we need a new law prohibiting them from having firearms.

Why not just go round up the felons, and see if they gave a firearm, and if so, off to the clink? Instead, the courts will require the firearms to be surrendered, as if the judges are just sitting around trying to figure out something to do as it is. Before I retired and moved, the courts were so hopelessly bogged down, getting a default judgment entered took a year.

They have to be very careful. Most violent criminals vote Democrat, so they don't want to risk alienating them. The few Republicans know you can steal more with a briefcase than with a gun.

As Dr. Sowell put it in his column the other day, "Why anyone would think that criminals who disobey other laws, including laws against murder, would obey gun control laws is a mystery. A disarmed population makes crime a safer occupation and street violence a safer sport."

ron_houston wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/top-california-of ... 14538.html

Think seriously people. This could spread if we let it.

Administrator - if this is not allowed please remove.

I don’t think you need to worry. California is one of a handful of states (+DC) that I think people have pretty much written off. The rest of the country is going the other direction.

There was a time it didn’t even occur to me that one day I could legally carry a gun mostly everywhere I go and now we are looking at open carry in more and more states.

The people of California must not care about self defense or they would get rid of the gun grabbing liberals that make up state government.

Am I mis-remembering this or what?

Years ago we got a good laugh out of a court ruling that felons (in states where gun registration is in-place) need not register their guns because, since they are prohibited from owning guns, registering them would be a violation of their Fifth-Amendment Right against self-incrimination.

How is this different?

I am thinking that California needs to adopt some other laws. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/i ... sheet.html), a drunk driver kills someone every 51 minutes. Therefore,
(1) in California, only people with a "owners license" should be allowed to own a motor vehicle. Owner's License requires a background check and a 15 day waiting period before you can take a motor vehicle home from a dealer.
(2) In addition, anyone convicted of drunk driving should permanently lose their right to own a motor vehicle and permanent revocation of their driver's license.

Not only will these two laws make the roads safer, but it will improve California's congestion problem. However, because California is a "sanctuary state", these laws do not apply to illegal immigrants. We don't want the Democrats to lose their voter base.

OneGun wrote:I am thinking that California needs to adopt some other laws. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/i ... sheet.html), a drunk driver kills someone every 51 minutes. Therefore,
(1) in California, only people with a "owners license" should be allowed to own a motor vehicle. Owner's License requires a background check and a 15 day waiting period before you can take a motor vehicle home from a dealer.
(2) In addition, anyone convicted of drunk driving should permanently lose their right to own a motor vehicle and permanent revocation of their driver's license.

Not only will these two laws make the roads safer, but it will improve California's congestion problem. However, because California is a "sanctuary state", these laws do not apply to illegal immigrants. We don't want the Democrats to lose their voter base.

Incredibly, when penalties for drunk driving are made too onerous, jail sentences, loss of driving licenses, etc., juries will not convict as readily, and when that is noted, fewer plead guilty, preferring to roll the dice on a jury. So, courtrooms get clogged and convictions go down.

DMVs around the country claim that driving is a privilege, but they are the only ones. Everyone else believes that driving is a right, and if you mess with it, you lose elections.

I have it on authority from good friends of mine who are deeply embedded in the California gun-rights movement that this isn't about gun-control as much as it is about Gavin Newsom. Even Newsom's friends (both political and personal) think this is a stupid idea because it is going to go down in flames when it gets litigated.............and it WILL get litigated. Lt Governors in California are about as relevant as Vice Presidents are nationally, and Newsom has his eyes on the Governor's seat. By starting this push at this time, he gets his name out in the news, "reminding" people that he is a man of action, a compassionate man, but a man of rock-ribbed integrity, deeply concerned about the safety of his [strike]subjects[/strike], uh, fellow citizens..........and all that crap.