Discussion:
Repeat - Confiscating guns is expensive & slow
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2017-08-05 21:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 4:50 AM
Subject: California Door-to-Door Gun Confiscation FAIL
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/17/confiscating-guns-more-costly-and-diffic
Back in 2013, as I reported then, California launched a program to
literally go door to door and confiscate guns owned by people whose
legal right to own them had been superseded by some later action or
declaration, such as criminal convictions, restraining orders, or
being adjudicated mentally ill.
Turns out that kind of pretty arbitrary, in the overwhelming majority
of times utterly unhelpful for public safety, action can cost big
bucks.
In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out,
leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though
the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The
state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next
year.
Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol'
knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And
gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of
firearm ownership registration?
Attorney General of California Kamala Harris crowed about the law and
the practice in a press release last month, in which she made some
During the past 30 months, the Bureau of Firearms has conducted over
18,608 APPS [Armed Prohibited Persons System] cases, and has taken 335
assault weapons, 4,549 handguns, 4,848 long-guns, and 43,246 rounds of
ammunition off the streets from those who illegally possessed them....
"Removing firearms from dangerous and violent individuals makes our
communities safer," said Attorney General Harris.....
"Removing weapons from those on the Armed and Prohibited Persons list
targets law breakers and makes our community a safer place," said
Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown.
The two above statements are very largely unproven, and it would be
interesting for them to discuss how many of the people they took the
weapons from had ever harmed or threatened anyone with them.
Unsurprisingly, regarding the funding issues discussed above, Attorney
sponsored SB 819 (Leno) to allow the Department of Justice to use
existing regulatory fees collected by gun dealers ("DROS fees") for
purposes of regulatory and enforcement activities related to firearms,
including management of APPS. This went into effect January 2012. In
2013, Attorney General Harris sponsored SB 140 (Leno) to appropriate
$24 million in funding from the DROS Account to help support the APPS
program; this urgency legislation went into effect immediately in May
2013. In 2015, Attorney General Harris submitted a letter urging the
legislature to make funding to the APPS program permanent.
another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html
Interesting situation,
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
---nine California (STOCA1) Justice Department agents assembled
---About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms
---20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms
--- (current) number of agents is 33
--- They seized about 2,000 weapons last year
So, let's figure, that sounds like over 10 year backlog, just to
get the known guns from criminals & unfit,
And some want to go after the law abiding & sane??!!
(key words- felon & sieze)
a425couple
2017-08-05 22:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 4:50 AM
Subject: California Door-to-Door Gun Confiscation FAIL
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/17/confiscating-guns-more-costly-and-diffic
Back in 2013, as I reported then, California launched a program to
literally go door to door and confiscate guns owned by people whose
legal right to own them had been superseded by some later action or
declaration, such as criminal convictions, restraining orders, or
being adjudicated mentally ill.
Turns out that kind of pretty arbitrary, in the overwhelming majority
of times utterly unhelpful for public safety, action can cost big
bucks.
In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out,
leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though
the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The
state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next
year.
Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol'
knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And
gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of
firearm ownership registration?
Attorney General of California Kamala Harris crowed about the law and
the practice in a press release last month, in which she made some
During the past 30 months, the Bureau of Firearms has conducted over
18,608 APPS [Armed Prohibited Persons System] cases, and has taken 335
assault weapons, 4,549 handguns, 4,848 long-guns, and 43,246 rounds of
ammunition off the streets from those who illegally possessed them....
"Removing firearms from dangerous and violent individuals makes our
communities safer," said Attorney General Harris.....
"Removing weapons from those on the Armed and Prohibited Persons list
targets law breakers and makes our community a safer place," said
Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown.
The two above statements are very largely unproven, and it would be
interesting for them to discuss how many of the people they took the
weapons from had ever harmed or threatened anyone with them.
Unsurprisingly, regarding the funding issues discussed above, Attorney
sponsored SB 819 (Leno) to allow the Department of Justice to use
existing regulatory fees collected by gun dealers ("DROS fees") for
purposes of regulatory and enforcement activities related to firearms,
including management of APPS. This went into effect January 2012. In
2013, Attorney General Harris sponsored SB 140 (Leno) to appropriate
$24 million in funding from the DROS Account to help support the APPS
program; this urgency legislation went into effect immediately in May
2013. In 2015, Attorney General Harris submitted a letter urging the
legislature to make funding to the APPS program permanent.
another
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html
Interesting situation,
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
---nine California (STOCA1) Justice Department agents assembled
---About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms
---20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing
firearms
--- (current) number of agents is 33
--- They seized about 2,000 weapons last year
So, let's figure, that sounds like over 10 year backlog, just to
get the known guns from criminals & unfit,
And some want to go after the law abiding & sane??!!
(key words- felon & sieze)
Say the US Federal Government passes a law that requires secure
storage for all firearms, and brings in a system of inspection for
that.
Most states would tell them they're exceeding their authority.
The last time the various states tried that it all ended in tears,
Sherman's March to the Sea, Gettysburg and etc...
You don't want to go through all that again
Bill, quite clearly the Federal Government itself did not wish the
result of the Civil War was to do away with the existance or function of
the states. Their are plenty of valid areas of dispute between the fed.
and the states. And the Federal Govt. often enough loses.
I have to be brief & on my way for the weekend, and this is far from a
'finished product', but I hope I'm better "sending" it rather than
Post by a425couple
Say the US Federal Government passes a law that requires secure
storage for all firearms, and brings in a system of inspection for that.

1. I do not think politically that it would have much chance. 1. Ex. #1
My state is quite clearly majority Democrat with long time D control
of the governorship & both houses. The most liberal, big city D's were
sure they were going to get a major gun control bill through and
introduced it. Some time passed, then it got read, and turns out it had
a provision very much like the above (home inspections for safety), even
the normally liberal columnists screamed!! Simple fact, invading
personal privacy is a hot button issue that really is not that partisan.
The moderate & more conservative elected Democrats walked away so quick,
they would not even bring up the bill for vote or amendment. The authors
claimed that it was a mistaken 'draft' that their low paid staffers
submitted by mistake. Opps!
1.Ex.2 Montana's Democrat Senator Max Baucus has served long and played
some pretty influential roles for the Ds. He's easily won his
elections. He is retiring. The Democrats really want to keep his seat
D. They are searching for a mostly pro-gun rights D, to be electable
and to replace him.
2. I do not think a law like that would pass a review and a decision by
the SCOTUS. Unlike what Piers Morgan thinks, the US Constitution is more
than a "scrap of paper"!

3. I do not think a law like that would pass a review and a decision by
many of the states courts. Yes, I know, you think the Federal Government
is supreme, but not always. Example The Federal Government has for a
long time had marrajuanna as illegal. Well, my state and another
decided to make it legal. The Feds, certainly so far, seem to be
realizing it is not likely to win (or not worth the fight).
4. Even if it passed that, I do not think that the Feds. could come up
with the inspectors, and that a fair number of states & many counties
would not assist. Also please recall the Posse Comitatus Act.

5. Even, if it did start being enforced, I think enough tragedies would
soon develop --- Yeah, a fair amount of the super hard core pro-gun talk
("pry it from my cold dead fingers") is just talk, or would gradually be
overcome by practicality, but a substantial enough core is real. Good
LEOs and productive citizens will die. The moderates are going to do
some rethinking. (Sure, the hard core anti-gun individuals are going to
be gleefully watching and saying, "See, we told you they were whacko &
dangerous" - but moderates--) Like Prohibition, reality will not work
well. And contrary to your previously posted opinion, Ruby Ridge was
much more than a quick roll over. And had serious lasting costs.

6. Also, face it, law enforcement is expensive. And all related
downstream like prosecution & confinement is also expensive. And
pulling LEOs off current work also quickly brings serious issues. The
Feds already have budget issues, and many states and counties are in
even worse shape. * Prisons are already being shut down for budget
issues, murderers and rapists released early, teachers laid off, road
building & repair postponed, and more?
* I'm reminded of one LE department's fair size platoon (33 LEOs) with a
really dreary task, they are assigned to get the known weapons that
evidence shows felons and unstable individuals already have. They
succeeded in seizing 2,000 firearms last year. As hard as they work at
it, they can not make progress, because more keep getting added. If we
can not get the guns from felons, why even try from the law abiding?
7. As I've said before, I am pretty confident that none of the likely
proposals will effect me personally, but I fear for the consequences for
many.
a425couple
2017-08-06 18:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 4:50 AM
Subject: California Door-to-Door Gun Confiscation FAIL
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/17/confiscating-guns-more-costly-and-diffic
Back in 2013, as I reported then, California launched a program to
literally go door to door and confiscate guns owned by people whose
legal right to own them had been superseded by some later action or
declaration, such as criminal convictions, restraining orders, or
being adjudicated mentally ill.
Turns out that kind of pretty arbitrary, in the overwhelming majority
of times utterly unhelpful for public safety, action can cost big
bucks.
In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out,
leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though
the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The
state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next
year.
Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol'
knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And
gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of
firearm ownership registration?
Attorney General of California Kamala Harris crowed about the law and
the practice in a press release last month, in which she made some
During the past 30 months, the Bureau of Firearms has conducted over
18,608 APPS [Armed Prohibited Persons System] cases, and has taken 335
assault weapons, 4,549 handguns, 4,848 long-guns, and 43,246 rounds of
ammunition off the streets from those who illegally possessed them....
"Removing firearms from dangerous and violent individuals makes our
communities safer," said Attorney General Harris.....
"Removing weapons from those on the Armed and Prohibited Persons list
targets law breakers and makes our community a safer place," said
Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown.
The two above statements are very largely unproven, and it would be
interesting for them to discuss how many of the people they took the
weapons from had ever harmed or threatened anyone with them.
Unsurprisingly, regarding the funding issues discussed above, Attorney
sponsored SB 819 (Leno) to allow the Department of Justice to use
existing regulatory fees collected by gun dealers ("DROS fees") for
purposes of regulatory and enforcement activities related to firearms,
including management of APPS. This went into effect January 2012. In
2013, Attorney General Harris sponsored SB 140 (Leno) to appropriate
$24 million in funding from the DROS Account to help support the APPS
program; this urgency legislation went into effect immediately in May
2013. In 2015, Attorney General Harris submitted a letter urging the
legislature to make funding to the APPS program permanent.
another
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html
Interesting situation,
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
---nine California (STOCA1) Justice Department agents assembled
---About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms
---20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing
firearms
--- (current) number of agents is 33
--- They seized about 2,000 weapons last year
So, let's figure, that sounds like over 10 year backlog, just to
get the known guns from criminals & unfit,
And some want to go after the law abiding & sane??!!
(key words- felon & sieze)
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/local/la-me-gun-recovery-20130219

California program to seize illegal guns gaining notice
California has the nation's only program to confiscate firearms from
people who bought them legally but are now barred from having them.
February 18, 2013|By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times

(I think it was the bloomberg story ((now behind paywall))
that detailed the size of the unit, 30 LEOs or so, and
it's cost, and the few number of guns they siezed.
Their backlog was not going down at all, despite
all their dangerous work!!)

By law, Alexander Hernandez should have surrendered his gun to the state
of California three years ago after a judge issued a restraining order
against him for alleged domestic violence.

He didn't.

So one night recently , when the 26-year-old was at home in Whittier
with his toddler, eight armed agents from the California Department of
Justice banged on his door and took it from him.

Agents found the loaded .45-caliber handgun in a safe by his bed.
Hernandez, who told the agents he had forgotten that he was supposed to
turn in the weapon, was arrested on suspicion of illegally possessing a
handgun, records show.

After assuring that the child had a baby-sitter, the agents drove off
into the night in search of more illegal guns. Their quest took them
across the San Gabriel Valley, from a retirement home to a gated
community to a small house with rosebushes in front. In the living room
of that house, a mother wept as agents arrested her son. A conviction
for misdemeanor battery made it illegal for him to continue possessing
his four guns.

California has the nation's only program to confiscate guns from people
who bought them legally but later became disqualified. During
twice-weekly sweeps over the last five years, agents have collected more
than 10,000 guns.

But there are still more than 19,700 people on the state's Armed
Prohibited Persons database. Collectively, they own about 39,000 guns.
About 3,000 people are added to the list each year.

Clearing the backlog would cost $40 million to $50 million, according to
Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. She estimated that once the backlog is
cleared, fielding teams large enough to keep up with people added to the
list would cost about $14 million a year.

"This is about prevention," Harris said. "This is about taking guns out
of the hands of people who are prohibited from owning them, and are
known to be potentially some of the most dangerous people walking
around.... It's just common sense."

As gun control has moved to the forefront of national debate,
California's program is being studied as a potential model.

The list of prohibited owners is compiled by analysts who track gun
sales back to 1996 and match them against databases listing criminal
convictions, restraining orders and mental health detentions.

Sometimes the guns are used in killings before the state can retrieve
them, according to state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who last
month introduced legislation that would provide funding for more agents
to conduct sweeps.

For example, Roy Perez had been on the list for three years before he
shot and killed his mother, his neighbor and his neighbor's 4-year-old
in Baldwin Park in 2008, officials said.

Until recently, the gun apprehension teams had received little attention
in the five years they have been sweeping through neighborhoods. But
they suddenly have become a topic of intense interest — so much so that
when agents rolled through Southern California earlier this month ,
their big, unmarked trucks were joined by two agents in a rented minivan
large enough to carry journalists and camera crews.

The job requires a mixture of force and finesse. The agents show up in
heavily armed teams, wearing black jumpsuits bulked up by bulletproof
vests. But they don't have warrants and, unless their subject is on
probation, they need permission to enter homes to search for guns.
Obtaining a search warrant typically requires a reasonable suspicion
that the gun would be on the premises, a difficult standard to meet
based solely on information from a database, officials said.

Instead, they must talk their way in and coax gun owners into turning
over their weapons.

Often, they come away empty-handed.

As the sun was setting, they arrived at the home of a man who had a
domestic violence restraining order and was living in a Whittier
neighborhood of small ranch homes and backyard stables. As agents walked
to the door, neighbors came by on horseback, staring.

The man told the agents he didn't have the gun anymore; it was at his
brother's house.

The agents went on their way — in the absence of the gun, they had no
proof of a crime, and thus no cause for arrest.

"They'll keep going until they find that gun," Special Agent Supervisor
John Marsh said. "You exhaust every lead."

On one occasion, he said, the team tracked a gun owned by mentally ill
person to a remote cabin in the mountains in Northern California, where
it had been sealed into a wall.

Sometimes the addresses they have are wrong, as was the case that same
night when armed teams strode into a retirement community in Whittier,
startling residents.

Other times, they don't find the gun they are seeking, but come across
others that are possessed illegally. In Oakland last fall, Marsh said,
his team entered a house and found a stash of assault weapons with the
serial numbers ground off.

Marsh said he once felt a little twinge when taking a gun. The man had
been disqualified from ownership because of mental illness. Agents found
him living in compound without electricity in a rural area near Crescent
City. He was using his guns to shoot game to feed himself.

A more common scenario played out at the Whittier home of Gerardo
Naranjo, the young man who had been convicted of misdemeanor battery.

As Naranjo's mother wept, agents recovered the two guns they knew about
and two more, including a semiautomatic rifle.

"I know I've saved lives," Marsh said as he cracked open an energy drink
and drove the minivan to the next location. "We're taking guns from
people that shouldn't have guns."

***@latimes.com

Loading...