Add a Comment
- I am also wondering why the report fails to mention that misdemeanors are also seen as justification for gun confiscation. It also fails to mention if a judge determines "mental instability." Pamela Harris is not a judge, jury and should not be an executioner.
- Reply to this comment
- Has anyone asked why local law enforcement refused to implement this program or how many people have been killed by APPS? http://blog.doodooecon.com/2013/01/gun-control-california-doj-confiscating.html
- Reply to this comment
- 33 agents to confinscate illegal guns from criminals and the mentally disturbed? Disgusting! Cutting the budget for people to spend so much time on gun-control would be better served hiring more to fight illegal gun owners than going after legal gun owners.
- Reply to this comment
- Let's show a little thought process here. These people could have obtained the guns LEGALLY, smoked some crack and are now considered felons (and they still own the original guns) No one will ever get the guns out of their hands EVER!!! Most of the people they are talking about would probably never take their guns out and use them against another human being....that being said, I will have mine locked and loaded in case they do. And Sandy Hook was the biggest hoax I will probably see in my lifetime. No tears, no police, no students...no nothing! FEMA put on a good show down the road though.
- Reply to this comment
- It's been illegal for felons to own guns, but everywhere they are armed. That's why more laws concerning guns won't work. New laws won't affect the criminals one iota but will only affect law abiding people.
- Reply to this comment
- Since the police know who shouldn't have guns, then they also know who can have them. So, what they could do is ask legal gun owners to volunteer their time for training and becoming deputized to help in retrieving guns from those that should not have them.
- Reply to this comment
- We have our President and Congress to thank for any State not having enough funds to fully staff their police and fire department.
In Baltimore City; at least one to three fire companies are shut down every time a new budget comes up.
The number of police officers in the city has been reduced.
Now; Governor O'Malley ( a man in Obama's hip pocket) is proposing new more strict regulations for the honest law abiding citizen who wants to purchase a gun.
One of these is requiring a fingerprint.
Another is to require anyone who purchases a gun to have a license.
Translation: now Big Brother has the name of every individual who buys a gun from now on.
This license would have to be renewed every five years.
Everybody knows that when you get a license; you have to pay a fee (actually just another tax)to obtain it.
Just another way to sock it to law-abiding citizens to get even more money from them.!!
To top it all off; our do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for Congress wants to cut funds to the States even more and raise taxes to pay for their mistakes and inaction of the past four years.
KINDA MAKES YOU WONDER WHOSE SIDE THESE CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS AND THE PRESIDENT ARE ON.!! - Reply to this comment
- Read the numbers in this article. How are we expected to feel secure and be willing to turn our safety over to legislators and bureaucrats that are willing to publicize an effort like this?
- Reply to this comment
- At least the California DOJ is being "up-front" about the fact that, even under current law, they a) have NOT been able to enforce the existing laws, and b) they have an almost insurmountable task ahead of them in trying to do so.
Unfortunately, now that attention has been called to the matter, I expect quite a few of those who are in posession of a firearm in violation of a court order will simply declare their guns "lost in a boating incident" or some similar line of BS. - Reply to this comment
- Now we can spend even more to have forensics analyze every gun and try to catch up on those cold cases.
- Reply to this comment
