User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 7:48:07 PM EDT
[#1]
and this means?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 7:54:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Can you briefly explain what AB2431 and SB1142 are?
From what I can find, It looks like the firearm storage bill and the ammo registration bill has been vetoed by the governor, thank god. From office of the governor website: Bills vetoed: SB 1140 by Senator Jack Scott (D-Altadena) - Firearms: minors. Click here for veto message. SB 1152 by Senator Jack Scott (D-Altadena) - Ammunition. Click here for veto message. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 8:11:19 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 8:14:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Thank goodness. I would have been pissed if SB1142 was not vetoed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 8:22:22 PM EDT
[#5]
anyone have a plain english translation? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 8:46:17 PM EDT
[#6]
I gave it a half hour of my time and still don't know if I've got it right. It sounds like CA residents will now be required to undergo an additional background check, and pay an additional administration fee, before an LEA/court will release their stolen guns back into their possession. But there are so many exceptions, qualifications and contingencies listed that the whole thing turns to mush before the eyes after the first couple pages. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 8:56:17 PM EDT
[#7]
This bill would add requirements to the procedure for persons to obtain or dispose of their firearms that are in the custody of a law enforcement agency or court.
The bill would require the person to make application to the Department of Justice for a determination that the person is eligible to possess a firearm. The bill would provide that knowingly omitting required information or furnishing fictitious information in connection with the application would be a misdemeanor. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to determine if a firearm to be returned is stolen. The bill would prohibit release of a firearm to an applicant by a law enforcement agency or court entity unless certain criteria are met. The bill would require certain information regarding the applicant and certain firearms be maintained by the Department of Justice in the Automated Firearms System, as specified. The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to charge a fee of $20 for firearms eligibility processing, and a fee of $3 for each additional handgun that is processed, as specified. It would authorize a local government to adopt a regulation, ordinance, or resolution setting fees to cover the costs of the seizure, storage, and return of a firearm to a licensed dealer or owner, as specified. -------------------- That would be spelled gun owners registration database ... welcome to Illinois comrade. A couple of years ago a friend of my wife's called and asked me to come to her house and take two guns out of the house for safe keeping - her husband had threaten to kill himself and the family. I dashed off and got there to find that she hadn't called the cops. I told her to dial 911 and I put the two revolvers into a gun box that I locked. After everything was sorted out the officers wanted to know why I had a gun locker with me. I explained. They wanted to take the weapons. I insisted that there was no need for that. They insisted to see them. They saw that the revolvers weren't assualt weapons and were happy to just run the numbers to see if they were stolen. About a year later following doctors treatments I returned the guns. This new law would put requirements on the cops upon coming upon such weapons. (I think) Does anyone feel safer now that this law has been signed? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 9:26:09 PM EDT
[#8]
I am surprised that Arnold vetoed SB1152, but I am very happy. I'll be damned if im gonna give a thumbprint every time I buy ammo.
www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes/SB_1152_veto.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2004 9:38:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Um...this may come as a shock to some, but a centralized database of California gun owners is nothing new. To wit: 1. Several of the most recently passed CA firearm laws (including AB50) make reference to the "Consolidated Firearms Information System." Although this system wasn't put into computer database form until late 1997/early 1998 (see www.cio.com/archive/080199_et.html), similarly-named California-specific gun owner databases (obviously only available in "hard" form, or primitive computer database form, at that time) are referenced in other California gun laws dating back to the mid 1980's. 2. The State of California is happy to supply any California resident with a complete list of all the firearms listed in their name (see caag.state.ca.us/firearms/pubfaqs.htm#26). Obviously they wouldn't be able to do this w/o maintaining said database. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
