A law Ahnohld signed that's actually good...


September 21, 2004, 08:26 PM
Doc Jones' thread about calling the Governator and thanking him for vetoing the stinker gun laws lately inspired me to inform the Korny Kaliforny gun-owners stuck here with me about a law that Arnie signed, that's actually beneficial.

Heard about on KPFA, of all places. Overheard it actually, as the show I usually listen too was over, and KPFA had reverted to their usual NPR-inspired whining-lliberal-flavored progressive Socialista programming. I just hadn't made it across the garage to shut it off, and a newsbrief came on.

Forgive me, OK? I listen to a couple of shows a week, I don't let 'em think for me, and I don't give 'em any money. Sometimes I yell at the radio in disgusted disagreement. :D

Anyhow, I don't know the bill number offhand, but I bet Jim March does. Heck, I bet Jim's at least partly responsible for this law's existence. What it does is REQUIRE LE agencies to return firearms siezed or recovered to their owners if they pass a background check. Granted, there's a provision for that in the Penal code, but I guess it lacked teeth, as LE agencies all over the state have been ignoring it with complete impunity. If they got your gun for whatever reason, but they didn't like your face or something, or maybe you had a misdemeanor or speeding ticket, they'd keep it. Seizure of property without due proccess notwithstanding, guns need to be "kept off the streets", I guess. Even guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Yeah, right. :barf: As they so often repeat when questioned on pushing 4th. Ammendment boundaries, LE agecies DO NOT set policy, they just implement the directives delivered by our un-accountable politicians, regardless of their Constitutional legality.

No longer. 'Nuther thing we can thank Arnie for.

Just mention at the end of the letter/call that you're also thanking him for making all the otherwise law-abiding owners of .50's who aren't willing to sign up for down-the-road confiscation (Like the owners of 90% of the register-able AW owners.) into criminals. If it's involving guns, I don't think the press is going to be willing to qualify non-compliance as "civil disobedience". More likey it's going to be "violent criminal resistance," as only violent criminals would break the law over guns that cause violence, of course. :barf:

[Speculative rant]
Manufacturing criminals out of lawful people, who are inevitably lousy criminals unskilled at law-breaking, and therefore easily caught, is a REALLY EFFECTIVE WAY to reduce crime. Clogging up the jails which such folks is really a cost-saver too, as is adding to the burden of LE duties. The prison-guard unions oughta LOVE that.

LE might like it, though, as they can get to show better results numbers on arrest summaries, making it easier for them to secure budgetary allocations and increase their employment rolls. More cops makes for a better police state, after all.

Doesn't make for more effective policing of violent criminals, though. Just distracts from it. But results numbers at the bottom line, and listening to what policies the ever-more-influential prison-guard's and public-emloyee's Unions are lobbying about, are of course much more important than civil liberty.
[/Specualtive rant]

If you enjoyed reading about "A law Ahnohld signed that's actually good..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
September 21, 2004, 11:37 PM

Yes, there's an interesting history behind this bill.

First, back in 2003 one of our favorite lawyers (Peter Mancus) fought a case in which the city of Pittsburg didn't want to give a gun back that was wrongfully taken. Short form, it was a wildly improper 5150 (mental health detainment) case. Peter and the client fought a bitter battle to get a 1911 back, successfully in the end.

At about that time, the California DOJ put out a memo laying out proper and professional gun return procedures when the gun was in police or court custody. These "recommended procedures" included at least a quick background check of the guy the gun is going back to, just in case some new crime had been committed since the gun's original purchase.

Somewhere near half the local agencies *revolted* against the DOJ, and said they'd deal with guns however they wanted.

The California DOJ drafted 2431 to basically codify their original recommended procedures and took it to a Democrat who's "mostly sane" regarding guns, Darrel Steinberg.

That's what they did right. Although termed out this November, I grew to respect Steinberg throughout this bill's progress.

What DOJ did WRONG however was push for the bill in the first place. The California DOJ is the enforcement arm of the California Attorney General. The AG in turn is constitutionally the state's "top cop" (Calif Const) and can oversee the state's cops.

In other words, the state AG and DOJ wanted the legislature to "be the heavies" and "lay down the law" for local police, when they themselves had the authority and duty to do so.

It is VERY instructive that Cal-DOJ didn't want to become a "statewide internal affairs division", probably because that would put a damper on their cooperation with local law enforcement. And that in turn means nobody is guarding the guardians.

So when AB2431 hit the Senate Public Safety Committee, I pointed this out.

I started by thanking Darrel Steinberg for bringing the bill, and that my reservations about the bill weren't because of him. I objected to the Cal-DOJ's reluctance to crack down on police misconduct on a variety of issues; I pointed out headlines from just the week before describing the Sacramento Sheriff's Office paying out $15mil for abuses in jail strip search policies that were *obviously* illegal per current case law; I pointed out CCW misconduct as the worst.

I then said that we were willing to support 2431 as a "patch" on just one area of illegality but we (CCRKBA) needed to go on record as saying that the problem to be fixed by 2431 were just one aspect of a much bigger problem, one we hoped to address next year. We were willing to support 2431 at that time *despite* it's requirement for a $20 background check fee even to get your own stolen gun back :fire: - the abuses the police agencies were perpetrating were so bad that we were ready to tolerate that though we didn't like it.

That $20 fee in stolen return cases was mostly deleted later - now, it's only present if you didn't report the gun stolen within a week of knowing it was gone. (No criminal charge applies and you still get the gun back - you just don't get a waiver of the $20 if you didn't report theft.)

So at present the bill is pretty damn good - a good deal better than the present situation.

But we got more than just the bill out - we got a statement made to some potent legislators that there's trouble in law enforcement that Cal-DOJ ain't cracking down on. Steinberg and his staff were completely OK with my using this bill to make these comments, one reason I say I respect the guy.

The other pros agreed to accept the bill and made no other statement regarding it.

I'm not responsible for it's passage but I supported it with caveats and cited the case Peter Mancus fought as a good reason for doing the case.

September 22, 2004, 12:17 AM
...The prison-guard unions oughta LOVE that.

LE might like it, though, as they can get to show better results numbers on arrest summaries, making it easier for them to secure budgetary allocations and increase their employment rolls. More cops makes for a better police state, after all.

...and listening to what policies the ever-more-influential prison-guard's and public-emloyee's Unions are lobbying about, are of course much more important than civil liberty.

I find it interesting how the SHEEPLE on this forum are so quick to discount what the media has to say about our right to keep and bear arms, but those same SHEEPLE believe EVERYTHING that the media has to say about "powerfull prison-guard unions" and LE quotas. You need to educate yourself on LE issues before you spew this filth all over my computer screen. You disgust me.

This is the MOST ANTI LEO forum that I have ever visited aside from the numerous Inmate's Rights forums. I have been staunch supporter of the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. Maybe I should just be content with the fact that give that I am an LEO, MY FAMILY IS SAFE! I can own any weapon I want rergardless of AWBs and carry them anywhere in the US that I want thanks to HR 218. Maybe the antis are correct in that you SHEEPLE are too irresposible to carry weapons....

While I understand that the anti LEO sentiment is not ingrained in all posters on this forum, it has continued in post after post without being checked by forum members or moderators.

Hand_Rifle_Guy - If you want to get any kind of idea about what is REALLY going on behinds the wall of California's prisons I suggest you go to this site ccpoa.blogspot.com/ (http://ccpoa.blogspot.com/) . While at times sophmoric, at least it IS THE TRUTH.


Jim March
September 22, 2004, 12:26 AM
KD: I don't follow prison issues much and I won't comment on that.

Us California gunnies have a LOT of reasons to distrust law enforcement at all levels in THIS state, from the lowest to the highest guy.

September 22, 2004, 07:08 PM
Whoa, there!

Knuckle_Dragger, calm down. Please.

1. I'll go out to the blog you linked, and read. I'm always open to being educated.

2. The [speculative rant] was meant to be a qualifier that the following remark was not set in stone, or presented as a wide ranging sentiment, or even something I personally have a great deal of conviction in. It was meant as a sarcastic diatribe, not as any sort convincing argument.

3. This was not intended to be any sort of anti-LE statement, it was a comment aimed at top-heavy union political chicanery, heavy-handed beauracracy, governmental fiscal irresponsibility, and the self-defeating political miasma that is the War on Some Drugs that makes Incarceration of citizenry a growth industry in this state.

Am I making myself clear? This has little or nothing to do with the rank-and-file guys who are doing their jobs, and everything to do with bad policy on the part of the state Gubmint, and the contemptous attitudes of politically motivated LE-chiefs towards Constitutional rights.

And don't get me started about unions, I'm IN one, and I can barely stand it. EX-governor Gray Davis apparently never met a union he didn't love like family, and his primary virtue was how effectively he worked to have well-sugared contracts negotiated that would have GUARANTEED the State would go BANKRUPT had they not been repudiated.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to prison-guards having a good contract, but this state cannot afford to agree to one if the STATE insists on maintaining the largest prison population in the country, and actively working to increase that population by manufacturing reasons to arrest more people. LE institutions do not pass laws, the Gubmint does. Additionally, Gubmint at various levels is what hands down policy in the form of what laws are emphasized for enforcement. That was the point my sarcasm was aimed at.

Additionally, the Gubmint is the single largest employer in the state. That gives the public employee's unions exorbitant power to hold the Gubmint hostage, thus easily directing budgetary discretion, another factor contributing to the State's insolvency.

This is the fifth largest economy in the WORLD. With a tax rate that pretty far up on the list of highest tax rates in the nation. Yet the unionized beauracracy and prison system racked this state into a 38 billion dollar shortfall, because they can bully around our Legislature with the help of a well-greased governor and starry-eyed idiocy promulgated by a falsely inflated tech-economy. I would think people smart enough to get elected would have been smart enough to realize the tech-industry bnubble was just that: a bubble, and that at some point the unduly-inflated market would have to make a major correction. Apparently they were blinded by optimistic visions of Utopia inspired by the massive revenue influx they just decided would never end. It would appear that power granted by a lack of controlling legal restraints (demonstrated in the form of casual ghost voting.) corrupts judgement. Surprise, surprise.

It is a fact that prisons are jammed overfull. That the so-called justice system is sytemically flawed in it's implementation. We lock up way too many paople for trivial, victimless crimes that stretch the definition of 'crime' to the point of ridiculous. Yet the Gubmint has demonstrated it's unwillingness to cross the directives of what represents a HUGE voting bloc that the Gubmint pays tyhe salaries of. There's too much money and "job security" tied up in the whole package, making it serve it's own interests at the expense of society's, and the individual's.

Not a good condition. No sir. And right on the face of it, no end in sight. Please excuse my State-sponsored cynicism, as it's not directed at how anybody does their job except the Legislature. They need to be unceremoniously FIRED, as they have amply demonstrated their utter incompetence.

While we're at it, I'd like to make it illegal to vote if you work for the Gubmint. It's been equally demonstrated that granting these votes to Gubmint employees is a complete conflict of interest. That point is responsible for at least half of my disengenuous attitude. Gouging the State gouges ME, personally, in the form of spiraling-out-of-control taxation. Davis was implementing exactly that, with the tripling of vehicle registration fees as the most obvious example, and got Kaliforny citizens to use the recall procedure for the first time since 1911. But I guess the Legislature wasn't listening. :rolleyes::fire:

So I repeat: Sarcasm.

Don't take it personally.

Not bashing the guys on the line. Don't have a problem with how you do your jobs, really.

You're not the ones who're CORRUPT. :cuss:

As an aside, I have a REALLY good personal reason to take issue with the way law enforcement does it's job. Definitekly makes me a bit 'edgy', in certain circumstaces, and steals a bit of my patience/tolerance for abusive Gubmintal institution behavior right from the get-go.

However, you WILL NOT find me getting on a soapbox and bashing on LEO's. Check my posts, they're all archived here. I even have good things to say, now. Personal evolution's good that way.

I gotta go read that link. I don't imagine i'm gonna be over-pleased at what I find, and that'll make me even MORE pleased with our idiotic "representatives".

September 22, 2004, 07:27 PM
I think I just found the first candidate for my "Ignore List"

New users are so cute when they're mad, aren't they?

Knuckle_Dragger, you should watch the thread progress and really READ the posts before taking the_low_road like you did.

September 22, 2004, 08:29 PM
Wow, Jim March is right, you guys do have a LOT to distrust with law enforcement out there!

If you enjoyed reading about "A law Ahnohld signed that's actually good..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!