Just in from Calguns Foundaton

Summary? What is this a link to? What's the story, what's the proof, what are your insights on the matter?

Sam, you gotta actually open the link to know what's in it! (Sound fimiliar?) But I would like to see citations of more than one person.

I don't click random links on the internet without knowing something about the content or some other indication this isn't a random troll. No offense to to OP, but a summary and some comment is standard practice on THR.

Oddly... Calguns allows drive bys'

The Op's link is in regards to CA cross referencing the list of prohibited persons and going to their homes to seize any guns they may have and potential 'civil rights violations" stemming from mistakes/errors on the part of the Govt.


Here is one such example. (I've only snipped 5 little pieces from an article that is fairly long as to try not to violate copy write laws)


http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/...-He-said-we-made-a-big-mistake-243610201.html

Eighteen weapons were seized but then returned a couple weeks later. Eyewitness News discovered it was the work of a special state task force.

Click to expand...

The gun owner said the officers showed him a print-out of the charge. It lists the offense under a code of 11910, from a Los Angeles community. Merritt said he remembers the incident from more than 40 years ago, and he doesn't think the charge is on the books now.

Click to expand...

Eyewitness News checked the penal code, and 11910 doesn't show up.

Click to expand...

(Note: Its an old penal code in CA. The gun owner has a misdemeanor pot conviction from the 70's. The Penal code does not exist today as CA now would just write a ticket instead. IOW, its a ticket-able offense now and it was only a misdemeanor conviction back then.)

The Bureau of Firearms spokesman who responded to Eyewitness News said the agents in Merritt's case were working from court records that had not been updated. He said sometimes court records are not inputted correctly.

Click to expand...

(Note: The gun owner had bought guns during the last 40 yrs.)

As for how Merritt was able to buy and register a gun, but then turn up on the APPS list as a felon, the agent who responded to Eyewitness News said the database used for the background check was updated on the status of his 1970 case, but the one cross-checked by the APPS unit wasn't.

Click to expand...

Sam, you gotta actually open the link to know what's in it!

Click to expand...

Which is why we ask folks to provide the info I requested.

NO drive-by links, please.

Oddly... Calguns allows drive bys'

Click to expand...

Part of the culture over there; I am trying to change it, but it's slow going.

The Armed Prohibited Persons program in California is indeed beginning to look more like harassment than a useful law enforcement exercise.

To recap, as is well known, 'prohibited persons' are forbidden from owning or possessing firearms (and for CA prohibited persons, 'firearms' includes ammunition, parts of ammunition, and magazines). Folks who become prohibited persons are supposed to get a written notice from the court of their new disability, and that disability is supposed to be entered in one of the CA databases. CADOJ has a description in this .pdf.

While it's certainly true, by law, that prohibited persons should not have firearms, it seems that expending LE resources on this program is the wrong priority for public safety purposes.

I am trying to change it, but it's slow going.

Click to expand...

Librarian is the man over there. Head mod honcho. I'll take his word, whatever he says.

Dog, I wish cal would get its mind right re guns. I'd love to move back there. But I don't know as I want to give up my evil rifles and handguns. Heck, my son is coming for a visit next week and the first place we're going is to a machine gun rental store. He'll have a blast. (Pun intended.)

Thanks librarian for all you do.

Vaya con huevos!

As I have said before..

According to fed law, possessing, or use of any illegal drug, while also being in possession of a gun, is a 10 year felony. This is specifically including pot. Pot has not been legalized by the Feds, so everybody so using, in CO, is committing a Federal felony) The state cannot legalize something that is illegal under Federal law. Right now, the Feds are not pursuing simple pot violations, but that can change at any time, without prior notice to the public! That "possession" has put men in prison, if they were arrested 50 miles from their home, but the gun was in their home.

Librarian said:

Part of the culture over there; I am trying to change it, but it's slow going.
.

Click to expand...

Bless you.

California is going back to convictions 40 years old to see if someone might be a prohibited person? Wow, I'm going to move out there. Must not be any criminal activity for them to be able to devote resources for that purpose.