New bill passes senate in California

[gyvel]

The link:

http://news.msn.com/us/california-se...se-checks-bill

Well, it appears that California has done it again.

Here is the lead-n for a Reuters story: SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug 22 (Reuters) - The California Senate passed a bill on Friday requiring local law enforcement to search a database of firearms owners in most cases when carrying out checks on people who may harm themselves or others.

And here is part of what the bill will do: The bill requires law enforcement to search the California Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System database prior to conducting welfare checks on individuals to find out if they own a gun. (Emphasis mine.)

Where's it gonna end folks? A new law disguised as a public safety measure but, in reality, another little wedge in the door eventually designed to take your civil right away, and more intrusion of government into your private life.

I can just about guarantee that the "may harm...others" provision will eventually be extended by interpretation to any person that owns a gun, the (twisted) basis being that, if you own a gun, you "may" harm someone.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything wrong with law enforcement checking records to see if a person being investigated for threats to him/herself or others owns a firearm. That would seem only prudent.

[gyvel]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything wrong with law enforcement checking records to see if a person being investigated for threats to him/herself or others owns a firearm. That would seem only prudent.

Then you also don't (apparently) mind if the government intrudes on your private life. I guess you also tell your physician if you own firearms when he asks.

There is nothing prudent about this law. It's another invasion of your privacy.

It won't stop with just investigating a person "for threats to him/herself or others."

[Gary L. Griffiths]

You're overlooking the fact that the gummint ALREADY has your guns in their database. THAT'S what you should be concerned about!

[Tom Servo]

It would be helpful if we had a link to the actual bill, so we could see what it does. I don't trust media reports to be accurate on something like this.

[gyvel]

You're overlooking the fact that the gummint ALREADY has your guns in their database

Some of them, perhaps.

[gyvel]

It would be helpful if we had a link to the actual bill, so we could see what it does. I don't trust media reports to be accurate on something like this.

Reuters didn't mention a specific bill number, only that it was passed 32-0, and headed for Gov. Brown's desk this coming week.

[barnbwt]

"The bill requires law enforcement to search the California Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System database prior to conducting welfare checks on individuals to find out if they own a gun."
"...that would seem only prudent"
Are we supposed to believe 'checking the database' is all they'll be doing? Am I supposed to believe the historically ham-fisted, over-zealous, biased, and now highly militarized police departments won't deploy their SWAT teams each and every time the "G-word" flashes on their screen. It's only prudent, after all...

TCB

[Librarian]

SB 505 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140SB505

This bill would require law enforcement agencies to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standard protocols pertaining to the best manner to conduct a “welfare check,” when the inquiry into the welfare or well-being of the person is motivated by a concern that the person may be a danger to himself or herself or to others. The bill would require those policies to encourage a peace officer, prior to conducting the welfare check and whenever possible and reasonable, as specified, to conduct a search of the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System via the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System to determine whether the person is the registered owner of a firearm.

The most recent vote was to concur in amendments made in the Assembly, and having done that, the bill goes to the Governor.

That took me about 10 minutes to find; I dearly wish news organizations would include bill numbers in their stories ...

[gyvel]

Librarian, I went to California.gov and had no luck finding it. It wasn't the easiest website to navigate.

[gyvel]

It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it leaves the door open for lots of abuse in the future. And, knowing California, it's not going to be in any gun owner's favor.

[Tom Servo]

Librarian, you've got your ear to the ground on California issues. Correct me if I'm missing something, but the bill doesn't appear to change much from existing statute.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Correct me if I'm missing something, but the bill doesn't appear to change much from existing statute.

The language of the final bill appears to be less prescriptive than the current law original.

While both versions have exceptions for exigent circumstances and the availability of identifying information, the current law original bill contained a mandate that "the peace officer shall" conduct a database search, while the new final bill's mandate is to develop policies that "encourage a peace officer" to conduct a database search.

ADDED:

My cynical side sees less potential officer/department liability for noncompliance with policies mandated by the new bill than with breaking the direct requirement of the current law original bill.

[DoubleDeuce 1]

Barn...

Are we supposed to believe 'checking the database' is all they'll be doing? Am I supposed to believe the historically ham-fisted, over-zealous, biased, and now highly militarized police departments won't deploy their SWAT teams each and every time the "G-word" flashes on their screen. It's only prudent, after all...


Really???? I think you description is a bit overly dramatic, not to mention caustic, and extremely unfair.

Just my opinion...

[carguychris]

Folks, I don't think there's a Section 11106.4 in the current CA Penal Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=11100-11112

I believe that the strike-throughs in SB 505 on the CA Legislative Information website show edits to the bill that have occurred as it winds its way through various committees; they're NOT changes to existing statutes.

IOW the website only shows that the current bill is less prescriptive than earlier versions of the same bill.

[Librarian]

IOW the website only shows that the current bill is less prescriptive than earlier versions of the same bill.

That's correct.

There's a set of formatting conventions for bills.

When a new bill is introduced, existing language is in plain black text, deleted language is in red strikeout, and new text is in blue italic.

After the introduction, changes represented use the same formatting, but are indicated relative to the prior version of the bill.

[Librarian]

Librarian, you've got your ear to the ground on California issues. Correct me if I'm missing something, but the bill doesn't appear to change much from existing statute.

The original 505 was about something in the education code.

This is an example of within-the-rules-chicanery called "gut and amend", where an existing bill is re-purposed. This one got through the whole Senate review process and moved onto the Assembly in May of 2013 and sat there with no action from August of 2013. In June 2014, it was grabbed and changed.

As replaced, the new topic wanted to add 11106.4 to the Penal Code. The difference here is what is in the current proposed version of 11106.4 compared to the first proposed version of 11106.4.

[gc70]

Folks, I don't think there's a Section 11106.4 in the current CA Penal Code:

Sorry for the bad assumption; I am more accustomed to the convention of presenting proposed language in relation to existing law and did not check California's practice. Prior comments edited accordingly.

[TDL]

Correct me if I'm missing something, but the bill doesn't appear to change much from existing statute.

There isn't an existing statue.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything wrong with law enforcement checking records to see if a person being investigated for threats to him/herself or others owns a firearm. That would seem only prudent.

The problem has to do with probative burdens, defendant rights and adjudicated decisions vs opinions.

We saw three people stabbed to death in Santa Barbara by the guy who shot three people to death as well. That guy was being investigated. I am not saying he should have a gun but he accomplished half the murder with a knife. Why is he focus on gun ownership and not on violence generally?

[carguychris]

So I can be better informed about the impact of this legislation, can someone who is familiar with CA law and LE procedures tell me:

• Do CA police currently have easy access to the Automated Firearms System (AFS); and...
• If so, has anyone done an impartial study of the number of AFS queries that are currently being done prior to welfare checks?

[DoubleDeuce 1]

Carguy,

Absolutely yes. The police here in California have access to the AFS. The information is right at their fingertips. You type in a code, push a button, wait a few seconds and bingo. It certainly has never been a secret. Before the cars were equipped with on board computers, the officer on the street had to call in the information request.

As for the welfare check stuff, there was nothing to prevent an inquiry. They have been done, but never as a matter of routine.

[Marred]

Both current bills SB 505 and AB 1014 are bills that, correct me if i'm wrong, are intended to address problems with the welfare check of Elliot Rodgers. They both contain language like " reasonable cause", "the
subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger", "a concern that the person may be a danger to himself or herself".
SB 505 allows a check for gun ownership and AB 1014 allows for a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. Law Enforcement will have to serve the order. My problem with this and my question is, with a restraining order entered into the system does the person named now lose gun rights? Even if the charges are proved unfounded does said person have to go to and pay for court to get their gun rights back?
Secondly, I'm sure it's been brought up already but I'd hate to be the person being served by police coming to take my guns with language like "immediate and present danger" on the warrant. Seems like a recipe for death of the person being served and whoever else might happen to be there.
Third, since the police who interviewed Rodgers said that he appeared normal and not a danger, do these bills make it easier for law enforcement to get orders to confiscate guns with no real credible threat but only on the "word" of some concerned citizen or someone who doesn't like you? Kind of like "swatting" someone?

[44 AMP]

Correct me if I missed something, but this bill doesn't seem to be anything that is a threat to the public's rights.

It seems to be a requirement for the police to abide by. A requirement that if they are going to do "A" then they must check database XYZ first....

It is a procedural requirement, dressed as a law, probably done so it will be both mandatory and uniform throughout all the law enforcement agencies in the state.

Or, it could just be some lawmakers flexing their muscle, so they can claim to be concerned and doing something...

or maybe its just CYA, so that if officers don't do it, and something bad happens they can be hung out to dry...

I have no idea, but unless I missed something I don't see it as an issue for the citizens to be concerned about.

I didn't see anything requiring collecting new data, just a requirement to check what there was in the system already, in certain situations.

Did I miss something?

[jscottjones88]

Not that i'm an expert in legalese, but i had an elderly neighbor lady that had no family in hundreds of miles, so her daughter requested weekly welfare checks by the local pd. the point i'm trying to make here is that there is a HUGE difference (as far as i understand it) between a pd welfare check and an officer responding to a report of an unstable person.

If the latter of these two instances is what this law deals with, then it seems logical for an officer to know if the unstable person he's going to try to help has a weapon that may be turned on himself or on the officer. Having said this, the same officer that may benefit from knowing if there is a registered firearm in the home has no way of knowing if the unstable fellow has an unregistered gun, a butcher's knife, or a table leg he is going to attack with. since this is the case every time an officer responds to any call, the law in question seems less than useful at best, if not unnecessarily intrusive.

Again, the prior paragraph was about an officer responding to a call - in the case of little old Ms. Bateman next door, i am completely befuddled why an officer needs to know if she owns a gun - the only logical reason he should know this is to supply her with one if she doesn't, so that she isn't as much of a helpless target!! (maybe that's what's going on, CA is finally coming around people!!) Really, though - in the "welfare check" case, this law seems to be so unnecessary that it makes me suspect it is one step on a carefully thought out path leading to a leftists gunless (and crime riddled) utopia.

really though, how hard would it be to first, slowly pass laws about other cases in which an officer can determine if you own a gun, next pass a law saying that the officer has the ability to temporarily seize the weapon, then to make that seizure longer or permanent.

I also think that anyone who doesn't believe that there are policy makers out there with these kinds of specific, stepwise plans to remove guns is beyond naive! that is EXACTLY how they disarmed the UK, and WILL accomplish the same ends here if law makers aren't held in check by those they are supposed to be representing.

[jscottjones88]

Why is he focus on gun ownership and not on violence generally?

I firmly feel that this is a very logic-based argument. NOT that i think it is logical to blame the gun, but because for liberals it's much more efficient to blame the gun instead of the person - it makes for better soundbites, is a good way to shift blame to 2nd amendment supporting conservatives, thereby chipping away at not just gun rights but their whole platform, and it lets them stick to their side's beliefs. think about it - lefties CAN'T do anything else because then they would have to admit that moral values, supporting families, a firmly defined sense of right and wrong, etc. are an important part of a peaceful society, because they lead to more stable, well balanced citizens.