The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 24, 2014, 06:56 PM   #1
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
New bill passes senate in California

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.
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE

Last edited by gyvel; August 24, 2014 at 07:49 PM.
gyvel is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 07:47 PM   #2
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,282
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.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 07:50 PM   #3
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
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."
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE
gyvel is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 08:27 PM   #4
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,282
You're overlooking the fact that the gummint ALREADY has your guns in their database. THAT'S what you should be concerned about!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 08:47 PM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 08:53 PM   #6
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
You're overlooking the fact that the gummint ALREADY has your guns in their database
Some of them, perhaps.
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE
gyvel is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 08:54 PM   #7
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
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.
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE
gyvel is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 10:32 PM   #8
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 692
"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
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 10:38 PM   #9
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
SB 505 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140SB505

Quote:
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 ...
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 12:39 AM   #10
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Librarian, I went to California.gov and had no luck finding it. It wasn't the easiest website to navigate.
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE
gyvel is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 12:41 AM   #11
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
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.
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE
gyvel is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 12:54 AM   #12
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 10:36 AM   #13
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
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.

Last edited by gc70; August 25, 2014 at 07:48 PM.
gc70 is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 01:30 PM   #14
DoubleDeuce 1
Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2013
Posts: 75
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...
DoubleDeuce 1 is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 04:28 PM   #15
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 05:31 PM   #16
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
Quote:
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.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 05:37 PM   #17
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
Quote:
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.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 07:04 PM   #18
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
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.

Last edited by gc70; August 25, 2014 at 07:47 PM.
gc70 is offline  
Old August 26, 2014, 09:44 PM   #19
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 162
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
TDL is offline  
Old August 27, 2014, 08:23 AM   #20
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
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?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old August 27, 2014, 09:40 AM   #21
DoubleDeuce 1
Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2013
Posts: 75
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.
DoubleDeuce 1 is offline  
Old August 29, 2014, 02:49 PM   #22
Marred
Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 82
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?
__________________
Guns don't kill people, the bullets do.
Marred is offline  
Old August 29, 2014, 05:59 PM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,364
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?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 29, 2014, 08:36 PM   #24
jscottjones88
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2014
Posts: 6
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.

Last edited by jscottjones88; August 29, 2014 at 08:52 PM.
jscottjones88 is offline  
Old August 29, 2014, 09:08 PM   #25
jscottjones88
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2014
Posts: 6
Quote:
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.
jscottjones88 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13118 seconds with 7 queries