of course they should expand the definition of mentally unstable to include anyone who feels a need or desire to own a gun.

.... that being, enforce the law that already exists, I don't see why they need a separate bill to provide funding for it, other than maybe to get publicity?

Doesn't the State of California already have a budget line for law enforcement? It's already against both sate and federal law for the prohibited persons to have firearms, why aren't they doing it now? They just think the time is hot to increase their budget?

That the motives of those carrying out said "good idea" are suspect?

Seriously?

... nor did I think that, so stop making shit up.

And yes, I always suspect bureaucrats and pols seeking more money on the heels of an emotional issue, rather than rational evaluation. Don't you?

.... question marks in my statements above? Did I say they didn't evaluate the plan rationally? You seem to like MSU.

firearm sales. Special account funds can only be used for the purposes specified by the legislation that created the account: in this case, it's the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) fee that was instituted to fund background checks and the transfer registry. That fund has built up a surplus, but the Legislature has to pass a bill to transfer money out of that type of account, rather than just moving money around in the general budget...

nt

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!

& recommend!!!

Do they think they can get all 20,000 people with only $24 million though? That's only $1000 per person, which seems pretty paltry for the legal system these days.

but why now? Oh, that's right, the anti-legalization prison industrial complex sees the writing on the wall that they soon won't have prisons full of nonviolent drug users...they now decide to be proactive in filling those beds with the people who should have been there in the first place, maybe?

You approve, but you think the "anti-legalization prison industrial complex" has a hand in it somehow?

Casts a bit of a shadow over your approval, doesn't it? Do you genuinely approve?

why after all of these years they are just now going after these people. And no, I have been a strong advocate of enforcing laws on the books such as this for a very long time. It is impossible to determine the effectiveness of laws on the books when they are not enforced as they haven't been in CA or anywhere else for decades. Any move toward enforcing existing laws is a good thing, but again I ask, why now? why not 20 years ago?

Ase you so enamored with government that you are willing to blindly accept that 20,000 felons with guns have been allowed to go free with their guns for decades, and not ask why?

Oooookay.

I am sure he can cut and paste that story into something his followers can foam over!

Will the governor sign it?

The money will be funneled to some other program.

Long guns aren't, but they aren't used much in crimes, either.

This could be a great thing or it could go very badly.

Last year they seized 1,200 firearms and 150K rounds of ammunition from 700-odd people. That was with just $3 million.

Heaven forbid we fund things like this, amirite? I mean, it could go very badly. Or something.

IIRC the appeals process can be a PITA for the state.

Get law enforcement out there and actually enforce the firearms restrictions we have put in place over the past century or so.

This is a good thing. I hope it goes well.

So they'll need at least three times what they just requested to get all 20,000 suspected illegal gun owners mentioned in the OP.

Still, not a bad start.

This will more than double the number of assigned agents, which should be effective.

of names, along with the weapons supposedly owned illegally, right? Why can't they just compile names/addresses into a grid, assign a couple of officers in each grid withe the names and addresses, then have a car with two officers start making visits to these addresses, search warrant in hand, and do a search of the homes? Depending on the size of the homes, a team of officers should be able to execute at least 6 searches per day, inside their assigned grid. Can you see this as a viable scenario??

The background work isn't simple; addresses and even names change. And generally speaking, these are not people who are interested in being found, or in talking to police; prohibited persons are felons, people with history of violence, bench warrants, restraining orders, wanted for other crimes and/or mentally ill.

The backlog exists in part because of these obstacles, and in part because the program is at best treading water; they average between three and four weapons seizures per day. The number of known-to-be-armed people being added to the prohibited persons list averages about 10 per day.

Why can't every city, county and/or state police department get involved, since they are alreadt being paid to enforce the laws anyways??

I get it that people move, don't want to be found, etc., but all it takes is a simple knock on the door by the police. If/when someone answers, inform them that you have a search warrant for that address and an arrest warrant for {insert persons name here}. If they say "Oh, he don't live here anymore" or something like that, ask the occupant for their I.D. and maybe a copy of the lease/rental/purchase agreement to show when they moved in, especially in cases where the name on the I.D. is nothing similar to the person being hunted for. Even if they *do* have the same last name, a simple "So you won't mind if we do a little search then?", while reminding the person that they *DO* have a search warrant for that ADDRESS. You can give permission for a voluntary search, which we will be gracious about.. or we can call for back-up and turn your house upside down and inside out...

People keep saying they want to "crack down" or "get tough on crime".... well, there's the chance to do it, it's time to shit or get off the pot, isn't it?

Instinctively I'd guess fear of some kind of jurisdictional squabble prevents this, but I'm only guessing.

Perhaps one of DU's LEO community can shed light on this.

I would applaud this but then would be called an NRA shrill for not demanding new laws.

Can you imagine if we spent enough money to enforce speeding laws, DUI, etc instead of trying to make new laws? More cops, more funding, etc?

A novel concept that if one uses gets them accused of using talking points.

Except when some applaud it.

he never gets much mention because he is working to improve California .

the guys who get the job of doing this. Jesus Christ, there's reasons why these people are prohibited... only a matter of time before they prove it.