| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
California Approves $24 Million For Gun Confiscation Program
Monday, March 11, 2013 11:13
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
The California Senate approved a $24-million expenditure on Thursday to speed the confiscation of guns from people who have been disqualified from owning firearms because of criminal convictions or serious mental illness.
Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said budget cuts to the Department of Justice have hampered a program that targets people who purchased firearms legally but were later disqualified because of a subsequent conviction or determination of mental illness.
As a result of the cuts, there is a backlog of 19,000 people who have improper possession of more than 40,000 guns, including 1,600 assault weapons, and the number is increasing faster than their firearms can be confiscated.
“The mountain continues to grow,” Leno said. “This is a serious and immediate threat to our public safety.”
Democrats certaintly seem to be pushing the gun control agenda aren’t they? It’s all a game though. You hate democrats, you vote repubican, you hate republicans you vote democrat, repeat, repeat, repeat. -Mort
“This is a serious and immediate threat to our public safety.”
No.
This is a serious and immediate threat to their political cronyism.
No, the guns are a threat to thier government jobs and ability to control their subjects. As for the GOP democrap merry go round, I got off that trap years ago.
This is a GOOD THING. So what if they’re democrat or republican, who really cares – they’re all for more control anyway (Libertarian here). What really matters here is that they are now enforcing current laws, which is in part what we’ve been asking for.
i really wish politicians would address exactly “who” has “serious mental illness”? those who are depressed or are seeing a shrink? or rather those who were ADJUDICATED by a court of law (with due process, legal defense, and a judge) as “mentally ill” and/or “dangerous”? if politicians are perceiving those who are NOT ADJUDICATED as mentally ill/dangerous as needing their guns confiscated, then such can be used against the anti-gun politicians on the open forum (media). this needs to be properly addressed, using the proper language so there isn’t any confusion as to who they’re after (regular citizens, with rights or those who lost their rights via ADJUDICATION).
Last I heard California was broke. So I wonder where they are getting 24 million dollars?
How many millions of illegals are in CA? Millions for taking guns, while giving billions to pay for illegals to reproduce more gang members.
everyone awake in california are building there own guns. so good luck with picking them up lol