California to confiscate guns held illegally in firearms crackdown

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

California to confiscate guns held illegally in firearms crackdown

Rory Carroll in Los Angeles
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 May 2013 19.47 BST

California plans to confiscate guns from 20,000 people who bought them legally but have since been disqualified because of criminal or psychiatric problems, boosting the state's relatively tough approach to gun control.

Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation on Wednesday allocating $24m – generated by fees taken from gun buyers at the time of purchase – to the crackdown, the first in a series of gun control bills following the Sandy Hook massacre.

"This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

California's Bureau of Firearms has identified about 20,000 people who illegally possess about 40,000 handguns and assault weapons, a list which grows by 15 to 20 daily.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/02/california-guns-crackdown-jerry-brown

[ManiacJoe]

1. New budget for old program.

[Eleanors38]

6. New posting for old story

[holdencaufield]

2. Dear Citzen,

We're here to take away that your gun that you are no longer allowed to have.

"Gun? What gun, officer?"

The one on our list here.

"Oh THAT gun. No, I lost that years ago. It fell out of my bass boat"

Do you mind if we come in and take a look?

"Yes, actually, do you have a warrant?"

No, just thought we could poke around to see if your gun is here.

"No, not really a good idea, I have muffins in the oven right now. But, if you come back with a warrant we'll see what we can do"

OK, thanks for your time.

-- Repeat 20,000 times

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. CA actually keeps a list of every gun they think you have

I expect you will be correct, though if you are out on parole no warrant is needed for spaces you control.

I have heard they are sending out letters first

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Why wouldn't they be able to get a warrant.

[holdencaufield]

5. 24 Agents -- 20,000 firearms

If they actually had the time to chase up firearms door-to-door, they wouldn't.

They will send out a bunch of letters -- 10% will reply, 1% will actually comply, the program will be heralded a "great success" and receive funding in perpetuity.

Government programs at their finest

[kudzu22]

7. I'd guess they need some evidence

that you have a gun in violation of the law. I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess that a computer record that someone with your name bought a gun 20 years ago is probably insufficient evidence to issue a warrant.

[CreekDog]

8. they are confiscating guns that the holder has recently lost rights to own

in other words, they got convicted of something and now they can't own any guns.

[gejohnston]

9. we understand that, but

doesn't the cops have to supply evidence that the person owned any guns to begin with?

[petronius]

10. It's not that, exactly: a listing in a gun registry or on the transfer registry, or even

on the prohibited armed persons list, is pretty convincing evidence that the person own(s/ed) a gun, but it's not sufficient evidence that the gun is currently present at the person's current location - so a search warrant would be needed if the person doesn't agree to let the officers in. Unless there are conditions that obviate the need for a search warrant: like an arrest warrant or probation.

That's my understanding of the various articles I've seen, anyway...

[kudzu22]

11. Right, but you need a warrant to go get them

You need to have some evidence that he still has the guns in order to get a warrant. In most of these cases the people allow the search so there's no need for a warrant.