California's gun seizure program hits hurdles
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-gun-seizure-program-hits-hurdles
quote:The law, which was passed in 2013 following the shooting at Connecticut?s Sandy Hook elementary school and set aside $24 million for seizure programs, had a goal of confiscating around 20,000 guns over three years.
Read it and see what's happening and how reality is working out.[:(!]
quote:The law, which was passed in 2013 following the shooting at Connecticut?s Sandy Hook elementary school and set aside $24 million for seizure programs, had a goal of confiscating around 20,000 guns over three years.
Read it and see what's happening and how reality is working out.[:(!]
0
-
It is my understanding CA now has a DEMOCRAT supermajority. The problem as stated is not having enough money to pay for the DEMOCRAT gun seizure program.
So what do DEMOCRATs do when they need money....THEY TAX.
If you understand the article, it appears CA is going to make the gun owners pay for it with a tax on guns... What a slap in the face for the sheeple in that state.....gun owners being taxed to have their guns confiscated.
Wow; only a DEMOCRAT politician could come up with that idea.0 -
quote:Originally posted by chiefr
It is my understanding CA now has a DEMOCRAT supermajority. The problem as stated is not having enough money to pay for the DEMOCRAT gun seizure program.
So what do DEMOCRATs do when they need money....THEY TAX.
If you understand the article, it appears CA is going to make the gun owners pay for it with a tax on guns... What a slap in the face for the sheeple in that state.....gun owners being taxed to have their guns confiscated.
Wow; only a DEMOCRAT politician could come up with that idea.
What I like most is the subtlety.0 -
Going in and getting guns from crazy people? That should be televised. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by chiefr
It is my understanding CA now has a DEMOCRAT supermajority. The problem as stated is not having enough money to pay for the DEMOCRAT gun seizure program.
So what do DEMOCRATs do when they need money....THEY TAX.
If you understand the article, it appears CA is going to make the gun owners pay for it with a tax on guns... What a slap in the face for the sheeple in that state.....gun owners being taxed to have their guns confiscated.
Wow; only a DEMOCRAT politician could come up with that idea.
What I like most is the subtlety.
Yep, Like wearing a condom, having a sense of security while being screwed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by chiefr
It is my understanding CA now has a DEMOCRAT supermajority. The problem as stated is not having enough money to pay for the DEMOCRAT gun seizure program.
So what do DEMOCRATs do when they need money....THEY TAX.
If you understand the article, it appears CA is going to make the gun owners pay for it with a tax on guns... What a slap in the face for the sheeple in that state.....gun owners being taxed to have their guns confiscated.
Wow; only a DEMOCRAT politician could come up with that idea.
Only a Californian would be subtle enough to make the people pay for actually owning evil guns, that need to be removed and destroyed. But, heck it is only justice. I hope a lot of the confiscators get exactly what they came for, one piece at a time.0 -
They get what they voted for and pride of the failed democrap party 0 -
" . . . state law that permits officials to seize firearms from people with previous criminal convictions or mental health issues."
" . . . had a goal of confiscating around 20,000 guns . . . "
It should concern the voters in California that the law had a "goal".
Either they weren't done until they reached 20,000
or they would stop, when they reached that number?0 -
If I understand that correctly.
1. The agency was given a certain amount of funding
2. They had to return part of it because they can't hire enough people
3. They can't hire enough people because they don't pay enough
Does that make any sense to anyone?0 -
Let's just look at this in a financial/business-ish way.....
A `budget of $24,000,000 to confiscate 20,000 firearms.
Equates to $1200 per firearm.
Figure in staff salary, medical, office space, ammunition, Training, overhead, vehicle maintenance, travel, and all the other costs associated in such activities..... eats up a budget quick.
And they are 9,000 firearms short......... (That's a cool $10,800,000)...
I wonder if one of the local Commissars have bought a new yacht recently.....0 -
Wouldn't it make the state safer if they tried to take guns away from gangs and criminals? Oh wait! That would be more dangerous. Never mind. Carry on.
Morons!0 -
Coming up next to add to the list of people prohibited in CA from owning a gun - failure to lock up any gun not on your person = 10 year prohibition on gun ownership. The proposed bill doesn't make clear whether guns locked in a safe are considered lawfully secured. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
" . . . state law that permits officials to seize firearms from people with previous criminal convictions or mental health issues."
" . . . had a goal of confiscating around 20,000 guns . . . "
It should concern the voters in California that the law had a "goal".
Either they weren't done until they reached 20,000
or they would stop, when they reached that number?
California DEMOCRATs consider anyone who voted for Trump or anyone who owns a gun as having a mental health disorder. This is not a joke.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments