Evidence2

thefederalist.com reports that California’s just-passed Proposition 47 requires that police who catch perps with a stolen firearm (value under $950, not an NFA item) must charge them with a misdemeanor. Not a felony. Provided no other crimes have been committed, the cops can’t arrest the ballistic miscreants. They can only issue them a ticket and a summons to appear in court. And bad guys who’ve been convicted of what used to be a felony can petition the court to have their charge reduced and ta-da! their gun rights restored. I know what you’re thinking. BS. No way. Way! A post-mid-election press release posted on the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department’s Facebook page spells it out in black and white (relevant bit bolded) . . .

PRESS RELEASE: THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 47

Effective immediately, the passage of Proposition 47 will have the following effects on the custody and policing practices of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department:

1. In most instances, many crimes that were previously “arrestable” as a felony will now only be “citable” as a misdemeanor. That means they may not be booked into jail but rather given a citation (similar to a traffic ticket) with a court date to appear, and released in the field. They will not be held pending trial. Such felony crimes that are now misdemeanors include:
• Commercial burglary (theft under $950)
• Forgery and bad checks (under $950 value)
• Theft of most firearms
• Theft of a vehicle (under $950 value)
• Possession of stolen property (under $950 value)
• Possession of heroin, cocaine, illegal prescriptions, concentrated cannabis, and methamphetamine

2. Inmates awaiting trial on any of the above felony charges in most instances will be able to have their charges immediately reduced to the new misdemeanor level, and will be let out of jail on a citation. A determination as to each person’s eligibility is somewhat time consuming, but could result in up to 420 releases.

3. Inmates who are sentenced on the above felonies can petition the court for reduction of their felony convictions to misdemeanors and many of them would be also be eligible for immediate release.

4. Convicted felons with the above felonies in their history can petition the court to have their prior felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors. If successful, many of the prohibitions they faced would then be reinstated, such as the right to vote, the right to purchase a handgun, the ability to apply as a peace officer, etc.

So the state with the country’s most draconian gun laws – including a Gun Violence Restraining Order that makes a mockery of due process – is reducing the penalty for possessing a stolen firearm. As thefederalist.com points out, “In one fell swoop, California voters just made it a whole lot easier for criminals to commit gun crimes.” Makes perfect sense to me. Not.

[h/t JG]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

107 COMMENTS

  1. Un-freakin’-believable. Damn near impossible to buy one legally in that state, but if you steal one it’s a slap on the wrist. They really DO want criminals to be the only ones with guns.

    • “They really DO want criminals to be the only ones with guns.”

      -The campaign slogan of CA State Senator Leland Yee, sponsor of SB82 and other gun laws pre-FBI arrest.

    • Sadly this is true. Many in law enforcement are really upset by this, and I am being polite with the expletives which our abounding on this.
      Sadly I suspect we will see an increase in petty crime as well as violent crime.

    • IMHO it isn’t quite as bad as we’re all making it out to be. Possession of an unregistered handgun, possession by a banned party or somebody who does not have a CA Handgun Safety Certificate, carrying concealed without a permit, possession of a stolen firearm, etc, are all still felonies as far as I understand. It seems like only the actual act of stealing one has been downgraded to a misdemeanor. But, if the cops caught a thief with the stolen gun, they could charge the misdemeanor for the theft itself plus probably a whole host of felonies for that person being in possession of it, concealing it w/out a permit, etc. I’m having a difficult time coming up with an example of how somebody in possession of a stolen firearm would NOT also be liable for felonies associated with possessing it as well, even if the crime of stealing it is a misdemeanor…

      BTW I think it’s just because the theft of basically any property valued under $950 was changed to a misdemeanor, and firearms simply aren’t being treated differently. If the firearm is worth more than that, it would be a felony.

      • No, it is that bad.

        All those felonies you listed are targeted at peaceful, law-abiding people.

        The fact that they *could* charge a gun thief with those felonies (if they wanted to) is pretty cold comfort. So is the fact that the misdemeanor applies to any property beneath a certain dollar value.

        When the inherently criminal act of stealing someone else’s property is a mere misdemeanor, while failing to ask the state’s permission before doing something that harms no one is a felony, there are some seriously twisted priorities in play.

        • Please convince me how felony laws against possession of a stolen firearm and possession of a firearm by a banned person are laws targeted at law-abiding people. Even the others I mentioned are prosecuted against criminals quite often. Concealed carry without a permit is only a misdemeanor if you aren’t committing another crime and you don’t have a record. Otherwise, it’s a felony. That seems to protect otherwise law-abiding people to some degree. Even CA’s 10 round mag capacity laws were never prosecuted (that I could ever find record or anecdote about when I was living there and concerned with such things) against an otherwise law-abiding citizen. The only instances I ever saw where this law being tacked on top of other criminal activity. Lots of “add-on” laws that can help to ensure successful prosecution, longer sentences, or more severe plea deals.

          In the 5 years I lived in the most violent and ‘ghetto’ neighborhood of San Francisco, I read the police reports for that district every single week when the chief e-mailed them out. Criminals were routinely booked for possession of stolen firearms, carrying without a permit, and other felony offenses. I cannot recall anyone being booked for actually stealing the firearm itself, as that’s nearly impossible to prove unless you catch the thief committing the theft.

          So again, I’m not saying this isn’t a mistake or certainly not that I agree with it, but nothing about the change to the severity of the action of stealing the gun itself means that police and prosecutors won’t also charge the criminal for the myriad felonies that are guaranteed to have happened at the same time. And they will charge them.

        • California has a gun registry. All guns, including long guns now need to be registered upon transfer or importation. Virtually all sales, with few exceptions, have to occur at an FFL with fees for background check and, in the case of used person to person gun sales, a fee for the FFL to perform the transaction. There is also a $25 fee for a firearm safety test that I believe is good for 5 years and is required to purchase or transfer a firearm.

        • Yeah, not sure what you’re on about, Raymond. CA has required registration of all handguns for many years, and recently passed a law to add long guns to that. Upon moving into CA from elsewhere or upon receiving/purchasing a firearm in the state you must register it with the state. Make, model, serial number, all of your personal info including location, etc.

        • Yes they do have a de facto registry, in complete defiance of the second amendment. They are “permitting” citizens to exercise their God given and constitutionally affirmed RIGHT to bear arms. They have turned a RIGHT into a permissible act allowable ONLY under their illegal authority in COMPLETE defiance of the constitution. Our rights are NOT at the government’s discretion regardless of ANY supreme court decision. This is EXACTLY why the second amendment was worded the way it was “shall not be INFRINGED”.

        • It is not “de facto” in the way most people use that term (to mean that even though it may not be called a rose and they may even claim it isn’t a rose it is, in actuality, really and truly a rose). CA’s registry is an actual, legitimate registry. You must register your firearms in CA. Police and others have access to the registration information. The State of CA calls it registration and it is registration and that information does go into a registry and there is zero effort by the State to make it seem otherwise. There’s nothing “de facto” about it. A rose is a rose by any other name, but in this case CA is actually openly calling it a rose in the first place.

      • Very true. There’s enough firearm related enhancements for the DA to tack on in CA you could fill a novel with them. Combine that with gang enhancements I’d imagine would apply to 90% of gun thieves in the state and they have a long stay on a Bob Barker, with or without the felony burglary charge.

      • 1. It is not a felony to CCW without a license, except under certain circumstances, e.g. in connection with gang activity

        2. There is no requirement to have an HSC to possess a handgun. Only to buy one. And it is not a felony either, except to buy one without doing it through an FFL, which without an HSC you would have to, would be

        3. However, to carry a loaded firearm (without license, in an incorporated area or place otherwise illega, etc) is normally a misdemeanor but becomes a felony when stolen

        25850. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

        (c) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows:

        (2) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.

        Likewise the normally misdemeanor charge of concealed carrying withot a license
        25400
        (c) Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of this section is punishable as follows:

        (2) If the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.

        And likewise for the 2012 statute on carrying openly an unloaded firearm

        Solution for the criminal who plans to sell it – Keep it unloaded and in a trunk. IOW follow the transportation laws and if caught, misdemeanor charge only.

    • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that allows the government to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Registration or limitation of any kind is unconstitutional, period.

  2. Ah,but you see…the 22 year old gang banger isnt responsible for his actions of murder and robbery. He stole that evil right winger’s gun because he didnt have a choice between right and wrong. Nor did his gang boss , who has to make enough money as a criminal to pay off his bribed city council and state senators.

    Clearly, ghost guns and 10+ round magazines purchased by socially irreponsible gun owners are the real instigators of crime.So we need more laws to protect the children…..of crooked California officials and other bribed party cheiftains.

    • I’m white, so it must be my fault. Everyone knows that my day just isn’t complete without holding a few brothers down. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

    • Low information voters?

      Not a joke; it has gotten us where we are today in CA, and elsewhere. Now Washington State has joined the club because too many with the power of the vote don’t bother to educate themselves before exercising that power, but rather cling to the sound bites and visuals in the media paid for by big money anti-freedom interests.

      I read the Prop 47 initiative (along with the others) before sending in my ballot; it was clear and easy to see the correct answer was “No”. IMO this measure was primarily designed to relieve jail/prison overcrowding and absolve the politicians of any responsibility for the potential political consequences of letting out prisoners who may re-offend and do something REALLY egregious thus becoming front page news. Now they can blame it in the “Prop 47” initiative, rather than their legislation.

      Interesting poetic justice for the grabbers. I expect CA AG Kamala to move to reverse the effects of this measure giving some bad guys the ability to lawfully possess firearms. Maybe DeLeon or another of his anti-gun cronies will have a new piece of legislation ready for the next session in Sack-o-tomatoes. And as usual, it will only tighten the screws on the law abiding.

      • The question is, should they have been in jail in the first place. If the answer is no, then why is letting them out a bad thing. This isn’t letting murderers and rapists out. It people arrested for possession. Do you support laws that would convict gun owners because they lack a bullet button on their AR? That is a possession type offense. Wether its a certain configuration of gun, or a plant you can easily grow in a closet, as long as you are not harming others, I disagree with incarceration.

        As for your second concern about what crimes they might do in the future, innocent until proven guilty. This kind of thinking is no different then banning guns because someday you *might* snap and go on a shooting spree. I strongly disagree with pre punishment for crimes. As a free society we should only be punishing those that have broken a law.

        • You are awesome bro. I’d smoke a bowl with you anytime. You either believe in the Constitution. Or you don’t. There many reason why one might end up with an unregistered hand gun and if you keep it locked up and only were to ever use it in the defense of your own castle then there is no crime.

  5. It’s a felony to transfer ownership between 2 otherwise law abiding citizens in CA without an ffl. It’s a felony to have an unregistered handgun in CA. But it’s only a midemeanor to steal a gun in CA.

    Seems I need to rethink my plan for purchasing another firearm.

    • The best part is that the felon who stole your gun can’t even be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. He gets a slap on the wrist for possession of stolen property, a slap on the wrist for theft of a firearm, and a stern lecture from a judge for being a felon with a firearm.

    • this change in law is still stupid, but in the interest of fairness: it is only a misdemeanor to sell a firearm to another person without using an FFL. i just looked up cal penal code 26500.

    • It isn’t a felony to have an unregistered handgun in Kalifornistan. There are literally millions of handguns in CA that were acquired prior to universal registration (including used handguns in 1991) In addition, home built handguns are not registered. Weapons are registered upon transfer for importation into CA. Long guns were not registered (except AW) prior to Jan 1 of this year I believe.

      • You are correct.

        With one caveat: if one misdemeanor carries concealed w/o a CCW in CA, that misdemeanor is elevated to a felony if the handgun unlawfully being carried concealed is not registered with the state.

        Be absolutely in compliance with the law when taking any unregistered firearm to the range or elsewhere within CA. If something goes wrong during your trip, you may be at the mercy of some officers ‘discretion’.

    • Seems I need to rethink my plan for purchasing another firearm.

      This is the funniest gorram line I’ve ever read on TTAG. Funny peculiar*, not funny ha ha.

      *(Peculiar in that it drips with irony that is)

  6. The more I read about the stuff California lawmakers do, the more I think they are backwards idiots with no sense at all.

    Also I think the pic you’ve got is a Jericho 941 pistol…one of the ones on my wish list…

    • In this case, it’s the California VOTERS who you must think of, the lawmakers had nothing to do with this bit of brilliance.

      • No, some inbred moron lawmaker had to have put it into some semblance of shape to put on the ballot, and into law after the vote.

        SMH

        • The California initiative system is not dependent on the legislators to either kick off a proposition, nor to approve/disapprove of a proposition, nor put them into law after the VOTERS decide up or down on it. The VOTERS in California have brought this one on themselves, and could have just as easily put it to an early grave instead.

  10. So its a misdemeanor now. Felons in possession of a firearm is still a felony (the number 1 reason someone would have a stolen handgun to begin with).

  11. Someone in Commiefornia needs to look up the definition of “deterrent”.
    In AL, “The theft of any firearm, rifle or shotgun, regardless of its value…” is a Class “C” felony. (1-10) years in prison. Sec. 13A-8-4(d).
    A buddy lost a Hi-power in a burglary, it was found on the front seat of a guy pulled over for speeding 18 months later. Guy pleaded to receiving stolen property 2d, and got a felony on his record.
    A misdemeanor? You’re better off to steal your neighbor’s gun than to own one that runs afoul of their detachable mag ban!

  13. Plus, i have to laugh at #4. That scary right to vote? Plus isn’t ttag always sayings felons deserve to protect themselves too?

    And just because they can apply to be cops doesn’t mean the background investigator wont bounce them out.

    I see a lot of this as a scare tactic by Sac sheriffs.

    Show me the actually proposition wording and let me make the determination of what it actually says.

  14. Yep can’t afford to put these lowlifes in prison. This is freaking unbelievable to me. Whatever-turn out the lights when you go…

  15. So…… is the penalty for being a law abiding gun owner now more severe than stealing a gun and illegally carrying it? Awesome.

    • If you mean carrying without a permit, if the gun is in your name, it is a misdemeanor
      If they concealed the firearm and its not in their name, its still a felony. Stolen or not.

      • I wonder…how many of those who voted happened to have “personal interest” in this particular piece of legislation. Un-frickin-believable! Guess I’ll be holding off on that next shiny object and looking for a stout safe instead.

        • You would do better to start getting quotes from UHaul and Budget Truck Rental. Things are not going to get any better in California. Gun owners will be increasingly scapegoated for the actions of criminals and crazies that the Democrats are putting on the streets and refusing to confine. The California economy will continue to decline as producers leave the state and real growth occurs only in state government employment.

  18. Well, a co-worker of mine that OWNS MANY GUNS and is pro-2A voted “YES” on this Prop. When I told him what it does vis-a-vis stolen guns, he said he didn’t read the whole thing. So I asked if you didn’t read it WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR IT? Said he made a mistake. This is why low-information voters screwed California. And why gun-owners here shoot themselves in the foot every f’n time!

    • Ease up.

      If a person has a stolen handgun in their possession they are either A) a felon and/or B) concealing said firearm.

      Both those things are STILL felonies. They will be arrested and charged with those felonies. Stolen gun is used as an extra charge 99/100.

      • Sort of. Assuming the criminal is smart, they now have a lucrative business opportunity. Have no felonies on your record? Then break into a house and steal 1 or 2 guns, keeping the value under $900-ish. Quickly get home, now you’re safe. Sell these guns to felons, and don’t get caught in the act itself. If the cops raid your house and find a stolen gun or two, they write a ticket and leave. Repeat this enough to cover court costs and make some profit.

        • The likelihood of that happening is approaching zero chance. Burglary is still a felony in California and getting caught is pretty high (or get shot by said gun owner). The person could probably only do a few residences before being caught.

          The entire premise is built upon “don’t get caught”. Which would apply still if stolen guns were a felony.

  19. OK, so here’s how it should go from here on in:

    My buddies and I drive to (insert name of neighboring state here where we can buy firearms). We all buy what the other guy wants, and make sure there’s a paper trail.

    We get back to Kahl-ee-fornia. We promptly steal each others’ guns before we have a reasonable time to register them. We all report the thefts to our appropriate LEO’s. “There I was, coming back from a gun show in (insert name of state here) when this d00d just ripped me off on the middle of the road! It was like something out of an old western movie and a stagecoach stick-up!”

    Of course, what you leave out is that you were going stagecoach robber on your buddy about a 1/4 mile later down the road.

    Now we all get to possess what we want (within the $950 limit), and stroll away from the DA with a slap on the wrist misdemeanor, rather than face felony possession without registration charges.

    “Welcome to Misdemeanor Possession! The game the whole gun club can play!”

    • How does a mere civilian from California (or anywhere for that matter) buy handguns cash-and-carry in another state?

      • Private sale from another individual outside of the state. Maybe that’s the intention of the law? Facilitate stolen firearms so the Brady Bunch, MDA, and CSGV can push for national UBCs. Did any of these groups oppose prop 47?

  21. The people of California have spoke and reiterated that it is important not to inconvenience criminals. And this isn’t about someone smoking weed in their backyard.

    Then again, if you look at the official voting website linked above this is what it says about the measure: “…Criminal offenders who commit certain nonserious and nonviolent drug and property crimes would be sentenced to reduced penalties (such as shorter terms in jail). State savings resulting from the measure would be used to support school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail.”

    It doesn’t bother to list which crimes would have ‘reduced’ penalties (or in some cases would not face arrest at all!). In fact, it spends more wordage talking about what they can do with all those savings (imagine hands rubbing together now) since they won’t have to bother keeping criminals in jail anymore.

    Oh, and it’s retroactive. Good luck with this one, California… can’t we just wall off that state to prevent the disease from spreading?

    • And let them be honest: The savings, if any, will all go to cover state and municipal pension fund shortfalls.

    • State savings resulting from the measure would be used to support school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail.

      Sounds a lot like that “Peace Dividend” that was going to buy us all free Bubble-Up and Rainbow Stew after the military got downsized after Desert Storm…

  22. Hard to say the real reason, but effectively this is great strategy from the gun control standpoint. They already know that actual criminals don’t obey laws anyway, so reducing sentencing for firearms related crimes doesn’t hurt deterrence anyway. But – when reports for gun related crimes, including gun thefts, happen to be reported as increasing, there will be the incentive to “crack down on the XYZ loophole” to prevent those crimes.

    Gun control has never been about stopping criminals, it’s all about controlling the general population. Increased crime rates is great from the gun controller perspective – more reasons to enact more gun control legislation.

  23. Wow, maybe we can convince folks up here to get rid of any penalties for not going along with I-594 then. In effect negating the law. Sound reasonable? Why not make a law and then get rid of any penalties? Sounds like the legislature in CA does not have nearly enough real issues to keep them occupied. Waste time making a law and then even more time getting rid of the penalties. Unbelievable !

  24. BTW, googled Prop 47 in CA and looks like it does not specifically mention guns. However, it does say stolen property and does not exclude guns so guessing this law might apply to guns after all. Anyone know more about this?

    • I can’t figure this out either. I’m also not understanding why you wouldn’t be arrested for committing a misdemeanor, and only cited. And it would only apply if the thief wasn’t prohibited from possessing the gun, and wasn’t carrying it illegally. Seems like the PD is making a bigger deal out of this than it is.

  25. Hmm, Neil D reminds me….Everyclown and MDA were pouring millions into campaigning against this, right? Oh, no, I guess not. They were up in Washington state pushing a measure that hurts only law-abiding gun owners. What does that say?

  26. The chances of being charged as a misdemeanor are very unlikely. In california if you possess a loaded, concealed, stolen firearm it’s already a felony. The value of the firearm does NOT matter. Most criminals carry their guns loaded or concealed. Possession of any firearm as a prohibited person is a felony, including gang memebers without a record. To steal a gun you’ll have to commit commercial or residential burglary. Anyone who has a warrent served is probably going to be a prohibited person or have other felonious items.

    I know this is great PR for 2A advocates, but if you actually look into it the chances of this happening are very small. It’s illogical because CA should have exempt firearms under the new law. They should have kept stolen firearms as felonies for non prohibited people carrying unloaded firearms without a criminal history.

  27. So voters in Washington State want law-abiding people treated like criminals while California voters want criminals treated like law-abiding people.

    It seems that a brain-eating virus called Dementia Democratis has invaded the West Coast. Don’t worry — the epidemic will run its course once all the left brains are consumed. Like sometime next month.

  29. So i have use to a 10 round mag with a bullet button, but if someone steals my weapon they get a slap on the wrist yet I’m considered to be a threat without credible evidence? Seriously gettin tired of this state…

  31. This just shows that in CA its not about stopping crime/criminals, its about taking guns away. This will encourage criminals to steal the guns they want and in turn if they are caught that gun is taken by the gov.

    Could they be hoping for more guns to be stolen to prove a point to push other legislation like storage laws, etc?

  32. Crafty self-protection scam by the elite, version #364: “Steal my neighbor’s G41 and it’s a citation for you. Steal my Wilson Combat X-Tac Compact? You’ll be a felon, punk!”

    Advice to otherwise-felon: Scratch that Wilson up thoroughly the second you’re out of the victim’s house. Get the value down to 900.

  33. As a Californian who voted in favor of Prop 47, I am somewhat surprised by the reaction here. Yes you are pointing out an absurdity created by this, but unfortunately this is the problem when elected representatives pass bad laws and citizen’s try to fix them. I do not feel stealing a gun should be a felony any more than I feel any other theft should be. I also don’t feel sales of firearms that don’t go through an FFL should be a felony. Unfortunately, there was no referendum on the ballot to fix that bad law. Doesn’t mean I can’t fix the one in front of me though.

    I personally feel felonies and jail time should be reserved violent offenses. Property crimes and regulatory violations should only be punishable by fines and more importantly restitution to those harmed. Instead of providing criminals with free room and board, leave them to take care of their own welfare and make them pay back what they take from others instead of providing them free meals and health care on my dime. That is a deterrent to crime. Knowing that crime only costs money with providing a benefit.

    • This is exactly why I voted Yes. Not to mention, the stealing of a firearm is automatically Grand Theft.

      Even more still, why is the theft of a firearm more punishable than anything else worth less than $950? Just like other property, it’s still an inanimate object made of metal, plastic, or wood. It really deserves no more reverance in determining the punishment of a crime than a cordless drill.

      It’s what the person does with a firearm that should be punished, not mere possession of it.

  34. This article is completely false. Read proposition 47 from the actual web site, not from this website, and it clearly states that people with the possession of stolen property under $950 (NOT INVOLVING FIREARMS) is being decriminalized. Personally, they need to do something about how they are handling the prison system because it is not working because that is the cause of proposition 47. Instead of punishing criminals, they need to educate them, or drill it through their heads military style of discipline, on how to become better citizens by not committing crimes.

  35. Let’s start that the Federalist is right wing/libertarian propaganda.
    CA peace officers have long held the authority to make physical arrests for misdemeanors (but not infractions).
    It’s dubious that Prop. 47 would prevent that fundamental authority.
    If that’s a genuine Sacto County Sheriff memo, it’s likely a protest policy, not a legal requirement.
    Sacto County was a vocal opponent to Prop. 47 from the beginning.
    Conclusion: ONCE AGAIN, the hype is bogus or so distorted that it’s substantially bogus.

    • The irony being that most libertarians I know celebrate the reduction of felonies to misdemeanors as there are too many frelling felonies as it is…..

  36. Yet they will prosecute the original owner if that gun is used in a crime, or if someone is accidentally hurt. I personally smell a conspiracy brewing with proposition 47. This will result in an increase in gun violence, which will cause the cry for more gun control. It will result in gun owners being prosecuted (and persecuted) for shooting someone who has broken into their home, who only intended to steal a TV (under $950). The burglar will go free, the home owner/gun user will be on the hook for the burglars medical costs (after all, this was just a citable offense, no big deal), and the home owner will be prosecuted for shooting the guy. There will be people going into peoples yards, stealing anything they can find, knowing they basically will receive the equivalent of a traffic ticket for their crime. If we try to stop them with any force, physical or otherwise, WE will get prosecuted for THEIR crime. And then throw in the fact that we will now have decreased law enforcement presence (the backers of the proposition want the money funneled from law enforcement-since they won’t be wasting resources on these crimes, they won’t need the funding within the departments- to drug programs; they seriously want the money removed from law enforcement budgets, and they say the proposition says that it WILL happen). It is going to literally be the Wild West out here, but the innocent and morally upstanding citizens will be the victims of the crimes, and will have NO RECOURSE but to sit back and watch it happen to us. We really have a state full of morons.

  37. This is a good thing. California is recognizing that guns are just like any other property, this is a step forward, not backward.

  38. This is the only time I have ever – and likely going forward it will never happen again – agreed with Diane Feinstein.

    “Prop. 47 would do two things. First, it would reclassify a wide range of crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor. This would mean shorter prison sentences for serious crimes like stealing firearms, identity theft and possessing dangerous narcotics such as cocaine and date rape drugs.
    Second, Prop. 47 would result in the resentencing and release of thousands of individuals already convicted of these crimes.

    The crimes that would be reclassified from a felony to a misdemeanor are not minor crimes.

    For instance, the penalty for stealing a firearm valued at up to $950 would be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, reducing a sentence from up to three years in prison today to a maximum of just 12 months under Prop. 47.

    Stolen firearms often end up in the hands of felons and others who cannot legally possess them, where they are used to commit violent crimes. Theft of a firearm should be punished as a felony, plain and simple…

    The problem is the definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is extraordinarily narrow. It covers only those who are at risk of committing eight specific crimes: three specific sex offenses, murder or solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or firefighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction or an offense punishable by life in prison or death.

    This means an individual at risk of committing serious crimes other than the eight listed above, such as carjacking or robbery, would automatically qualify for resentencing if he is serving time for a crime covered by Prop. 47…

    By the time a person has been convicted of a felony covered by the proposition, he has most likely been through the judicial system several times.

    Simply put, the reduction in sentences proposed by Proposition 47 would ultimately lead to the release of thousands of dangerous criminals, and a wholesale reclassification of many dangerous felonies as misdemeanors would put the people of California at continued risk going forward.”

  39. This just proves that California’s entire mission isn’t to keep has out of the hands of criminals but out of the hands of legal gun owners. Period!

  40. I don’t get what everybody’s getting so excited about. This measure does not affect existing federal law, which states that possession of a stolen firearm is punishable up to 10 years in prison. According to Printz v. United States, a less restrictive state law does not grant de jure immunity. Local authorities are also not obliged to enforce federal law as per that decision, but c’mon, guys, what D.A. is not gonna prosecute felony gun possession?

    Reference:
    http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/documents/guncard.pdf
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=521&page=898
    http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/printz.html

  41. If it wasn’t already illegal to posess a firearm and the only way to charge a perpetrator was via the $950 value rule, everyone’s hysteria would be valid. Fact is, CA PC makes possession of a stolen firearm a felony, period.

  42. so the gun is stolen
    the buyer did not use backround checks
    no permit to carry
    but all the newest owner has to do is pay a fine
    who the hell made up this law ?

  43. I’m from AZ. I travel to Commufornia a few times a year. When I called to see if I could carry, or even bring a firearm to their crime ridden gangland, the lady told me basically that my CCW didn’t mean S##T. She also added that if I was caught (being a law abiding citizen) with a firearm, or a knife over 3″, it would be a felony. I feel sorry for the citizens who can’t legally protect themselves in Socialist CA.

  44. Lets give everyone guns, for one month everyone gets a free gun. I know there are enough of them around to to give every man, women and child on earth one so why not do it? Because not everyone can be trusted with one but yet you think yourself can. Get off your high horses. How many people who Just gunned down people because they snapped were “Law Abiding” Until that point where they gunned down someone for no good reason.

    • Well Guess what tens of millions more live in that state then your ass-backward, gay hating, god fearing state but you have guns there·fore you are superior? If people thought like you we would never have been to space never have beaten the Russians to the moon never would have done shit except worry about your own damn situation.

    • Hey Cooper your assuming I trust your ass to be walking around with a gun. People don’t feel safe when people are walking around with public places with guns weather you have a permit for them or not I don”t trust you Your a human just like everyone fucking else capable of the same terrible shit that other have commited so insted of making it a crime to poses such tools a killing you “No criminals get them anyway there for I need one” By your logic everyone needs a gun then and how comfortable are you with everyone having a gun? Your neighbor, that crazy old lady up the road, that kid you never really like they all have guns now.

  46. All you gun owners who feel they have to carry your gun in public is scared plain and simple scared…My father took me out to ball games we drove across country met lots of people all with out a gun. Never ever had a gun were there situations when I though a gun was needed, yes. Was I wrong YES!!! We walked away never having a even a fist thrown at us. And thinking back in some of those situations if i had a gun at the time I would have drawn it because i was in fear of my life and then the whole story would have been different. Someone would be dead.

Comments are closed.