Last Updated:October 31 @ 12:30 pm

CA legislator gives up on new gun seizure law

By Oakland Tribune

One of the most controversial gun-control bills introduced in California this year -- a move to seize the 166,000 registered assault weapons grandfathered in under the state's ban -- is dead, its author said Thursday.

When Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, introduced AB174 in January, it was designed to declare the Legislature's intent to end all "grandfather clauses" allowing ownership of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. But on Tuesday, he gutted and amended the bill to address public-school health centers instead. Coincidentally, it was the same day that U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he won't include Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposed reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban in the gun-control bill he brings to the floor.

Bonta said Thursday that he came to realize his proposal was a nonstarter.

"It would be extremely expensive, for one -- if you were going to take back guns that were grandfathered in, you would have to provide market compensation for them," he said. "I didn't think that made the most sense from a fiscal perspective."

Australia in 1996 and 1997 bought back about 640,000 newly banned semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns at an estimated cost of at least $320 million. There was no registry to work from, however, and by some estimates as many as 40 percent of gun owners didn't comply with that mandatory buyback.

Bonta also said he was keenly

aware of the gun lobby's assertion that any state or national registration of firearms is merely a prelude to confiscation -- something his bill actually pursued.

"I didn't want to have a bill that plays into that argument," he said. "I wanted to concentrate on some other bills that I thought would be more focused and more effective."

Bonta's other gun-control bills include AB187, a 10 percent tax on ammunition sales to fund crime-prevention efforts in violence-wracked California cities; AB180, giving Oakland special dispensation to enact gun regulations more strict than the state's; and AB1020, requiring the state to notify gun buyers during their 10-day waiting periods that "straw purchases" on behalf of those banned from owning guns are illegal.

California enacted its assault weapons ban in 1989 and expanded it in 1999, but those who already owned the banned guns were allowed to register and keep them.

Josh Richman covers politics. Contact him at 510-208-6428. Follow him at Twitter.com/josh_richman. Read the Political Blotter at IBAbuzz.com/politics.

___

(c)2013 The Oakland Tribune (Oakland, Calif.)

Visit The Oakland Tribune (Oakland, Calif.) at www.insidebayarea.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 4.5/10 (15 votes cast)
CA legislator gives up on new gun seizure law, 4.5 out of 10 based on 15 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

16 Comments

  1. bna42Comment by bna42
    March 25, 2013 @ 2:28 pm

    “. . .a move to seize the 166,000 registered assault weapons grandfathered in under the state’s ban — is dead, its author said Thursday. . .That any state or national registration of firearms is merely a prelude to confiscation — something his bill actually pursued”.

    So this liberal gun grabber has proven the point that registration is tied to confiscation. In order to keep a grandfathered firearm the owner had to register it,and now with the list of registered owners in hand the man actually had the gall to introduce a bill to CONFISCATE those legally protected guns. The ONLY reason he withdrew the bill was because it would be too expensive to go out and forcibly confiscate the guns.

    Do not trust ANY politician!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (27 votes cast)
    • freedom1Comment by freedom1
      March 25, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

      Absolutely agreed and never fall for their rhetoric. If they want to take what is rightfully ours, tell them to come take it. I will give them one bullet at a time.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (16 votes cast)
    • aretiredgiComment by aretiredgi
      March 25, 2013 @ 6:28 pm

      Somebody pinch me on the ***. Since when does any politician worry about the cost of ANYTHING?

      Hasn’t the country had enough civil wars?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      March 25, 2013 @ 8:10 pm

      “Since when does any politician worry about the cost of ANYTHING?”

      Maybe besides the cost of going door-to-door to confiscate all the guns, someone in the California legislature might have suggested to him that the state would not be able to afford all the lawsuits filed challenging the unconstitutionality of his ridiculous bill. Maybe they also considered the lawsuits against the state government filed by families resulting from the deaths of those who refused to allow their guns to be confiscated.

      As Obama is fond of saying: “Actions do have consequences”.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (10 votes cast)
    • sundanceComment by sundance
      March 25, 2013 @ 8:59 pm

      The reason the bill was with drawn, is because Harry Reid would not be able to pass his registry bill. The fed law is more important because the seizure nation wide would do the same thing. This vote would open too many eyes who might allow registration on their vote.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (6 votes cast)
    • 1389ADComment by 1389AD
      March 26, 2013 @ 9:43 am

      Registration always means confiscation.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  2. freedom1Comment by freedom1
    March 25, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

    All these gun laws are frivolous and infringing on law-abiding citizens. All these anti-gun politicians turn their backs against the constitution (the supreme law on this land) which they sworn to protect. They should be imprisoned.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (23 votes cast)
  3. oneyeopnComment by oneyeopn
    March 25, 2013 @ 3:01 pm

    So if everyone with a Modern Sporting Rifle in California already has to register them. Then they already have a list of the legal gunowners. This state is unbelievable, they give us DiFi and BarBox, someone should just send them back to the fruit basket. I feel so bad for my friends who love to enjoy the shooting sports in that state. First there are the accoutrements they must have installed on their guns. The magazine restrictions, I know people who have pre-original ban magazines who cannot use them, just because they wish to avoid a confrontation with the authorities. Kommiefornia is bad but Kommierado is coming up fast and the Kingdom of Cuomo is right there with them. They do not know what the Constitution says and think they need committees to research what the term “shall not be infringed” is. It means the same thing today as it meant 237 years ago. It means do not touch this, make no laws about this, this is off limits! How the liberals can take it to mean anything else is beyond me!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (13 votes cast)
    • aretiredgiComment by aretiredgi
      March 25, 2013 @ 6:31 pm

      You forgot to include Rahmville, ya know ******* (the most restricted gun zone in the country) but they still have the highest murder rate on the continent. What’s wrong with this picture…..aren’t they all Democratically controlled?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (9 votes cast)
  4. CharlieComment by vietnamvet
    March 25, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

    Meanwhile, over on the east end of the crazy chain, New Yorkers are telling Governor Cuomo they aren’t complying with his ill-considered gun grab, either.
    http://www.naturalnews.com/038843_New_York_gun_owners_civil_disobedience.html

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • oneyeopnComment by oneyeopn
      March 25, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

      God Bless Them.. Molon Labe!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  5. odayterrenceComment by odayterrence
    March 25, 2013 @ 4:40 pm

    Look at what city Assemblyman Bonta represents…Oakland! A city with decades of strong liberal rule. A soft-on-crime mayor. Ineffective social programs running amok. A police department hated and abused by city government. Police officers terrified to do their jobs. Criminals running the streets. One of the highest crime rates of any city in CA. Very strict gun laws. Citizens helping criminals…instead of helping police. And Assemblyman Bonta feels the solution to our problems is to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. Why law-abiding citizens? Because THEY obeyed a law requiring them to register their assault weapons. So, as history proves, government can confiscate them later. You can bet the thugs, gang members, and criminals laughed with glee seeing citizens setting themselves up to be disarmed. Criminals love two things…disarmed victims and Assemblyman Bonta for attempting to make their lives of crime easier and safer. Bonta sure lives up to the first three letters in his title!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
  6. bzzoffComment by bzzoff
    March 25, 2013 @ 11:53 pm

    What worries me is the Fact that America Will NOT be disarmed peacefully. Oh, you have your weak minded one’s out there that will do the turn-in. That’s just the easy part. I read an article today whereas the Friendly State of California has a Special Police Squad that goes around for the explicit purpose to confiscate weapons from newly adjudged Felons, People deemed Mentally (In a Legal Sense, of course)incapable by law to own/posses a weapon or be in the same residence where a Legally owned firearm is kept.

    Of course, in the name of Public Safety and Good Common Sense Law, this will continue in States ill-guided by politicians. When and IF some State does pass a Confiscation Order, that’s when you’ll really see the beginning of the END. What is that?

    Now…DO I HAVE TO SPELL this out for you? None of us wants anything like this happening. This is and is going to be an UGLY Situation if it happens. I’ve been Law Enforcement twice. Even well seasoned Law Enforcement types I’ve talked too are DREADING something like this to occur. Some I know refuse to obey an order such as this.

    Most everyone has seen ROBOCOP,the Movie whereas the Cops walk out dropping their Badges on the floor…and then fighting “The Organization” while Deputizing the General Public. Is that what this Country is headed for? It is as the Oath of Office/Position says it is…I Swear to Protect the Constitution and laws of this Country against all Foes, Foreign and “DOMESTIC”. (Adding Lib Here…but you get the Point!)

    Is this what America is headed too? I hope not. Because it will affect the lives of my wife and two small boys. If the Politicians allow this to get out of hand,if hysteria sets in…will it be like the First Round Fired at Ft. Sumter? (Spelling?)

    Just some of my thoughts, Pilgrims.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • oneyeopnComment by oneyeopn
      March 26, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

      I dont believe it will be like Fort Sumter, I believe that some state will pass a law in the middle of the night. Some Police Chief, not a Sheriff will send out his goon squads or one of Homeland Insecurity’s goon squads in “new uniforms” will take their hollow point bullets and start kicking in doors somewhere. I believe it will happen simultaneously all over the country, targeted first at the most widely supported 2nd Amendment and Militia Leaders. I pray it doesnt happen but I also believe it will be in conjunction with a government takover!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  7. Brian in MIComment by Brian in MI
    March 26, 2013 @ 4:10 am

    Didn’t CA already do this back in 2000 or so with the SKS Sporter?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  8. geoinsdComment by geoinsd
    March 27, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

    I don’t believe that he was concerned with the cost of implementing the proposed law. Politicians, especially California Democrats, have never seemed to be concerned with the cost of anything as long as they aren’t the ones paying for it. I hope the true reason is that it won’t fly politically, that there are still a large percentage of people in California who value their liberty.

    BTW, I am a life long Californian but have been very frustrated that CA keeps electing people like Jerry “extend benefits to illegal aliens even though without it we are already running a $16B deficit” Brown and Nancy “we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it” Pelosi.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Comment





Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer