New L.A. gun control law proposed

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Maeve Reston, LA Times

Just a few weeks after the Los Angeles City Council approved a batch of new gun and ammunition ordinances tightening restrictions on ammunition vendors, council members Jack Weiss and Janice Hahn are proposing a new law that would make it more difficult for individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors to own guns.

The proposal, which Weiss and Hahn plan to introduce as early as today's council meeting, would expand on a state law that bars possession of a gun for 10 years if convicted of certain crimes, including assault, illegal weapons sales or threatening a public official or a witness.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gu...3,0,52723.story

[Jasman0717 9]

Now if they could just keep the ones that have the guns from shooting them into the air on the 4th of July or New Years

[tmma 467]

By Maeve Reston, LA Times

Just a few weeks after the Los Angeles City Council approved a batch of new gun and ammunition ordinances tightening restrictions on ammunition vendors, council members Jack Weiss and Janice Hahn are proposing a new law that would make it more difficult for individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors to own guns.

The proposal, which Weiss and Hahn plan to introduce as early as today's council meeting, would expand on a state law that bars possession of a gun for 10 years if convicted of certain crimes, including assault, illegal weapons sales or threatening a public official or a witness.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gu...3,0,52723.story

Those laws sound OK with me. If you are a criminal or have sold weapons illegally in the past-no more guns for youuuuuuuuuu! Which would be really great if ALL guns were actually purchased and registered through the 'legal' channels. People not qualified to own them would be weeded out and restricted the ability to purchase--but that is the problem...there is a huge number of weapons bought and sold 'on the street' alot of times to those unsavoury characters that would not qualify for ownership if they went through the normal registration channels.....

The major problem ( IMO) is that there needs to be a much greater clamp down on those that are running around with weapons purchased illegally 'on the street' rather than whittling away the rights of those of us that own weapons legally ( which I know is a diff topic-sorry).

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Now if they could just keep the ones that have the guns from shooting them into the air on the 4th of July or New Years

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

[NickD 203]

Now if they could just keep the ones that have the guns from shooting them into the air on the 4th of July or New Years

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

Actually what they do is impose a hardship on responsible gun owners and give a lot more guns to the bad guys. Are they passing laws on not bring your guns to town? Does the sheriff take all the guns aways and store them until the guys leave.

Why do we have a$$holes running this country?

[natty bumppo 297]

Now if they could just keep the ones that have the guns from shooting them into the air on the 4th of July or New Years

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

Actually what they do is impose a hardship on responsible gun owners and give a lot more guns to the bad guys. Are they passing laws on not bring your guns to town? Does the sheriff take all the guns aways and store them until the guys leave.

Why do we have a$$holes running this country?

cause a$$holes keep electing them ...

[NickD 203]

Now if they could just keep the ones that have the guns from shooting them into the air on the 4th of July or New Years

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

Actually what they do is impose a hardship on responsible gun owners and give a lot more guns to the bad guys. Are they passing laws on not bring your guns to town? Does the sheriff take all the guns aways and store them until the guys leave.

Why do we have a$holes running this country?

cause a$holes keep electing them ...

Ha, would be nice to hear a politician running for office start off his speech with, "My fellow A$$Holes".

[Jasman0717 9]

Now if they could just keep the ones that have the guns from shooting them into the air on the 4th of July or New Years

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

Absolutely

[Peikko 1,575]

Gun crime has been reducing in LA, particularly homicides. Someone is doing something right.

It's also 'interesting' to note that when it comes to 'gun laws' there is a certain faction who are suddenly of the 'laws don't make people better' brigade when in every other area they are all for tightening laws.

*not THAT interesting*

Edited February 13, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now if they could just keep the ones that have the guns from shooting them into the air on the 4th of July or New Years

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

Actually what they do is impose a hardship on responsible gun owners and give a lot more guns to the bad guys. Are they passing laws on not bring your guns to town? Does the sheriff take all the guns aways and store them until the guys leave.

Why do we have a$$holes running this country?

How does it put a hardship on "responsible gun owners" to be barred from buying a gun if they have been convicted of a certain type of offence?

I mean... they take your drivers license away if you commit too many moving violations. How is this different?

Edited February 13, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[justashooter 430]

How does it put a hardship on "responsible gun owners" to be barred from buying a gun if they have been convicted of a certain type of offence?

you really are blind, aren't you? he was talking about gun restrictions, in general.

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

Actually what they do is impose a hardship on responsible gun owners

the trouble with allowing cities and other political subdivisions to enacty ordnances independently is that a person can step one foot over a line, and unknowingly become a felony criminal in that step. for this reason, pennsylvania has a "preemption statute" that prohibits local ordnances of this type, reserving the regulation of posession, transfer, and purchase to the state legislature.

[Peikko 1,575]

I can't see how it has any effect on responsible gun owners or give more guns to bad guys. What it does is allow the police to arrest people found with guns under a new set of circumstances. Seems like a good tool for them.

Trouble is, there are certain people who hear the words 'gun' and 'law' and have a brain freeze which is sad because some gun control in urban areas is absolutely necessary.

[Jasman0717 9]

Gun crime has been reducing in LA, particularly homicides. Someone is doing something right.

Thats because the gansters haven't been able to afford gas for drive-bys

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How does it put a hardship on "responsible gun owners" to be barred from buying a gun if they have been convicted of a certain type of offence?

you really are blind, aren't you? he was talking about gun restrictions, in general.

everyone knows more laws are gonna make people safe.

Actually what they do is impose a hardship on responsible gun owners

the trouble with allowing cities and other political subdivisions to enacty ordnances independently is that a person can step one foot over a line, and unknowingly become a felony criminal in that step. for this reason, pennsylvania has a "preemption statute" that prohibits local ordnances of this type, reserving the regulation of posession, transfer, and purchase to the state legislature.

The thread is about a set of specific proposals, I get the "general argument" certainly - but it doesn't apply to this example, certainly not as a reason why this proposed legislation is a bad idea.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Trouble is, there are certain people who hear the words 'gun' and 'law' and have a brain freeze which is sad because some gun control in urban areas is absolutely necessary.

Its a bait and switch argument IMO - just as some of the arguments against the stimulus plan write off necessary government spending as "pork barrel".