New L.A. gun control law proposed

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

More from the same article:

Weiss and Hahn's measure would add other offenses to the list, including carrying a concealed weapon, possession of an assault weapon, burglary and misdemeanor gang crimes.

Noting that there have been 138 victims of gun violence in L.A. this year, Weiss said it was "time for more aggressive and more creative measures to stop the killing."Hahn said the measure was intended to target gangs.

"People who commit these types of crimes have already demonstrated bad judgment, and this ordinance gives us one more tool to keep guns out of their hands and off the streets of Los Angeles," she said.

The proposal would require council approval and legal review by the city attorney's office before it is drafted as an ordinance.

This is just another example of the white man trying to keep the black man down! Where is the outrage!

[Peikko 1,575]

Gang activity is not restricted to black men, dude, be civil.

[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.

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.

as i already indicated, allowing laws to vary by district frequently makes law abiding people into incidental "criminals".

state and federal law already provides definition for prohibited persons. cities that attempt to expand these definitions are in for civil rights violation lawsuits. S1983 can be an ugly thing.

[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.

as i already indicated, allowing laws to vary by district frequently makes law abiding people into incidental "criminals".

state and federal law already provides definition for prohibited persons. cities that attempt to expand these definitions are in for civil rights violation lawsuits. S1983 can be an ugly thing.

Yeah... I can see all those law suits being filed by illegal arms dealers and people who have threatened judges and district attorneys

[Heracles 417]

Gang activity is not restricted to black men, dude, be civil.

You're right. The rest are Hispanic.

No convicted felon should be allowed to own or carry a gun anywhere in the United States. You would think that is common sense.

[Peikko 1,575]

Dude, I presume you are just back from your last suspension, don't go there again. Gangs are not restricted to any one culture or ethnicity.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Isn't that the first thing the communists do when they take over? Disarm the people ?

[Peikko 1,575]

McCarthy is alive and well I see

[justashooter 430]

as i already indicated, allowing laws to vary by district frequently makes law abiding people into incidental "criminals".

state and federal law already provides definition for prohibited persons. cities that attempt to expand these definitions are in for civil rights violation lawsuits. S1983 can be an ugly thing.

Yeah... I can see all those law suits being filed by illegal arms dealers and people who have threatened judges and district attorneys

you didn't read the text of the article, my friend. this statute includes a restriction on persons convicted of a variety of misdemeanors, including unlawful possession of "assault weapons".

for reference, in california, it is a misdemeanor crime to retain possession of an AR15 rifle that was legally purchased, but not registered with the state before a certain date. this a result of a law that established a class of firearms (AR15 for example) that would come under regulation regardless of the date in which they were purchased, and affect guns purchased prior to the enactment of the law. so, we in the shooting sports community hear news stories monthly of older persons who were not aware of the law, or persons who inherit that are not aware of the law, etc, and incidently become criminals by mere possession of an item that was sold without restriction, and later deemed to require regulation.

persons convicted of this crime are not currently prohibited from purchasing firearms at a later date, but usually loose all firearms in their possession through police seizure incident to their arrest, and are forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to recover them, or quit claim.

let's slap them a little harder for not knowing that what they were doing was made illegal malum prohibitum ex post facto, when it is not malum in se.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, so 'ignorance of the law is no defense' on applies to anyone who is not a gun owner? Good to know

[justashooter 430]

Oh, so 'ignorance of the law is no defense' on applies to anyone who is not a gun owner? Good to know

it is usually good enough to prevent restriction of a constitutionally protected civil right.

on a related note, do a web search on DC V Heller.

[Heracles 417]

Dude, I presume you are just back from your last suspension, don't go there again. Gangs are not restricted to any one culture or ethnicity.

[Peikko 1,575]

Thanks for proving my point. The fact is that they come in all sizes and shapes so let's not go the 'but there are more of them who are XXX so that gives us the right to treat everyone who is XXX differently route' shall we?

[pedroh 21]

Thanks for proving my point. The fact is that they come in all sizes and shapes so let's not go the 'but there are more of them who are XXX so that gives us the right to treat everyone who is XXX differently route' shall we?

no, all hispanics are gangmembers and drug dealers... that's the vj logic that has prevailed since ancient times

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, so 'ignorance of the law is no defense' on applies to anyone who is not a gun owner? Good to know

it is usually good enough to prevent restriction of a constitutionally protected civil right.

on a related note, do a web search on DC V Heller.

On a related note, most police forces don't have the time to chase frivolity. If there is more to something than meets the eye, things get pursued, if not then generally speaking as long as the person complies with the regulations, they don't.