….wait, California?
(SFGate) In the divisive debates over gun control, here is something all factions should agree on: Deadly weapons should be taken out of the hands of those who have been deemed a risk because of felony convictions or episodes of domestic violence, mental health conditions or drug addictions.
California is the only state that has the ability to cross-check records of gun registrations against the list of those who are legally forbidden to possess firearms.
State Attorney General Kamala Harris has been making a concerted effort to confiscate guns from those on the banned list, but it’s a monumental task. At a legislative hearing last week, a representative from her Department of Justice said that about 20,000 registered gun owners in the state are ineligible to possess firearms – and that list is growing by about 3,000 a year.
The confiscation of firearms from felons and owners with court-certified issues with anger management, mental illness or addiction poses no danger to the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
See, this is a common sense idea, going after those who aren’t legally entitled to own a gun. Of course, in some cases, someone is restricted simply because they are a felon but aren’t a danger. Consider, Martha Stewart was convicted of 4 felonies, making her ineligible to own a gun. Is she a danger or a threat?
And, this still means that there are quite a few serious criminals running around California who won’t get a gun legally. There are no shortage of gangs in the Golden State. But, this is at least a start which doesn’t attempt to deal with the gun issue with a blanket decree that ends up hurting law abiding citizens who are legally entitled to own a gun.
