Another gun confiscation in California : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ More gun confiscation in California? State may take some firearms without compensation


By Stephan Archer ) 1999

While some California gun owners are turning in their illegal guns for cash, others may have to turn them in for nothing at all.

In a situation related to California's current buy back program in which the state is offering $230 to gun owners in exchange for their SKS "Sporter" rifles, owners of certain semiautomatics other than the SKS "Sporter" may have to give up their firearms without compensation to avoid facing criminal prosecution.

The same Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989 that created all the confusion with the various models of the SKS is now creating confusion again. This time, however, the debate won't just be over what gun should be confiscated. It will be concerning the registration deadline of the firearms mentioned in the Roberti-Roos law.

To lawfully possess one of the guns mentioned in the Roberti-Roos law, Californians must have purchased the weapon before June 1, 1989, according to Penal Code section 12280. To be fully compliant with state law, the gun owner must also have registered the gun with the California Department of Justice by March 30, 1992.

However, during the registration period, then Attorney General Dan Lungren extended the registration period giving gun owners more time.

"It was Lungren's staff's interpretation that there was no firm date when the registrations closed, and that's why they continued to do it," said Steve Helsley, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association of America.

But then on Aug. 21, 1998, the Superior Court in San Francisco handed down a decision saying Lungren and his Justice Department had no discretionary authority to register assault weapons as identified in the Roberti-Roos law beyond the law's registration deadline.

Now, it is up to the current state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, to decide how best to handle this new court decision.

WorldNetDaily obtained a copy of a proposed letter designed to notify the estimated 1,550 assault weapons owners who were allowed to register after March 30, 1992. The letter, dated June 8, 1999, would have told the gun owners to turn in their registered weapons.

"You are advised to relinquish the assault weapon to a police or sheriff's department pursuant to California Penal Code section 12288 or render the weapon permanently inoperable," the letter said.

The letter also stated that the Justice Department would refund any registration fee paid when the gun was registered. However, nowhere in the letter did it mention any compensation for the firearm itself.

Regarding whether or not the letter had been sent out to anyone yet, Mike Broderick, assistant chief of the Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis at the Justice Department, said, "There has been nothing released to anybody yet."

Broderick further stated the matter is still under litigation.

If the letters do go out, however, Helsley said the NRA will fight the decision in court.

"If Lockyer decides to start confiscating guns -- which is clearly what their plan is -- we're going to go to court immediately to stop it," said Helsley.

********************************************************************************************* California has always led the way in this country as far as trends go. Can the rest of the country be far behind?

-- (, July 02, 1999


I'm singing Masters of War by Bob Dylan as I lament publicly that weapons like these much less the really big ones were ever invented. What in the world are human beings thinking? And we are supposed to have been made in God's image? Oh well, somebody made a hell of a lot of money on these things...and the population was too high anyway!

-- Sand Mueller (, July 02, 1999.

Funny, I seem to remember reading a 1932 Supreme Court Case that would obtain here and would indicate that these are PRECISELY the guns PROTECTED by the 2nd Ammendment.

When are we going to find a deep pockets law firm with enough spine to go to court and get a current ruling on the Constitutional grounds for firearms?


-- Chuck, a night driver (, July 02, 1999.

Sorry Chuck, but the 1938 (39?) MILLER case before the supreme court 'overrules' any 1932 decision like that.

The state showed up (lots of money), but the defendent didn't (broke). So the state won.


-- Jollyprez (, July 02, 1999.

JollyPrez court case mentioned was covered in the novel "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. (Fiction, but weaves in actual historical events such as that case. Book starts with the Jewish Polish Warsaw ghetto uprising and culminates about now). Just enter "Unintended Consequences" in the book search window on

-- A (, July 02, 1999.

Chuck, the case you're reffering to is the one Jolly mentions, and Jolly, you've got your facts awry.

1.The defendant showed up DEAD (Miller died before the case reached the SC).

2. The conviction was upheld because the court found that a sawed-off shotgun (the possession of which Miller was being prosecuted for) had no militia purpose (tankers, or trench fighters in WWI could've told them differently). The implication is that any weapon of the type commonly in use by the military IS protected by the 2nd, current fascistical attempts to outlaw certain semi-auto's notwithstanding.

Get your gun-control facts straight. It may become extremely important in the times ahead to know who decided what, and when.

-- capper (--@-.-), July 03, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ