California Senate passes gun database checks bill

[bripat9643]

What are "welfare checks" and how do they conduct them?

For instance, a report of possible child abuse..........

or a domestic disturbance call

And how would he federal government know whether you own a gun or not?

 

[OKTexas]

What are "welfare checks" and how do they conduct them?

For instance, a report of possible child abuse..........

or a domestic disturbance call

Actually no, a welfare check is conducted if a person doesn't show up for work for a couple of days and lives alone or neighbors call because a person hasn't been seen in a way that is out of the ordinary. The police will stop in to check on them.

Actually it could be either , or so I fail to see why you felt the need to correct me

Welfare Checks and the "Emergency Aid" Doctrine: Checking for victims in a residence upon a "reasonable belief" that someone inside a residence is in need of aid, or that there is an imminent threat to the life or welfare of someone inside, an immediate, justifies a warrantless entry. (People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464; Tamborino v. Superior Court (1986) 41 Cal.3rd 919; People v. Ammons (1980) 103 Cal.App.3rd 20.)

Welcome to Legal Update


I truly am smarter than you, keep that in mind in the future

Because domestic violence and child abuse calls are categorized differently.

What are you talking about? A domestic disturbance call is absolutely a welfare check. Read the definition I just supplied you right from the state law.

So, neighbors hear fighting , call the cops, the cops perform a welfare check to make sure everyone is alright, and that MAY turn into an arrest for domestic disturbance.


How silly to argue over something so obvious. Is your life that empty? Fine, I'll give you "the win" if you need it so badly.

I didn't personally attack you, your obvious insecurity makes you feel the need. What you cited is not State law but legal doctrine and legal decisions, there is a difference.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In a world of litigation, think of it as the state of Ca. protecting its own ass from a law suit by the hard working emergency service or social service people who are injured in the performance of their duties. "Why didn't you check the data base before you got shot while trying to save a mentally disturbed person? Thanks to the slick Ca. politicians he legal burden is now on the emergency service or social service personnel to search the data base before they respond to a call and screw you if you fail to do it and get hurt. Imagine how this bill is going to impact the response time to medical emergencies.

No, the information will queue up as the dispatcher pulls up all the other information about the suspect/whatever you call them.

LEA databases are completely interwoven since 9/11. Once relevant information is entered all databases are queried and all relevant information is displayed then relayed to the responding officer. IF the state had a database of which flavor ice cream you liked best , the dispatcher would have that information long before the responding officer arrived at your address.

In the case of a mobile request directly from the responding officer, the information would of course come straight to him.

 

[percysunshine]

From the link:

"It had been opposed by the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees. Its president, Brandon Combs, said that in the last three days the association changed its stance to neutral/watch in response to amendments that were made to the bill."


Sooo...California legislators pass another law which will not change anything.

Maybe that is a good thing....maybe not.

.

 

[Intolerant]

I lost all my guns in a boating accident.

 

[M14 Shooter]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

Sure I can. Owning a gun is fundamental right and the government has no need nor any business knowing who is exercising it.

**** you you ******* jerk. LE, social workers, truant officers, health care workers,EMT's and many others have a right to protect themselves.

Assholes like you believe untrained, UN vetted citizens have the right to carry firearms, no matter how fucked up they are.

^^^
A lie.

 

[pinqy]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

 

[whitehall]

Anyone who equates a domestic disturbance call with a "welfare check" needs a bigotry check. Poor Mrs. OJ Simpson called the Police on several domestic disturbances before she was permanently silenced. The operative word in the bill is "require". The Police, welfare workers and Emergency Services people would have no choice but to access the firearms data base before they responded to a call. If they failed to do so it would be a violation of procedure and if they were hurt while violating procedure the callus bureaucracy could fire them rather than be required to compensate them for injuries.

 

[Rotagilla]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

The bill requires law enforcement to search the California Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System database prior to conducting welfare checks on individuals to find out if they own a gun. Exceptions are made for “exigent” circumstances.

Yeah, cops going to check on the welfare of a mentally unstable person should be able to check a database to see if he owns firearms.

I wonder if people with unresolved anger issues would be included as "mentally unstable" and be included in the database?
When the gvt get to define vague terms however it wants/needs to , it never works out well for the citizens.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

Incorrect, A database actively discourages gun ownership, effectively infringing. Similar to if a guy in white robe is standing outside a voting precinct that is predominantly black swinging a noose around, he isn't actively interfering with anyone's right to vote, but he is actively discouraging it just the same, hence it's illegal.

If as I said you believe the 2nd applies to states, which I don't.

 

[turtledude]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

The bill requires law enforcement to search the California Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System database prior to conducting welfare checks on individuals to find out if they own a gun. Exceptions are made for “exigent” circumstances.

Yeah, cops going to check on the welfare of a mentally unstable person should be able to check a database to see if he owns firearms.

anti gun hysterics will pretend they have done SOMETHING and will engage in a cyber circle jerk congratulating each other when in reality it won't do a damn thing

The Clinton administration tried its best to find proof that the brady bill actually did something positive. Guess what goat boy? it did NOTHING to decrease violent crime. at BEST the waiting period (that now has sunset) prevented a FEW suicides by one age cohort of males (55-60 IIRC). as to stopping crime NADA.

so why do you far left extremists want to harass people?

 

[turtledude]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

Sure I can. Owning a gun is fundamental right and the government has no need nor any business knowing who is exercising it.

**** you you ******* jerk. LE, social workers, truant officers, health care workers,EMT's and many others have a right to protect themselves.

Assholes like you believe untrained, UN vetted citizens have the right to carry firearms, no matter how fucked up they are.

"untrained" LOL. maybe we should have literacy tests before people can post? or vote? Don't like the constitution? too bad. Grow a pair

 

[Vigilante]

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You want gun control?

Easy three step process

1. If you're found guilty of murder , you are hung on the town square within 48 hours of your conviction and appeal to the State Supreme Court

2. If your gun was used to commit a crime YOU are responsible for that crime - lock your guns up assholes

3. Make prison MUCH more unpleasant
Do those three things and crime rates in general , let alone crimes committed with a gun will drop like a rock.

 

[turtledude]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

that is an interesting argument and might be somewhat correct on a state level, since under the 10th Amendment, the several states (now including California) have certain police powers that only recently have been checked by the incorporation of the 2A throughout the 14th Amendment to the states and in that case, that might well mean that a STATE violation of the 2A might require a substantive interference with the right to keep and bear arms

ON THE OTHER HAND, the Federal government never was properly given any such powers and thus any infringement is violative of both the 2A and the 10A. Interestingly, the USSC has studiously ignored the 10A argument except in LOPEZ where a gun free school zone was held to be violative of the 10A as having to tenuous a connection to "interstate commerce"

 

[turtledude]

You want gun control?

Easy three step process

1. If you're found guilty of murder , you are hung on the town square within 48 hours of your conviction and appeal to the State Supreme Court

2. If your gun was used to commit a crime YOU are responsible for that crime - lock your guns up assholes

3. Make prison MUCH more unpleasant
Do those three things and crime rates in general , let alone crimes committed with a gun will drop like a rock.

so if someone breaks into you locked home and steals your gun you should be responsible?

now if you leave your gun in plain sight in an unlocked car-perhaps. If someone uses a crowbar to jack open your trunk of your car or your home's entrance-that's a different matter

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You want gun control?

Easy three step process

1. If you're found guilty of murder , you are hung on the town square within 48 hours of your conviction and appeal to the State Supreme Court

2. If your gun was used to commit a crime YOU are responsible for that crime - lock your guns up assholes

3. Make prison MUCH more unpleasant
Do those three things and crime rates in general , let alone crimes committed with a gun will drop like a rock.

so if someone breaks into you locked home and steals your gun you should be responsible?

now if you leave your gun in plain sight in an unlocked car-perhaps. If someone uses a crowbar to jack open your trunk of your car or your home's entrance-that's a different matter

Now come on, that's getting into the absurd. Most gun thefts are opportunity crimes. Meaning the gun was just right there, maybe open a gun cabinet and grab it.

I agree. if your gun is locked up securely and someone steals it anyway, that's another matter entirely

 

[turtledude]

You want gun control?

Easy three step process

1. If you're found guilty of murder , you are hung on the town square within 48 hours of your conviction and appeal to the State Supreme Court

2. If your gun was used to commit a crime YOU are responsible for that crime - lock your guns up assholes

3. Make prison MUCH more unpleasant
Do those three things and crime rates in general , let alone crimes committed with a gun will drop like a rock.

so if someone breaks into you locked home and steals your gun you should be responsible?

now if you leave your gun in plain sight in an unlocked car-perhaps. If someone uses a crowbar to jack open your trunk of your car or your home's entrance-that's a different matter

Now come on, that's getting into the absurd. Most gun thefts are opportunity crimes. Meaning the gun was just right there, maybe open a gun cabinet and grab it.

I agree. if your gun is locked up securely and someone steals it anyway, that's another matter entirely

I think we should be careful of criminalizing negligence when the crime is caused by a third party who criminally obtained a weapon and then criminally deployed the weapon

 

[pinqy]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

that is an interesting argument and might be somewhat correct on a state level, since under the 10th Amendment, the several states (now including California) have certain police powers that only recently have been checked by the incorporation of the 2A throughout the 14th Amendment to the states and in that case, that might well mean that a STATE violation of the 2A might require a substantive interference with the right to keep and bear arms

If there is no interference with the right to keep and bear arms, there is no violation of the second amendment. So I'm not sure how you think "a state violation would require substantive interference" if there is no violation without infringement.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the Federal government never was properly given any such powers and thus any infringement is violative of both the 2A and the 10A.

Well, of course an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the 2A. I said that. But a regulation that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is obviously not a violation.

 

[turtledude]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

that is an interesting argument and might be somewhat correct on a state level, since under the 10th Amendment, the several states (now including California) have certain police powers that only recently have been checked by the incorporation of the 2A throughout the 14th Amendment to the states and in that case, that might well mean that a STATE violation of the 2A might require a substantive interference with the right to keep and bear arms

If there is no interference with the right to keep and bear arms, there is no violation of the second amendment. So I'm not sure how you think "a state violation would require substantive interference" if there is no violation without infringement.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the Federal government never was properly given any such powers and thus any infringement is violative of both the 2A and the 10A.

Well, of course an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the 2A. I said that. But a regulation that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is obviously not a violation.

federal regulation is a violation of the tenth amendment if the constitution was properly followed

and many state regulations are violations as well

waiting periods are a violation
"assault weapon bans" are violations
Magazine capacity restrictions are violations

any law that prevents civilians from owning the same firearms that civilian Law enforcement officers can use is a violation

any law that makes you wait more than an hour to obtain a weapon is a violation

any law that limits the number of firearms you may own is a violation

showing an ID or being subject to a state imposed Instant background check is not an infringement