Original post made
on Mar 20, 2013
This story contains 169 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
Kudos and thanks to both EPA and MP PD for a job well done!
Obviously they were not members of a well regulated militia as suggested by the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let the Court read that very narrowly and require such militia membership for all who own military style weapons.
Where's the correct photo? 4 long guns that are bolt action (only fires one at a time) and 3 shot guns hardly qualify as assault rifles. The revolvers and pistols are also passe. But no mention of the hatchet nor the knife. After O.J. lets ban the knives too!
Yes, the issue was parolees and those on probation should not be allowed to have these weapons that are legal to own in CA.
@ Look Closely - It was nice to see I wasn't the only one that noticed there wasn't a single "assault type weapon" shown.
Those look like some nice firearms - I wonder if they are stolen?
But I concur - the issue is that they were parolees and not supposed to have guns - legal CA guns or not.
Firearm owners generally get a bum rap - so we tend to keep our thoughts to ourselves. Too bad we can't have a rational dialog.
Yes, a rational dialog.
Like having background checks on ALL gun sales, to prevent criminals and the like from getting guns.
Polls show 80-90 percent of Americans agree on universal background checks.
Rational enough? Or shall we just complement those that use hyperbole such as "After O.J. lets ban the knives too!"
Yea look closly there are at least two AR lowers on the table. Geez. That means its the registered portion of the firearm.
@ Rational Guy - universal background checks? Actually, as a firearm owner I support the concept of universal checks. To be perfectly clear, and to show I am not trying to parse a phrase, that is "universal" as in "all sales, public or private".
The simple way to do that is to expand the system we have here in California - All firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. The buyer must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements (which include a background check). The only exceptions to this requirements are transfers between immediate family members.
The system works - it runs a background check (which to me is rational) and does not "register" the firearm (which to me is objectionable). A failed background check would then halt the sale - which is something I think we all (pro and anti firearm folks) agree on.
So, I support background checks on all sales as we currently have here in California.
I welcome this discussion as long as it doesn't get personal. Hyperbole does not help the discussion.