|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: Push to make gun theft a felony in California once again
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Following passage of a popular ballot referendum that reduced many crimes in California last November to misdemeanors, a state lawmaker introduced legislation to make the theft of guns under $950 in value a felony.
This comes just months after Proposition 47 passed in a 17-point margin. Designed to reduce penalties for non-violent offenders such as drug possession and property crimes, it was intended to save taxpayer dollars spent in incarceration. The crimes transitioned from felonies to misdemeanors include commercial burglary, possession of stolen property or vehicle theft if under $950 in value, possession of illegal drugs and theft of most firearms. It is this last point that is now the target of a measure by a California lawmaker. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/20/2015)
|
The theft of any firearm should be a felony, for the simple reason that the thief has taken what the victim's civil rights... the Right to effective self-defense.
Too bad the Kalifornia Assembly doesn't see it that way: they have prohibited the open carry of loaded (ready to use) firearms, thus infringing on the core Right, an unloaded firearm being just a club, and an unwieldy one at that. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
