www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ-SP6GEDTI

Cam Edwards talks to California attorney Chuck Michel

The case is known as Jeff Silvester et.al. v Kamala Harris, et.al.

“We’ve joined in this lawsuit because it makes no sense for California to require a gun owner who already possesses a firearm from buying another one within a few days,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We recall what Dr. Martin Luther King said, that A right delayed is a right denied’.”

“Laws that infringe on the right to purchase arms have to be more than just merely rational and must directly serve important governmental interests,” added Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation. “Here, the law is not just irrational but actually contradictory. We filed this case right before Christmas in the hopes that, by next Christmas, gun owners will not suffer this continuing infringement on their right to acquire firearms.”

“The State has absolutely no reason to infringe the rights of California gun owners who already possess firearms when they buy another one,” said attorney Jason Davis who is representing the plaintiffs.

California currently requires the registration of handguns in California. And, beginning January 2014, it will also require the registration of all newly-purchased rifles and shotguns. Notably, California keeps a current database of all residents who are prohibited by state or federal law from owning or possessing firearms. Individual plaintiffs Jeff Silvester, Michael Poeschl, and Brandon Combs each have firearms registered with the State of California. Mr. Combs and Mr. Silvester also have firearms licenses from the State that constitute ongoing background checks.

“In just about every other state in the U.S., I as a law-abiding gun owner could walk in and, after passing an instant national background check, walk out with a firearm to defend myself in my home,” Poeschl said. “What’s really frustrating is that California is one of the very few states that forces gun owners to register all handguns that they buy. If the State’s database saying that I already lawfully own a gun isn’t proof that I don’t need a cooling-off’ period, then what is?”

“I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State,” Silvester noted. “It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.”

“As a collector, I submitted to a Live Scan background check and obtained a Certificate of Eligibility to Possess Firearms from the State of California at my own expense,” added Combs. “In the Internet era, where every California gun dealer has a computer connected directly to the State’s databases, there is no logical reason to force me to wait 10 days and make another trip simply because California doesn’t want to acknowledge the Certificate that it issued to me. I have registered guns, and I have the State telling me that I can possess guns, but for some reason I can’t exercise my constitutionally protected rights for another ten days? That’s insane.”

Peace officers throughout California have bought more than 7,600 assault weapons that are outlawed for civilians in the decade since state lawmakers allowed the practice, according to data obtained by The Associated Press after it was revealed that federal authorities are investigating illegal gun sales by law enforcement.
Investigators have not said what kinds of weapons were involved, but did say they were ones that officers can buy but civilians cannot. That category also can include certain types of handguns and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

We would ask, if private citizens can’t own these guns, why do the police need them?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZQVESQNlVU

Cam Edwards talks to California attorney Chuck Michel

“In a highly secret operation, federal agents in Sacramento executed search warrants Thursday as part of an investigation of illegal gun sales that targets law enforcement officials, The Bee has learned.”

According to the story at least targets in the investigation, which includes sheriff’s deputies. The article adds:

“Police officers can obtain some weapons that are not available to the public, experts say, and typically must provide a gun dealer with proper paperwork, such as a letter from their chief or sheriff.”

Those who say, “only the police should have guns” should think hard about that statement given this latest case of police selling illegal guns. We also would like to point out this occurred in California, a state with very strict gun laws. How are those working out, we ask, if the police are doing the selling?

Actually to the story, “the two month old regulation on gun merchants in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas is necessary to prevent guns from being sold to Mexican drug cartels.”

Again, this is a disgraceful situation considering ATF’s role in Fast and Furious, and Mexico’s handling of their affairs.

The story titled, “US defends gun sale reporting requirement in court,” does at least offer some key facts on the situation:

“The requirement was imposed amid controversy over ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious which tried to track guns suspected of being bought by straw purchasers back to gun-smuggling ringleaders, who have long eluded law enforcement.”

While that passage is fair enough, it still puts the blame on the gun shops as much as the ATF.

“The TSA missed a loaded handgun that was packed in the luggage of a passenger bound for Portland. The airport ramp crew found the gun when it tumbled out of the unzipped compartment of a bag.”

No doubt this will spur more crack downs that will affect law-abiding gun owners, while the TSA clearly dropped the ball!

“The statistics show that violent crime actually fell six percent in 2010. Rates are less than half of what they were 20 years ago for murder and non-negligent manslaughter (4.8 per 100,000 population), the lowest since 1963.”

Last week there was outrage over the mass shooting, but this type of coverage is seldom reported. The paper further added:

“In fact, two of the three states with the highest murder levels — California and New York — also have the most restrictive gun laws, denying virtually all citizens the right to concealed carry to protect themselves.”

Again, where is the reporting on this angle of the story? There is no crime, so the media remains mum on the issue.