Chuck Michel, an attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said gun rights groups originally supported the creation of the program because it was designed to get guns out of the hands of violent criminals and felons.
"The CAPP program is good in theory," Michel said. "In practice, however, there are now so many complicated ways to lose your gun rights over paperwork and minor violations that many lawyers don't understand the system and many people don't even realize they're prohibited.
"Regrettably, CAPP is frequently being misused against these minor offenders who have often been misadvised about their legal status."
...is paved with what kind of intentions again? They really couldn't see this one coming?
And what "minor offenders"? The "Authorized Journalists" told us right up front this was designed to round up "California's most violent gun-toting felons"...
I'd like to know all the "gun rights groups" that threw their support behind this--as well as the ones that didn't.
[Via Bruce Mills]
5 comments:
How do you keep pitch forks out of the hands of violent criminals? These people are idiots.
Chuck Michel isn't too bright, or he would never have substituted baseless hope for the hard learned experience of all those who told him prior to this becoming law that the situation that now exists if exactly what he would get for his support of what "sounded like a good idea".
He thought the CAPP program was for use against those "other people". He didn't realize that to the state he IS those "other people".
Those of us that support the exercise of citizens' rights spend more time in battle with people who think they are on our side, but in reality are pawns for anyone with what "sounds like a good idea" for use in reining in "those other people".
The younger members of our community tend to think the skepticism exhibited by us more seasoned folks is a function of age. It doesn't occur to them that it is a function of experience. The only part age plays is that we have had more time to be available for the experience and have learned from it.
Yet, we may as well not have learned a damn thing. For you see, our younger people just know they are more modern, more intelligent, more educated, more plugged-in than we. This myopia forces them to same learning curve we had. During their learning curve much harm can and will be done with their approval and sometimes with their active participation. Ask Chuck Michel.
By the time they know what we now know, they will be the older guys trying to wise up their younger brothers who won't listen to them either.
And it is a damn shame, because some of the people of which I speak are damn fine people, but woefully naive, with a naivete that masquerades as "reasonableness". And thus, they are as dangerous to our liberties as are declared enemies of those liberties.
When speaking of unalienable rights, "reasonable restriction" is an oxymoron.
This is why I remain an "absolutely no-compromise" radical.
straightarrow.
Well said. Thank you.
C.H.
You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. —LYNDON B. JOHNSON
Post a Comment