Study of CA gun law finds blacks most likely to face felony charge

[Romulus]

http://wcbs880.com/national/GunLaw-aa/resources_news_html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) A study of California's weapons registration law found that blacks were far more likely to be charged with a felony than whites, who were more often charged with a misdemeanor for the same offense.

The study by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer prompted calls for changes from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the lawmaker who authored the legislation defended it.

The study examined data on how the law, which took effect Jan. 1, 2000, is being applied. The law makes it illegal for anyone to possess a gun who is not registered with the state as that firearm's owner. Offenders can be charged with a felony or a misdemeanor, a lesser count.

In 2003, less than 40 percent of whites faced felony charges under the law; more than 70 percent of blacks and nearly 70 percent of Hispanics were charged with felonies.

*snip/more*
***********************************

Can someone say "oxymoron":
"unintended consequences" that were entirely foreseeable (discretionary police power given to right-wing LEO's + ethnic minority citizens = discrimination (duh)) :eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. It's only right. These discrepancies are only going to build

resentment in our government, and lord knows we don't need any more of that!

[aikoaiko]

2. Some will probably want make the law a felony for eveyone,

... but I say do away with the registration.


:grouphug:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulus]

6. wow , one "deleted message" in a thread with four posts!

thanks to whomever policed the post - I never got to read it, but I'm sure it lowered the IQ of all who did . . .

[slackmaster]

4. So much misinformation it's hard to know where to begin

The law that took effect on 1/1/2000 covers only firearms classified by the state as "assault weapons". The article makes it sound like it covers all firearms. That is complete nonsense.

There is not now nor has there ever been a registration requirement for non-"assault" long guns unless they are fully automatic or fit the state's definition of short-barrelled rifles or shotguns.

Handgun registration is de facto, not de jure: Starting in 1968 every lawful transfer of a handgun in California has been reported to the Department of Justice, so it at least theoretically has a list of every handgun and who owns it, except for ones transferred before reporting began, and homebuilt ones. It's not an actual registry, just a reporting requirement. I personally own two handguns that are not known to the DoJ, and it's perfectly legal for me to have them. There is one other exception that is not covered by the law: If you send a handgun out for repairs and it comes back with a different frame (i.e. a new serial number), there is no procedure and no legal requirement to update the state's records.

If you give a handgun as a gift to a family member you have to report that transfer on a special form - http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf . But the only situation in which you can "register" a handgun that is not already on the DoJ's unofficial registry is when you move to California from another state. See http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/ab991.htm . You do NOT have to register rifles or shotguns; there is no way to do so (except for those that qualify as "assault weapons", which you cannot legally import). The state has absolutely no records of rifles and shotguns other than the small number of "assault weapons" that are grandfathered.

The article seems to be about SOME kind of racial disparity in the way a law related to firearms is being enforced, but it's so garbled up with nonsense that even with my intimate knowledge of California gun laws I can't tell what law they're talking about.

:shrug:

[Romulus]

5. thanks for the info

I only knew what was in the article - context really helps!

[goju]

7. Since when?

I lived in CA some time ago, never knew I was supposed to "register" my pistol. This has been in place since 68?

[slackmaster]

8. It's not officially registration but the DoJ has the data

When you buy a handgun the make, model, and serial number are transmitted to the DoJ along with your name and address when the seller (FFL holder) requests the background check. When you buy a long gun there is no information about the weapon sent to the DoJ.

Yes, it's been in place (for handguns) since 1968. When the process began there was no requirement for people who already had handguns to register them. Handgun registration for people moving to the state didn't start until a few years ago, so there are probably millions of unregistered handguns legally in the possession of Californians.

There is no requirement that a handgun in your possession be registered per se, but if you are arrested with a handgun that is registered to someone else, it suggests an illegal transfer may have occurred.

I wish the article was more clear about what it's talking about, but taken at face value it's just plain wrong. I hate bad writing.