http://www.y2knewswire.com/19990623hi.htm -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong." Dennis Miller http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html Reality Pump: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Title: Y2K news and analysis from Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM
|
|
The Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM Daily Report Daily Y2K news and analysis, free of charge. For a free subscription, click here for the main page. |
| Learn the truth about Y2K and support Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM: read about the Y2KNEWSWIRE Information Products. In order to remain journalistically-objective, Y2KNEWSWIRE does something no mainstream news outlet dares to try: we refuse to accept advertisements! Our hard-hitting information products represent our sole source of revenue. Jeff Rense, host of Sightings on the Radio calls us, "The most responsible and informative [Y2K] news site on the Internet." Dr. Gary North called our FAA story, "one of the best pieces of investigative journalism I have seen on the U.S. government and Y2K." WorldCharts rated Y2KNEWSWIRE the 15th most popular site on the Internet. If you'd like to keep receiving this kind of dedicated, objective Y2K journalism, advertising-free, browse our information products. |
|
Y2KNEWSWIRE has confirmed with the California State Attorney General office: certain firearms are now under a confiscation order. This, also posted on a state-run web site. California residents must turn in their SKS rifles by 1/1/2000 -- precisely the Y2K rollover date -- or face criminal prosecution. Recently-enacted legislation mandates this confiscation, calling it a "buyback" program and offering to reimburse gun owners $230 per "relinquished" rifle. Amid cries from gun owners that their Second Amendment rights are being further trampled just in time for Y2K, Y2KNEWSWIRE hit the phones to find out exactly what's going on here. We spoke with Nathan Barankin, Director of Communications for the California Attorney General office, who informed us that this recent SKS gun ban issue arises from an unresolved legal definition. California was one of the first states to pass a ban on so-called "assault weapons," which included the SKS rifle -- but only if the rifle had a detachable magazine. Rifles with fixed, non-removable magazines were exempt from this confiscation order, but those with removable magazine had to be recorded ("registered") and turned over to government authorities. Many owners of fixed-magazine SKS rifles later converted them to removable-magazine models. At the time, the Attorney General (who is not the current AG) wrote a letter to these gun owners assuring them that these rifles were perfectly legal and not subject to the gun confiscation order. In 1996, a man owning one of these converted rifles was arrested in Santa Clara County and prosecuted by the District Attorney for possessing an illegal firearm. The case wound its way to the state Supreme Court where a decision was finally handed down: yes, indeed, these rifles are illegal, the court said. This ruling created instant criminals. Barankin told Y2KNEWSWIRE, "So what we had in 1997 was, by judicial ruling, a law that says all these people who had been informed that these weapons were legal… were now suddenly felons." Yes: a state court decision transformed law-abiding citizens into felons. Recognizing the obvious problem here, the state legislature passed a bill that would allow owners of these newly-illegal SKS rifles a "window of opportunity" to turn them in without being prosecuted as felons. Barankin says, "This was not something that the legislature took a great deal of pleasure in doing." In fact, the author of this bill was a former chapter president of the NRA in Los Angeles. Currently, the Attorney General is trying to get the word out to people so that local police aren't forced to arrest these newly-defined "felons" who would likely end up doing time in prison for owning a gun that the state previously assured them was perfectly legal! THAT'S THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION He didn't waver. He answered, "Let me put it this way, Bill Lockyer [the Attorney General] himself is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. What the state is attempting to do is enact reasonable gun control laws that are necessary to protect the public. One of those laws covers the assault weapons." We asked whether the current confiscation order would soon be expanded to other firearms. Barankin told us, "No." He explained further, "This is a very narrow situation, necessitated by the poor interpretation of an existing law and a court ruling. The state of California is not interested in getting in the business of confiscating anyone's weapons." Y2KNEWSWIRE then asked about the confiscation deadline: 1/1/2000. Just in time for Y2K. Barankin answered, "It is a coincidence. This was a law that was enacted in late Fall, last year, and generally laws that are passed in California become effective the next January 1, so they just wanted to give people a year to comply with the law." According to Barankin, then, this gun confiscation order has nothing to do with Y2K and everything to do with correcting a legal snafu. Barankin, by the way, was very straightforward and more than happy to answer even our most aggressive questions. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CONFISCATION ORDER AND POTENTIAL Y2K RAMIFICATIONS The only people allowed to own these rifles are those with the right "papers," authorized by state officials. All this sounds a little too familiar, and it has probably only worsened the fear of those individuals theorizing that Y2K will result in the invocation of various Executive Orders that activate the widespread confiscation of firearms. The State of California, it seems, did not go out its way to make sure its gun confiscation instructions did not add to this fear. CRIMINALS PROBABLY WON'T COMPLY As this Dept. of Justice employee points out, efforts to confiscate guns from criminals often has the opposite effect: criminals ignore the law while law-abiding gun owners comply. This further empowers criminals by changing the ratio of gun possession. After the confiscation is complete, criminals know that fewer private citizens have firearms with which to defend themselves. THE Y2K EFFECT The story here isn't directly about guns, really; it's about a state bureaucracy that allows itself to become mired in details while avoiding the Year 2000 question: will these laws make the people safer when Y2K arrives? Or, put another way, will increasing the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed citizens result in fewer crimes being committed during any potential Y2K disruption? When we posed this very question to another mid-level employee at the Attorney General office, he disavowed having anything to do with those "top-level" decisions, saying, "We have a leader in this department that tells us what to do." Stricken with disbelief at the invocation of that phrase -- "just following orders" -- we ended the interview. In the end, we were left with a splintered picture of what's going on with gun control and Y2K in California. There is no conspiracy in this isolated case. Well-meaning individuals are attempting to prevent everyday citizens from being arrested as felons by giving them time to turn in these firearms suddenly deemed "illegal." But the people in charge seem unconcerned about the end result of their actions. They're enforcing a state Supreme Court decision, oblivious to either the historical parallels or the Y2K ramifications of their actions. They did not seem deceptive, "evil" or malicious. They did, however, seem ignorant of the geopolitical history of gun control and how increasing the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed citizens during Y2K might be a terrible idea.
|
Did you enjoy this report? Click here to send the web address of this story to a friend.
If you have a Y2K-related story tip for us (anonymity assured):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright ©
1999. All rights reserved.
This page is subject to the following disclaimer:
http://www.y2knewswire.com/Index.asp?pageid=disclaimer
All statements made herein, and made since August of 1998,
are Year 2000 Statements and are retroactively protected
as Year 2000 readiness disclosures under the Good Samaritan Act
