It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New L.A. gun control law proposed

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

New L.A. gun control law proposed


www.latimes.com

Just a few weeks after the Los Angeles City Council approved a batch of new gun and ammunition ordinances tightening restrictions on ammunition vendors, council members Jack Weiss and Janice Hahn are proposing a new law that would make it more difficult for individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors to own guns.

The proposal, which Weiss and Hahn plan to introduce as early as today's council meeting, would expand on a state law that bars possession of a gun for 10 years if convicted of certain crimes, including assault, illegal weapons sales or threatening a public official or a witness.


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Mmm-hmm...

More par for the course. The gun grabbers try to use every law they get passed to EXPAND and pass additional ones to disarm the populace.

Gotta love this line in particular, particularly the bolded part:


"would expand on a state law that bars possession of a gun for 10 years if convicted of certain crimes, including assault, illegal weapons sales or threatening a public official or a witness."


Quite timely, wouldn't you say? With all of the crooked and criminal "officials" being exposed, and an increasing public intolerance and anger over their misdeeds?



www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-2-2009 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
DD, you bolded exactly what jumped out at me when I read this. It's times like this I am glad of 2 things:
1. I do not live in LA
2. I have no intention of ever observing any laws of this nature.

It will be very interesting to see how liberally they define "threatening.". If they included a finite definition such as "issuing a malicious threat of great bodily harm or death to an elected official in regards to their actions performed under the jurisdiction of the office held" then maybe I could at least understand the spirit of the bill. The openness of it as is, however, seems to allow these restrictions even if a person is legitimately defending themselves or gets into it with an elected official in a capacity other than their office. Also, if we wanted to get technical, saying you won't vote for someone again or encouraging removal from office could be considered a threat.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Haha, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking---What is going to be their DEFINITION of a threat?

Calling an official an idiot? Saying he should be locked up? Criticizing him harshly?

My guess is they will use this as a weapon to intimidate and silence the public from voicing their dissent towards "those in power"...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
When I was a kid I always wanteto live in LA. All the movie stars and rock gods were there. Man I'm glad I grew out of that phase. All this is doing is making it easier to take away people' rights one at a time.




top topics
 
3

log in

join