Letter to the Editor

Gun confiscations

Arroyo GrandeFebruary 4, 2013 

Many gun control advocates criticize those of us who fight additional restrictions on firearms ownership. The statement, “No one wants to take away your guns” is often repeated when suggesting further restrictions on gun ownership. But that statement is inherently false.

On Jan. 30, 2012, The Tribune reported that Assembly Bill 174 would eliminate “grandfather” clauses that allowed owning weapons if they were legally purchased prior to being banned. The entire text of AB 174 as written states: “Under current law, certain banned weapons are permitted under various “grandfathering-in” clauses. It is the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.”

If such grandfather clauses are eliminated, many legally-owned firearms would become illegal to own, forcing gun owners to either turn in their guns or refuse to do so, thereby breaking the law. It’s happened before. In 1999, the California Department of Justice required owners of some “assault weapons” to turn in weapons — without compensation — when an amnesty program was invalidated by the courts.

The intent of AB 174 is clear. It’s why I don’t trust people who say no one wants to take my guns away.

The Tribune is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service