Heads Up, Revival of SB 948.

[Deleted member 16735]

The other half of Prop 47 was AB109 which moved people from state prison to county jails, worsening overcrowding in local facilities and extensive 'book and release' programs. Saved the state a ton of money at the expense of local jurisdictions and the public.

There were regular press articles on the 'snake bandit' once the number of break-ins crept up. He always broke in after hours to avoid being classified as 'violent' or 'threatening to people'. The system immediately let him out as he had figured out how not to represent a 'threat'. EVENTUALLY some DA took action and kept him locked up until trial, but there was minimal time served. Who puts a price on the damage he caused? There was $150k in provable damage by shop owners who took the extra time to document impact for money they would never see again. Then there are the impacts on folks who strengthened their security after they saw 'the system' wasn't going to protect them; the sleepless nights of business owners who had been robbed; the other folks who learned from his exploits?

There is no perfect system and the legislature tends to lurch from extreme (lock 'em up for life) to extreme (let 'em out). Recent moves in response to public outcry seem to be swinging pendulum back to more incarceration...

indeed, my point really is just that it's often much more complex than the two extremes of "soft" vs "hard" on crime with one party representing one and the other party representing another. I'm certainly not trying to justify anything the snake bandit did or that he should get away with it it's more a rhetorical discussion on what is actually good policy for preventing crime and decreasing recidivism. The state legislature wasn't motivated by ideology when then passed AB109, they were essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. Similarly on the issue of homelessness, there was a court case on the books until the Supreme Court issued an opinion in 2024 that essentially said that unless a city had enough beds to accommodate, that people couldn't be moved off of public lands they were camping on. Once Grants Pass v Johnson was decided, both the State and local jurisdictions didn't waste any time breaking up encampments. But the popular opinion of many was that Newsom himself was encouraging people to camp out and was essentially the cause of these encampments in the first place (and don't think I'm trying to say anything nice about Newsom, I hate the guy). A lot of these things are extremely complicated and a mix of case law, actual law, local jursidictions, funding. all kinds of . I just want something that works and it's very difficult to wade through the much to see what's really going on.

 

[grandpapeepap]

indeed, my point really is just that it's often much more complex than the two extremes of "soft" vs "hard" on crime with one party representing one and the other party representing another. I'm certainly not trying to justify anything the snake bandit did or that he should get away with it it's more a rhetorical discussion on what is actually good policy for preventing crime and decreasing recidivism. The state legislature wasn't motivated by ideology when then passed AB109, they were essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. Similarly on the issue of homelessness, there was a court case on the books until the Supreme Court issued an opinion in 2024 that essentially said that unless a city had enough beds to accommodate, that people couldn't be moved off of public lands they were camping on. Once Grants Pass v Johnson was decided, both the State and local jurisdictions didn't waste any time breaking up encampments. But the popular opinion of many was that Newsom himself was encouraging people to camp out and was essentially the cause of these encampments in the first place (and don't think I'm trying to say anything nice about Newsom, I hate the guy). A lot of these things are extremely complicated and a mix of case law, actual law, local jursidictions, funding. all kinds of . I just want something that works and it's very difficult to wade through the much to see what's really going on.

Not to mention the 2023 law signed by newsome that expanded the definition of "gravely disabled" to force people with mental illness and addiction into treatment. Newsome still sucks though ever since SF

 

[weaverftw]

If there was that much provable damage isnt that when insurance kicks in to cover it

Yes but having worked in insurance, often DAs/judges don’t care what happens with insurance claims and order restitution based on the same documentation the injured person provided to the insurance carrier. I have seen many times when a carrier paid a civil judgement or paid a claim w/o litigation for many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but the responsible individual still has restitution ordered even if the carrier showed that they made the other party whole for all the damages. This might be a jurisdictional thing, IANAL but it is frustrating that they can double dip. They might be legally required to transfer the funds to the insurance carrier (less deductible) due to subrogation and anti-double dipping laws, but the court doesn’t enforce that and the carrier might not even be aware of the restitution - if the criminal case/outcome was unbeknownst to them, the business owner might get double paid for the same damages.

All this to say, yes your comment is relevant in theory but might be irrelevant to the actual restitution ordered.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Yes but having worked in insurance, often DAs/judges don’t care what happens with insurance claims and order restitution based on the same documentation the injured person provided to the insurance carrier. I have seen many times when a carrier paid a civil judgement or paid a claim w/o litigation for many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but the responsible individual still has restitution ordered even if the carrier showed that they made the other party whole for all the damages. This might be a jurisdictional thing, IANAL but it is frustrating that they can double dip. They might be legally required to transfer the funds to the insurance carrier (less deductible) due to subrogation and anti-double dipping laws, but the court doesn’t enforce that and the carrier might not even be aware of the restitution - if the criminal case/outcome was unbeknownst to them, the business owner might get double paid for the same damages.

All this to say, yes your comment is relevant in theory but might be irrelevant to the actual restitution ordered.

I appreciate your response.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Not to mention the 2023 law signed by newsome that expanded the definition of "gravely disabled" to force people with mental illness and addiction into treatment. Newsome still sucks though ever since SF

My very first time voting was voting against Newsom for mayor of SF, I hated him wayyyy before it was cool

 

[grandpapeepap]

My very first time voting was voting against Newsom for mayor of SF, I hated him wayyyy before it was cool

I usually call him by a different name but dont want to use that here on this server. He failed his way upwards all his life

 

[Edgy01]

I at one time had subscribed to this site but you’re right, it’s clickbait, and rarely presents new useful information.

And thankfully, the FSC is not a requirement for any military personnel.

 

[broccoliavenger1]

If this passes, and you plan to stop participating in serialized gun purchases when your FSC expires unless you want to spend hundreds to thousands extra for CA CCW; the last day to get your FSC or to renew is End of June 2028.

"This is me at the moment... lol"

I was thinking about this. Was planning on loosing mine and getting a new one the day before. Hopefully that will buy me 5 years

there is zero infrastructure that will be able to support this in the Bay Area. I can imagine it will be months waiting to take the class or live fire training. If they do going to the range on the weekend is going to be packed!

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I at one time had subscribed to this site but you’re right, it’s clickbait, and rarely presents new useful information.

And thankfully, the FSC is not a requirement for any military personnel.

Only wish this would apply to Combat Arms role military personnel and Combat Arms role Veterans.

 

[Gawernator]

Only wish this would apply to Combat Arms role military personnel and Combat Arms role Veterans.

Why? That’s pretty stupid

 

[grandpapeepap]

Why? That’s pretty stupid

why should some desk jockey get special treatment /s

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Why? That’s pretty stupid

Personal preference since the state's preference is active duty only.

And since I am not active, but yet Combat Arms Vet.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

why should some desk jockey get special treatment /s

If an active pencil pusher is exempt, a Combat Arms Vet should be as well...

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Guess it is an obvious sign who signed up as a "secretary" and who signed as "grunt".

 

[grandpapeepap]

lot of assuming about a few things based off emotes, its okay its expected from grunts

 

[Gawernator]

Guess it is an obvious sign who signed up as a "secretary" and who signed as "grunt".

I did VBSS armed with a M11. Nobody is combat arms in the Navy lol. Pick your rate pick your fate

 

[Gawernator]

why should some desk jockey get special treatment /s

Well I say that because everyone has to go through a firearms training / safety class and qualify with some sort of firearm depending on branch. So it wouldn’t make sense to exclude people going through actual training

 

[grandpapeepap]

Well I say that because everyone has to go through a firearms training / safety class and qualify with some sort of firearm depending on branch. So it wouldn’t make sense to exclude people going through actual training

 

[shroom]

Looks like this bill is headed to Newsoms desk. We're screwed aren't we?

NRA-ILA | California: Anti-Gun Bills Pass the Legislature, Now Heading to the Governor's Desk

The California Legislature has given final approval to three anti-Second Amendment Bills that now go to the Governor's desk for his consideration. Chief among these measures is Senate Bill 948, which imposes sweeping new firearm training requirements on law-abiding Californians.

www.nraila.org

 

[phred]

And that you won’t be able to buy a gun until you have the fsc but you can’t train for the fsc until you have your gun

obviously, the next step a learners permit process.