news

Millions of Californians already legally own Glock handguns. Enforcing the law in this case refers to confiscating the legally acquired private property of citizens who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own their property. How do you reconcile your suggestion to enforce the law with those Californians' fourth ammendment right against unreasonable search and seizure of private property and their six ammendment right to due process?

Incentive programs are one idea, but they do have some problems, the biggest and most obvious being: how much do you offer, who's going to pay for it, and what do you do with them once you have them?

A Glock handgun retails for $500 - 600. Do you offer that much? If so, that will be very expensive, and now that they're banned, you won't be able to sell them for nearly that much to recoup the cost. If you offer less, how is that not a violation of one's fourth ammendment right against unreasonable seizure of private property?

Should gun manufacturers be responsible for bearing the cost of reimbursing every Glock-owning Californian, or should the citizens who voted for the measure pay for it since they wanted it?

Once all the Glocks are confiscated, what should be done with them? If they're sold, that just moves the "problem" elsewhere. If they're destroyed, that's a waste of perfectly working steel and polymer you just paid good money for.