What are you opinions on this article please. [for educational purpose only] 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 But the story may be much larger than this. Barankin told Y2KNEWSWIRE about the trees, not the forest. We threw out a wildcard and asked Barankin his thoughts on the parallels between California's gun confiscation program and Adolf Hitler's gun registration (and subsequent confiscation) that ultimately helped the regime kill millions of ethnic Jews with minimum resistance.

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 Interestingly, the web site describing the gun confiscation program does contain phrases reminiscent of authoritarian control: "Procedures to turn in your [rifle]" and "...persons in California possessing an SKS semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine may be subject to prosecution, and the weapon subject to seizure..." Further instructions tell rifle owners, "To relinquish your [rifle] to your local law enforcement agency, you must strictly adhere to the following guidelines..."

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 Y2KNEWSWIRE has learned that at least one person in the state Dept. of Justice does not think this will remove these guns from the hands of criminals. We spoke with a senior level employee in the California Dept. of Justice who told us, under condition that we do not attribute the quote to him, "I haven't heard anybody say anything other than only the law-abiding people will turn them in."

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 In the context of Y2K, this current California gun confiscation order simply means that the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed citizens will be higher still. The (voting) majority of Californians have defined this as "safety," and this new level of "safety" will be achieved precisely on January 1, 2000. Oblivious to historical parallels, California says it is simply trying to clean up a surprise legal ruling that instantly redefined thousands of law-abiding citizens as "criminals."

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): tips@y2knewswire.com

-- Brenda Looney (blooney@aol.com), June 23, 1999

Answers

One more reason not to live in California.

-- fog (along@the.coast), June 23, 1999.

All this tells me is registration leads to confiscation. They've done it in NYC and now they are trying the same thing in CA. When ever possible keep needful things off the books.

-- nine (nine_fingers@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

Gezz, it takes a minute to pop the " fixed " mag. out and pop in the " removable " mag., bury your high cap. mag's and have 10 or 15 " strip-clips " ready to go. Short of a human wave attack, you're covered.

Got two pistols?

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 23, 1999.

-- snip...."I haven't heard anybody say anything other than only the law-abiding people will turn them in." --end snip. They better hope for an early response...........?

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

This is only the beginning---gun control and confiscation is definitely in the political agenda. Better wake up cause you're being stripped. This executive order crap is gonna be the death of us all and if people don't speak up and be heard it's only gonna get worse!! My 2 cents

-- M.T. Jewell (av8r_99@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

MT,

Short of telling everyone to grab their socks, gun confiscation is out of the question.

There are more guns in the USA than there are people. ( sobering thought? )

It's allmost July,

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 23, 1999.

CT--I don't know where you get your information but you are wrong about there being more guns in America than people. There are approximately 200 million guns in civilian hands and there are 272,811,250 people in this country! Just the facts!!

-- M.T. Jewell (av8r_99@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

The ONLY way I'll EVER surrender my guns is DEAD. And I'll make DAMNED SURE that I take a couple with me. If even HALF of the armed public had this attitude, there aren't enough soldiers in the WORLD to get us all.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 23, 1999.

MT,

I assume you are only thinking private guns, what about the boys, with the toys?

CT--I don't know where you get your information but you are wrong about there being more guns in America than people. There are approximately 200 million guns in civilian hands and there are 272,811,250 people in this country! Just the facts!!

-- M.T. Jewell (av8r_99@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

Don't forget that the National guard is made up of mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. You're Aunt and your Uncle,

Same for the Gen. Mil.

How many Guns in your family?

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 23, 1999.

I really don't think the military arsenal is a part of the gun control issue. And if you don't think that confiscation is in the political agenda you better wake up and smell the coffee. As far as guns in my family I could only venture to guess---in my house----plenty!!!

-- M.T. Jewell (av8r_99@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

I really don't think the military arsenal is a part of the gun control issue. And if you don't think that confiscation is in the political agenda you better wake up and smell the coffee. As far as guns in my family I could only venture to guess---in my house----plenty!!!

-- M.T. Jewell (av8r_99@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

I thought we were talking about the Gov. takeing SKS's from people and passing new laws that won't go into effect till affter the roll over, not to mention the fact of the impossibility of the Gov.org takeing our guns. ( you know, the 200,000,000 private guns? Not to mention my brother, sister, aunt, and uncle in the service? )

I just got an Sks, a 12 ga, a 357, a 22 pistol and rifle.

What Mil. Arsenal?

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 23, 1999.

Hi Loon, Looks like Micheal Hyatt banned me from his site. Must be against his law to be happy.Had ISP problems last nite,But I can access other sites today except his.ISP is still making weird sounds when hooking up.Just wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed our time talking/typing on the net. God Bless you and yours.My thoughts are with you.

Treading litely a.k.a. toratoratora.

-- treading litely (rs@marketwatch.com), June 23, 1999.

Hey Tora:

Hyatt's site has been having MAJOR problems since yesterday. I emailed him on it. JUST NOW got on, and was working fine (6:30 pm CDT)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 23, 1999.

Glad I traded my SKS for an AR-15! Plus, I live in AZ, which is on the opposite end of the gun control meter from CA.

-- y2khippo (y2khippo@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

They can have my gun when they pry my cold hard finger off the trigger.

-- William Wallace (ww@scotland.lad), June 23, 1999.

While the SKS may be outlawed in California, it may well be legal in surrounding states. Got out of state friends? (Don't send it to me; Hawaii is busy registering EVERYTHNG).

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 23, 1999.

Hey!

Sounds great to me. Paid $99.00 for my SKS a few years ago. I'll turn it in for the $230.00 and buy an AR-15. Jeeez, isn't this counrty GRAND?

-- sigmund (lay@onthecouch.com), June 24, 1999.

Personally speaking I do not have to obey an un constitutional ruling. Therefore the commies can go f**k themselves. Besides that a burglar snuck his leftwing ass into my house and stole all my weapons. Now I use rocks and machettes. How about a pruning hook?

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), June 24, 1999.