Its Wednesday, not exactly the most desired day of the week in anyone’s opinion. On this day the air is cold in the state of California, for this is the first Wednesday in December. On this cold day, many people made their way to the grocery store to pick up food for the week, as they’ve done many times before. For twenty-two of these people it would be the last time they ever go to the grocery store again. I am talking about the attack in San Bernardino on December 2nd, 2015. This random act of terror is one of the reasons behind the Safety for All act. One random act of Terror, by two mentally disturbed people, may have the chance to take away the lives of twenty people and the rights from every citizen in California. I oppose the Safety
…show more content…
Local law enforcement will be effected by this proposition. In an article on Voterguide.sos.ca.gov states, “Prop. 63 would divert scarce law enforcement resources away from local law enforcement and overburden an already overcrowded court system with the enforcement of flawed laws that will turn harmless, law-abiding citizens into criminals. In fact, New York recently abandoned its enforcement of a similar proposal after it was passed, finding that it was impossible to implement and effectively maintain”. The amount of time and effort it would take to police and regulate these ammunition laws would take away from the smaller counties and areas in California. This would in turn make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes with the knowledge that these sheriffs and police officers are busy busting a man for giving his neighbor a box of shotgun shells. This money should be used to better train and hire more officers to protect the streets. The same article from Voterguide.sos.ca.gov states, “The immense public resources that Prop. 63 would waste should be used to hire more officers and to target, investigate, and prosecute dangerous individuals and terrorists”. Police officers would waste their time trying to find and prosecute good people that will probably have no idea they are breaking a law. On the other side, if they officer took the excess ammunition off the street then the criminals would not have the chance to buy them. This would not make a big difference because the majority of criminals get their ammo illegally any
Local law enforcement will be effected by this proposition. In an article on Voterguide.sos.ca.gov states, “Prop. 63 would divert scarce law enforcement resources away from local law enforcement and overburden an already overcrowded court system with the enforcement of flawed laws that will turn harmless, law-abiding citizens into criminals. In fact, New York recently abandoned its enforcement of a similar proposal after it was passed, finding that it was impossible to implement and effectively maintain”. The amount of time and effort it would take to police and regulate these ammunition laws would take away from the smaller counties and areas in California. This would in turn make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes with the knowledge that these sheriffs and police officers are busy busting a man for giving his neighbor a box of shotgun shells. This money should be used to better train and hire more officers to protect the streets. The same article from Voterguide.sos.ca.gov states, “The immense public resources that Prop. 63 would waste should be used to hire more officers and to target, investigate, and prosecute dangerous individuals and terrorists”. Police officers would waste their time trying to find and prosecute good people that will probably have no idea they are breaking a law. On the other side, if they officer took the excess ammunition off the street then the criminals would not have the chance to buy them. This would not make a big difference because the majority of criminals get their ammo illegally any