So the Democrats have been talking about the need for more background checks when it comes to buying guns. They want to make it harder for bad people to get them… supposedly.
So it shocked me to read this headline:
San Francisco board rebrands ‘convicted felon’ as ‘justice-involved person,’ sanitizes other lingo
San Francisco has introduced new sanitized language for criminals, getting rid of words such as “offender” and “addict” while changing “convicted felon” to “justice-involved person.”
The Board of Supervisors adopted the changes last month even as the city reels from one of the highest crime rates in the country and staggering inequality exemplified by pervasive homelessness alongside Silicon Valley wealth.
The local officials say the new language will help change people’s views about those who commit crimes.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, from now on a convicted felon or an offender released from custody will be known as a “formerly incarcerated person,” or a “justice-involved” person or just a “returning resident.”
Having solved all of the other problems plaguing (literally, there is bubonic plague on the streets to San Francisco) San Francisco has decided to stop offended criminals.
My question is, how will this jive with background checks?
“Are you a convicted felon?”
“No, I am a returning resident who was recently justice-involved.”
“Oh, that’s fine then.”
There are lots of times that it’s good to know what someone has done.
How about sex offenders? Do they get their crimes sanitized too? What about child molesters? How will San Francisco cover for them?
The Democrats want to make it harder for you to buy a gun, but San Francisco Democrats want to make it easier to hide your criminal record.
As we all know, what starts in San Francisco rapidly spreads to the rest of California and then onto the rest of the Democrat Party.
Just give it a few more years and you are going to get red-flagged for liking a gun blog on Facebook and thrown in jail for driving a V-8, while some drug dealing rapist gets to walk around calling himself “unlicensed supplier of pharmacology with a unilateral consent sexual orientation.”
4 thoughts on “How is this going to work for background checks”
California, and San Francisco in particular, has passed the point of being a caricature of dystopian fantasy stories, and is actively giving the writers tips.
Seriously, this is starting to sound and look like Blade Runner … specifically the parts of the city that (mostly) weren’t directly featured but implied.
I don’t think it’s going to reverse unless a substantial proportion of the residents decide they don’t want to accept this any more, and start taking matters into their own hands. It’s clear the city management will not, and even if a better bunch was voted in they are still constrained by the state-level legal infrastructure.
This works in the mind of San Francisco legislators because they don’t really care whether or not you’re a felon. No one should have a gun.
More precisely, no one except themselves and their friends and their fellow travelers.
No reason a “justice involved person” should be denied the right to vote, after all that could be a police officer. Although in Frisco, they would be more likely to deny a police officer the right to vote than a convicted felon.
Login or register to comment.