California empowers police to seize citizens' guns

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
And so it begins.

California now has a law empowering the government to seize the firearms of people it disapproves of.

It starts with the obvious ones that no one can object to, of course: Felons, non compos mentis... and people under restraining orders.

And the liberals assure us that the govt (that is, liberals) would never, ever seize the guns of anyone else. Why no, of course not.

Until they run across some group of people making plans to build up a truck-fertilizer bomb and park it on the Golden Gate Bridge. Well, of course it will be OK to seize their guns too. I mean, look at them! Maybe they haven't actually been convicted of any crime, but you know and I know it's just a matter of time. So we'll add them to the list.

And then the next.....

This has happened so many times throughout history, it's sad.

Except to liberals who KNOW that they, of course, would never continue such a pattern. So it's OK in their case.

And so it begins.

-----------------------------

Oh, BTW...

A very long time ago, I filed for divorce in California. It was granted, and my son lived with me for the next ten years until he went to college.

But during the proceedings, the judge entered standard restraining orders against myself and my wife, each telling us not to harass, bother, threaten, or commit violence upon the other. Both of us had stated repeatedly that there had never been any violence, threats, or any other such things, from either of us, ever. But the judge simply said these were routine restraining orders, that were always issued in any such divorce, don't worry about them.

At that instant, I became a felon, since I was a gun owner. The so-called "Lautenberg Amendment", a Federal law, stated that no one who is under a restraining order that mentioned domestic violence, could own a gun.

Half a year later, when the divorce became final, the judge routinely rescinded the orders. Seven years after that, the statute of limitations on my "felony" status ran out. Finally I could no longer be arrested or convicted for the felony I had committed by owning a gun while I (and my ex-wife) were under those "routine" restraining orders.

Today's point?

Under the law just signed by Gov. Moonbeam, I could expect armed police or even a SWAT team to break into my house at any time of the day or night to arrest me and confiscate my guns... if the restraining order issued during my divorce, were still active.

Because I would be a felon in possession of a gun I had (previously) legally acquired... exactly the target of this new law.

Remind me again, please, that "Nobody is coming for your guns, you stupid redneck"?

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/01/local/la-me-guns-20130502

Jerry Brown OKs funds to seize guns held illegally

The governor approves $24 million to confiscate weapons from people who can no longer own them due to criminal convictions, restraining orders or mental illness.

May 01, 2013|By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO — The state will send dozens of new agents into California neighborhoods this summer to confiscate nearly 40,000 handguns and assault rifles from people barred by law from owning firearms, officials said Wednesday.

The plan received the green light Wednesday, when Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation providing $24 million to clear the backlog of weapons known to be in the hands of about 20,000 people who acquired them legally. They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness.

The bill is the first of more than a dozen gun measures introduced by California lawmakers after the December massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

California is the only state in the nation to operate a database that cross-references gun owners with those who are subsequently disqualified from owning firearms. But budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the list, which grows by 15 to 20 names every day, officials said.
 
Werbung:
Keep in mind what the Supreme Court said in its recent decisions on gun rights.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. - DC v. Heller

The Heller decision affected only the question of whether you could have a gun inside your own home. The Justices were careful not to extend their Opinion to cover other questions - yet. So they included that disclaimer: Today's ruling does not nullify laws in other areas.

It's the usual court dodge meaning, "We'll decide those other questions if/when they are specifically brought to us, which today they weren't."

Gov. Moonbeam should have been careful what he wished for. It wouldn't suprise me if he sents his police to confiscate the gun of someone who is under a restraining order of some kind, as I've described, and the person they take the gun from sues them in court.

Such a thing could work its way up to the Supreme Court. And though the Heller decision didn't affect this new question... the later case will.
 
The criminal isn't gonna go though an 30 day waiting period,, The criminal isn't gonna pay a fee for background checks nor hes not gonna buy guns at a gun shop. He buy them from a black market or even go down in Mexico buy them.
 
the problem with this law is that it makes thoughtcrime a reality.
That's one problem.

But the biggest problem with the law, is that it empowers government to decide which people can own guns and which people can't... and then confiscate the guns of the people it has decided can't own them.

That is completely against the most basic philosophy of the people who founded this country and wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They put a section into the highest law of the land, stating flatly that government is forbidden to do that.
 
And not one thing from Congress making backpacks illegal. But oh yeah after that school shooting theyre were talking about making stricter gun laws. And the Media isnt blaming backpacks but they blame guns after that school shooting.
 
That's one problem.

But the biggest problem with the law, is that it empowers government to decide which people can own guns and which people can't... and then confiscate the guns of the people it has decided can't own them.

That is completely against the most basic philosophy of the people who founded this country and wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They put a section into the highest law of the land, stating flatly that government is forbidden to do that.

thats what I said in fewer words. they decide not on behaviour but on what they think might be on your mind. thoughtcrime.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top