Gun confiscation begins

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

Chrissy wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

As a supporter of gun owners rights and a legal gun owner, I must say that I agree with this seizure. Guns do not have a place in the possession of convicted felons or the mentally unstable.

As a supporter of gun owners rights and a legal gun owner, I must say that I agree with this seizure. Guns do not have a place in the possession of convicted felons or the mentally unstable.

Ditto......and I would like as a condition of probation on felonies to have unannounced searches for weapons. Repeat crime by convicted felons using firearms is a tangible problem which needs to be addressed.

2seaoat wrote:As a supporter of gun owners rights and a legal gun owner, I must say that I agree with this seizure. Guns do not have a place in the possession of convicted felons or the mentally unstable.

Ditto......and I would like as a condition of probation on felonies to have unannounced searches for weapons. Repeat crime by convicted felons using firearms is a tangible problem which needs to be addressed.

I just read where gang violence raised its ugly head again yesterday in Chicago that claimed the life of a 6 month old baby.

I just read where gang violence raised its ugly head again yesterday in Chicago that claimed the life of a 6 month old baby.

Sadly, when gangbangers start shooting.....the safest person is the person they are aiming at......kind of like that scene in Pulp Fiction, except in the real world those bullets penetrate drywall and kill the neighbor.

when we become so scared of everything and expect the gov to regulate it for us, that is the begining of something that wont stop there. this is also called give a inch take a mile.

this person from the story spent a couple of days in a mental ward. could have been lots of things. a divorce where he got drunk and showed his ass, or he may have been depressed. it really doesnt say. sometimes people show their asses and thier spouses baker act them. lots of things happen. im not saying that this particular person didnt need to surender his guns. he should have been allowed to sell them because they are valuable items that he paid for. they were his possessions.

felons cant purchase guns already. this is a right they loose btw. at the time of arrest and conviction is when the search should happen for these people.

i think that some people are grasping at anything they can to seize peoples guns.

mark my word. This is only the begining. Other excuses will be added.

It doesnt matter to me, because after watching the hunger games. I decided that cross bows and macheti's were more useful. and although I own a gun. if I were to purchase another one. There is a possiblity I might go gangsta style. because as you mentioned about the gangs in chicago, no one is confiscating thier guns, now are they.

Chrissy wrote:when we become so scared of everything and expect the gov to regulate it for us, that is the begining of something that wont stop there. this is also called give a inch take a mile.

this person from the story spent a couple of days in a mental ward. could have been lots of things. a divorce where he got drunk and showed his ass, or he may have been depressed. it really doesnt say. sometimes people show their asses and thier spouses baker act them. lots of things happen. im not saying that this particular person didnt need to surender his guns. he should have been allowed to sell them because they are valuable items that he paid for. they were his possessions.

felons cant purchase guns already. this is a right they loose btw. at the time of arrest and conviction is when the search should happen for these people.

i think that some people are grasping at anything they can to seize peoples guns.

mark my word. This is only the begining. Other excuses will be added.

It doesnt matter to me, because after watching the hunger games. I decided that cross bows and macheti's were more useful. and although I own a gun. if I were to purchase another one. There is a possiblity I might go gangsta style. because as you mentioned about the gangs in chicago, no one is confiscating thier guns, now are they.

You should not own a gun.

Chrissy wrote:when we become so scared of everything and expect the gov to regulate it for us, that is the begining of something that wont stop there. this is also called give a inch take a mile.

this person from the story spent a couple of days in a mental ward. could have been lots of things. a divorce where he got drunk and showed his ass, or he may have been depressed. it really doesnt say. sometimes people show their asses and thier spouses baker act them. lots of things happen. im not saying that this particular person didnt need to surender his guns. he should have been allowed to sell them because they are valuable items that he paid for. they were his possessions.

felons cant purchase guns already. this is a right they loose btw. at the time of arrest and conviction is when the search should happen for these people.

i think that some people are grasping at anything they can to seize peoples guns.

mark my word. This is only the begining. Other excuses will be added.

It doesnt matter to me, because after watching the hunger games. I decided that cross bows and macheti's were more useful. and although I own a gun. if I were to purchase another one. There is a possiblity I might go gangsta style. because as you mentioned about the gangs in chicago, no one is confiscating thier guns, now are they.

Just more scare tactics.

Tell me now oh omnipotent one, how would you go about confiscating guns from gang members when 99.9% of their guns were obtained illegally in the first place so the authorities do not know who to confiscate the weapons from. That's brilliant.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:when we become so scared of everything and expect the gov to regulate it for us, that is the begining of something that wont stop there. this is also called give a inch take a mile.

this person from the story spent a couple of days in a mental ward. could have been lots of things. a divorce where he got drunk and showed his ass, or he may have been depressed. it really doesnt say. sometimes people show their asses and thier spouses baker act them. lots of things happen. im not saying that this particular person didnt need to surender his guns. he should have been allowed to sell them because they are valuable items that he paid for. they were his possessions.

felons cant purchase guns already. this is a right they loose btw. at the time of arrest and conviction is when the search should happen for these people.

i think that some people are grasping at anything they can to seize peoples guns.

mark my word. This is only the begining. Other excuses will be added.

It doesnt matter to me, because after watching the hunger games. I decided that cross bows and macheti's were more useful. and although I own a gun. if I were to purchase another one. There is a possiblity I might go gangsta style. because as you mentioned about the gangs in chicago, no one is confiscating thier guns, now are they.

Just more scare tactics.

Tell me now oh omnipotent one, how would you go about confiscating guns from gang members when 99.9% of their guns were obtained illegally in the first place so the authorities do not know who to confiscate the weapons from. That's brilliant.

wellI am omniponent, Thank you for reconizing that. My gifts to the world are not often seen. Its a curse.

try using this senario. They knew this man was a registered gun owner so they went to his house armed to remove his guns.

Now lets be smart, the gang members who get caught in crimes, lets also go t thier homes to remove guns, if we are going to be fair huh?

Face it, we dont have the guts to disarm gangs. we are a bunch of pussies who would rather fuck with people who are trying at least to do the right thing.

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:when we become so scared of everything and expect the gov to regulate it for us, that is the begining of something that wont stop there. this is also called give a inch take a mile.

this person from the story spent a couple of days in a mental ward. could have been lots of things. a divorce where he got drunk and showed his ass, or he may have been depressed. it really doesnt say. sometimes people show their asses and thier spouses baker act them. lots of things happen. im not saying that this particular person didnt need to surender his guns. he should have been allowed to sell them because they are valuable items that he paid for. they were his possessions.

felons cant purchase guns already. this is a right they loose btw. at the time of arrest and conviction is when the search should happen for these people.

i think that some people are grasping at anything they can to seize peoples guns.

mark my word. This is only the begining. Other excuses will be added.

It doesnt matter to me, because after watching the hunger games. I decided that cross bows and macheti's were more useful. and although I own a gun. if I were to purchase another one. There is a possiblity I might go gangsta style. because as you mentioned about the gangs in chicago, no one is confiscating thier guns, now are they.

Just more scare tactics.

Tell me now oh omnipotent one, how would you go about confiscating guns from gang members when 99.9% of their guns were obtained illegally in the first place so the authorities do not know who to confiscate the weapons from. That's brilliant.

wellI am omniponent, Thank you for reconizing that. My gifts to the world are not often seen. Its a curse.

try using this senario. They knew this man was a registered gun owner so they went to his house armed to remove his guns.

Now lets be smart, the gang members who get caught in crimes, lets also go t thier homes to remove guns, if we are going to be fair huh?

Face it, we dont have the guts to disarm gangs. we are a bunch of pussies who would rather fuck with people who are trying at least to do the right thing.

And you know that the gang members that killed this 6 month old yesterday are mentally ill or are convicted felons exactly how? There is nothing in the report that says they even have a record. I understanding that is stretching it a bit, but it could be factual.

And I suppose you did not catch the sarcasm in my post regarding your omnipotence. Your problem is that you think you know more than you really do.

Well I said it before and I will say it again, guns have no place in the hands of the mentally ill or felons. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You folks might want to research the article more. The wife owned 1 gun. The husband owned 2 guns. The Cops took all guns, eventhough the Husband had every right to own them. His guns were registered...

Meanwhile, the Cops said, "His Wife had access to his guns".

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it yet???? Any excuse will do to disarm you....it's already happening.

NaNook wrote:You folks might want to research the article more. The wife owned 1 gun. The husband owned 2 guns. The Cops took all guns, eventhough the Husband had every right to own them. His guns were registered...

Meanwhile, the Cops said, "His Wife had access to his guns".

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it yet???? Any excuse will do to disarm you....it's already happening.

they wont get it.

They are political hacks and brainwashed

i cant help people like that

NaNook wrote:You folks might want to research the article more. The wife owned 1 gun. The husband owned 2 guns. The Cops took all guns, eventhough the Husband had every right to own them. His guns were registered...

Meanwhile, the Cops said, "His Wife had access to his guns".

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it yet???? Any excuse will do to disarm you....it's already happening.

Nanook, it makes no difference. Guns cannot be assessable to the felon or mentally ill or even someone that has an RO against them. My nephew's ex took out an RO against him when they separated. He moved back in with his parents temporarily. When ECSO came to serve the RO, they confiscated all his guns as well as those belonging to my brother. It is also about accessibility as well as ownership.

Remember the school shooting, the guns the perp used were registered to his mother and not him. This has nothing to do with the confiscation of all citizens guns, just those that do not belong in the hands of felons and mentally ill. Everything else is nothing but scare tactics.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

NaNook wrote:You folks might want to research the article more. The wife owned 1 gun. The husband owned 2 guns. The Cops took all guns, eventhough the Husband had every right to own them. His guns were registered...

Meanwhile, the Cops said, "His Wife had access to his guns".

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it yet???? Any excuse will do to disarm you....it's already happening.

Nanook, it makes no difference. Guns cannot be assessable to the felon or mentally ill or even someone that has an RO against them. My nephew's ex took out an RO against him when they separated. He moved back in with his parents temporarily. When ECSO came to serve the RO, they confiscated all his guns as well as those belonging to my brother. It is also about accessibility as well as ownership.

Remember the school shooting, the guns the perp used were registered to his mother and not him. This has nothing to do with the confiscation of all citizens guns, just those that do not belong in the hands of felons and mentally ill. Everything else is nothing but scare tactics.

In other words, a person can lose property without a due process hearing? Even if they have committed no crime? Go figure....Federal Gun Grab...

guns arent the only thing that kills -look at that girl on tv that stabbed her boyfriend around 20 or more times----If someone wants to die or kill someone they can use anything and they will find a gun under the table and buy it to if they want to------gun laws wont work --punishment will work though if its tough enough --I dont know crap people will kill no matter what I guess

NaNook wrote:

In other words, a person can lose property without a due process hearing? Even if they have committed no crime? Go figure....Federal Gun Grab...

What part of due process is it that you do not understand? This guy had already been mentally ill by a doctor, that is due process, as for felons well that speaks for itself because in order to be a felon the due process has already run it's course. In the case of my nephew, he was living in a house where he had accessibility to guns, not only his but my brothers.

My brother and his son neither hold any animosity toward the ECSO for doing the job they are paid to do. After the RO expired, all guns were returned to their rightful owner.

You can continue spreading your scare tactics and innuendos, but I'm not buying into it. I am not mentally ill(though some that know me personally would say differently) nor am I a convicted felon, so I am not worried about loosing my guns whatsoever.

Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

PkrBum wrote:Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

.................................

So when a Doctor makes a statement to LEO, it suddenly is not involved in due process...?

Ask the folk who are served w/ a Baker Act.


I swear, you folk will twist this until it fits your little paint by number Kincaidish dream.

The first victim is the truth, the second is logic, and the third is common sense.

PkrBum wrote:Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

You know, there is something really odd going on these days. words a laws are being given new meanings and laws are being giveing new directives.

Its a insain game of lets change the meaning or directive. Im understanding what change meant more by the day lol



amazing

Roddy wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

.................................

So when a Doctor makes a statement to LEO, it suddenly is not involved in due process...?

Ask the folk who are served w/ a Baker Act.


I swear, you folk will twist this until it fits your little paint by number Kincaidish dream.

The first victim is the truth, the second is logic, and the third is common sense.

Almost anyone can make the complaint (even leo) to begin the proceedings of (baker act) involuntary examination... There is a time limit once initiated and it's performed by independent medical professional then judicial review of findings and judgement.

PkrBum wrote:

Roddy wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

.................................

So when a Doctor makes a statement to LEO, it suddenly is not involved in due process...?

Ask the folk who are served w/ a Baker Act.


I swear, you folk will twist this until it fits your little paint by number Kincaidish dream.

The first victim is the truth, the second is logic, and the third is common sense.

Almost anyone can make the complaint (even leo) to begin the proceedings of (baker act) involuntary examination... There is a time limit once initiated and it's performed by independent medical professional then judicial review of findings and judgement.

.....................................

And who serves those papers...?

They just send a wagon over and toss Luke in the back do they...?


Twist and spin, delay, dissemble....but we'll get there if we just try harder.

PkrBum wrote:

Roddy wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

.................................

So when a Doctor makes a statement to LEO, it suddenly is not involved in due process...?

Ask the folk who are served w/ a Baker Act.


I swear, you folk will twist this until it fits your little paint by number Kincaidish dream.

The first victim is the truth, the second is logic, and the third is common sense.

Almost anyone can make the complaint (even leo) to begin the proceedings of (baker act) involuntary examination... There is a time limit once initiated and it's performed by independent medical professional then judicial review of findings and judgement.

so this man was not given due process?

Chrissy wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Roddy wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

.................................

So when a Doctor makes a statement to LEO, it suddenly is not involved in due process...?

Ask the folk who are served w/ a Baker Act.


I swear, you folk will twist this until it fits your little paint by number Kincaidish dream.

The first victim is the truth, the second is logic, and the third is common sense.

Almost anyone can make the complaint (even leo) to begin the proceedings of (baker act) involuntary examination... There is a time limit once initiated and it's performed by independent medical professional then judicial review of findings and judgement.

so this man was not given due process?

I didn't say that... just that a doctor initiating a complaint is not due process by itself. The baker act is just a means to force a person to submit to an examination. Certain rights (freedom, property...) may be restricted while the process works. But in the end the complaint must the factual and the application valid (not a developmental or physical impairment) and the examination and judicial review impartial. That's due process.

No the beginning of gun confiscation. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Mayor Ray Nagin and his police chief ordered police go door to door, searching for and collecting all guns.

The officers involved in the collection were sworn law enforcement who had sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

In my opinion, he worst thing of this situation, other than law enforcement had not questioned the order to unconstitutionally collect the weapons but rather how Mayor Ray Nagin was RE-ELECTED.

Since then gun owners in New Orleans won their suit to get their guns back but many were unregistered, antiques or damaged beyond repair. If an individual could not PROVE the weapon was their gun would not be returned to them.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Katrina+gun+confiscation+video&mid=52AC14B3FCA6F97F439B52AC14B3FCA6F97F439B&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3

PkrBum wrote:Due process is a constitutional legal requirement inside of the judicial system... a doctor may testify as to his medical findings or expert opinion... but that is not due process in itself.

What this will do to some is to keep them from getting help that they may really need fearing that their doctor is now an agent for the government...As far as violent felons and domestic abuse convictions not being allowed to have guns...no problem....These violators are exacly who should be targeted and not law abiding citizens...Lastly...what's going to happen to returning veterans and other veterans that are or have been treated to PTSD?...Will they be denied their rights after fighting to protect those rights?...Again..this may cause those that need help to shy away from helping themselves...