Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 111

Thread: CA Seizes Guns as Owners Lose 2A Rights

  1. #1
    Member Corlissimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC

    CA Seizes Guns as Owners Lose 2A Rights

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...bear-arms.html

    Snip...

    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.


    Snip...

    Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.

    At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.

    They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

    “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.



    ~ Typos brought to you by my laziness & in attention to detail.
    If you can't taste the sarcasm, try licking the screen.

    Gettin’ old and blind ain’t for sissies. ~ 41Magfan

  2. #2
    It worries me how the fact that police need either warrants or home owner permission to search homes is written about in a negative tone.

  3. #3
    Member Corlissimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by statutorygrape View Post
    It worries me how the fact that police need either warrants or home owner permission to search homes is written about in a negative tone.
    That's a good point. I have no issue with the actual procedures they appear to be using, but rather with the whole "Use CA as the national model" concept, especially given CA's "starting point" or environment. It's the potential spreading of that "environment" in the use of CA as the national model that sticks in my craw.
    If you can't taste the sarcasm, try licking the screen.

    Gettin’ old and blind ain’t for sissies. ~ 41Magfan

  4. #4
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    First they came for the crazy people's guns, and I didn't speak up because I'm not crazy...
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  5. #5
    Glock Collective Assimile Suvorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Escapee from the SF Bay Area now living on the Front Range of Colorado.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    First they came for the crazy people's guns, and I didn't speak up because I'm not crazy...
    Until they changed the definition of a "crazy person"

    Slippery slope here folks.

    We all know how easy it is for a person to obtain a lethal weapon in this country, which begs the question from me, if a person is so dangerous we are worried about them obtaining a lethal weapon, what are they doing in general society?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
    Until they changed the definition of a "crazy person"

    Slippery slope here folks.

    We all know how easy it is for a person to obtain a lethal weapon in this country, which begs the question from me, if a person is so dangerous we are worried about them obtaining a lethal weapon, what are they doing in general society?
    Ding ding ding.....

    I agree with the above statement 100%.....

  7. #7
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him. “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.
    So I am a bit confused; is the CA AG truly claiming that an otherwise legal individual is no longer allowed to possess firearms just because a family member has been adjudicated incompetent? What if the sane individual who has a constitutional right for legal firearms ownership has their weapons stored in a locked safe that the prohibited individual cannot access?

    What's next--banning firearms for parents who have children in the home, since after all kids are prohibited from having access to firearms...

  8. #8
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    First they came for the crazy people's guns, and I didn't speak up because I'm not crazy...
    So, are you really suggesting we should allow mentally ill and mentally incompetent people to purchase and possess firearms simply because in some future scenario they may try use this as justification to seize guns from mentally stable and mentally competent non-criminal people?

    As long as there is judicial review, I don't have a problem with preventing the purchase of firearms or possession of firearms by people who are currently mentally ill, schizophrenic, delusional, or incompetent.

    A Judge can always rescind that order if the person shows recovery from their illness if there is judicial review. We should speak up if there is no judicial review.

    CC
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  9. #9
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
    Until they changed the definition of a "crazy person"

    Slippery slope here folks.
    Obviously my sense of humor is sometimes WAY too dry.
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Central California
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    So I am a bit confused; is the CA AG truly claiming that an otherwise legal individual is no longer allowed to possess firearms just because a family member has been adjudicated incompetent? What if the sane individual who has a constitutional right for legal firearms ownership has their weapons stored in a locked safe that the prohibited individual cannot access?
    Yes. I believe California residents who reside with a prohibited person are being advised to keep their firearms locked up when they're not under direct control of the lawful owner, as the OAG is going all in on these confiscation raids. If your legally owned guns are accessible to the prohibited person, say goodbye.
    twitter.com/ddbaxte

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •