California empowers police to seize citizens' guns

[9thIDdoc]

Anywhere but Ca. this would result in shots fired. And rightly so.

 

[PaulS1950]

Are they going to serve search warrants or is that pesky fourth amendment just in the way too?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Explain to me why a person with a Dishonorable Discharge should not be able to own a gun.

 

[Lovebears65]

Let us just Calf to Mexico. I mean it is over run by illegals and it is a safe haven for them. It is a worthless piece of shit state anyway

 

[nitroz]

And so it begins.

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

Felons

Wife beaters

Stalkers with restraining orders

Fugitives

The seriously mentally ill

Dishonorable discharges....


Explain why any one of these people shouldn't have their 2nd amendment rights taken away.


The only thing that has "begun" is enforcement of the law in a meaningful manner.

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with enforcing the law.
Especially when it is only aimed at taking the guns out of the hands of those listed above.

If you are some average joe who legally owns one, you have nothing to worry about.
If you are a convicted felon who illegally owns a gun, you better start running.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And so it begins.

Yes, the beginning of another failed thread by the OP.

SB 140 merely reallocates funds to address the database backlog with regard to those not authorized to own a firearm.

It in no way authorizes ‘confiscation’ nor warrants any sort of ‘forcible removal’ of firearms from someone not authorized to possess them.

Persons in the database retain their full due process rights to request an administrative hearing and appeal, and to also file a civil suit pursuant to their 2nd, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights.

This is yet another contrived controversy and non-issue.

The OP should consider actually reading, and comprehending, the legislation in question before exhibiting his ignorance.


Bill Text: CA SB140 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | Chaptered | LegiScan

 

[Harry Dresden]

Let us just Calf to Mexico. I mean it is over run by illegals and it is a safe haven for them. It is a worthless piece of shit state anyway

the county i live in probably has a bigger economy than your State......just sayin....

 

[regent]

The second amendment means my dog cannot have a gun, my dog is not a person.
The second amendment does not say who cannot have guns only that a militia being necessary the right shall not be infringed. The amendment does not say citizens just people, not age not where they live, just people shall not have that right infringed.
So how can the Congress, and now with the recent court decisions, or state governments, pass laws restricting guns to people? The minute we start defining people, as say, the right kind of people or their age or their circumstances we start changing the constitution. I say even prisoners in prisons have a right to have a gun. In fact, if prisoners were allowed their constitutional rights we would have fewer prisoners.
This defining the second amendment is so simple if one just follows the wording in the amendment.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Good.

Can't be too careful.

Yes you can when it involves the removal of rights without cause.

Here, let’s try this. If you have a restraining order against you, you lose the right to vote too….

Ya, insane right. Of course it is, restraining orders are easily obtained and require no proof at all. You should never have your rights abridged because someone else asks for it. That is asinine.

 

[numan]

This defining the second amendment is so simple if one just follows the wording in the amendment.

Fuck the Second Amendment.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Good.

Can't be too careful.

Yes you can when it involves the removal of rights without cause.

Here, let’s try this. If you have a restraining order against you, you lose the right to vote too….

Ya, insane right. Of course it is, restraining orders are easily obtained and require no proof at all. You should never have your rights abridged because someone else asks for it. That is asinine.

No one disagrees with this, and the legislation does not authorize the removal of rights without cause; again, due process rights are in no way effected by this measure.

The OP is consequently a liar.

 

[hortysir]

Explain to me why a person with a Dishonorable Discharge should not be able to own a gun.

They can.

Bad Conduct Discharges, however, prevent gun ownership, real property ownership, and no voting privileges

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

California empowers police to seize citizens' guns

This should have been done a long time ago, as it is not against any constitution to do so, local states governments can confiscate guns and citizens are not protected under some silly constitution that doesn't mean shit, all states should follow suit so we can get this over with quickly.

 

[hortysir]

California empowers police to seize citizens' guns

This should have been done a long time ago, as it is not against any constitution to do so, local states governments can confiscate guns and citizens are not protected under some silly constitution that doesn't mean shit, all states should follow suit so we can get this over with quickly.

Come take mine.
I'd even give you my home address.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Good.

Can't be too careful.

Yes you can when it involves the removal of rights without cause.

Here, let’s try this. If you have a restraining order against you, you lose the right to vote too….

Ya, insane right. Of course it is, restraining orders are easily obtained and require no proof at all. You should never have your rights abridged because someone else asks for it. That is asinine.

No one disagrees with this, and the legislation does not authorize the removal of rights without cause; again, due process rights are in no way effected by this measure.

The OP is consequently a liar.

"No one disagrees with this, and the legislation does not authorize the removal of rights without cause..."

Learn to read. If you believe that a history that includes no violent crime nor good reason to believe a person has even considered such and that neither has in fact been proven in a court of law is somehow "due cause" to remove 2nd amendment Constitutional rights you are a raving idiot whose opinions provide only comic relief.

 

[RoadVirus]

This defining the second amendment is so simple if one just follows the wording in the amendment.

Fuck the Second Amendment.
.

Numan hates that pesky thing called the Bill of Rights.

 

[9thIDdoc]

California empowers police to seize citizens' guns

This should have been done a long time ago, as it is not against any constitution to do so, local states governments can confiscate guns and citizens are not protected under some silly constitution that doesn't mean shit, all states should follow suit so we can get this over with quickly.

You sure know the quick way to start a war I'll give you that.

 

[Spoonman]

even Californians are starting to get sick of the ridiculous over reaction of their political lunatics. freedom loving people are waking up to the fact their freedoms are being sucked away one at a time and they are living very controlled lives.

 

[Harry Dresden]

California empowers police to seize citizens' guns

This should have been done a long time ago, as it is not against any constitution to do so, local states governments can confiscate guns and citizens are not protected under some silly constitution that doesn't mean shit, all states should follow suit so we can get this over with quickly.

some silly constitution that doesn't mean shit

then what the fuck are you doing here?......go somewhere else asshole....quit leaching off this Country.....

 

[FA_Q2]

Good.

Can't be too careful.

Yes you can when it involves the removal of rights without cause.

Here, let’s try this. If you have a restraining order against you, you lose the right to vote too….

Ya, insane right. Of course it is, restraining orders are easily obtained and require no proof at all. You should never have your rights abridged because someone else asks for it. That is asinine.

No one disagrees with this, and the legislation does not authorize the removal of rights without cause; again, due process rights are in no way effected by this measure.

The OP is consequently a liar.

The person I quoted disagreed. The op does not mention due process at all. He mentions the fact that the law would allow the government to confiscate his weapons due to a restraining order. You call him a liar out of hand when he has provided the proof of his statements. You need to show where he is wrong before calling him a liar.

The confiscation is a violation if he has not committed any acts that justify it. That is simply wrong and a restraining order is NOT something that justifies the removal of rights. Such a thought is nuts.