California empowers police to seize citizens' guns

[editec]

Half a year later, when the divorce became final, the judge routinely rescinded the orders.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.

I think the above is a very valid complaint.

 

[FA_Q2]

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Half a year later, when the divorce became final, the judge routinely rescinded the orders.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"?

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

Jerry Brown OKs funds to seize guns held illegally - Los Angeles Times

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.

Why can't convicts (currently incarcerated AND ex-convicts) have firearms in their possession if they so choose? I mean, does the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment say ANYTHING about convicts NOT being able to own guns? NO IT DOES NOT! And isn't it DANGEROUS in prison? Shouldn't convicts be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights in order to protect themselves while in prison?

Actually, the constitution does:
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

While the second itself states nothing, the constitution does not claim that rights cannot be removed once you have been given due process of law. The conviction was that due process and the punishment included removal of legal access to firearms. You might disagree that there is a ‘permanent’ punishment here and there are valid arguments in that but you can’t argue that it is not in the constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I think the above is a very valid complaint.

And one that none of the detractors here has bothered to address. I directly challenged Clay on this a second time as well and now he is totally silent on this thread.

 

[numan]

'
Anything that gets guns out of the hands of feeble-minded, uneducated, paranoid, emotionally-unstable, hysteria-prone Americans is fine with me.

Do you REALLY want people like this to have access to guns?
.