California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

[dmancornell]

<broken link removed>

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.

Lesson of the day: don't talk to cops, don't open the door, don't let them in, tell them to leave your property.

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.

Read More

 

[drew]

Lesson of the day: don't talk to cops, don't open the door, don't let them in, tell them to leave your property.

I learned that lesson when I had a couple parties in high school without getting in any trouble. Keep it brief and tell them to leave.

It actually amazes some people when they see someone refuse cop's requests. There's a reason they're asking at that point.

 

[unklekippy]

I would keep it as brief as "Go away!", shouted through the door. I have been around long enough to know that when cops show up, something is going on that I want no part of.

 

[mrblond]

the words " got a warrant " should be very effective

 

[Cuthbert Allgood]

just like when a police officer asks if he/she can search your vehicle, you can tell them "no." at that point, though, they'll probably call for a k-9 unit. if the dog doesn't get a hit on anything, the cop has no choice but to leave you be. i've had several instances like that. i love the look on their face when the dog doesn't "hit" on anything.

 

[Hrethgir]

Honestly, if someone does something that makes it so the can't legaly own a firearm, I don't have a problem with the police taking their guns from them. BUT, they need to come carrying a warrant, none of those dirty cop tricks where they talk you into giving up your right to not being illegally searched without a warrant.

 

[Mark W.]

GOOD DEAL this is excellent. Its exactly what we keep asking for. To have the guns taken from the bad guys and to leave us the law abiding owners alone.

BOUT time this started happening.

 

[chariot13]

GOOD DEAL this is excellent. Its exactly what we keep asking for. To have the guns taken from the bad guys and to leave us the law abiding owners alone.

BOUT time this started happening.

When its a law stating your committing a felony for not registering your firearm, get away from the losers trying to enforce it. By all means necessary.

 

[SBC97281]

With the search feature being down right now I will post this link to a great youtube video on when you should talk to the police (which I have posted before--but is still relevant):

Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

The ACLU is not always firearms friendly, but they are spot on about illegal searches:

Know Your Rights: What To Do If You're Stopped By Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI | American Civil Liberties Union

And Portland IndyMedia has a this flier with instructions when the police come to your door:

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/media/2008/05/375313.pdf

 

[unklekippy]

Anyone who thinks that firearm confiscation of Americans is good can take a leap. It is unfortunate that today some are so brainwashed to think that any police agency of the state has the right to disarm ANYONE. I hope they come for yours first. The rest of us will adhere to The Constitution. I know, bringing up The Constitution shows what a crack job I must be, also, go ahead and try with your ridiculous "consiracy" claims. I thought Mark W. was a good guy. I now realize that he is all for the gulag state. What a bubbleguming joke. Ki,

 

[SKN]

<broken link removed>



Lesson of the day: don't talk to cops, don't open the door, don't let them in, tell them to leave your property.

Other lessons: don't become a convicted felon, and avoid behavior requiring detention in a mental health facitilty for psychological evaluation to determine whether you are a danger to yourself or others. In these ways contact with law enforcement and siezures of this type are non issues.

 

[Mark W.]

Anyone who thinks that firearm confiscation of Americans is good can take a leap. It is unfortunate that today some are so brainwashed to think that any police agency of the state has the right to disarm ANYONE. I hope they come for yours first. The rest of us will adhere to The Constitution. I know, bringing up The Constitution shows what a crack job I must be, also, go ahead and try with your ridiculous "consiracy" claims. I thought Mark W. was a good guy. I now realize that he is all for the gulag state. What a bubbleguming joke. Ki,

So you avocate that felons who by legal process are forbiden to own fire arms not be disarmed? And here I thought you were not an anarchist. We keep telling then to inforce the laws on the books and notto keep messing with the law abiding.

 

[slimmer13]

Its kinda funny that some on here claim to care about the 2ndA while gladfully giving up the 4thA.

 

[oknow]

GOOD DEAL this is excellent. Its exactly what we keep asking for. To have the guns taken from the bad guys and to leave us the law abiding owners alone.

BOUT time this started happening.

Is it the same type of bad guys like the one's in the truck all shot up, with news papers getting delivered that tried to (supposedly) ram a cop car???????? yea right

 

[richardlpalmer]

Wow, I don't think I like this at all. It's an easy one if a person owned guns then went on a murderous rampage -- getting out on parole and still owning those guns. Sure. He's a convicted felon. Shouldn't have guns (based on our current laws -- which are arguably valid). But in the article one of the cases was a person who spent a couple days at a mental hospital. That's hardly the same thing.

The scary part is the labeling of, and the general populace's agreement of, what constitutes the criteria.

Another part from that article:

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.

...

In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

So because she'd been hospitalized, both of them had their guns seized. And who made put the label on her? Interesting.

 

[Cuthbert Allgood]

Wow, I don't think I like this at all. It's an easy one if a person owned guns then went on a murderous rampage -- getting out on parole and still owning those guns. Sure. He's a convicted felon. Shouldn't have guns (based on our current laws -- which are arguably valid). But in the article one of the cases was a person who spent a couple days at a mental hospital. That's hardly the same thing.

The scary part is the labeling of, and the general populace's agreement of, what constitutes the criteria.

Another part from that article:
So because she'd been hospitalized, both of them had their guns seized. And who made put the label on her? Interesting.

she was probably being held INVOLUNTARILY. that's the important thing to note. there was probably a good, solid reason for placing her on involuntary hold. it most likely meant she was an imminent threat to herself and/or others.

 

[richardlpalmer]

she was probably being held INVOLUNTARILY. that's the important thing to note. there was probably a good, solid reason for placing her on involuntary hold. it most likely meant she was an imminent threat to herself and/or others.

The article definitely said that was the case. No question there.

And maybe this is just a bit of tin foil poking out from under my hat, but it gives me pause to consider anyone could be held (even if mistakenly) like that. As the quote said, "In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she'd been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition."

 

[oknow]

she was probably being held INVOLUNTARILY. that's the important thing to note. there was probably a good, solid reason for placing her on involuntary hold. it most likely meant she was an imminent threat to herself and/or others.

that's convincing

 

[mosinguy1]

All it takes in most cases is for an officer to THINK you may be a threat to yourself or others......... pee off the cop you go in for observation and bye bye guns...... that is FUBAR!!!!!!!!!!! And yes all they have to do is think it.

 

[Skanska1]

Good point