California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

[mattdomes]

A LE friend once told me: "Just act like you know what you are doing and belong" and they will leave you alone.

 

[Bob D]

A LE friend once told me: "Just act like you know what you are doing and belong" and they will leave you alone.

Always worked for me. As soon as I learned to treat a cop like a business associate, I stopped having problems with them.

 

[PiratePast40]

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.

Federal law requires that you be adjudicated. That means that there is a legal proceeding. It sounds like California doesn't require legal action, just someones allegation. I hope you understand the ramifications. Notice there was nothing in the article about a doctors opinion at her release, and no legal decision by a judge. Since one of Obamas' stated goals is a universally accessible medical database, and there doesn't seem to be any legal process for determination of mental stability, we're looking at some very scary times ahead.

 

[dobeman]

the *only* problem I have is the blanket "felony" under federal law:

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

Some nonviolent felonies don't involve guns at all. And once a convicted person does their time and pays their 'debt' to society, should they have rights permanently stripped from them? If the crime was that bad, don't let them out, then it's a moot point.

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.

 

[richardlpalmer]

the *only* problem I have is the blanket "felony" under federal law:

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

Some nonviolent felonies don't involve guns at all. And once a convicted person does their time and pays their 'debt' to society, should they have rights permanently stripped from them? If the crime was that bad, don't let them out, then it's a moot point.

This was what I was talking about with my "arguably valid" statement. If a person is considered to have paid their debt to society and/or been rehabilitated, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to own a gun. I understand the knee-jerk reaction & emotional reasoning (no different than the reaction a mass shooting gets towards guns), but that fear is really only born out of a belief that the person wasn't actually rehab'd or actually paid their debt.

 

[Cuthbert Allgood]

Federal law requires that you be adjudicated. That means that there is a legal proceeding. It sounds like California doesn't require legal action, just someones allegation. I hope you understand the ramifications. Notice there was nothing in the article about a doctors opinion at her release, and no legal decision by a judge. Since one of Obamas' stated goals is a universally accessible medical database, and there doesn't seem to be any legal process for determination of mental stability, we're looking at some very scary times ahead.

if they want to dig into a person's background by asking questions, that person does not have to answer honestly. just bs the doctor. they cannot prove it otherwise. it's like bs'ing the evaluation panel at MEPS. they cannot prove anything and they don't have the time and money to investigate every single case. the only information they're able to gather is voluntary stuff that comes from the person.

this crap should be common sense. don't tell people your personal business.

as for california, any lawful gun owner who continues to live in that commie state, is a person i don't feel sorry for. they know they can move elsewhere but for whatever reason, they choose to stay. those people are lost causes.

 

[dobeman]

I think it's opportunistic - when laws are written, it is common to 'pile on', i.e., throw a bunch of other agenda stuff in the wording. It's not so much that anybody who per Federal law was convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in jail is a high risk to society and shouldn't own a gun, it's more like with a big agenda to eventually make it illegal for about everyone to own a gun, start chisling away at it, i.e., hey, a felony is serious, make it so they can't possess guns. And target another group in some different legislsation.. eventually, you fart, you can't legally own a gun.

This was what I was talking about with my "arguably valid" statement. If a person is considered to have paid their debt to society and/or been rehabilitated, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to own a gun. I understand the knee-jerk reaction & emotional reasoning (no different than the reaction a mass shooting gets towards guns), but that fear is really only born out of a belief that the person wasn't actually rehab'd or actually paid their debt.

 

[cally88]

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.

Or she was drunk.

 

[Pandaz3]

No due Process

 

[Misterbill]

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.

Wrong.

You can be admitted on a 72-hour hold max on the say so of a cop or EMT and concurrence by the admitting doc. To become a prohibited person, you must be ADJUDICATED. that means you get a hearing in front of a judge where they have to prove you're an imminent danger to yourself or others.

Merely being admitted on a hold DOES NOT make you a PP.

 

[Frankenrifle]

That is absolutely sick. I've taught my boy to respect his elders but never let anyone in, even a cop, unless he called them himself.

I also never thought that CA was actually tracking gun ownership that in depth. Is it the future for the rest of us?

 

[LoneStar]

It is if we don't stand up to the tyrants.

That is absolutely sick. I've taught my boy to respect his elders but never let anyone in, even a cop, unless he called them himself.

I also never thought that CA was actually tracking gun ownership that in depth. Is it the future for the rest of us?

 

[cally88]

Wrong.

You can be admitted on a 72-hour hold max on the say so of a cop or EMT and concurrence by the admitting doc. To become a prohibited person, you must be ADJUDICATED. that means you get a hearing in front of a judge where they have to prove you're an imminent danger to yourself or others.

Merely being admitted on a hold DOES NOT make you a PP.

In oregon it can be a 2 physician hold too

 

[Swedish K]

That is absolutely sick. I've taught my boy to respect his elders but never let anyone in, even a cop, unless he called them himself.

I also never thought that CA was actually tracking gun ownership that in depth. Is it the future for the rest of us?

They just added a tax to all firearms / related purchases to help fund this new program to go after "prohibited" people that are registered gun owners. I am guessing that they would go after them for failing to transfer the firearm if they claim to no longer have the gun(s). What floors me is they took the spouses as well - if he has them locked up and she does not have the combo or access the key how is this legal?