Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by arjunki, Mar 13, 2013.
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg
Strange, cousin Bob must be acquiring quite the collection.
Notice the source of funding? "The state Senate agreed March 7 to expand the seizure program using $24 million in surplus funds from fees that gun dealers charge buyers for background checks." http://http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22780272/california-raiders-seize-guns
Um...I want the gov to take guns from people that aren't legally allowed to own them.
"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. "
Ummmmmm, be careful what you wish for.
First off, there are WAY more than 20k convicted felons in your state, second, being deemed mentally unstable is the new excuse. If you have ever served in the military, been depressed, taken any type of mood altering drug, lost a family member, or just had a bad day.... These are now all being looked at as causing mental instability. According to news articles i've been reading lately over 45% of Americans will experience mental instability. Now if you take it a bit further, pretty soon they will be saying that just the WANT of owning a gun shows some sort of fear in your background and if you want to own or do own a gun that will be enough to prove mental instability..... Go ahead and laugh all you want, one way or another THEY WANT ALL YOUR GUNS PERIOD
Read the Bloomberg article. California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg
They're seizing guns from entire households that contain an (allegedly) mentally ill person. Do you know what a clinical hold is? Apparently if your spouse or housemate visits a hospital and gets one, your gun needs to be seized and destroyed.
It's California. Did you really expect them not to abuse this?
Out of over a million firearms they seized 2k. I'm not going to convince you that the end game is not to take all your guns. But I'll just say that I don't believe that and I think you could slippery slope any argument and ultimately get no where. The law is that mentally unstable people cant have access to guns. this isnt a new law, its just being enforced. And I suspect that if it wasnt enforced most of you would be using that against the gov as well.
Of course you wont convince anyone with the stupid statement that their end game is not to take all your guns...
What time capsule have you been stuck in Suge??? Of course their end game is to take ALL your guns! They have stated it! Pelosi has stated it, Ginny burdick has stated it, along with varying levels of the same statement made by other (mostly democrat) individuals in the government. THEY DONT LIKE GUNS PERIOD
fine, keep freaking out. you guys fetishize being oppressed by an imminent gun ban that never comes. it gives you some sort of purpose.
Mind if I ask how old you are?
They've been quietly and behind closed doors taking guns and gun related items away for about 40 years! It actually started just after the "so-called Korean war".
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but:
The Korean War (maybe conflict because, if you declare war on a country and follow the rules, (ha ha funny), you go in and completely annihilate them) was the last war that soldiers were allowed to bring home their weapons and keep them and the enemies also. Spoils of war they used to call it.
Nam was the first "conflict" where soldiers were not allowed to keep their weapons or the enemy's. Many guys snuck them back or shipped them back separately. I didn't bring anything back. Too young and too stupid to even think about bringing anything back. Just happy as hell to leave the "Rock"!
So yes, they will eventually go after everything (done deal, game over!). They need to disarm us before they turn us into another 3rd world country and if they wanna f**k with you, it makes their job much easier (don'tcha know). And to many of the people confiscating guns and gun accessories, it is just, "an exciting job"! Plus, they get to do what they've always dreamed of, "kill people without any retaliation from the masters!
Paranoia on my part? Yup, but I think it's justified.
I really am curious about your reasoning. What makes you think they won't go after all the guns eventually?
The gun ban that never comes ? I take it you are not from California ? Well, I am.
Here is some of the cool stuff we dealt with while living south of you, including some BANS.
Most of this is from calguns wiki.
Concealed weapons illegal without permit 1924
Loaded guns banned in public 1967
Firearms waiting periods changed multiple times from 1 to 15 days, currently at 10. 1923, 1955, 1965, 1975 and 1997
My first experience with a BAN , roberti-roos, 1990
Require sales through dealers, 1991
Firearms safety certificate, gun free school zones 1994
Assault weapon BAN by feature, sb23, 2000
Also got mag restrictions , BAN anything over 10 rounds unless you owned prior to 1-1-2000. Must cops don't know this and will charge you accordingly.
Roster of safe handguns 2001 , BAN guns for sale at dealers if not submitted for safety test at doj lab.
Handgun safety certificate, 2003
BAN open carry of unloaded handguns, 2011
BAN open carry of unloaded long guns, 2013
Long gun registration, effective 2014
State dems are pushing hard and made a public statement that registered weapons are not off the table for confiscation this time around.
The intended goal is NO guns, if you believe otherwise you need to go live down there for a few decades as I did.
Some of us have already lived this.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Oh Man, I'm Sorry! I must have made you cry! Maybe you need to go back to CA. where you can get your diaper changed!
What are you smoking dude ? Put the bong down, and walk away slowly...
Or maybe just slow your roll and try to comprehend what it is you are reading.
Sent from my Nexus 4
There are just so many reasons to live anywhere but California.
The article focused on one person who had spent 2 days in a mental health institute and one person who was pimping out a prostitute who was under 18. There was very litttle information about actual background on these people. The article did alude to other felons but just glanced over them.
Under current federal law, a person has to be ajudicated as mentally ill to lose their 2A rights. The article had no such reference and hinted the mental health determination, and thus the 2A rights forfeiture, was based on a nurses statement.
I had thrown the question out there several months ago, as to how the law would know when a person is mentally unstable, and should not own a gun. It appears, that if California is to be the national model, there will be no judiciary involved in removing the right, a nurses statement may be all that's needed.
I don't think that many are opposed to violent felons being prohibited from having guns. My opinion, is that people are afraid of frivilous or malicious determination of forfeiture of your rights.
I don't even know where to begin. Guns are just the tip of the ice berg in California to think about. Crime, taxes, government regulation and fees, in everything, schools falling apart in every way, infrastructure, a VERY fast lifestyle ( where I'm from at least. I'm still decompressing.), very expensive for WAY less quality of life that we have here in Vantucky, did I mention taxes, without representation ?
I could go on and on.
I couldn't raise my daughter there. We had to leave.
What I think a lot of people don't know is the AG mentioned in that article, Kamala Harris is the former SF DA. I remember the day my fellow Californians elected her and Gavin Newsome. Man was I upset. SF politics, MAINSTREAM. Think Ginny B, becoming the Oregon AG. Except Kamala is smarter, more refined, and apparently has more ambition.
I think the people down south just didn't know what they were doing or whom they were voting for. Kamala is using this as a stepping stone to get her name out there for her next job, this is her MO. This has nothing to do with crime whatsoever. I would love to say she doesn't stand a chance being elected for a position that could effect folks outside California. I didn't think she would win the AG race either.
I better stop. My diaper needs a changing. ( whatever the bubblegum that means )
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Absolutely all of it. :thumbup:
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
I think most people also agree that the most easily identifiable dangerously mentally unstable people in society should not be allowed to own firearms. The problem is that there is no clear line there. you can look at one end of the spectrum and say "definitely crazy" and the other end of the spectrum and say "definitely not crazy," but anyone can really be anywhere in between there, and you may not have any idea.
Are there people who are unstable enough that they should not have easy access to firearms? Yes.
Are those people readily identifiable? No.
I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide.