Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
California Seizes Guns from Owners and it Might Become a National Model | EUTimes.net



In California, the government is already coming for the guns.

Notwithstanding the Second Amendment, rules and regulations across the United States outline certain restrictions for who can legally possess a firearm. In the state of California, factors such as a felony conviction or a history of mental health issues mean roughly 20,000 gun owners are holding onto their firearms illegally. Slowly but surely, though, Golden State police officers are prying them away. There's more, though: backers of the program suggest this becomes a nation-wide practice, and are asking the White House to help make it happen.

"Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have," Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program tells Bloomberg News. Wintemute helped set up a program on the West Coast that monitors not just licensed gun owners but also watches for any red flags that could be raised after admittance to a mental health institute or a quick stint in the slammer.

Wintemute says that as many as 200,000 people across the United States may no longer be qualified to own firearms, and in California they are making sure that number drops day by day. In one example cited in this week's Bloomberg report, journalists recall a recent scene where nine California Justice Department agents equipped with 40-caliber Glock pistols and outfitted in bulletproof vests knocked on a suburban residence, requested to speak to a certain gun owner and then walked away with whatever arsenal they could apprehend.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris seized roughly 2,000 weapons last year, reports Bloomberg, as well as 117,000 rounds of ammunition and 11,000 high-capacity magazines. But as concerns escalate about a possible war against the right to bear arms in America, will other states soon follow suite?

In California, some shortcuts are already meaning weapons are being removed from lawful owners. Bloomberg reports cite the example of 48-year-old Lynette Phillips, a California woman who was recently hospitalized for mental illness. When a team of agents went to collect her two registered firearms, they also walked out with one registered to her husband.

"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 other cities and towns across the country, Americans are standing up against what many say are unconstitutional attempts to disarm the United States. In New York State, new legislation is making it harder for Americans to purchase firearms, and one provision will provide gun owners with a felony charge if they ignore new registration rules - which is enough on its own to make owning guns illegal. Across the board more states are demanding stricter background checks, but as efforts to remove weapons from the hands of Americans - voluntarily and involuntarily - are ramped up, though, those that disagree are doing what they can to keep their country armed.

In the wake of last year's massacres in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut - among others - lawmakers and the public at large have called on Americans for a mass disarming. Gun buyback programs are being touted in countless cities, and in California the attorney general is hoping for even more help at getting guns away from their once-lawful owners - Attorney General Harris has asked Vice President Joe Biden for help and has asked state lawmakers to increase the number of agents tasked with collecting weapons up to 33. She also told Mr. Biden that she thought the efforts coming out of California could be a good model of a national program, reports Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, though, others are making sure weapons aren't being put to waste. Residents in Maine hit the polls this week to vote on a law that would require everyone in the town of Byron to register a high-powered weapon.

"It was never my intention to force anyone to own a gun who doesn't want to. My purpose was to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment," Head Selectman Anne Simmons-Edmund tells US News & World Report.

"I'm just here because I'd rather see weapons stay with people, rather than turned in to be melted," a man named Joe, who declined to provide his last name, tells the Bainbridge Island Review. "I'm here to exercise the Second Amendment," he added. "Even if I don't get anything, honestly, I'd just rather see people keep them."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
I really have no trouble barrign convicted felons and mentally ill people from owning guns.

What bugs me is when pro gun groups try and some how say that 'felon' should have a second
amendment right? Really? The guy can't even vote and you think he should be able to have
a rifle, hand gun, shotgun or ? Sorry I don't. You play by societies rules or pay the price.

I am bugged they make it difficult for people to get their firearms back when found innocent.
In CA if a woman claims "domestic violence" the police can seize all of the mans firearms.
When he's found not guilty its expensive and hard as hell to get them back - which is wrong.

As an ombudsman volunteer I've been dealing with a case of a seriously impacted veteran
wanting to own a military style semi automatic rifle. He is blocked by DOJ due to a
medical discharge from the armed services - the medical was for instability. The man has
been institutionalized, has a financial conservator, and is mad as hell society won't let him
buy an "AR." Fact is he's also unstable, irrational, angry as hell, and no way in HELL should
any society let him own and possess a weapon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,207 Posts
I am totally against this new scheme of mental instability to ban firearm ownership. Wake the **** up people, a government shrink says all preppers are delusional apocoliptic wack jobs and shouldn't own guns. Shazam you are now mentally unstable and your house can be raided and firearms taken. This isn't a slippery slope, it's a freekin nightmare that is already happening and as soon a someone starts a shoot out at this unconstitutional power grab, they claim it makes their point and speeds things up.

The felon rule is also unconstitutional IMO, if they are out of prison and not on parole, haven't they paid their price to society? Get a clue the violent felons will get guns again anyway (the point of the article) and the soft felons who maybe stole their neighbors boat or sold raw milk they are now defenseless. Keep in mind another way to back door gun control is to just give out felonies for minor offenses, disorderly conduct can be a felony, be pretty easy to trump that's one up

FYI I don't even know a felon so this is not a personal point but a philosophical one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
FYI I don't even know a felon so this is not a personal point but a philosophical one.
Well I know two. Ones a proud member of the arayan brotherhood that violated his parole day one looking me up and introducing himself to my wife. Now he's out, no parole, and last I heard living in Idaho. You advocate his 2nd amendment right all you want, I'll defend your right to say it, but it's actions like that which send the uninformed voters to the other side. So protect giving deranged insane people and convivted felons all the ARs you want but remember doing so puts honest law abiding citizens gun rights at risk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,820 Posts
There is a process where a convicted felon can regain both his voting rights and gun owner rights. I'm not sure what the process is, the limits on the act committed (I pray it's only for non violent offenders), or the time requirements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
887 Posts
I really have no trouble barrign convicted felons and mentally ill people from owning guns.
Theres one or two group of felons that doesnt loose there gun rights:

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).
The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About Federal Gun Law | Law Offices of Keith A. Williams, P.A. | Greenville North Carolina

Then get ahold of this
"I love our veterans," Schumer prefaced his opinion. "I vote for them all the time, they defend us."

Despite his professions of "love" for "our veterans," Schumer then equated military veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to convicted criminals.

But if you are mentally ill, whether you're a veteran or not, just like if you're a felon, if you're a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.
http://www.examiner.com/article/sen...nistration-s-right-to-strip-ptsd-vets-of-guns
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Speaking of PTSD, Feinstein's excuse for her obsession with disarming America was her involvement in the shooting murder of her buddy politician. Yet she has a concealed carry permit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
887 Posts
Speaking of PTSD, Feinstein's excuse for her obsession with disarming America was her involvement in the shooting murder of her buddy politician. Yet she has a concealed carry permit.
Thats her good side
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
Ptsd

Nice to know the bankstes are covered huh?

PTSD by itself should never be the qualifier. I am volunteering to help a vet right now but this poor guy has traumatic brain injury and PTSD. His wife got him conserved and now wants to divorce him (oh ya she's the conservator) and he's got some very sad issues. I really don't think society wants him buying a rifle.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
Seeing the shrink should not jeopardize their rights to fire arms, a serious diagnosis though probably should - for their benefit and ours. It's a double edge sword. I get the pro gun argument that the mental health community will label us all and ban our 2nd rights but once the people needing counsel stop getting it due to that you'll see them push back with HIPPA on their side. I don't want to see a good person with some depression and PTSD lose any rights, but at the same time some guys / gals with serious issues shouldn't have access to guns.

One of my sons is a Navy vet now working as an RN at a VA Hospital. He wants so much to warn some of the guys with minor "mental issues" to not jeopardize legal weapons possesion
by seeing a shrink. He'd likely lose his job,so he stays mum
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,001 Posts
The federal parameters now say one must be adjudicated mentally unfit to be barred from owning a firearm. That means a ruling from a judge, not some alleged diagnosis by a doctor.
This is the way it should be.
And as far as felons not owning firearms, Florida has a process whereby a felon can petition to get his rights back, provided he follows certain rules required by a civilized society.
Simply "doing your time" should not be enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
This is the way it should be. No a guy passing bad checks shouldn't be barred from ever owning a gun, but a person who tried to manufacture a car bomb - should.
And having a judget delcare the mental status is a step above trusting the mental health community. My wife things she's one of about 999 in that community which
aren't raving lunatic liberals and horribly anti gun. I get that gun owners fear a lable by this community could bar their gun rights, but so long as we keep a judge
in the loop its better. Not that I trust judges either they have to follow the perponderance of the evidence even if they hate gun rights.

The federal parameters now say one must be adjudicated mentally unfit to be barred from owning a firearm. That means a ruling from a judge, not some alleged diagnosis by a doctor.
This is the way it should be.
And as far as felons not owning firearms, Florida has a process whereby a felon can petition to get his rights back, provided he follows certain rules required by a civilized society.
Simply "doing your time" should not be enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
I really have no trouble barrign convicted felons and mentally ill people from owning guns.

What bugs me is when pro gun groups try and some how say that 'felon' should have a second
amendment right? Really? The guy can't even vote and you think he should be able to have
a rifle, hand gun, shotgun or ? Sorry I don't. You play by societies rules or pay the price.

I am bugged they make it difficult for people to get their firearms back when found innocent.
In CA if a woman claims "domestic violence" the police can seize all of the mans firearms.
When he's found not guilty its expensive and hard as hell to get them back - which is wrong.

As an ombudsman volunteer I've been dealing with a case of a seriously impacted veteran
wanting to own a military style semi automatic rifle. He is blocked by DOJ due to a
medical discharge from the armed services - the medical was for instability. The man has
been institutionalized, has a financial conservator, and is mad as hell society won't let him
buy an "AR." Fact is he's also unstable, irrational, angry as hell, and no way in HELL should
any society let him own and possess a weapon.
I dont really know about the felons though, a younger guy at work wanted to sell me a couple guns. When he moved to mass he was refused a permit becouse he took a dirtbike at 17 years old. Went on to be a Army Ranger in Somalia. CIB, a few other decorations, now he's working as a nursing assistant helping old folks with dementia i kinda think he was a kid who fouled up but he grew up. God knows scumbags dont even try to do the right thing. just my opinion though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
I know whatcha mean. Certain felons can get their rights back if they show they haven't been in trouble for a while. I agree, usually, a scumbag will always be a scumbag. Then you have the ones that have screwed up and made a mistake and it is with them forever which is kinda screwed up. Just like sex crimes. I am all for rapists and pedophiles having their record show they are a sexual predator. Then you have people that were dating in jr high and high school, then he becomes 18 or 19 and she is 16/17 and he gets arrested for statutory rape and is labeled a sex predator for the rest of his life. IMO that is ****ed up.. There was a guy in Georgia a while back that turned 18 and his girlfriend was 16 or 17 that were dating for several years and he was arrested and sentenced to like 10 years or something like that if I remember correctly. How messed up is that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
The problems is due process of law.
CA and Obama have a back door plan to just declare everyone felons and mentally ill.
One trick DHS floated was to declare any vet that saw a counselor as mentally ill and unfit to own a fire arm . They almost got away with it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Before agreeing with Ripon, just remember that he trains people how to break down your door and TAKE your weapons and possibly your life for a living. Be very careful whom you back, it could come back and bite you. IMO, he is part of the growing problem many Americans will face in the near future, the growing government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
The federal parameters now say one must be adjudicated mentally unfit to be barred from owning a firearm. That means a ruling from a judge, not some alleged diagnosis by a doctor.
This is the way it should be.
And as far as felons not owning firearms, Florida has a process whereby a felon can petition to get his rights back, provided he follows certain rules required by a civilized society.
Simply "doing your time" should not be enough.
How hard would it be, how long would it take to find a liberal judge that would declare a Vet mental ill. There are plenty that would rule you unfit just for serving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldmurph58
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top