California confiscates "assault weapons" from law abiding citizens!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Magus, Mar 12, 2013.

  1. Magus

    Magus Scavenger deluxe

    6,674
    17,679
  2. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    A little bit of the story


    Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.


    Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh who coordinates the operations around California, said: “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun. The only people we’re contacting are people who are prohibited from owning guns.”





    They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

    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. 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.

    “What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

    As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

    “Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.


    Harris, a 48-year-old Democrat, has asked California lawmakers to more than double the number of agents from the current 33. They seized about 2,000 weapons last year. Agents also took 117,000 rounds of ammunition and 11,000 high-capacity magazines, according to state data.

    “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun,” said John Marsh, a supervising agent who coordinates the sometimes-contentious seizures. “I got called the Antichrist the other day. Every conspiracy theory you’ve heard of, take that times 10.”

    The no-gun list is compiled by cross-referencing files on almost 1 million handgun and assault-weapon owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental-health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, according to the attorney general’s office.

    Probable Cause

    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.

    At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.

    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.
     

  3. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4


    This mental illness requirement is the one that is the feature that can be expanded to target a lot of people. Criminal records either apply or they don't, but mental illness could hit a lot of people. Say these cops gets access to prescription records and note that people are taking anti-anxiety pills, depression pills, etc so by definition these people are dealing with some mental illness. There are a lot of shades of grey between psychos like Loughner and Holmes and the new mother dealing with postpartum depression.

    So safeguards designed to protect the public from schizophrenics like Loughner could well be used to target new mothers and others with temporary and mild mental illness.

    Secondly, what is the time limit on mental illness with respect to these gun confiscation plans? Is it a one-strike and you're out policy wherein any instance of mental illness in your lifetime disqualifies you from owning a gun? If so then this could disqualify 1/3 of the public who've had one incident of mental illness in their lifetime, say depression after a failed love affair or death of a child, and then recovered.

    If the gun cops start to broaden their interpretation of who is mentally ill then they risk setting up a powerful disincentive to seeking treatment for mental illness. If you do get a prescription for your anxiety issues and this fact becomes known to the gun cops, then many people will chose to suffer in order to keep their issues out of databases.

    Notice also that they seized the guns of the husband whose wife was suffering mental illness. I'm guessing that he cooperated because I can't see how his guns could be taken away by law where he ends up being punished for the conditions of someone else, his wife.
     
  4. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    6,660
    8
    I'll say I see this in a different light due to a recent event with a friend of my dad ...(and they did take the wifes guns also)... but didn't think back to the other training like .... did you know you there is 7 different ways to take a life with a ink pen??? :gaah:

    The wife is fine and he was taken to a safe place ...

    Point ... Not all things are black & white and mental problems comes in many different shades.
     
  5. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    It sounds like Canada is better than California now for this kind of situation ... well - any kind of firearms situation.

    A friend of mine passed away due to a massive heart-attack just over a month back. She died in the bathroom, which is a fairly common place for people having a heart-attack to die. Her husband who is also a friend of mine is an amazing hunter, so, he has some firepower in the home. When his daughter got word that her step-mom passed away, she called all of his friends who have firearms licences and told them to clear-out the house, right now.


    It is the friends who are taking care of their friend, not the police (and SWAT) taking care of business. Police can and will get involved here in Canada, but, they normally will allow friends to hold onto the firearms till such time as the friends feel that the firearms could be (or should be) returned.
















    (Her obituary)
     
  6. PackerBacker

    PackerBacker ExCommunicated

    1,083
    0
    Does the 2A only apply to the sane?
     
  7. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    6,660
    8
    Does the 2A only apply to people over the age of 18 or 21 ...
     
  8. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    2A? DoubleA? Batteries? You are confusing me.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. cnsper

    cnsper Well-Known Member

    1,984
    56
    2a= Second Amendment

    Now the real question needs to be asked.....

    What about the cops that need to see a shrink?

    This is going to cause issues that they are no where near ready to deal with. People are going to avoid going for help that can allow then to operate normally because their guns can be taken away. There are more people seeking help that are safer than ones that are not.
     
  10. PackerBacker

    PackerBacker ExCommunicated

    1,083
    0
    No. .................
     
  11. worldengineer

    worldengineer Well-Known Member

    300
    3
    You may be protected but its sure hard to buy a gun or ammo if your under 18. Actually I doubt any of the constitution applies at all if your under 18 unless your a minority. Apparently minors are second class citizens.
     
  12. cnsper

    cnsper Well-Known Member

    1,984
    56
    The only problem is buying handgun ammo and handguns if you are under 21. Rifles and shotguns are no problem at all. But you do not have to purchase from dealers to get what you need and that is perfectly legal.
     
  13. Aliaysonfire

    Aliaysonfire Well-Known Member

    140
    0
    Gun confiscation started in California

    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-74712022/

    I really can't believe it is happening. It's just the beginning. Someone please read this and tell me that I'm wrong and the information is false or I shouldn't care because its not that big of a deal.
     
  14. Aliaysonfire

    Aliaysonfire Well-Known Member

    140
    0
  15. cnsper

    cnsper Well-Known Member

    1,984
    56
  16. biobacon

    biobacon Track Layer

    2,453
    0
    I still say let each state decide on such things. If that's how they do it there then so be it. Leave my state alone if you don't live here, we are doing fine thank you.
     
  17. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    Is the Constitution a suicide pact?
     
  18. LongRider

    LongRider Well-Known Member

    990
    0
    I believe in Vermont any sixteen year old can buy the gun of his/her choice ammo and a holster walk out of the store packing it.
     
  19. PackerBacker

    PackerBacker ExCommunicated

    1,083
    0
    Does the constitution give you the right to determine sanity?