Confiscation begins in Kalifornia

[hopper68]

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms - Bloomberg

They admit that registering guns made it easier!!

 

[cobber]

This can also happen in Indiana, if a court were to find a person to be "dangerous".

Indiana Code 35-47-14

e.g., IC 35-47-14-2
Warrant to search for firearm in possession of dangerous individual

Might be harder to figure out what they have, without registration, but the law is there.

 

[rambone]

This is what Lindsey Graham and the NRA want to happen at the national level.

 

[mbills2223]

Biting my tongue.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sooo...we're against taking firearms away from mentally unstable people? Do you really want no mechanism in place to remove firearms from someone who's violently mentally ill BEFORE the tragedy happens?

Also, did you notice this in the article:

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.

Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

 

[rambone]

Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

That's because you're not a "Prohibited Person" as determined by the state.

Your inalienable rights are not supposed to be decided by committee.

Shall not be infringed.

 

[srad]

Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

Wow BBI's. That is a CRAZY thing to say. By committee vote, or a bureaucrat's opinion, or in the judgement of a nurse with an axe to grind, you are therefore no longer a "proper person" and must surrender your personal property to the State. Your spouse must also surrender the personal property registered to them, even though they are "proper", and even though registration is a violation of Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (FOPA).

There... how do you feel now. Can you hear the sound of tyranny yet?

What was it that Niemöller said... oh yeah, "first they came for the..."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sooo...we're against taking firearms away from mentally unstable people? Do you really want no mechanism in place to remove firearms from someone who's violently mentally ill BEFORE the tragedy happens?

Also, did you notice this in the article:



Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

I know someone who has a history of bipolar disorder. It's well-controlled, but because of the history, she had to go to a shrink to get a letter approving her for her LTCH. The one she was seeing was anti-gun, and thus, had she gotten a whiff that the young lady was seeking her license or afterward, had gotten it, there would have been a letter to the state telling them not to issue. She ended up seeking out and finding a different, pro-2A psychiatrist to write the letter, and was issued her license. No issues since, and she carries daily.

I am against taking guns away from any private citizen. If the citizen is so dangerous as to not be safe around guns, take the citizen away, under due process, to an asylum or a prison. I'm sure it's much easier to take things away from people than to take people away from things.... but if the person is so much of a risk, it shouldn't be too hard to prove it, even if the bar is set significantly high enough to avoid infringements of good peoples' rights.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyDave1776]

I know someone who has a history of bipolar disorder. It's well-controlled, but because of the history, she had to go to a shrink to get a letter approving her for her LTCH. The one she was seeing was anti-gun, and thus, had she gotten a whiff that the young lady was seeking her license or afterward, had gotten it, there would have been a letter to the state telling them not to issue. She ended up seeking out and finding a different, pro-2A psychiatrist to write the letter, and was issued her license. No issues since, and she carries daily.

I am against taking guns away from any private citizen. If the citizen is so dangerous as to not be safe around guns, take the citizen away, under due process, to an asylum or a prison. I'm sure it's much easier to take things away from people than to take people away from things.... but if the person is so much of a risk, it shouldn't be too hard to prove it, even if the bar is set significantly high enough to avoid infringements of good peoples' rights.



Blessings,
Bill

Excellent example and explanation of the issue. I would like to know where the asterisk is after the Second Amendment that allows the government to deny a constitutional right to selected persons. If anyone is too dangerous to have a full set of rights, that person is too dangerous to roam free.

 

[mbills2223]

I know someone who has a history of bipolar disorder. It's well-controlled, but because of the history, she had to go to a shrink to get a letter approving her for her LTCH. The one she was seeing was anti-gun, and thus, had she gotten a whiff that the young lady was seeking her license or afterward, had gotten it, there would have been a letter to the state telling them not to issue. She ended up seeking out and finding a different, pro-2A psychiatrist to write the letter, and was issued her license. No issues since, and she carries daily.

I am against taking guns away from any private citizen. If the citizen is so dangerous as to not be safe around guns, take the citizen away, under due process, to an asylum or a prison. I'm sure it's much easier to take things away from people than to take people away from things.... but if the person is so much of a risk, it shouldn't be too hard to prove it, even if the bar is set significantly high enough to avoid infringements of good peoples' rights.



Blessings,
Bill

Bill for the win!

 

[TopDog]

Sooo...we're against taking firearms away from mentally unstable people? Do you really want no mechanism in place to remove firearms from someone who's violently mentally ill BEFORE the tragedy happens?

Also, did you notice this in the article:



Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

Yeah you see the problem is this would imply that I TRUST the government to decide who is wacko and who is perfectly fine. As a side note, have you ever lived in CA? You want whacked out freaks deciding who is going to have guns and who isn't? No - not a good idea. If this were to be of any real use there would have to be some kind of hard and fast rules that qualify you for having your guns TEMPORARILY in custody as you recover. You know hard and fast rules like you are committed to an institution.

 

[jath08]

All it takes is a stroke of a pen by a "certified person" to deem someone mentally ustable whether they are or not. So basically now you can have your guns removed just
for a nervous twitch or probably even having a prescription for anti depressants. Due process might as well be tossed out the window cause now if they want your guns they'll just deem you mental.

 

[Light]

I fear they will start labeling gun owners as paranoid wackos, then claim we have OCD or Paranoia or some other bs symptoms, and then disarm us "for the greater good".

That line in the sand just keeps getting closer for all of us I feel.

Also this seems related.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03...ns-taken-for-speaking-at-public-meeting-54802

 

[ocsdor]

^^^^ That's exactly what is going to happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So71C74E4CY&list=FLMcHKFw2DkVIx-oOa9aFCng

 

[HenryWallace]

Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5

Plain and Simple! Any emotion can and will be deemed as a mental disorder.

I'm with Bill of RIghts. Take the people away from the public if they see them not fit to own a firearm. It doesn't make sence to leave a person with tendancies that would make them mentally unfit to own a weapon because ANYTHING could be used as a weapon.

Simple.

 

[dieselrealtor]

If a person is dangerous enough to be considered unsafe around firearms, they need to also be prohibited from operating a 2000 pound missile, separated from knives, blunt objects, shall I go on?

 

[Vic_Mackey]

Sooo...we're against taking firearms away from mentally unstable people?

Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

I'm a disabled combat vet, with my main compensation coming from PTSD. Am I unstable then?

They've already stated they feel we are potential right wing extremists, and they have also been on a witch hunt with PTSD.

While I admit I get extremely agitated, I am not a unstable person. However, if I go to my VA shrink and talk about my issues, the shrink could interpret what I say in whatever manner they wish. Now, with all that is going on with the mental health crap I'm scared to talk about anything. So if I don't go in, they could take that as me "losing it" or have a "cause for concern of welfare" and have the police come check on me.

Yes, they are dumping everyone into the pile without sorting. Yes, they want any excuse to disarm as many people as they "legally" can, especially patriots. And, yes, it is tyranny, and these are my/our rights on the line, so yes I'm getting worked up over it.

 

[japartridge]

I know someone who has a history of bipolar disorder. It's well-controlled, but because of the history, she had to go to a shrink to get a letter approving her for her LTCH. The one she was seeing was anti-gun, and thus, had she gotten a whiff that the young lady was seeking her license or afterward, had gotten it, there would have been a letter to the state telling them not to issue. She ended up seeking out and finding a different, pro-2A psychiatrist to write the letter, and was issued her license. No issues since, and she carries daily.

I am against taking guns away from any private citizen. If the citizen is so dangerous as to not be safe around guns, take the citizen away, under due process, to an asylum or a prison. I'm sure it's much easier to take things away from people than to take people away from things.... but if the person is so much of a risk, it shouldn't be too hard to prove it, even if the bar is set significantly high enough to avoid infringements of good peoples' rights.



Blessings,
Bill

Exactly my point... if you are too dangerous to have a firearm, then what the hell are you doing on the street in society?

 

[Sfrandolph]

Wait until some of those "Justice Department Agents" are all shot and killed and see the sh*tstorm that ensues.

 

[Sgtusmc]

If someone calls you paranoid, correct them and say you are vigilant, not paranoid. Explain the difference if you have to. One who seeks to protect family and self from danger, known and unknown is vigilant, not paranoid.