• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

California seizing guns

Biscuit

Philosopher
Biscuit
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
6,929
Interesting article about how California confiscates guns from from the mentally ill and people convicted of felonies. Essentially California has a force dedicated to confiscating the guns of people who at one time legally purchased them but since that time became ineligible to own fire arms. It seems like a perfect idea that would cross the aisle politically. I am not going to quote anything because I would like people to read the whole article, link

The comments are a riot.
 
Best comment:

Quiet revolution MASSES STOP PAYING FEDERAL TAXES @Joel Orlando I never knew Communism 2 B civilized This statement is on fact not your emotions. Obama 2008 & 2012 was endorsed by Communist Party USA.Research his background. Lots of his speeches have communist sayings (collectively, fair share etc..). Ur just not paying attention & living at Disneyland. I was in the store the other day, ran into some1 just like U They didn't even know the first thing to go when the dollar collapses is GOV'T CHECKSbeing sent out 2 the pple. Joe use logic & fact not personal insults
Click to expand...

Wut?
 
Biscuit said:
Interesting article about how California confiscates guns from from the mentally ill and people convicted of felonies. Essentially California has a force dedicated to confiscating the guns of people who at one time legally purchased them but since that time became ineligible to own fire arms. It seems like a perfect idea that would cross the aisle politically. I am not going to quote anything because I would like people to read the whole article, link

The comments are a riot.
Click to expand...
Georgia is supposed to do this. Taking guns from criminals and the mentally ill seem like a good idea to me.
 
The "trouble" with this is that it requires keeping track of registered firearms. For some reason, that will ultimately result in Hitler, just like every country that keeps track of gun registration.

I mean, it's not like Americans are required to register to vote, right?
 
autumn1971 said:
The "trouble" with this is that it requires keeping track of registered firearms. For some reason, that will ultimately result in Hitler, just like every country that keeps track of gun registration.

I mean, it's not like Americans are required to register to vote, right?
Click to expand...
I am dumber for having read that post.
 
Biscuit said:
Interesting article about how California confiscates guns from from the mentally ill and people convicted of felonies. Essentially California has a force dedicated to confiscating the guns of people who at one time legally purchased them but since that time became ineligible to own fire arms. It seems like a perfect idea that would cross the aisle politically. I am not going to quote anything because I would like people to read the whole article, link

The comments are a riot.
Click to expand...

I saw this article yesterday and the headline seems to have been written to make people click:

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

The actual article was a bit of an anticlimax.
 
One guy lost his gun because his wife was determined to be mentally ill. Also, what happens to guns that are seized due to a restraining order? When (if) the order expires, does the person get that gun back? That seems like something that could get abused.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
One guy lost his gun because his wife was determined to be mentally ill. Also, what happens to guns that are seized due to a restraining order? When (if) the order expires, does the person get that gun back? That seems like something that could get abused.
Click to expand...

In the article it explains that people who have lost their right to bear arms can not have access to guns thus the husband had to give up his as well or he could leave his wife.

Also the article said that "some" of the seized weapons are destroyed which makes me think that those who could potentially have their right restored have their guns stored until such a time as a definitive answer as to their right is determined. Guns owned by felons are probably destroyed.

While it could be abused it is enforcing existing laws which I think is a good thing.
 
Taking them and storing them for people who are temporarily unable for legal reasons is fine. Destroying their property that was legally obtained at the time of purchase or whatever is not. If the state is going to seize something then it should reimburse the owner for it's current market value just like they do for imminent domain cases.

At the very least they should give the owners a reasonable time period to sell the property themselves, but that wouldn't meet the goals of the gun grabbers who want them to all go away and don't care whose rights they have to trample to do so.

For anyone who said that registration lists wouldn't result in seizures this is a prime example of it being done. What happens when they decide to add to the list of crimes that can result in weapon seizures? Late on child support? How irresponsible, lets take their guns. Too many traffic tickets? Clearly an irresponsible person, lets take their guns too. One DUI thirty years ago that was a misdemeanor at the time? Too bad, gimmie your guns.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
For anyone who said that registration lists wouldn't result in seizures this is a prime example of it being done. What happens when they decide to add to the list of crimes that can result in weapon seizures? Late on child support? How irresponsible, lets take their guns. Too many traffic tickets? Clearly an irresponsible person, lets take their guns too. One DUI thirty years ago that was a misdemeanor at the time? Too bad, gimmie your guns.
Click to expand...
Good deal. You draft the law and I'll start drumming up support.

Anyway, I hope you were just being sarcastic rather than engaging in a tired, NRA-sponsored slippery slope fallacy.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Taking them and storing them for people who are temporarily unable for legal reasons is fine. Destroying their property that was legally obtained at the time of purchase or whatever is not. If the state is going to seize something then it should reimburse the owner for it's current market value just like they do for imminent domain cases.
Click to expand...

Should the state compensate a pot dealer if they confiscate his pot? In this case a felon owning a gun is just as illegal as someone possessing pot. Its the gun owners responsibility to sell or dispose of his gun if he wants compensation. Otherwise he is just committing a crime and deserves no compensation.

Sam.I.Am said:
At the very least they should give the owners a reasonable time period to sell the property themselves, but that wouldn't meet the goals of the gun grabbers who want them to all go away and don't care whose rights they have to trample to do so.
Click to expand...

It appears from the article that these confiscations are back logged, not an over night next day process. The person has had time to deal with the now illegally possessed fire arms but chose not to. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. What right is being trampled? Lawful gun owners are not subject to this.

Sam.I.Am said:
For anyone who said that registration lists wouldn't result in seizures this is a prime example of it being done....snip
Click to expand...

This is a prime example of existing gun laws being enforced, I didn't know there was opposition to that.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
One DUI thirty years ago that was a misdemeanor at the time? Too bad, gimmie your guns.
Click to expand...
Chicago already bans guns for anyone with 2 misdemeanor DUIs no matter how long ago.

I think that provision is ripe for a court chalenge, but as of now it's the law.
 
Biscuit said:
Should the state compensate a pot dealer if they confiscate his pot? In this case a felon owning a gun is just as illegal as someone possessing pot. Its the gun owners responsibility to sell or dispose of his gun if he wants compensation. Otherwise he is just committing a crime and deserves no compensation.
Click to expand...

I prefer a different analogy. Yours begins with a possession that is itself illegal.

How about a drug dealer that forfeits the vehicle he uses to transport the drugs. The vehicle may have been legally purchased (as might have the gun), but has since been used in the commission of a crime (as has the gun). In this instance, I do not find a need for the governement to reimburse the owner for the forfiture.
 
sarge said:
I prefer a different analogy. Yours begins with a possession that is itself illegal.

How about a drug dealer that forfeits the vehicle he uses to transport the drugs. The vehicle may have been legally purchased (as might have the gun), but has since been used in the commission of a crime (as has the gun). In this instance, I do not find a need for the governement to reimburse the owner for the forfiture.
Click to expand...
It's not a crime if your spouse is declared insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom