|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 14, 2013, 12:30 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
Confiscation in California
Does this really happen? How long has this been going on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqVb1qETLC4 What should be done about this? A possible scenario they could use easily to get access to those guns is if you have kids. Social services could bully their way in and the cops could take your guns. I suppose I felt to post this to get some feedback as I myself was shocked that California has been confiscating guns from peoples homes for years and have never heard of it before. |
March 14, 2013, 12:44 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
I'd never thought much about that - there are lots of "prohibited persons" who can't *buy* guns (felons, recreational drug users, subjects of a restraining order, adjudicated mentally ill, etc).
But other than felons, are any of them actually legally forbidden to own/possess firearms? |
March 14, 2013, 12:53 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
I saw another news item on this a few weeks ago. They showed sheriffs officers going to homes of known felons (or otherwise prohibited persons) who were known to have guns (through CA registry I guess) and the gun/home owners were surprisingly cooperative.
I suppose if LE has a record of you owning a gun, and you're not allowed to have one, and if you don't comply, there would be cause to obtain a warrant. And when you're caught with it, chances are you're guilty of another felony. A gun crime this time, with more severe consequences. So it's better for them to surrender their gun(s) willingly, with no questions asked, than go to jail. |
March 14, 2013, 09:24 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
That judge that was commenting in the video was terrifying. Thinking that because someone owned something at some time in the past, with no proof of current ownership or possession, is valid cause for a warrant...is just stepping all over the 4th. Fortunately, it seems judges in California do not see it as cause. Really nothing can be done because, without further information than the video provides, they're doing it legally and not violating people's rights.
However, it would be worthy to keep an eye on how things go with the procedure they use. In the past CA DOJ changed the rules on people after they legally registered rifles to keep them after the AWB, and used that information to come take the suddenly illegal rifles. I could see similar bending of the rules to make it easier for them to search peoples homes. |
March 14, 2013, 10:42 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 48
|
I watched a news program once relating this issue. What completely surprised me was thier confiscating legal guns from legal owners (in this case the husband owned 2 and was completely legal) on the basis the wife had access to them in thier home. The husband was not given an option of removing the guns from the home (take to relatives or where ever). They took them!
In 1969 I went through a Viet Nam outreach program. Does this mean some day I face the possibility of officers showing up and saying you lost your right to own guns because of this issue? And take them? At what point is the line drawn? I have guns in my safe that belong to my children, and a couple belong to my brothers. Some were my deceased fathers. I don't believe it would come to that, but it does make one a little paranoia. |
March 15, 2013, 01:05 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,767
|
Seeker, when they come knocking don't expect them to stop until satisfied they've confiscated every gun, every round of ammunition and everything gun related including bayonets for your millitary arms. It's about setting legal snares for a free people and seeing how many you can trap.
|
March 15, 2013, 01:39 AM | #7 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; March 15, 2013 at 04:14 AM. Reason: clean up |
|||
March 16, 2013, 10:08 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
Just a thought but isn't alcohol a "recreational drug"?
Lives lost due to alcohol related violence, (let alone drunk drivers) is quite high. Shouldn't they be confiscating guns from drunks and alcoholics? |
March 16, 2013, 11:16 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 16, 2013, 11:24 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
Now, the question of why marijuana is on the list while alcohol is not is an entirely different subject. |
|
March 17, 2013, 08:47 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
Any person who lives with a person who is on parole is in the same boat. In an AZ case, which I have personal knowledge, we removed all of the Firearms from the home prior to sentencing.
The parole officer made an "inspection" of the residence within days of the sentencing. He specifically searched for guns. He has repeated the inspections routinely. With legal assistance, the couple are developing a plan which will be submitted to the Parole Officer for approval for returning the Ranchers guns and limiting the wife's access. Until the plan is approved, the rancher does not have the ability to do predator control on his lease. Hard for them, but I now have access to about 20,000 acres of prime coyote and prairie dog hunting. They also have a lion problem. I may get a chance for my first cougar. |
March 17, 2013, 09:57 AM | #12 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
Reportedly, the woman admitted herself voluntarily to address her medications. There was no court order- for temporary observation, or anything else. It was not involuntary. She was also released after 48 hours- a rather brief time. Court-ordered observations are usually somewhat longer, I believe. There was no court process of adjudication. She was not committed. Therefore, did the woman actually meet the requirements for disqualification? It does not appear so on the information provided- which, as is usually the case, may not be complete. |
|
March 17, 2013, 10:22 AM | #13 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
But what is material to this thread is that the authorities had taken the position that she is a prohibited person and therefore it was not legal for her to have access to guns, even guns that belong to her husband.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
March 17, 2013, 10:23 AM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: January 7, 2013
Posts: 74
|
I just found this site and I can't see where CA has a leg to stand on in this particular case.
The last line of the first paragraph especially, says the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility. The federal law at the top of the page just says if the person "has ever been committed". So I guess it's a federal thing.They give no time limit or no allowances at ALL. The mental health rights people should be raising hell about this. People can get over mental issues. Many time a mental health issue is the same as any other medical issue in that the person can be gotten back to normal condition with medicines. The fed law needs re-writing to allow for people that are able to get well. Yeah right. They won't do that. They will grab hold to every little thing they can to take guns and rights concerning them these days. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tally-ill.aspx Last edited by Jayster; March 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM. Reason: spelling |
March 17, 2013, 10:45 AM | #15 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo Here's an article with some more info, in which the woman claims it was certainly not involuntary. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...s-confiscated/ Quote:
Last edited by AH.74; March 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM. |
||
March 17, 2013, 11:08 AM | #16 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, if there's a dispute about whether the commitment was voluntary or involuntary, we're not going to be able to resolve that here. The woman will need to pursue her legal remedies, and a judicial decision will need to be made base on all evidence presented by each side in an adversarial proceeding. Furthermore, according to the article you linked to, the woman admitted she was confined involuntarily (emphasis added): So the woman's dispute appears not to be with the involuntary nature of her confinement but rather with her psychiatric assessment. In that case, she would still need to pursue her legal remedies. Quote:
Furthermore, that was not an issue raised by the OP, so it's still off topic for this thread.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; March 17, 2013 at 11:16 AM. Reason: correct typo |
|||||
March 17, 2013, 11:15 AM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
There are two articles, one referencing the other, on this case and asking the veruy appropriate question "Who are the mentally ill and who makes that determination?"
The article in question is HERE Quote:
Quote:
So they are not only confiscating firearms without compensation, they are arbitrarily destroying them. The key word in that sentence is "most." So what if they confiscate a rare and significant firearm worth tens of thousands of dollars? What happens to that firearm? Does it get destroyed or does it end up in some official's collection?
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
||
March 17, 2013, 11:16 AM | #18 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
I noticed the link duplication and fixed it prior to your post. Please go back and read the other one.
Quote:
Last edited by Al Norris; March 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM. Reason: removed a non-sequitur |
|
March 17, 2013, 11:20 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
The thing I find disturbing in the video referenced in the thread header -- besides the judge being unable to pronounce the word "statute" -- is that these two women want the police to be able to kick in doors. I don't see that ending well for either side of the equation.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
March 17, 2013, 11:29 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
In the one story referenced by AH.74 it states "According to the LA Times, the $24 million would be made over three years from a fee paid for by those registering their guns in the state."
So those who are having their firearms confiscated are paying for the forces which will come for them by registering their firearms and thus assuring their confiscation. Reread that sentence in a continuous loop.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey Last edited by jimpeel; March 17, 2013 at 11:38 AM. |
March 17, 2013, 11:43 AM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: January 7, 2013
Posts: 74
|
For future reference do we know if guns are locked in a safe and totally UN-accessible to anyone in a household that has been deemed "prohibited" is that acceptable?
As important as it is to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people it is AS important for people that are NOT mentally ill to be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights as long as their guns are safe from people deemed prohibited. Also it should be very important to have it defined that people that have HAD a mental illness can also be well again and safely have access to a gun. And what I really want to see is some high profile hollywood type or CA politician that has spent time in a mental facility be raided and his or her guns taken. Talk about justice....... I also have found this information which is a little more defined. I'd say we don't know for sure for which reason CA is deeming the woman prohibited. Some have 5 year prohibitions, some less, some end when the hospitalization ends. http://www.mabpro.com/resource/docs/...bitionForm.pdf Also as far as the guns themselves one paragraph under "Notifying patients under firearms prohibition" says in these cases, the guns in the household must be removed or secured to prevent access or that they can be turned over to local law enforcement authorities if other arrangements to secure them cannot be made. So a safe would have been a legal alternative to what these people had to go through. Also in the same section it states the patient is supposed to be informed many times that they can not have access to firearms when they are released. Do we know if this was done? Seems these folks were given no choice in the matter............. If all the rules were not followed by the facility and by law enforcement heads should roll. But will they in the current environment where gun owner's rights are quickly being the last rights honored? Last edited by Jayster; March 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM. |
March 17, 2013, 12:55 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
Quote:
Of course that means that you assume a significant level of civil liability but hey, it will be hard to suppress the movie as evidence that they were unlawfully in possession of a fire arm. As we all know, the part with the serial number is in fact a gun according to Federal Law. All handguns and assault weapons are required to be registered in California so if the props used in the film are real guns (even converted to fire blanks) they should be in California's registration data base. Entertainment Firearms permits are covered in CPC 29500-29535. If the actor becomes "prohibited" their permit is invalid CPC 29530. Relevant CPC's |
|
March 17, 2013, 01:26 PM | #23 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
So we only have Ms. Phillips side of the story, and now we can't even be sure what her story is. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||||
March 17, 2013, 01:40 PM | #24 |
Member
Join Date: January 7, 2013
Posts: 74
|
Not at all SHR970. That's quite an assumption. I'll spell it out.
So the issue will get the publicity it requires for reasonable changes to take place to protect the rights of all involved. |
March 17, 2013, 01:53 PM | #25 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
So- she is held for observation, and then released after 48 hours. She still was not committed, and she still has not gone through any legal process- so how, according to the state of CA, has she been deemed to be a prohibited person- which justifies confiscation of all weapons in the home? |
|
|
|