This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
California Law Allowing Government To Seize Legal Guns Goes Into Effect January 1st
Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,
Beginning January 1, gun regulations in California will give authorities the right to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines the potential for violence exists.
After a shooting rampage perpetrated by Elliot Rodger in May 2014, the bill was proposed as an “emergency restraining order” option for families concerned their loved ones may act out violent urges — if they persuade a judge that loved one’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing a personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having it in his or her custody or control.”
In other words, the “law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate.
You read that right - a government-imposed time out. Now go sit in the corner, and think about what you did.
“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” Moore continued. “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.” Because, as everyone knows, mental health professionals - like police - are infallible.
Rodger was 22-years-old when he launched a series of attacks around Isla Vista near the campus of University of California, Santa Barbara that left six people dead and 14 injured before he turned one of his guns on himself. All the weapons he used — three handguns and two knives — had been legally purchased. Mere minutes before carrying out his plan, Rodger uploaded a video to YouTube and circulated a 107,000-word manifesto.
How this law answers that attack on Isla Vista - with the attacker offering nothing in the way of an advance red flag about the carnage that was about to unfold - is anyone’s guess.
Even UC president, Janet Napolitano, said at the time, “This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict.”
Seeming to ignore this major factor completely, San Diego State University professor and attorney, Dr. Wendy Patrick, told a local CBS affiliate, “[I]t’s the family members, it’s the people closest to the perpetrator who are in the best position to notice red flags.”
Second Amendment and constitutional advocates have been understandably upset by the coming law, saying further rules in a state already rife with restrictive gun laws will only serve to punish law-abiding gun owners.
“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” asserted Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, to the Associated Press, as reported by the Washington Times. “We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”
What could possibly go wrong?
»
- 75 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Kirk;
You have said what I believed all along.
"the definitions of "unstable or dangerous" will be played fast and loose"
They will pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of the 'crazies'. Most people will go along, it makes sense. Then they weaponize psychaiatry to keep stretching the definition of 'crazy' until anyone they don't like is officially designated as mentally ill.
This will only encourage people to NOT reach out for help for fear of being persecuted when they need help. Who the hell is going to tell their shrink or loved ones anything if they feel they will have the cops knocking on the door when they get home?
That's the point, it's a cleaner kill if it's a suicide, less loose ends.
The only people who will abide by a law like this are a pretty specific demographic.
It's intentional.
This will lead to ever escalating countermeasures by both sides. As intended.
"sorry judge, i was robbed at gunpoint in my house and they stole all my guns."
Hilarious. This will get ugly quick. Half the justice system is corrupt. Trust? Ha! Good luck.
So if I am a member of a gang that has a history of violence, I must forfeit my weapon????????
Nope, protected by the original 'don't ask-don't tell' the 4th and 5th amendments, carry on criminal! For everybody else its the opposite, "if you see something, say something"
I think the potential for gun violence on Day 22 just spiked higher - once the gun owner finds out who turned them in!
That's the point. When the law doesn't do as advertised, they'll make it stronger. Maybe selectively ban gun ownership entirely.
CALIFORNIA IS CONFISCATING GUNS, CALIFORNIA IS CONFISCATING GUNS, CALIFORNIA IS CONFISCATING GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is what the world headlines need to read
This legislation is predicated on State police powers. State police powers under this subject matter is controled by federal law via federal preemption. Federal controling legislation is the GCA of 1968 and amendments. On the federal level, the manufacture and dealing of firearms is a primary operation of federal taxing power. That activity is a licenced and taxable business/occupational privilege affecting the health, saftey, and second amendment rights not possessed by the licensee. What we have is summary administrative control of property moving in commerce based on a plenary legislative p[ower that poses a political question upon the courts. The second amendment is NO BAR to the exercise of this power as the activity subject to regulation under it falls outside the protections of the second amendment.
And now through the legal framework of the federal ACT, those summary and plenary powers are extended to the citizen via BATF transfer form that constitutues a WAIVER in LAW. Hence, these pleanary hands off powers mean the SAME under separation of powers to all they properly apply to. And now thats you. Bring in the addition of california state p[olice powers applied consistent and with the context of those federal powers and now its all open for everyone to see.
Mere possession of the firearm is now subject to THE POWER TO PROHIBIT ALTOGETHER AS A POLITICAL QUESTION UPON THE COURTS. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT THE ISSUE AS IT IS IRRELEVENT IN THE FACE OF THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THESE POWERS.
Even a blind man should be able to see that if these powers really do apply in this context upon the citizen, they WOULD VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND ACCESS TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS BEEN NULLIFIED.
30 years and over 60,000 hours of research involving the areas of constitutional law we are dealing with. Where the fuck is the NRA and their high powered legal teams??? I guess it is more profitable to treat the diseaease continiousely that to simply administer the cure. Every where I turn, another self interested traitor is exposed.
Bullshit. The second amendment is a limitation and restriction on the previously granted powers to tax and regulate commerce. The purpose and intent of the amendment, expressly declared in the preamble, was to clarify the intended limits of the originally granted powers. The Feds have no lawful power to regulate commerce in arms or to tax arms.
On its face your observations are not without merit. However, existing case ussc case law confirms the power to tax and regulate. I have always believed that the feds should be barred from taxing firearms as that would allow them to do indirectly that which they are prohibited from doing directly. For the most part, there has never been any proper legal challenge initiated with the correct arguement from an individual that has standing to do so
The Stasi can't be far behind can it at this rate? 22nd amendment. What 22nd amendment.
14A "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
I guess we can toss that constitutional amendment out too. The Constitution is a nice piece of paper, meaningless, but nice.
That should keep the swat teams busy, there is no way in hell any regular patrols are going to want to take those calls. So now we will have swatt team confrontations over thought crime and rumor.
If they get the wrong house and you hear someone yell Sheriffs department be sure to throw your dog in the bathtub or Nancy's troops will kill your dog on sight as they enter your house. The way things are going they may shoot you on sight as well.
Reminds of the Simpson's episode where Homer is buying a gun.
https://youtu.be/9ME_lwGTXX0?t=40s
So how do you get your gun back after those days?? Take some anger management classes, pass a safe gun class, convince the judge the potential violence has passed
Probably anger management classes at the price of a California DUI. So if you can afford 10- $20,000 you might be able to keep your 2A. You will also have to purchase an ankle bracelet that monitors you for anger or swearing. In 5 years time the state is hoping that the bracelet will be equiped with a cyanide injection apparatus, just in case.
It won't be very long until the powers that be in Cal. will figure a way to enhance revenue with this. I fully expect they will demand a certain amount of cash to return firearms to their rightful owners. You know, administrative fees, storage fees, etc.
Oh, good luck every getting them back in that State.
I can see endless shot out scenarios when the robo cops and the pension police come loaded for bear to 'remove them' from the 'offenders' possession.
I suppose you could do what the San Birdo ragheads did and just get a strawman to buy them for you no mess no fuss.
Ever been to China or do business there? Call it what it really is, bribes...
All I know is that in China everything is possible.
I think you should have as many guns as you want. America is well on the way to taking care of it's self. More guns will make this process quicker.
I don't like them where I live, and thankfully, here, they are quite rare in civilian hands.
I don't like them where I live, and thankfully, here, they are quite rare in civilian hands
civilian hands?
Well now, arent you a cute little pc commie?
Or a career crim.
I'm with you all the way, Mr. P.
Non-Americans should not be allowed to own guns.
That just made me think about remaking a classic film.
Instead of "The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly", how about a modernized version of "The Fabulous, The Oh So Naughty, And The Facially Micro-Aggressed"?
....the real question is if the Shitizens will "allow" Government to seize the blammerz.
This makes perfect sense in a liberal state as everyone has the potential for violence...
Imagine a law that would prohibit anyone holding a political office, or working for someone who holds a political office, from owning, or posessing, any firearm. I might vote for that bill.
What is all this talk about family members persuading judges? The cops talk to the judge, which means this bill doesn't reqyire family to ask the court for a gun restraining order - a cop can get the restraining order, whether a family member is involved or not. Sure, the cops can request a restraining order on behalf of a family member, but that is not a requirement of the law. Any cop can for any reason ask a judge for a restraining order. It's a misdemeanor if the cop (or family member, if involved) lie to get the restraining order.
From the CA legislative site...
"This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. "
Remember that criminals can always get their hands on guns, one way or another. So the objective of seizing legally held guns is aimed at disarming the law-abiding (mainly White) population.
Coastal States should be armed to the teeth , just as a deterrent to invasion.
Confiscating weapons and disarming the coastal populations is pretty much like waving a giant flag that says "invade me, getting a foothold on our coast line is easy and the population wont put up any resistance!".
Its like putting up a "gun free zone" sign on a national level.
And lets be honest here, if China invaded the U.S. and took over California as a foothold/launching point for larger invasion, Obama would be too busy playing golf and watching the latest movie about transgender struggles to take any military action in the defense of the country.
This country has never been weaker in relative terms, sure we have the most weapons, planes, ships, but none of that means or does anything without proper intelligence and chain of command! we have a complete break down in intelligence and the command structure of the military from top down, the only portions of our military that would even function in a real world situation are the ones that operate autonomously without reliance on the command structure.
9/11 proved this.... we were under attack and the entire military essentially stood down and let the attack take place....
China could invade California tomorrow and it would take the administration weeks or months to even get the memo.
Pre-crime bullshit
For more than a few years, CA has been tracking and disarming residents with legally registered guns who, through some adverse legal decision or court finding, had lost the "right" to own them. Last I heard was about 25,000 residents+.
CA for many many years has been compiling a "superdatabase" of gun owners and are so proud of it that the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis brags about it all the time. Kamala Harris is very very proud that they seize over 2,000 weapons and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo each year.
As little evidence as the opinion of a nurse who has no psychology training can put someone on track for involuntary mental hospital evals and containment. And there goes your right to possess or own a firearm (I'm looking at you PTSD vets...). Involuntary outpatient psych care is also on now prominently on the table for the CA bureaucrats to wield and seize guns and/or ammo with little more than checking a "prone to violence" box of sorts.
He said, she said...Domestic violence restraining orders are a forced ticket to surrending all firearms and ammo as well.
Make no mistake...this is already held up as a potential national model and there will be expansions to other states and their fascist bureaucrats. The law of unintended consequences always applies to progressive pipe dreams. There are likely not enough safeguards in any system to prevent abuse as these vague determination-dependent programs are full of "the blue line knows best" cops and "better safe than sorry" power hungry prosecutors working in concert. This new program takes it all to another level, allowing even more vague lack of context determinations to be enacted against citizens.
We're going to war here in the US. This tyranny is going to push us over.
Yes, you have to get beyond normalcy bias.
Nobody would have thought a Vicious Anti-American could be elected to the Presidency, yet, open your eyes: we have one.
Not only does this individual and his backers hate America, they hate its people, excepting the coterie of followers they have. My friends, "Clinging to their gunz and Bibles" was a statement revealing the very Heart of Darkness. This is Evil.
Now, you can call them Bolsheviks, Fascists, but they all meet one definition: They are Totalitarian Terrorists, and yes, they will push and push until they get the violence they crave for the overthrow of the Constitution and either Tyranny or Failed, Balkanized States.
As long as I end up living in a 'balkanized state' under the rule of Constitutional law, I will welcome a separation of the US of A.
Jurgacutioner, the Judge, Jury, and Executioner all-in-one model.
Remember, folks, this is what the Bolsheviks did to people.
Declare individuals to be mental defectives, then throw them in to a prison, gulag, or mental hospital.
The shooting war can't come fast enough.
And the descendants, either direct (Kristol) or indirect via their inbred tribe, are the ones running the show in the US.
So how long until anyone who owns a gun in the first place is called paranoid (for owning a gun) thus making it peachy keen to disallow them from owning a gun?
Thought crime is here, my friends.
Ban mental health disorders.
How about we stop letting in radical jihadists? No lets focus on American patriots instead... sarc.off.
Double post.
What part of "...Shall not Infringe" is so difficult to grasp? Look it up in Black's Dictionary. "Shall" has a very specific legal definition.
We are Citizens, not Subjects, as under the Crown.
"When citizenship is outlawed, all citizens will have gunz."
So now they just need to say
Anyone that owns a gun must be crazy - OH snap - let the mass confiscation begin!
"After a shooting rampage perpetrated by Elliot Rodger in May 2014..."
The first three people Roger killed, were not shot. He also ran down a person riding a bike, with his car.
I already posted a comment but I think it's important to re-iterate:
The patriot act (effective 2001) ALREADY allows the feds to take your weapons or anything else they would like for that matter, indefinitely, without a warrant or even a cause. So lets just clear this up right now: If they wanted your guns, they would have already taken them or killed you if you resisted. This is another non-issue, re-heated to keep everyones attention away from anything that actually matters.
All that means is that they don't want to take guns away now. It's standard practice to put these laws on the books long before they anticipate having to use them.
Please join me in prayer:
"Dear Lord, please give uncurable and deadly cancer to Governor Jerry Brown and all democrats in the California state legislature. If you could see to it that the cancer is very painful and that their families also get painful and deadly diseases we will be eternally grateful. In Jesus' name. Amen"
I JUST PISSED MYSELF LAUGHING...SOMETIMES YOU AMERICANS CAN BE FUCKING HILARIOUS!!
Did you piss in your own face? You are a coward and deserve whatever the jihadis have in store for you.
In amost all crazy progressive laws there is a kernel of good intention--crazy people and guns are a bad combination. But in almost all crazy progressive laws are also a plethera of unintended consquences. And this one is loaded with them.
Get ready for a lot of angry ex-girlfriends and spouses to get some payback.
All you need to know about gun laws, is the amount of convicted felons who reaquire a gun.....nuf said.....
Just having the item in your possesion gives you the potential to use it...
According to liberals if your white and christian you are a racist terrorist...
This is clearly unconstitutional. It not only violates the Second Amendment, but also violates Due Process.
But I don't have confidence in our judges anymore.
I see lots of dead SS units in California's future
As the Spartans told the Persians, "first, come and take our arms".
I wonder what the purpose of the various infringements of the 2nd amendment in different states really is. Is to reduce school shootings or to provoke a lawsuit that will enable the Supreme Court to say that it´s OK to interpret the 2nd amendment they way you want to?
It seems as if the American society to some extent is paying a price for the 2nd amendment. There are more shootings in the US than in North Western Europe. But it is also obvious that it would be no problem for American criminals to get their weapons even with strict gun laws. Even people with no connection to criminals can easily get a weapon in Sweden. Just ask a local junkie if he knows somebody that can sell a gun. A mentally deranged Christian young woman did that when she was ordered to shoot another woman by a pentecostalist reverend and sex maniac by the name Helge Fossmo. Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway, had prepared for buying an AK-47 in the Czech Republic (he had carved out a hole inside the backseat of his car) although he used a legal weapon instead. He would probably been able to find an illegal weapon if he had tried to do that.
If Americans can buy illegal pot they can probably also buy illegal weapons from South America.
Moreover, school shootings can be prevented if people can be educated at home over the Internet rather than at schools.
An interesting question is how many well-known mass shootings that could have been prevented with typical, European gun laws. I suspect that most of them would have happened anyway. Maybe there are exceptions. So my impression is that the real reason behind the opposition against the 2nd amendment is that some people want to facilitate the creation of a totalitarian government in the US. It also seems as if the opponents to the 2nd amendment are about the same people who don´t like the 1st amendment. So my conclusion is that they don´t want free speech and that they want to enforce their rule by preventing people from defending themselves against thugs controlled by the rulers. Maybe I´m exaggerating a bit here, but there seems to be American equivalents to people like count Coudenhove-Kalergi who want some kind of authoritarian élite rule and who are supported by about the same people as Coudenhove-Kalergi. I don´t think that anyone in Ukraine in 1913 would have dreamed about would happen 20 years later in that country. My impression is that the idea behind the 1st and 2nd amendment was to prevent such things from happening in the US. It also seems as if about the same kind of people who supported Coudenhove-Kalergi and the Russian revolution (the banker Jacob Schiff for instance) also are opposed to the 1st and 2nd amendment (but they want to make pot legal).
Distraction from the bigger laws coming down the pike.
What happens in California stays in California.
Well, unfortunately that isn't true so look for this draconian, anti-constitutional law to rear its ugly head in your state in the not too distant future.
I have a corresponding proposal that will seem strange to many because it comes from a female individual. That is, consider nagging a form of assault.
-----
After you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing, consider the following argument for that position. Okay, ready for this?
I assume everyone has heard of "Chinese water torture", a very well known form of torture for hundreds of years. In case someone here hasn't heard of Chinese water torture, I'll describe it here.
Essentially, you get someone to lie down on their back. Put them on the most comfortable memory foam mattress you can find. Shove the mattress up against a wall with a typical water spigot like on any typical sink. Adjust the water temperature to be comfortable... say 30C or so. Now turn the spigot pretty much off, but not completely tight, so once every 15 or 30 seconds one drop of water falls out. Position the mattress so the drop impacts the person's forehead. Leave them alone.
This will drive some people insane in minutes. Others take hours. In the end though, this drives people insane. This has been considered torture for hundreds of years, and people have divulged endless secrets over the centuries to get the drip... drip... drip... turned off.
The essence of the Chinese water torture is repetition... repetition that you cannot stop. Obviously the drops of water cause no physical harm.
This is precisely how nagging works.
I know, because when I was a little kid, my mom would nag... endlessly. Drove me nuts! I'd hide, I'd stay way from home, I'd do just about anything... except give in. I wouldn't give in because somehow I knew what that would mean... that I lost, that I could be made to do (or not do) just about anything as easily as nagging me.
-----
I know the above sounds absurd, to call nagging a form of assault... or torture. And okay, maybe I'm being somewhat sarcastic. Somewhat. Maybe. Sorta. Or maybe not.
But the point is (and the reasons this article made me post this strange sounding idea) is because people are starting to classify all sorts of trivial nothing as "harm"... and doing great harm in doing so.
Like in situation this article describes. Talk about escalation! You nag someone to death, then when the nagging victim becomes annoyed, you send cops to steal their property?
This is a bit like the USSA approach to so-called terrorism. Go overseas and kill millions of innocents... then pretend you are surprised when their friends and relatives (whose lives have been totally destroyed in many cases) get royally pissed off and want to return the favor. At every step... escalation. Not smart!
If people try, but can't get along, they need to stay away from each other, not torture and annoy each other, and constantly escalate.
And holy smokes! When you get the predators-DBA-government involved... boy are you ever raising the stakes in spades. Not smart.
The only real solution is to treat people well. And when they don't or won't return the favor, get as far away as possible, end all interaction, and let them live their own life their own [stupid] way. And refuse to participate in tricks, nagging and any other form of escalation... especially via those professional predators and trouble-makers who call themselves "authority".
Not absurd, and definitely not laughing at you.
You're giving good advice, which I intend to follow. Thanks for this.
Nothing new; man is man is man is man...reprobate & stupid
"...gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of G**, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing...." - The inherent nature of all people; we are all on this list and more than once.
They are going to come after guns; many ways to do it, like through more draconian laws, red-tape, fees, and taxes..all ever increasing.
No, humans are not inherently rotten. Humans are made rotten by incessant nagging by parents, family, friends, teachers, mainstream media and so forth.
Of course predators will be predators, whether human predators or predators of other species. However, humans need not be predators. Humans can decide otherwise. I and others have decided otherwise, and behave otherwise.
If being rotten was inherent and unavoidable, there would be no point or reason to think about it, or do anything about it. But that is wrong... being rotten is optional.
Sure, being raised to be rotten and being surrounded by endless rotten makes being rotten seem sorta acceptable to most people. But not all. Not some of us.
Darling, I love your point of view, so female. It reminds me that it was the women that first gathered the grains, domesticated dogs and probably enticed the horse. Testosterone is the one identifiable force that makes most men evil. If you look at women, you can also see this, as menopause sets in testosterone levels enlightens .. my one good example is Ms. Hillary Clinton.. you can see it in her face (squaring, more manly and weight gain), not enough hormone therapy has revealed a manly face and an underlying megalomaniac tendency that is well documented.
I do not recommend the solution, but it is being implemented.. THC (lefty only)
I've known more "good guys" than "good girls". The methods each practice to harm others is often different, but that's not important.
"... for families concerned their loved ones may act out violent urges ..." This is incremental - next is concerned neighbors, concerned clerks at the local Big 5, concerned assholes who want to fuck with someone whom they know has a firearm. Incremental. Full on taqiyya, gentlemen.
This crap really brings me down. So down.
California is run by evil people. Extremely evil. They aren't content to simply hold power, wield influence, and be rich.
No. By increments they push good people into a corner, and provoke them. Not because they are rivals for riches or for power, and not merely to control them, although control is part of the process.
The ruling class wants blood, lots of it. Innocent blood. Death is what they want, and their policies are crafted to bring about death, chiefly to ordinary people who just want to live their lives and be left alone in peace.
Knowing this leaves me feeling very discouraged. The future looks like a black hole to me.
Christ my sorrowful friend; the only real HOPE...all else is sinking sand. Be of good cheer!!
Seek medical attention immediately, ask for testosterone injections. Start pumping Iron. Once you are feeling better have a 1% tatoo put on your dick.
I suggest putting a dot infront of that '1'.
I see that you are about to become a test case for the 21-day rule.
Let us know how that turns out for you.
California is the test case for future liberal state law and evenually red state and Federal law in the U.S.. The idea is to test these illegal laws in California liberal courts with arguments that pass "constitutional" liberal court tests based on prior illegal liberal laws. These illegal acts become a pyramid that cannot be challenged. When enough states pass these illegal acts and pyramid the illegal laws they transcend to become the law of the land.
There is a long list of constitutional law concepts that have eroded in the last fifty years from illegal law pyramiding. For example Illegal search and seizure is epidemic, seizure of property without a hearing is common, etc....
In this case California will destroy the fire arms or lose them, by accident of course, and force the tax payer to go to court to recover the value of their firearms. The recovery case should take no longer than ten years to complete.
PRECRIME LAW.
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.
Next come the confiscations.
I am looking forward to the first jack boot blown off a porch.
Definition of insane or unstable:
White
Has a full time job or multiple part time jobs
Does not collect welfare
Believes in God
Has one or more guns
Is a member of the NRA or associates with such members
Has more than a 3 day supply of food
Or ANYTHING else a judge decides!
Very similar to the No Fly proposal - someone else, wholly untrained in mental health, puts you on the list - no guns for you!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-pm-david-cameron-non-violent-extrem...
All you have to do is qualify for classification as a non violent extremist.
You do that by holding a view on e.g. 9/11 some matter , which does not conform with the official narrative.
It is that simple. Most ZH readers will qualify.
This is already done in Illinois under the Family Law section, even a neighbor can be used or any doctor or healthcare professional.
Wake up.. any judge could do this at any time in the history of most any court.