California Now Confiscating Legally Purchased Guns

[squiggy]

squiggy:

The United States already incarcerates a higher percentage of our population than almost any other "First" World nation. Is locking more people up going to solve our problems?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

I believe if it were not so permissive to begin with and held people accountable instead of warning after warning, we would actually not have to incarcerate so many!!!

Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Bookaroo]

jeff-gordon:

Well, if one thinks "now" is 2001. Notice the headline uses the dreaded "c-word." And emphasizes "legally purchased."

Some information on the Program:

http://www.psmag.com/politics/california-armed-prohibited-persons-system-gun-violence-felons-55449/

I think this is another poorly written headline. The state is not "taking back" guns because it didn't own them in the first place. We know different people generally write headlines and articles.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/guns_07-23.html

"n addition, California law requires law enforcement to confiscate weapons found to be under the possession or control of any person who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition, or who is prohibited from possession of firearms by reason of a mental disorder.[SUP]2[/SUP] Law enforcement must, upon confiscation, retain custody of the firearm and notify the individual of the procedure for return of the firearm.[SUP]3[/SUP] Upon release from a mental health facility, the health facility personnel must notify the individual of the procedure for the return of a confiscated firearm.[SUP]4[/SUP] Health facility personnel also must notify the confiscating law enforcement agency of the release of the detained individual, and must document that the facility provided notice regarding the procedure for return of any confiscated firearm.[SUP]5"

http://smartgunlaws.org/disarming-prohibited-persons-in-california/

[/SUP]The article didn't include any information about a procedure for firearms to be returned.

"By law, Roy Perez should not have had a gun three years ago when he shot his mother 16 times in their home in Baldwin Park, Calif., killing her, and then went next door and killed a woman and her 4-year-old daughter.

"Mr. Perez, who pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and was sentenced last year to life in prison, had a history of mental health issues. As a result, even though in 2004 he legally bought the 9-millimeter Glock 26 handgun he used, at the time of the shootings his name was in a statewide law enforcement database as someone whose gun should be taken away, according to the authorities.

"The case highlights a serious vulnerability when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and others, not just in California but across the country.

"In the wake of the Tucson shootings, much attention has been paid to various categories of people who are legally barred from buying handguns — those who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” have felony convictions, have committed domestic violence misdemeanors and so on. The focus has almost entirely been on gaps in the federal background check system that is supposed to deny guns to these prohibited buyers.

"There is, however, another major blind spot in the system.

"Tens of thousands of gun owners, like Mr. Perez, bought their weapons legally but under the law should no longer have them because of subsequent mental health or criminal issues. In Mr. Perez’s case, he had been held involuntarily by the authorities several times for psychiatric evaluation, which in California bars a person from possessing a gun for five years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Hmmm...posted article did not mention a time limit on gun ownership.

The state estimates 20,000 persons have firearms although the law currently forbids them to own them. Based on available data, they probably have about 40,000 guns.

For years I've read gun rights advocates state "We don't need new laws - we need the laws we have enforced." I think it is safe to say that's the "NRA position." Yet when the state of California takes steps to enforce existing laws suddenly it's "confiscation."

As for the 20,000 new LEO's? That might be accurate. If they earn $1,200 per year...

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Treasure Hunter:

I'm guessing those multiple authors on multiple websites can readily be traced back to a single source. Or, maybe, two. I often find researching such a story the language is so similar it's obvious they are simply copying one from another.

Rather like so many famous lost treasure yarns.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Treasure Hunter:

I'm guessing those multiple authors on multiple websites can readily be traced back to a single source. Or, maybe, two. I often find researching such a story the language is so similar it's obvious they are simply copying one from another.

Rather like so many famous lost treasure yarns.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

So prove it wrong.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Why Is California Seizing Legally Purchased Guns?

26 November, 2013 / by*Website Editor



Unprecedented and extreme measure of confiscating legally-owned guns. More than 20,000 people who purchased their guns legally had them confiscated after they were suddenly classified as “prohibited persons” from owning a weapon. California Gov. Jerry Brown authorized a $24 million budget for hiring additional officers to help with the crackdown.

The state legislature approved new language earlier this year for what is defined as a prohibited person, or someone who legally registered a firearm but can now no longerexercise*their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and other minor misdemeanors or mental health concerns.

Joe Mendez, one of the gun-owners whose weapon was taken away, said 14 officers showed up at his house and police shoved two M16s within inches of his face. They even allegedly lied to Mendez’s wife and said they were only taking a report after her car was involved in a hit-and-run.

California Dept. of Justice spokesperson Michelle Gregory*told NPR that in order for gun confiscations to take place, officers must undertake “tedious, expensive and time-consuming work, requiring hours of background checks and cross-referencing. There’s a lot of work that goes into these. “People aren’t always home, there’s different stories as to where the firearms may be and there’s a lot of follow-up [that] needs to happen after.”

A state-wide gun confiscation effort took place in 2011, resulting in 1,200 firearms being seized from 723 people throughout 43 counties.



http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/why-is-california-seizing-legally-purchased-guns.html

 

[NHBandit]

Start here to find answers. If there's anything going on at all in CA there will be threads about it here. Don't ask me to do it for ya. I really don't care a whole lot what goes on in CA. I consider it another country. If I lived there I would leave.. Calguns.net

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Treasure Hunter:

Same article - behind on taxes, "minor" misdemeanors, "suddenly" they can't own a gun.

Nothing about returning firearms, notifications, etc. I posted links to several articles that tell quite a bit more of this story.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Treasure Hunter:

Same article - behind on taxes, "minor" misdemeanors, "suddenly" they can't own a gun.

Nothing about returning firearms, notifications, etc. I posted links to several articles that tell quite a bit more of this story.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

OB, it is not my job to convince you of anything.......... It isnt the same article actually it is the same story though, California has been seizing firearms from people for years, they just keep passing new laws to include different groups of people to seize firearms from....That is what comes from gun registration.....I had a chance to move to California years ago and turned it down.... You can't pay me enough money to live there, in fact there are several states you couldn't pay me enough money to live in.......

 

[Gunrunner61]

Treasure Hunter;

How about a person taken in on a 5150 - a "mental health commitment?" Some people claiming to be "gun rights supporters" believe the mentally ill shouldn't have ready access to firearms.

How about people with domestic restraining orders against them? How about convicted felons?

Many states have a process for convicted felons to reobtain the right to vote. It is often abused by a political party scared to follow the law.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

At the age of 18 I got into a fight with a fellow that i knew, We had been friends at one point, then he decided to beat another friend up with a ball bat so as a very drunk 18 yr old I went to his appt. and stomped his azz, Next morning the police were there and charged me with assault and battery with intent to kill, IT WAS A FIST FIGHT! But his dad had money and that talks and BS walks. I spent 32 months in prison A year in the State Penn (CCI) for anyone from S.C. A very bad place,Sherman stabled his horse's there during the war. Another 20 months at a youth full correctional facility. I'm in the process of trying to get my rights restored, I have NEVER been able to vote, or own a handgun, Do you think they should turn my request down? I'm 52 yrs old never been in any trouble other than that one fight.

 

[Unclebuck257]

Unclebuck that's all touching & stuff and I even agree about standing up for your opinion, right or wrong. What makes me angry and gets my blood boiling is when politicians and the government try to FORCE their opinions on those of us who disagree and use lies and scare tactics to get there. People who support those tactics are no better in my opinion. The old saying "don't pi$$ down my back & tell me it's raining" comes to mind. However I do respect the right to freedom of speech as much as I do the right to keep & bear arms and once wore a uniform in the defense of those rights as have my ancestors for the last 240 years.

NH,

You and I are in complete agreement on all matters regarding weapons ownership, politicians and gov't as they relate to weapons ownership in your post. However, as a respecter of Freedom of Speech, as you say you are, you then must also realize that folks like OB, who don't hold our views, are not going to post in agreement with us on most issues of weapons ownership. Keeping that in mind, it then does no good getting angry or upset at their posts in my opinion. It was not "touching stuff and all that" in my remarks to OB, it was just two men of opposing views on a subject, discussing those differences with civility and respect to each other. Please don't ever critisize me again for that since I firmly believe that once a person has been able to get you angry in any discussion, as it appears you are in the last part of your post, they have defeated you in that argument because you are then responding with anger and not thinking logically regarding the subject at hand. As I've said, I enjoy my discussions with OB and will continue to do so, hopefully with respect all around. Notice please, I said OB specifically, but there are a couple of others too. Peace brother!