Jump to content

California to seize guns without notice from January 1st 2016


webfact

Recommended Posts

California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1
The Washington Times

WASHINGTON: -- Gun control legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there is potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“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. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

-- The Washington Times 2015-12-30

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It's always been this way in my state of Oregon. Criminals and the "insane" aren't allowed to own guns. Even a doctor can trigger a checkup on someone.

If someone alleges threats of violence even without a gun, the victim of the threats can file for a restraining order to keep the person away from them. A sheriff's deputy immediately takes that person's guns until the matter is resolved. If the judge then grants the order, the person can't get his guns back until the order is lifted.

I'm unaware of anyone who was under a restraining order committing and act of violence. I've heard that it's happened but it would be rare. The court order will sober most people up.

I'm pro-2A but I don't have a problem with taking guns from people who exhibit irrational or criminal behavior. We live in a "free" country but that doesn't mean you can't get life in prison by your behavior, as an example.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for those of us who have been witnessing the US slowly turning into a complete police state under the guise of more "security".

The purpose of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government gone rogue with its cancerous "mission creep" which is reaching epic proportions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for those of us who have been witnessing the US slowly turning into a complete police state under the guise of more "security".

The purpose of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government gone rogue with its cancerous "mission creep" which is reaching epic proportions.

Sadly, the constitution is kind of a symbolic thing now, more than a working document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone talking about either having guns or not having guns, may I suggest a consideration of the effect that Hollywood has had on the world at large. Think about it.

Yup, now we all know its a hell of a problem getting those big apes of your tall buildings.

But perhapse you were thinking of something more like .....What 7th Cav v injins, Forrest Gump, All Capone, Starwars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for those of us who have been witnessing the US slowly turning into a complete police state under the guise of more "security".

The purpose of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government gone rogue with its cancerous "mission creep" which is reaching epic proportions.

You are wrong.

The second ammendment provides for ownership of guns to be part of a militia.

A militia is not an amosexual who fanticized about saving the world with a closet full of weapons.

As Merriam-Webster defines it:

Full Definition of militia

  1. 1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service

  2. 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

So many Americans slept through high school when they should have learned about the constitution and how our government functions.

Another example is all the amosexuals who swear Obama is going to take away their guns.

This can never happen.

Obama, or any other President ( the executive branch of our government) can not make any laws.

Making laws is the job of the legislative branch ( Congress and the House of Representatives).

If anyone ever takes away your guns, it will be your Congress men and women.

Next time you go to school, pay attention.

Edited by willyumiii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for those of us who have been witnessing the US slowly turning into a complete police state under the guise of more "security".

The purpose of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government gone rogue with its cancerous "mission creep" which is reaching epic proportions.

You are wrong.

The second ammendment provides for ownership of guns to be part of a militia.

A militia is not an amosexual who fanticized about saving the world with a closet full of weapons.

As Merriam-Webster defines it:

Full Definition of militia

  1. 1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service

  2. 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

So many Americans slept through high school when they should have learned about the constitution and how our government functions.

Another example is all the amosexuals who swear Obama is going to take away their guns.

This can never happen.

Obama, or any other President ( the executive branch of our government) can not make any laws.

Making laws is the job of the legislative branch ( Congress and the House of Representatives).

If anyone ever takes away your guns, it will be your Congress men and women.

Next time you go to school, pay attention.

Whether or not the right to arms was intended solely for the purpose of the militia continues to be debated.

One brief history of the debate is summarized here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Personally, in this modern age, the idea of the people, or even a state militia, taking on a rogue federal government seems a bit absurd.

Talk about bringing a shiv to a gun fight!

If and when the time comes, simply voting out the losers in Congress until they get the message, should be sufficient to implement any needed change. Of course, by that time, the damage (be it economic, or otherwise) will be significant and the recovery long and painful. But this is our bargain with democracy.

As for the executive branch not making any laws, we should consider the power it wields with the Executive Order. It is not the power to enact law, but in many instances it can be the practical equivalent of that power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there was ever a time to form a militia to fight the ever growing tyranny coming from the US of A Inc.

it's now. Obama is set on destroying America and he's doing a pretty good job at that. Anyone one that thinks

gun control is a good idea, go to Chicago or do some research as what happens to the people of a country when

the guns are confiscated. Obama is building a private army with the so called "refugees" the $hit is about to hit the fan

and I'm glad I'm not going to be there in the middle of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there was ever a time to form a militia to fight the ever growing tyranny coming from the US of A Inc.

it's now. Obama is set on destroying America and he's doing a pretty good job at that. Anyone one that thinks

gun control is a good idea, go to Chicago or do some research as what happens to the people of a country when

the guns are confiscated. Obama is building a private army with the so called "refugees" the $hit is about to hit the fan

and I'm glad I'm not going to be there in the middle of it.

Thank GOD ,I see someone who is awake SHTF 10/4 brother. That's precisely why I left. I shiver in my shoes when ever I have to go for a visit.

Keep VIGILANT as Jessie Ventura says.

The SHTF is going to happen and it's not going to be pretty. A F@#$%^&G blood bath. Those who are awake are not going quietly. Uncle Sugar taught a lot of us through their banister wars how to survive E AND E is a must to know.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now...if you are a California nut case...you have to wait 21 days before you pull the trigger...nice...

No, only if you are slow. It will take some time to get the court to order the gun ban. Even if the 21 day ban is made before you pull the trigger, you can buy another gun without any police scrutiny--gun shows, private party sales are legal and more often than not do not do a background check. And, illegal guns sales are available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for those of us who have been witnessing the US slowly turning into a complete police state under the guise of more "security".

The purpose of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government gone rogue with its cancerous "mission creep" which is reaching epic proportions.

You are wrong.

The second ammendment provides for ownership of guns to be part of a militia.

A militia is not an amosexual who fanticized about saving the world with a closet full of weapons.

As Merriam-Webster defines it:

Full Definition of militia

  1. 1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service

  2. 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

So many Americans slept through high school when they should have learned about the constitution and how our government functions.

Another example is all the amosexuals who swear Obama is going to take away their guns.

This can never happen.

Obama, or any other President ( the executive branch of our government) can not make any laws.

Making laws is the job of the legislative branch ( Congress and the House of Representatives).

If anyone ever takes away your guns, it will be your Congress men and women.

Next time you go to school, pay attention.

Wow. Are you ever mistaken.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the founders intended the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right.

Your idea of what militia means, and the founders' idea are at odds with each other. Meanings can change over hundreds of years.

The Supreme Court always looks to "original intent" which includes other personal writings of the founders. The founders intended it to be an individual right so that a militia of ordinary citizens could be quickly assembled.

The right to keep and bear arms was always for personal defense including a defense against a potential future rogue government.

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

Cheers.

Edited by NeverSure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, in this modern age, the idea of the people, or even a state militia, taking on a rogue federal government seems a bit absurd.

Talk about bringing a shiv to a gun fight!

-snip-

The topic is about California taking guns from perceived threatening people. Most states already do that. As far as taking them from everyone:

The US military comprises fewer than 2 million people. By contrast there are more than 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns and God knows how much ammunition. Gun and ammunition sales are still hitting records with gun manufacturers' profits setting records all because of Obama's talk about guns.

Obama is the best gun salesman the US has ever had.

Taking guns wouldn't be nuking the country or even carpet bombing. It wouldn't be knocking down cities with tanks. It would be a door to door exercise that wouldn't succeed. You can do that with one nut such as hinted in the OP, but not with an entire town without making all of it collateral damage.

First you have to convince the individual members of the military that they must be willing to engage in this activity. Most of them would refuse because they believe in 2A. Many would join the civilians.

Next you have to find idiots from the remaining group who are stupid enough to go into neighborhoods with the purpose of confiscating guns. Most American gun owners would know that this is the time to act - the time that the founders planned for.

Police officers would likely stay home and defend their personal guns and rights, too. Many if not most would join the civilians.

Not gunna happen.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, in this modern age, the idea of the people, or even a state militia, taking on a rogue federal government seems a bit absurd.

Talk about bringing a shiv to a gun fight!

-snip-

The topic is about California taking guns from perceived threatening people. Most states already do that. As far as taking them from everyone:

The US military comprises fewer than 2 million people. By contrast there are more than 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns and God knows how much ammunition. Gun and ammunition sales are still hitting records with gun manufacturers' profits setting records all because of Obama's talk about guns.

Obama is the best gun salesman the US has ever had.

Taking guns wouldn't be nuking the country or even carpet bombing. It wouldn't be knocking down cities with tanks. It would be a door to door exercise that wouldn't succeed. You can do that with one nut such as hinted in the OP, but not with an entire town without making all of it collateral damage.

First you have to convince the individual members of the military that they must be willing to engage in this activity. Most of them would refuse because they believe in 2A. Many would join the civilians.

Next you have to find idiots from the remaining group who are stupid enough to go into neighborhoods with the purpose of confiscating guns. Most American gun owners would know that this is the time to act - the time that the founders planned for.

Police officers would likely stay home and defend their personal guns and rights, too. Many if not most would join the civilians.

Not gunna happen.

Cheers.

All from someone who 'liked' a post with the comment 'Obama is building a private army with the so called "refugees". I mean seriously, why are you and so many of your countrymen so unbelievably paranoid and apparently consumed with hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic is about California taking guns from perceived threatening people. Most states already do that. As far as taking them from everyone:

The US military comprises fewer than 2 million people. By contrast there are more than 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns and God knows how much ammunition. Gun and ammunition sales are still hitting records with gun manufacturers' profits setting records all because of Obama's talk about guns.

Obama is the best gun salesman the US has ever had.

Taking guns wouldn't be nuking the country or even carpet bombing. It wouldn't be knocking down cities with tanks. It would be a door to door exercise that wouldn't succeed. You can do that with one nut such as hinted in the OP, but not with an entire town without making all of it collateral damage.

First you have to convince the individual members of the military that they must be willing to engage in this activity. Most of them would refuse because they believe in 2A. Many would join the civilians.

Next you have to find idiots from the remaining group who are stupid enough to go into neighborhoods with the purpose of confiscating guns. Most American gun owners would know that this is the time to act - the time that the founders planned for.

Police officers would likely stay home and defend their personal guns and rights, too. Many if not most would join the civilians.

Not gunna happen.

Cheers.

All from someone who 'liked' a post with the comment 'Obama is building a private army with the so called "refugees". I mean seriously, why are you and so many of your countrymen so unbelievably paranoid and apparently consumed with hate.

As I would expect, you can't see what's happening in Europe, nor can you project the inevitable consequences. The people have had their power taken by an unelected EU government, the countries have given up their sovereignty, and potentially dangerous people have been let in, in astounding numbers.

That's OK, you don't need to understand why I think citizens should be able to defend themselves. I don't think we'll accomplish anything by arguing. Let's just wait and see what happens.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic is about California taking guns from perceived threatening people. Most states already do that. As far as taking them from everyone:

The US military comprises fewer than 2 million people. By contrast there are more than 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns and God knows how much ammunition. Gun and ammunition sales are still hitting records with gun manufacturers' profits setting records all because of Obama's talk about guns.

Obama is the best gun salesman the US has ever had.

Taking guns wouldn't be nuking the country or even carpet bombing. It wouldn't be knocking down cities with tanks. It would be a door to door exercise that wouldn't succeed. You can do that with one nut such as hinted in the OP, but not with an entire town without making all of it collateral damage.

First you have to convince the individual members of the military that they must be willing to engage in this activity. Most of them would refuse because they believe in 2A. Many would join the civilians.

Next you have to find idiots from the remaining group who are stupid enough to go into neighborhoods with the purpose of confiscating guns. Most American gun owners would know that this is the time to act - the time that the founders planned for.

Police officers would likely stay home and defend their personal guns and rights, too. Many if not most would join the civilians.

Not gunna happen.

Cheers.

All from someone who 'liked' a post with the comment 'Obama is building a private army with the so called "refugees". I mean seriously, why are you and so many of your countrymen so unbelievably paranoid and apparently consumed with hate.

As I would expect, you can't see what's happening in Europe, nor can you project the inevitable consequences. The people have had their power taken by an unelected EU government, the countries have given up their sovereignty, and potentially dangerous people have been let in, in astounding numbers.

That's OK, you don't need to understand why I think citizens should be able to defend themselves. I don't think we'll accomplish anything by arguing. Let's just wait and see what happens.

Cheers.

So far as I'm aware not one EU country has 'given up it's sovereignty'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complaints about it being against this or that amendment is irrelevant. The guns that are US made and sold worldwide on an international scale getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists. Any step at gun control is a step at making the world a safer place. US citizens should remember the United States is not the whole world and needs to face up to its responsibility at large. Not just Hick Town America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for those of us who have been witnessing the US slowly turning into a complete police state under the guise of more "security".

The purpose of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government gone rogue with its cancerous "mission creep" which is reaching epic proportions.

You are wrong.

The second ammendment provides for ownership of guns to be part of a militia.

A militia is not an amosexual who fanticized about saving the world with a closet full of weapons.

As Merriam-Webster defines it:

Full Definition of militia

  • 1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

So many Americans slept through high school when they should have learned about the constitution and how our government functions.

Another example is all the amosexuals who swear Obama is going to take away their guns.

This can never happen.

Obama, or any other President ( the executive branch of our government) can not make any laws.

Making laws is the job of the legislative branch ( Congress and the House of Representatives).

If anyone ever takes away your guns, it will be your Congress men and women.

Next time you go to school, pay attention.

And whenever you get around to enrolling for the first time, study up on "executive orders". And then take the class on rogue, ego-maniacal presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is being done" without notice", how do yo know about it?

It will be done if a doctor suspects someone is mentally unstable or a judge thinks someone is violent, and only temporarily

I see nothing unreasonable about this at all.

This is nothing but "click bait"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now...if you are a California nut case...you have to wait 21 days before you pull the trigger...nice...

Well, no. not really. All you have to do is buy another gun, which is so easy, and with no background check, you could be pulling that trigger in half an hour or less.

But I take your point...although the bill does allow for mental assessment too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for those of us who have been witnessing the US slowly turning into a complete police state under the guise of more "security".

The purpose of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government gone rogue with its cancerous "mission creep" which is reaching epic proportions.

You are wrong.

The second ammendment provides for ownership of guns to be part of a militia.

A militia is not an amosexual who fanticized about saving the world with a closet full of weapons.

As Merriam-Webster defines it:

Full Definition of militia

  1. 1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service

  2. 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

So many Americans slept through high school when they should have learned about the constitution and how our government functions.

Another example is all the amosexuals who swear Obama is going to take away their guns.

This can never happen.

Obama, or any other President ( the executive branch of our government) can not make any laws.

Making laws is the job of the legislative branch ( Congress and the House of Representatives).

If anyone ever takes away your guns, it will be your Congress men and women.

Next time you go to school, pay attention.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the wording of the 2nd amendment and it is clearly saying that a militia is essential to the country, therefore the people need to be armed so that they may be able to join a militia. A militia is a non professional 'rag tag army' made up of ordinary members of the public as opposed to a full time standing army.

You have to look at the context when the constitution was written. The founding fathers fought against what they considered tyranny. Their own army (the regular British army) was facilitating this tyranny, so they had to form a militia from the people in order to defeat the regular army. The founding fathers knew that a government could overreach its powers in the future and become tyrannical (they had just experienced that very thing) so they put in a mechanism whereby the people have the right to bear arms and could therefore rise up and fight for their freedom if need be.

You can argue that the 2nd amendment is outdated and doesn't fit in the modern world, but that is another discussion. As it stands, the constitution clearly states that everyone has the right to have firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 0

      Woman Fatally Shoots Popular Female DJ Over Debt Dispute in Chana, Songkhla

    2. 17

      LTR Health Insurance : Self-insurance with US$100,000 Bank Deposit

    3. 9

      Thailand Live Sunday 6 October 2024

    4. 2,399

      Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part II

    5. 72

      The EU's Struggle with Identity: A Shift Towards Xenophobia and Ethnic Nationalism?

    6. 0

      Monks Struggle to Carry Coffin Through Floodwaters for Cremation Amid Chiang Mai Floods

    7. 27

      Why aren't bus seats made from flame retardant material?

    8. 6

      Please delete comments and profile, thank you

    9. 9

      Thailand Live Sunday 6 October 2024

    10. 0

      Six-Year-Old Boy Drowns After Falling into Water Retention Pond in Chonburi

    11. 9

      Thailand Live Sunday 6 October 2024

    12. 1

      Pattaya Hotel Guest Locks Herself in Bathroom, Arrested After 30-Minute Standoff

    13. 229

      Huge markup on imported foods. Why?

×
×
  • Create New...