-
Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! -
CA confiscates weapons which may have a risk of being accessed by newly "prohibited persons", which include a wide variety of people who have been treated by any mental health institution.
They try to take weapons that are in the household of the prohibited person which do not belong to that person. They show up without a warrant and try to talk their way into the house for a search.
No due process, no probable cause.
IOW, it's a whole lot of the government doing illegal things with information they shouldn't have.
Edit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...del-for-nationComment
-
Due process applies during the adjudication of the case that results in someone becoming prohibited persons. When someone is on probation they aren't entitled to 4th amendment protections anymore. Also, they're supposed to turn in any firearms or prove to the court that they no longer have possession of them. Unless you don't care that violent felons or people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors (domestic assault) then none of this would be of concern.
In any case, what you posted is not an example of California confiscating weapons because they've been registered. My state doesn't do that. I've lived here my entire life. Most of what you read, hear, and think about California is about 180 degrees out from reality because most of the news centers around SF and LA but they are very differnetial from one another and the rest of the state may as well be Oklahoma for how similar it is.Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!Comment
-
None of that applies to people who are being administratively placed into that category, like those who have sought treatment for depression whose information was sent to the CA gov't. That's violating their rights to do process in addition to their 2nd amendment rights.
ALSO, if a later law places additional restrictions on a convict beyond those placed on him at the time of sentencing, that is *ALSO* a violation of due process. Convicts have rights too.
It's an example of CA confiscating weapons.
One of the commonly cited examples is that the confiscation team showed up for a husband's guns when his wife was given a prescription for anti-depressant.
How do you think they knew he had those weapons? Registration
What due process was followed? None, because they don't get warrants to do these confiscations.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ily-committed/Comment
-
Just because you think something could happen doesn't mean that it absolutely will. Just because you think 2 + 2 =/= 4 doesn't make it true.
In fact, 100% of examples of registration in the US have shown the exact opposite of what you think will happen to be true. Registration of automatic weapons = no confiscation. Registration of cars = no confiscation. Registration of home alarm systems = no confiscation. Shall I continue to prove you wrong, over and over again? Or do you have any actual evidence or examples to prove that background checks WILL cause confiscation of all guns?Comment
-
Actually you are completely incorrect about this. No warrant can be issued and no weapons can be confiscated unless a judge reviews the case and the evidence and finds probable cause that the person should have his/her weapons held under the language of the law. In order to invoke that law you must be INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED. A therapist can't do it, a family member can't do it, a friend or stranger can't do it... No one. There is no "wide variety of people who have been treated by any mental health institution". Seriously, do you TRY to be wrong about stuff?Comment
-
The fact that you're using cars and home alarm systems as your example is laughable. Just because you trust the government not to do something doesn't mean it won't happen. Hmm, by your logic you're just as wrong as I am. What about firearm registries in other countries that led up to confiscations? That can't happen in 'merica where the gov't gives me so much stuff for free right? No agenda whatsoever.Comment
-
How is it laughable? You claim that any item with a registry will be confiscated. I provided real examples of registered items that are not confiscated. Therefor I proved you wrong. If you find it laughable, I can only assume it's because you'd rather brush it off than accept the truth.
Here's proof that confiscation won't happen: Because 1) whatever lawmaker tries it will get voted out instantly, 2) there's no chance in hell the rest of the 3 branches of government would go along with it, and 3) It's forbidden by the constitution. You keep saying "government" as if it's one single entity that makes decisions at will, is accountable to no one, and is bound by no laws. You seem to either ignore, or are ignorant of, that fact that it's made up of 3 branches, hundreds of representatives, and beholden to thousands of laws. Has it happened in other countries before? Sure. But those countries were dictatorships without any rights or constitutions. They had no democracy, no checks & balances, no representatives of the people, and no independent judiciary. They are/were 180* away from the US in every way. You cannot draw any parallels between them.
Think about what it would actually take: A lawmaker in Congress would have to propose that all guns be confiscated (never going to happen). Then 60 members of the Senate and half of the House would have to vote in favor of it (also never going to happen). Then the president would have to sign it in to law (again, never going to happen). And even if all of that did come to pass, the Supreme Court would have to completely ignore the constitution and uphold the law (Really, really not going to happen). Then, the police and/or army would have to not only agree to follow the law, but physically round up the over 300 million guns across the country (really, really, really not going to fucking happen).
Do you see now why your argument is complete and utter bullshit? Just because you can IMAGINE something happening does not mean that it WILL or even COULD happen. I can imagine a rainbow dropping Kate Upton naked in to my waiting lap, but that doesn't mean it's guaranteed or even possible
Last edited by CorvallisBMW; 06-24-2014, 11:52 AM.Comment
-
When did I say that anything registered will be confiscated? Quote me, please.
You once again think that it'll never happen, but if guns continue to be demonized by the govt and media then an outright ban in 20-30 years "for the greater good" won't seem so impossible. Just because we fundamentally disagree, doesn't mean I have a "pea sized brain", douche.Comment
-
OK:
I don't THINK it will never happen, I KNOW it will never happen, as I proved in my last post. You're the one spouting of crazy conspiracy theories and completely ignoring reality, the constitution, the rule of law, and our representative government. Why? Don't you have a legitimate argument, based on facts and evidence? Or is it all just fantasy and imagination?Comment
-
You're right.
It's the fact that you don't know the difference between "terrorize" and "terrorist" that indicates your brain is, indeed, pea-sized.
And your fear of foreign invasion as a justification for gun ownership only strengthens that fact.
I will commend you on your absolutely fantastic imagination though. Kudos.2011 1M Alpine white/black
1996 Civic white/black
1988 M3 lachs/blackComment
-
The fact that you don't realize this thread was started with tongue in cheek is no surprise, but I'm glad you took it seriously and find it so entertaining. For the record, I fear our own government more than any foreign invasion...too bad because an American militia would be way more effective against Mexicans than our own military.Comment
Comment