Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Police May Confiscate Guns without Notice to Owner Starting January 1
Source:
breitbart.com
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/california ... tice-owner-starting-january-1/
Published: Dec 29, 2015
Author: AWR Hawkins
Post Date: 2015-12-29 20:33:17 by Stoner
Keywords: None
Views: 19005
Comments: 58
Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.
This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.
According to KPCC, GVROs “could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.” And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.
To be fair, Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore does not use the word “confiscate” when talking about confiscating firearms. Rather, Moore says, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”
KPCC reports that “California law already bans people from possessing guns if they’ve committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.” And now, with GVROs, California law allows judges to bar people from possessing guns even if they have not committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed. Because of this, Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes warns that GVROs “may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”
You can bet that the ones that dreamed this up, promoted it, and voted for it, will NOT be the ones in the line of fire trying to carry this out.
This will NOT end well !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
" They may THINK they want a violent reaction from White People,but I'm guessing they won't be so happy with it if it happens.White people don't tend to riot as a shopping tool. They riot to kill people. "
Hammer,meet nail !! LOL !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
#20. To: Stoner (#13)
hey may be wanting a violent reaction. They would use that as an excuse to declare martial law.
I would love to see that done,
www.christianpatriot.com/oath.htm
Martial law would be considered an attack.
Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.
#21. To: sneakypete (#17)
Actually there isn't a proverbs 32it, only goes to 31, but if there was a 32, it would say Spare the rod, spoil the wife for after all , are you sitting down? Solomon, the writer of Proverbs, had 700 wives and 3oo concubines or second class wives.
Can you imagine living with 1,000 women? you would need a switch as biga round as your thumb and 6 feet long.
Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.
#22. To: BobCeleste (#21)
Can you imagine living with 1,000 women?
It would be peaceful because they would spend every waking moment attacking each other.
It's only when you are one on one with them and they feel secure that they start toget nasty.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#23. To: misterwhite (#14)
What's new is that you could lose your 2nd amendment right based on the statements of non-professionals without actually having done anything.
Could? Explain how I could LOSE any rights without being convicted of a felony.
#24. To: sneakypete (#8)
HorseHillary! What it really means is "If your wife wants to punish you,all she has to say is you beat her one time several years ago,and have threatened to do it again. You are presumed to be guilty,and punished without a trial or any actual evidence.
Naw. There has to substantive evidence in order to show legal certainty consistent with the US Constitution of and about the loss of ANY right in America. You are getting all workeddupped over nothing, Pete. Relax dude and have a doobie or the other way around, which ever comes first.
#25. To: buckeroo (#24)
Naw. There has to substantive evidence in order to show legal certainty consistent with the US Constitution of and about the loss of ANY right in America.
Have you ever explained that to anyone who has ever been falsy accused of child molesting?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#26. To: sneakypete (#25)
Nope. I don't know anyone that has been a child molester. But, the state better have substantive evidence in order to convict.
#27. To: buckeroo (#26)
But, the state better have substantive evidence in order to convict.
They don't have to have ANY evidence RIGHT NOW to confiscate your guns. ALL it takes is an accusation by your wife or child that you are abusive and violent.
Guess what you have then,if you do go to court for this later? That's right,a "history of abuse".
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#28. To: buckeroo (#23)
"Could? Explain how I could LOSE any rights without being convicted of a felony."
That's the subject of the above article. Did you read it?
If a judge hears testimony from family and friends that you're a danger to yourself and others, you can lose your second amendment right to keep and bear arms and have your guns taken away.
#29. To: misterwhite (#28)
It can not happen. PERIOD.
#30. To: sneakypete (#27)
They don't have to have ANY evidence RIGHT NOW to confiscate your guns. ALL it takes is an accusation by your wife or child that you are abusive and violent.
Are you suggesting that the jurisprudence concept of "presumption of innocence" is a vestige in the USA? Let me tell you something, Pete, don't worry your pretty head off. What you are reading is about repeat offenders or some other characteristic that requires expedient handling of restraint to avoid a danger to the community. It is considered prudent in rare cases based on substantive or otherwise supporting information beyond mere hearsay.
Sorry but the justice system still presumes innocence. Your dignity, much less constitutional RIGHTS can not be taken away at any level of government entertainment unless appropriate adjudicated processes were in effect.
#31. To: buckeroo (#30)
Are you suggesting that the jurisprudence concept of "presumption of innocence" is a vestige in the USA? Let me tell you something, Pete, don't worry your pretty head off. What you are reading is about repeat offenders or some other characteristic that requires expedient handling of restraint to avoid a danger to the community. It is considered prudent in rare cases based on substantive or otherwise supporting information beyond mere hearsay.
I see. "Don't worry,be happy!",huh?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#32. To: buckeroo (#30)
The California DOJ employs over sixty Special Agents whose mission it is to seize illegally owned guns from ‘prohibited persons’ in the state. (Photo credit: ABC7 News)
http://www.guns.com/2014/02/07/california-mans-home-raided-guns-seized-incorrect-information-video/
Career criminals...
California Attorney General Kamala Harris, confiscated guns
http://www.guns.com/2011/06/20/california-agents-seize-1200-firearms-from-various-owners/
California Agents Seize 1,200 Firearms From Various Owners
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#33. To: hondo68 (#32)
The gun owners were felons and continued their actions. PERIOD.
#34. To: sneakypete (#31)
I see. "Don't worry,be happy!",huh?
Oh no. "It" can't happen here.
#35. To: buckeroo (#33)
The gun owners were felons and continued their actions. PERIOD.
Ok,so you are a cop. You have to be because nobody else believes that nonsense and cops HAVE to believe it to justify doing the things they do to keep their jobs.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#36. To: buckeroo (#29)
"It can not happen. PERIOD."
That's the law in California.
Oh, you say that's contrary to federal laws? Well, so are California's marijuana laws, but you support them, don't you?
You're all for "state's rights" ... but only when the state does things you favor. Welcome to the real world, buckeroo.
#37. To: hondo68 (#32)
"California Attorney General Kamala Harris, confiscated guns"
Well. Now nobody's going to commit crimes with those guns anymore. Not that they would have anyways.
#38. To: misterwhite (#36)
That's the law in California.
Enjoy your "law"; while you are at it, save them the tyme & trouble of coming after you and just turn 'em in.
You are fuckin' idiot, 'white.
#39. To: buckeroo (#38)
"Enjoy your "law"
It ain't my law, buck. I don't live in California. If that's what the citizens of California want, who am I (or you) to tell them differently? Right?
Butt out.
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
You are a dumb fuck. Archaic laws can not be enforced by any level of US, State, County, Special District, City or the local dawg pound governments that denies the presumption of innocence of any US Citizen. Well ... unless you believe in a government that denies your rights to liberty, freedoms, rights and your individual dignity. Again, 'White you are a dumb fuck.
#41. To: misterwhite (#39)
If that's what the citizens of California want, who am I (or you) to tell them differently?
He hates our republican forms of representative government. His personal feelings are all that matter to him.
#42. To: Roscoe (#41)
Hey roscoe! Go back to FreeperKlub and give JimRob a BIG wet kiss on his ass.
#43. To: Stoner (#0)
Time to leave Commiefornia if you can.
#44. To: buckeroo (#40)
"Archaic laws can not be enforced by any level of US, State, County ..."
It's not an archaic law. It was just passed by the legislature, and there is nothing in the California state constitution that protects against such a law.
Are you now saying that federal laws should apply to California?
#45. To: misterwhite (#44)
That's why he hates the Constitution. He thinks it's archaic, same as the leftists do.
#46. To: goldilucky (#43)
" Time to leave Commiefornia if you can. "
If I lived there, there would be NOTHING to keep me from leaving, except death.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
#47. To: misterwhite (#44)
... and there is nothing in the California state constitution that protects against such a law.
'White, you are full of shit, as is usual. The California State Constitution has several sections that protect the individual against an abusive government, just as any archaic law attempts to deny the rights of an individual to a jury trial in front of an impartial judge; it is called "due process." The entire idea is "presumption of innocence."
There can be no prior restraint until fully adjudicated.
#48. To: buckeroo (#47)
Since the California State Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing to adjuducate.
#49. To: misterwhite (#48) (Edited)
Since the California State Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing to adjuducate.
I see it all now. A firearm owned by any US citizen living in the state of California is NOT personal property. And there are no laws preventing the impound or confiscation of personal property without due process.
'White, go fly a kite on another planet. Go back to where you came from in otherwords.
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
"And there are no laws preventing the impound or confiscation of personal property without due process."
Your personal property may be seized without due process if the state has a reason to believe it was associated with a crime, right? Asset forfeiture? Ring a bell?
Well, here California is saying they have the power to confiscate a lethal weapon if they have a reason to believe you may harm yourself or others.
You get your due process when you attempt to retrieve your property.
#51. To: misterwhite (#50)
You get your due process when you attempt to retrieve your property.
Let us see THE VERY FIRST CASE presented under this new state "law." I want to see your favoured outcome of legal breaching of any tool for the individual/family/home. I am confident you beg for a government over-stepping the boundaries of its appropriate territority within a republic that contains a jurisprudence system that is continuously reviewed.
You could be hung by the neck by advocating your silly perspective.
#52. To: buckeroo (#51)
"You could be hung by the neck by advocating your silly perspective."
I have advocated no position. I merely stated the facts.
#53. To: misterwhite, yukon (#52)
I have advocated no position. I merely stated the facts.
The idea that you personally defend government over-reach in America; by advocating fascism and an obvious police state, is a bonafide and quick method to ensure your magnificence within the kanary klub. I am confident you made "yukon" happy today.
#54. To: misterwhite (#52)
Facts are his enemy.
#55. To: buckeroo (#53)
"The idea that you personally defend government over-reach in America"
The stupid citizens of California decided NOT to protect their right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution. That's not my fault.
And unless you live in California, why do you care? It's THEIR state -- let them live how they want to live.
Unless you're saying you want centralized government with one set of rules for all states. Is that what you want?
#56. To: misterwhite (#55)
The stupid citizens of California decided NOT to protect their right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution.
Not explicitly. However, it did establish state preemption, stating that, "An ordinance contradicts state law if it is inimical to state law; i.e., it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids." State legislation then explicitly excluded cities and counties from licensing and registration of firearms.
That was what nullified Diane Feinstein's municipal anti-handgun law as contrary to the state constitution.
#57. To: misterwhite (#55)
That's not my fault.
No one is accusing you of anything other than being stupid; your stupidity was probably perpetuated by a pair of idiot savant parents and their respective long lineage of being stupid.
This "law" is not compliant to enforcement methods. It will be changed as soon as there is some use of the "law" that attempts to confiscate a citizen's right to bear arms.
#58. To: buckeroo (#57)
"It will be changed as soon as there is some use of the "law" that attempts to confiscate a citizen's right to bear arms."
Eventually, the legal challenge will work it's way to the 9th Circuit. How do you think they'll rule?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]