New Cali Law lets Cops Confiscate Guns

[Djgb13 2,339]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/california-gun-law-will-let-police-confiscate-legally-owned-weapons/

 

Discuss

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

I'm all for it. Good job Cali.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Misleading title. A judge has to grant a warrant first.

 

Excellent law. Should be copied in every state.

[Djgb13 2,339]

Misleading title. A judge has to grant a warrant first.

 

Excellent law. Should be copied in every state.

It's a click bait title I pretty much copied from online

[TimmySmith 2,783]

After reading the law and sleeping on it, I'd say it has no chance of lasting. Gives the police too much power to check for guns for virtually any reason at all. Allows anyone to rat on anyone else for virtually any reason at all. The act of purchasing a weapon can be reasonable cause for taking it away.

[BLS 314]

I'm all for it. Good job Cali.

 

And I'm paranoid.

 

People like you will actually advocate things like this; for the greater good.

Until it's your neck their boot is on. Then you'll scream "injustice", but it'll fall on deaf ears because there will be no one left who cares.

 

You're the like the ghetto Jew who'd gladly turn over another Jew to the Nazi's to be put on a train; so long as it isn't you that's being rounded up.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

 

And I'm paranoid.

 

People like you will actually advocate things like this; for the greater good.

Until it's your neck their boot is on. Then you'll scream "injustice", but it'll fall on deaf ears because there will be no one left who cares.

 

You're the like the ghetto Jew who'd gladly turn over another Jew to the Nazi's to be put on a train; so long as it isn't you that's being rounded up.

Did you actually read the link?

 

This does not give cops a right to arbitrarily seize weapons. It creates a mechanism by which, with due process, a judge can hear evidence from friends and family to determine if a person is a threat, and remove their guns for 13 days.

 

I assume such an order would almost always be followed up with a commitment proceeding to force the person to get mental health help.

 

You gun people are always saying "guns aren't the problem, crazy people are."

 

Well, you got a better way to keep guns out of insane persons hands? I'm all ears?

[BLS 314]

Did you actually read the link?

 

This does not give cops a right to arbitrarily seize weapons. It creates a mechanism by which, with due process, a judge can hear evidence from friends and family to determine if a person is a threat, and remove their guns for 13 days.

 

I assume such an order would almost always be followed up with a commitment proceeding to force the person to get mental health help.

 

You gun people are always saying "guns aren't the problem, crazy people are."

 

Well, you got a better way to keep guns out of insane persons hands? I'm all ears?

 

Yeah I did read it.

 

What I read was that if my neighbor doesn't like my dog because it pooped in his yard, or doesn't like my fiancé/wife because she'll tell him he's a dbag when he parks in her spot, is that he can call the police, make some sh1t up and a judge can approve confiscation of my weapons with no trial or probably cause.

 

It's the ultimate slippery-slope.

[Frank M 181]

 

Yeah I did read it.

 

What I read was that if my neighbor doesn't like my dog because it pooped in his yard, or doesn't like my fiancé/wife because she'll tell him he's a dbag when he parks in her spot, is that he can call the police, make some sh1t up and a judge can approve confiscation of my weapons with no trial or probably cause.

 

It's the ultimate slippery-slope.

 

And that making a false claim like that will result in a misdemeanor.

 

There has to be some middle ground between taking away all weapons so that crazy people don't get them and arming everyone so they can take out the crazy person when they start shooting.

[BLS 314]

 

And that making a false claim like that will result in a misdemeanor.

 

There has to be some middle ground between taking away all weapons so that crazy people don't get them and arming everyone so they can take out the crazy person when they start shooting.

 

You'll get no argument from me regarding the crazies having guns. I don't want it either.

 

The difference is I'm not willing to trash people's Constitutional Rights to fix it. Sometimes the ends do NOT justify the means.

[Djgb13 2,339]

There is a stipulation in there that says even buying ammunition can be grounds for confiscation. I like the thought of cops being able to investigate someone the family is warning them about but I dont know if they should be able to take the guns away. I'm on the fence about it cause I know it could save people's lives. But then it could also take guns away from law abiding citizens

[Frank M 181]

There is a stipulation in there that says even buying ammunition can be grounds for confiscation. I like the thought of cops being able to investigate someone the family is warning them about but I dont know if they should be able to take the guns away. I'm on the fence about it cause I know it could save people's lives. But then it could also take guns away from law abiding citizens

 

The cops investigate based on family concerns, and go to a judge for a restraining order if they deem it necessary.

 

Hell, a judge can order a person into psychiatric care if necessary. How is this any different?

[BLS 314]

Under the law, the factors a judge can consider in granting the restraining order include not only threats of violence, but also prior felony arrests (even without a conviction), evidence of alcohol abuse, and even the simple act of recently purchasing a gun or ammunition.

Under the law, a judge has the power to grant a restraining order telling police to seize a person’s guns, based solely on accounts from family members or police that the person is poses an imminent danger to others. The restraining order can be granted without the affected person knowing it exists or being allowed time to contest it.

[Frank M 181]

Under the law, the factors a judge can consider in granting the restraining order include not only threats of violence, but also prior felony arrests (even without a conviction), evidence of alcohol abuse, and even the simple act of recently purchasing a gun or ammunition.

 

Under the law, a judge has the power to grant a restraining order telling police to seize a person’s guns, based solely on accounts from family members or police that the person is poses an imminent danger to others. The restraining order can be granted without the affected person knowing it exists or being allowed time to contest it.

 

 

 

So how do you keep the guns out of the hands of people who may be a danger to themselves or others without some sort of process in place to determine if that is the case. It won't be perfect, it can't be perfect, but at least it could prevent someone in the throes of a mental breakdown from massacring people.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

 

So how do you keep the guns out of the hands of people who may be a danger to themselves or others without some sort of process in place to determine if that is the case. It won't be perfect, it can't be perfect, but at least it could prevent someone in the throes of a mental breakdown from massacring people.

This isn't keeping guns out of their hands, it's taking guns out of their hands under limited cause, without a hearing.

 

Sounds like gestapo tactics.

[Frank M 181]

This isn't keeping guns out of their hands, it's taking guns out of their hands under limited cause, without a hearing.

 

Sounds like gestapo tactics.

 

That's how restraining orders are done.

 

[Strike 6,017]

 

So how do you keep the guns out of the hands of people who may be a danger to themselves or others without some sort of process in place to determine if that is the case. It won't be perfect, it can't be perfect, but at least it could prevent someone in the throes of a mental breakdown from massacring people.

 

 

If someone is in such a mental state that you think they're going to kill a bunch of people how about going straight to having them committed. Most states have laws regarding that already.

[Frank M 181]

 

 

If someone is in such a mental state that you think they're going to kill a bunch of people how about going straight to having them committed. Most states have laws regarding that already.

 

That's fine. I'm also fine with having this other tool in the arsenal.

[Mungwater 601]

This law doesn't do much, just posturing.

 

If someone is that bad mentally, just call the hospital. No need to wait on a judge.

[Strike 6,017]

 

That's fine. I'm also fine with having this other tool in the arsenal.

 

Of course you are. We "have to do something!!!!"

[TimmySmith 2,783]

 

That's how restraining orders are done.

 

 

The act of legally purchasing an object can trigger a restraining order?

[Frank M 181]

 

Of course you are. We "have to do something!!!!"

 

I'm on record here supporting reasonable gun restrictions. This falls under that category IMO. I'm also on record as supporting concealed carry.

 

Sorry I don't fit into your box.

[Frank M 181]

The act of legally purchasing an object can trigger a restraining order?

 

No, they're usually granted without a full hearing. For example, a woman can get a restraining order against an abusive boyfriend without him getting to argue his case.

[mighty_thor 115]

You're the like the ghetto Jew who'd gladly turn over another Jew to the Nazi's to be put on a train; so long as it isn't you that's being rounded up.

 

Your analogy is idiotic.

[Djgb13 2,339]

I don't mind guns being confiscated from people who have felonies or if someone is concerned they call the cops and the cops take THEM away to have a psych eval done. Leave the guns there since that's confiscation of property without hust cause. The part where they can have their gun confiscated for just buying a gun or buying ammunition part is where I draw the line and say that's way over the top and can actually start infringing on right

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

And I'm paranoid.

 

People like you will actually advocate things like this; for the greater good.

Until it's your neck their boot is on. Then you'll scream "injustice", but it'll fall on deaf ears because there will be no one left who cares.

 

You're the like the ghetto Jew who'd gladly turn over another Jew to the Nazi's to be put on a train; so long as it isn't you that's being rounded up.

Da plane! Da plane!

[BLS 314]

 

So how do you keep the guns out of the hands of people who may be a danger to themselves or others without some sort of process in place to determine if that is the case. It won't be perfect, it can't be perfect, but at least it could prevent someone in the throes of a mental breakdown from massacring people.

 

That's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT conversation. Because I'm not willing to allow random searches of anyone's home either, even though I'm CERTAIN it would stem some child abuse, sexual violence, human trafficking and a host of other horrendous crimes.

 

My point being (before you go off on some tangent), that I'm not willing to circumvent our rights. Everybody gets em. Like em or not.

 

Now...if you want to START a new thread about how to curb gun control, AND have a civil discussion on it, then I say let's do it.

Maybe we can come up with a solution.

[BLS 314]

 

Your analogy is idiotic.

 

I'd suggest that if you can't connect the rather simple dots together, it's you who's idiotic.

Analogies are not always going to be superficial and spoon-fed to you. You are required at times to THINK.

[Frank M 181]

 

That's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT conversation. Because I'm not willing to allow random searches of anyone's home either, even though I'm CERTAIN it would stem some child abuse, sexual violence, human trafficking and a host of other horrendous crimes.

 

My point being (before you go off on some tangent), that I'm not willing to circumvent our rights. Everybody gets em. Like em or not.

 

Now...if you want to START a new thread about how to curb gun control, AND have a civil discussion on it, then I say let's do it.

Maybe we can come up with a solution.

The diiference that we probably wouldn't be able to get over is that I'm ok with taking away someone's weapons with a court order if the family has reported them to be mentally unstable until it can be determined that they're not dangerous to themselves and others. You'd never be okay with that.

[Frank M 181]

 

That's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT conversation. Because I'm not willing to allow random searches of anyone's home either, even though I'm CERTAIN it would stem some child abuse, sexual violence, human trafficking and a host of other horrendous crimes.

 

My point being (before you go off on some tangent), that I'm not willing to circumvent our rights. Everybody gets em. Like em or not.

 

Now...if you want to START a new thread about how to curb gun control, AND have a civil discussion on it, then I say let's do it.

Maybe we can come up with a solution.

Also, I'm not in favor of random searches to stop the things you mentioned, either. That isn't what this law does, at least it doesn't appear to with the info provided

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

Cops have their guns taken away all the time. They get evaluated and if they are ok, they are returned.

[Strike 6,017]

Also, I'm not in favor of random searches to stop the things you mentioned, either. That isn't what this law does, at least it doesn't appear to with the info provided

 

He's not saying that's what this law does. He's saying this law infringes someone's rights. As do those other things. And he's saying he's not ok with infringing a person's rights, and in that vein this is no different than those others. Therefore, this should be treated the same as those other examples.

[Strike 6,017]

Cops have their guns taken away all the time. They get evaluated and if they are ok, they are returned.

 

I'm ok with my employer taking away my company issued tools. I'm pretty sure cops don't have their personal firearms confiscated without cause.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

I'm ok with my employer taking away my company issued tools. I'm pretty sure cops don't have their personal firearms confiscated without cause.

Yes this is true. Same with their badge.

[Frank M 181]

 

He's not saying that's what this law does. He's saying this law infringes someone's rights. As do those other things. And he's saying he's not ok with infringing a person's rights, and in that vein this is no different than those others. Therefore, this should be treated the same as those other examples.

I read it as he's worried about cops randomly showing up and confiscating someone's weapons without cause. The law establishes a reason for temporary confiscation.

 

BLS?

[Strike 6,017]

I read it as he's worried about cops randomly showing up and confiscating someone's weapons without cause. The law establishes a reason for temporary confiscation.

 

BLS?

 

My point being (before you go off on some tangent), that I'm not willing to circumvent our rights. Everybody gets em. Like em or not.

 

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

I'm ok with my employer taking away my company issued tools. I'm pretty sure cops don't have their personal firearms confiscated without cause.

Don't know about every dept, but NYPD takes them all.with cause, but it ain't much. And you have to present all of your firearms once a year, personal ones too

[Djgb13 2,339]

Don't know about every dept, but NYPD takes them all.with cause, but it ain't much. And you have to present all of your firearms once a year, personal ones too

How do they know you're presenting them all? Do they have a copy or a registration of all the firearms the cops own?

[Frank M 181]

 

 

Okay.

 

I'm still okay with this law.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

How do they know you're presenting them all? Do they have a copy or a registration of all the firearms the cops own?

Yes of course if a guy has one that's not registered he won't present it. You're required to register all guns. I've seen guys show up at the pct with 40 guns and rifles during yearly inspections.