Gun owner database already being used for confiscation in CA


PDA






Vector
February 9, 2013, 11:31 PM
This is an interesting subject because I just watched a show on CNN the other day about gun confiscation in CA. The premise is that a special unit of the state cross references legal gun owners with people who have become ineligible to own their firearms. The piece is made to look like a good idea, by getting guns away from those who should not legally have them.

Here is an excerpt from the online promo of the report;

There are about 40,000 illegally owned guns in California. They're owned by people from all walks of life who have been ordered to turn in their firearms for a number of different reasons, but they haven’t come forward. So special agents from California's Justice Department’s Bureau of Firearms are going after them to seize the weapons.

California tracks gun owners who have convictions using a database system that’s unique to the state. It’s helped them confiscate thousands of guns. CNN’s Randi Kaye saw firsthand how law enforcement uses the program to find and seize illegal firearms.

Here is the link with video clips as well;

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/06/tonight-on-ac360-california-goes-after-illegal-guns/

The disturbing aspect of this story is the assumption that the database they use to figure out if a newly prohibited person is a gun owner, means that they must keep a database on all their gun owning citizens. So despite the anti-gun people claiming a national database (under the guise of a background check) system would not lead to confiscation, it is already happening.
Rest assured the 2nd Amendment would be on a slippery slope to eradication if the government ever knows who owns what guns. First they could expand the list of those not being able to own a gun to include people who are only accused of certain crimes, but not convicted. For instance some places say those accused of domestic violence cannot have a gun.

Additionally they might some day ban so called "assault weapons", and demand people turn them in or automatically become criminals. If those people are on a national database, rest assured some task force could be on their way to confiscate and maybe even arrest the owners.

I am concerned, and wonder what others here think?

`

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun owner database already being used for confiscation in CA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mrvco
February 9, 2013, 11:41 PM
Considering the frequency with which local police manage to show up at the wrong address in some jurisdictions, it is only a matter of time before this goes horribly wrong. Hopefully they at least do it tactfully and don't attempt no-knock raids.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 9, 2013, 11:45 PM
In addition to this story, California extended the period for registering SKS rifles as assault weapons. Later, they went back and confiscated rifles from everyone who registered during the extended period.

Darkhorse
February 9, 2013, 11:45 PM
California required "assault weapon" owners to register them by the end of 2000. Since I left in 2004 they have required handguns brought into the state to be registered also.

Is anyone surprised that this would be happening? And it will get worse...

berettaprofessor
February 9, 2013, 11:47 PM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe CA has mandatory registration and this is not a surprise.

Deltaboy
February 9, 2013, 11:48 PM
Callie gone Communist.

MAKster
February 9, 2013, 11:58 PM
California DOJ Bureau of Firearms is confiscating guns from convicted felons and other prohibited persons. These people legally cannot own firearms so I don't have any sympathy for them.

Vector
February 10, 2013, 12:36 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe CA has mandatory registration and this is not a surprise.

Well to many outside the state of CA, it does come as a surprise since most states do not.
That is especially true when you considered the current debate as to how registration will not lead to confiscation.
I hear the anti-gun people and media in chorus saying it is conspiracy nuts who think it will happen. Yet no one on our side of the debate points to CA as a model for what could and likely would happen with a federal and/or nationwide background system.

The question is why is this not being used as a prime example of what is already happening?


California DOJ Bureau of Firearms is confiscating guns from convicted felons and other prohibited persons. These people legally cannot own firearms so I don't have any sympathy for them.

Like I said, the report is framed in a way it seems reasonable. However if you listen closely to the report, you will see that many more people other than felons and mental defectives are being classified as no longer being able to own firearms.
I believe CA includes those who are guilty of misdemeanor battery. They also include domestic violence charges before a conviction. So if you are innocent, you still must turn in your firearms before you even go to trial. Some of those charges are only misdemeanors anyway.

So if you live in a liberal state or even a city, they can come up with all sorts of misdemeanors you lose your rights over. That would be a pretty effective backdoor way of achieving gun control, don't you think?

The main point is that while many people believe you can lose your 2nd Amendment rights if you are a convicted felon or mental defective, most would not agree with all sorts of other people losing their rights for misdemeanors.
Most importantly, if we decide to give up some freedom under the guise of some safety, a tyrannical government can use it's foot in the door to confiscate firearms for any reason they deem fit in the future (i.e. bans on "assault weapons", handguns, large ammo stockpiles, etc.) .

`

TNBilly
February 10, 2013, 01:03 AM
Vector... good post and I agree with what you're saying! I'd only add that in addition to all the various ways to be prohibited you listed I would add restraining orders. I can attest from the experience of a person I know quite well (not I) that all it takes to get a restraining order is three lies a whistle stick and a Judge Judy! This person as well as persons of her family living next door are all now denied! Like ya said we need to start holding CaliMejico up high and loud!

9mmepiphany
February 10, 2013, 02:00 AM
I believe CA includes those who are 1) guilty of misdemeanor battery. They also include 2) domestic violence charges before a conviction. So if you are innocent, you still must 3) turn in your firearms before you even go to trial. Some of those charges are only misdemeanors anyway.
The is a bit of truth in this, but it is mostly wrong.

What you have put forth has it's basis in the Domestic Violence (DV) laws.

2) DV laws prohibit convicted abusers from possessing firearms...it doesn't matter if the conviction was for a felony or a misdemeanor

1) If the battery was part of a DV charge the same law applies, but a conviction of simple battery has no effect on firearm possession...although it might affect you're getting a CCW

3) The requirement to turn in your firearms before you go to trial...or even a hearing...does not exist. It is part of a DV Restraining Order (and not just a CA thing) process. The order is that you not posses firearms until the Temporary Restraining Order hearing date...you can leave them with a friend or relative. If a DVRO is granted at the hearing (up to 3 years), you may not retrieve your firearms until it expires

Shadow 7D
February 10, 2013, 04:43 AM
My cousin in cali posted something about the numbers
there are 33 of them
they get about 2-3000 a year...
ONLY PROBLEM THERE ARE ABOUT 4000 NEW FELONS ON THAT LIST EVERY YEAR

runnn
February 10, 2013, 04:52 AM
Bring on the confiscation I guess.

RetiredUSNChief
February 10, 2013, 06:24 AM
An interesting post.

While I admit that a registration database is always subject to abuse, I'd like to point out something that most of us firearms owners agree upon, and indeed have harped on quite a bit, especially recently:

Criminals who have had certain convictions are not SUPPOSED to have firearms in the first place.

Given that we (this would be the collective "we" in the gun owning community) are pretty much all in agreement that criminals who have forfeited their right to own firearms by due process should not, in fact, have firearms....how, then, should we go about enforcing this?


And let's be both honest and realistic: there is no 100% effective solution here. But if part of our own battle cry over gun rights involves removing them from the hands of criminals and not that of law abiding citizens, how do we propose to do this?


I'm not looking for all the reaons why we CAN'T do this or that. We've all either heard those arguments, or participated in them, ad nauseum. Name one single thing that can be used to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, like we want to happen, and a flurry of people step up to the plate arguing against it.


So, the devil's advocate is asking: "What ARE we supposed to do to get guns out of the hands of convicted criminals?"

G.barnes
February 10, 2013, 08:35 AM
You could impose it on all people convicted of felonies that they are subject to random searches and do away with the registry. Doesn't matter if you've ever owned a gun or not. Force states to report people who have been determined by a judge to have mental illness. Right now we have people who are not allowed to own a gun walking into stores buying guns and shooting up schools and stuff because the states are not required to share medical info. What's the point of a background check if nothing is reported.

gripper
February 10, 2013, 08:47 AM
The idea of lifetime prohibition for anything has always been stupid. If someone is " dangerously unsuitable ", why ever would you let them out?? I don't lile them.I don't respect them.I don't care about their well being." Officer safety" has become an excuse for incompetence, corruption ; and Nanny Statist enforcement.
Besides, wouldn't they be better off shooting at elderly Asian deliverywomen and skinny white guys while looking for 270 lb psycho ex- cop black guys? C'mon people, prioritize!

Akita1
February 10, 2013, 09:07 AM
The idea of lifetime prohibition for anything has always been stupid. If someone is " dangerously unsuitable ", why ever would you let them out?? I don't lile them.I don't respect them.I don't care about their well being." Officer safety" has become an excuse for incompetence, corruption ; and Nanny Statist enforcement.
Besides, wouldn't they be better off shooting at elderly Asian deliverywomen and skinny white guys while looking for 270 lb psycho ex- cop black guys? C'mon people, prioritize!
Think you're mixing A & O's here a bit. When executing a search warrant issued by a court (in this example for the potential confiscation of firearms allegedly owned by a criminal), LEOs are carrying out a procedural order. That is VERY different from LEOs not properly IDing a target and playing OK corral with two Asian ladies, lighting up their truck because it looks like one owned by a 6' black man who is hunting cops.

gripper
February 10, 2013, 10:23 AM
I see both the apples and oranges growing from the same.bad ideological seeds...PC Statism and elitist" we're special, we' re badged" mindset.

Akita1
February 10, 2013, 10:33 AM
I see both the apples and oranges growing from the same.bad ideological seeds...PC Statism and elitist" we're special, we' re badged" mindset.
Get that - have limited personal experience with that "badge & gun" arrogance but think that's the minority IMHO. Have had many LEOs in my family and they were pretty humble folks (patrol, homicide detectives, admin., etc.) who were LEO because they WANTED to be, so I have always been careful about broad brushing people who have a tough job, are held to a very high standard and are paid terribly in return (like teachers, but worse?).

I have only seen the arrogance as a teenager in the 80's with Suffolk County, NY LEOs who seemed bored so it was kind of their sport to pick on us. They were also the highest paid (public) LEOs in the US at the time so maybe that added to it a bit...

I am wondering how we walk in their shoes and make an educated call on this one. I've never been hunted so it's hard to armchair QB here. Certainly not justifying their actions on lighting up civilians, just wondering how it feels to be on edge at all times when that moron is out there killing based upon uniforms and affiliations. YES, they need to properly ID targets before they let fly. I do it when I hunt, but the deer, hogs, quail, etc. are not shooting back.

gripper
February 10, 2013, 10:56 AM
I have.And yes, I have encountered both good and bad..
.unfortunately, it seems as though the bad is what's encouraged these days, as it advances the State.

Akita1
February 10, 2013, 11:02 AM
Come down South brother; perhaps a bit friendlier here? Still think you guys have the BEST state motto though...

gripper
February 10, 2013, 11:08 AM
Eventually......right now I have job related stuff( armed FAA guard) union stuff ( same) family stuff( Massachusetts) and ongoing attorney related stuff( self explanatory).
I DO like the South and the Southwest though... miss it every time we get snowed in or overrun by Leviathan Statists.

MagnunJoe
February 10, 2013, 12:17 PM
Paper trails by Gun Shops R just that, paper trails...
I don't know about U guys but I have never been fooled by the Federal or State govt. Every time a gun shop calls in ur information & writes down ur whole life story on paper 4 the whole world 2 read, do u actually think it isn't going anywhere? Don't get me wrong, if u want it, get it, but they will find it, & u, if they want 2.

we are not amused
February 10, 2013, 02:22 PM
I see both the apples and oranges growing from the same.bad ideological seeds...PC Statism and elitist" we're special, we' re badged" mindset.
I agree with you, unfortunately. I would like to think all law enforcement is good and honest, and not arrogant and abusive, but I live in the real world.

More to the point of the original posters point.

California declared SKS rifles to be assault weapons and therefor had to be registered and extended the registration deadline, an anti-gun group sued the State and the State then confiscated all the rifles which had been registered after the deadline.

Governor Cuomo has openly talked about gun confiscation, as have other politicians.

Gun confiscation will never happen right?

Archangel14
February 10, 2013, 02:38 PM
I'm a lawyer in California. I handle quite a bit of criminal defense and restraining order cases (what we call "TRO" cases). In a TRO case, a "victim" prepares simple forms that are provided by the court and hands them into the court clerk. By day's end, those forms will have been reviewed by a judge or commissioner, who decides whether or not to grant the TRO instantly. In any event, a hearing will be granted about 2 weeks therefrom where the victim must convince the court that a permanent TRO is warranted. The respondent (typically a guy, but not always) has a chance to argue his position at the hearing.

NOW here's the kicker. When the judge reviews the petition for the TRO on the day it is turned in, he/she will typically grant a restraining order pending the hearing. When it is granted ALL FIREARMS IN POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENT (think "man" here) MUST BE SOLD OR TURNED INTO POLICE WITH 24 HOURS. By the time he gets a hearing, his firearms are supposed to be gone! If a permanent restraining order in put in place, then forget about it. No firearms for the length of the restraining order (3 to 5 years). And then it's very difficult to get a firearm thereafter.

Also, in California, there are some misdemeanors that result in a loss of firearm ownership rights. How is this all working? It's not. I live in an area that has upward of a 30% illegal immigrant population. Most have firearms, illegally possessed of course. On New Years Eve the Mexicans have a tradition of firing there guns into the air at the stroke of midnight. This past New Year's Eve was like f'in Beirut. It's the first time in 20 years in California that I actually got a bit scared. :eek:

fastbolt
February 10, 2013, 04:59 PM
Some older info that might be relevant to this topic and of interest ...
http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/California-Getting-New-Registry-for-Protective-Orders-.html

Okay, here's some links to some of the Protective Orders available in CA.

The DV-110 is the actual Order part of a DV Temporary Restraining Order (also known as a DVRO, or Domestic Violence Restraining Order) that can be issued out of a CA court. Look at Section 9 on Page 3 of the TRO for information regarding Firearms AND Ammunition. They've clarified some of the issues since I've retired.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/dv110.pdf

Then there are other types of restraining/protective orders that can restrict firearms & ammunition possession for their duration.

Order After Hearing, DV-130.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv130.pdf

CH-110 (Civil Harassment TRO)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/ch100.pdf

The EA-110 (Protected Elder or Dependent Adult)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/ea110.pdf

The WV-110 (Workplace Violence TRO)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/wv110.pdf

There's also a Criminal Protective Order (CR-160) that can be issued by the court in criminal matters (requested by a DA). In instances where both a Civil DV TRO and a Criminal Protective Order have been issued, the Criminal Protective Order controls. (The court can modify orders.) Look at the language in Section 7 of the CR-160 Order.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/cr160.pdf

Obviously, if someone becomes a Restrained Person subject to a Civil Restraining Order or an Order After Hearing, and/or a Defendant in a Criminal Protective Order, they need to consult with an attorney to protect their interests. Not all LE may completely understand everything there is to know about restraining & protective orders, and even if they do, they aren't paid, trained or licensed to give out legal advice. (They enforce the law, they don't practice it.) Talk with an attorney familiar with that area of the law.

xXxplosive
February 10, 2013, 05:00 PM
WASHINGTON, DC – A senior U.S. general has confirmed that the military has secretly drawn up plans to round up large numbers of privately-owned firearms from American gun owners.

General James M. Scott of the U.S. Air Force confirmed that the Pentagon received a series of formal directives from the White House between November 7 and December 13 to begin plans for a massive nationwide operation to confiscate guns using a series of federal databases compiled over the last few decades.

General Scott spoke with Duffel Blog reporters in a parking garage in northern Virginia.

Scott also confirmed that a certain four-star general who heads the U.S. Transportation Command was intimately involved in the planning. General Scott would not reveal the general’s name out of concerns for his safety.


The plan, known in the military as Operation PREAKNESS, combines a series of tactics developed for house sweeps and room clearing in Iraq and Afghanistan, which General Scott admitted had been used as test-runs for the U.S.

“If we can confiscate millions of firearms in a country where we don’t speak the language or understand the culture, the U.S. should be easy,” General Scott told The Duffel Blog. “I just feel sorry for that poor Osama fellow we had to kill to justify the whole thing.”


In a dress rehearsal for America, these three Iraqi men have their Second Amendment rights violated
According to Scott, the actual planning for Operation PREAKNESS was initiated in early 2009 and developed in conjunction with the United Nations, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and several other liberal organizations such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, the American Federation of Labor, and the National Rifle Association, which is apparently a front for all the previous groups.

While there was initially some concern about the constitutionality of using the military on American soil, page 2131 of the ObamaCare Act actually amends the Posse Comitatus law to allow the military to disarm private citizens at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Objections by then-CIA Director David Petraeus were quietly silenced in November.

A test-run for PREAKNESS was actually conducted in early December in Clinger, PA. A joint platoon of Army Rangers and UN Peacekeepers, working with select state and local officials and using imagery collected by the Google Street View Car, quietly went door-to-door and managed to collect all the firearms from Clinger owners.

The few owners who did complain were initially transported to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas to explain their case before a special international tribunal, before being sent to the National Center For Gun Control in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A follow-on operation using just the UN Peacekeepers is planned later this week for any owners missed in the previous sweep, although the Peacekeepers have confirmed they will be using a post office truck to infiltrate the area.

fastbolt
February 10, 2013, 05:04 PM
WASHINGTON, DC – A senior U.S. general has confirmed that the military has secretly drawn up plans to round up large numbers of privately-owned firearms from American gun owners.

General James M. Scott of the U.S. Air Force confirmed that the Pentagon received a series of formal directives from the White House between November 7 and December 13 to begin plans for a massive nationwide operation to confiscate guns using a series of federal databases compiled over the last few decades.

General Scott spoke with Duffel Blog reporters in a parking garage in northern Virginia.

Scott also confirmed that a certain four-star general who heads the U.S. Transportation Command was intimately involved in the planning. General Scott would not reveal the general’s name out of concerns for his safety....

Man, I wouldn't go anywhere outside during a lightning storm if I were the type to wear that much aluminum foil on my head ... :neener:

Vector
February 10, 2013, 06:11 PM
The is a bit of truth in this, but it is mostly wrong.

What you have put forth has it's basis in the Domestic Violence (DV) laws.

2) DV laws prohibit convicted abusers from possessing firearms...it doesn't matter if the conviction was for a felony or a misdemeanor

1) If the battery was part of a DV charge the same law applies, but a conviction of simple battery has no effect on firearm possession...although it might affect you're getting a CCW

3) The requirement to turn in your firearms before you go to trial...or even a hearing...does not exist. It is part of a DV Restraining Order (and not just a CA thing) process. The order is that you not posses firearms until the Temporary Restraining Order hearing date...you can leave them with a friend or relative. If a DVRO is granted at the hearing (up to 3 years), you may not retrieve your firearms until it expires

You say it is mostly wrong, yet within the report they said people with misdemeanor battery were prohibited. So it could be inaccurate reporting, or maybe someone can be guilty of a minor infraction yet be lose their Constitutional rights?
Additionally refer to Archangel14's post(#24) where it would seem as if the mere accusation results in losing ones 2nd Amendment rights.

An interesting post.

While I admit that a registration database is always subject to abuse, I'd like to point out something that most of us firearms owners agree upon, and indeed have harped on quite a bit, especially recently:

Criminals who have had certain convictions are not SUPPOSED to have firearms in the first place.

Given that we (this would be the collective "we" in the gun owning community) are pretty much all in agreement that criminals who have forfeited their right to own firearms by due process should not, in fact, have firearms....how, then, should we go about enforcing this?


And let's be both honest and realistic: there is no 100% effective solution here. But if part of our own battle cry over gun rights involves removing them from the hands of criminals and not that of law abiding citizens, how do we propose to do this?


I'm not looking for all the reaons why we CAN'T do this or that. We've all either heard those arguments, or participated in them, ad nauseum. Name one single thing that can be used to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, like we want to happen, and a flurry of people step up to the plate arguing against it.


So, the devil's advocate is asking: "What ARE we supposed to do to get guns out of the hands of convicted criminals?"

I appreciate you finding this interesting as I feel the same way. As a matter of fact I have probably fit into your generalization of how I feel about felons/criminals possessing firearms.
However because of recent events and this subject in particular, I am beginning to have an epiphany on this subject in the opposite direction.
I will elaborate more on this below regrading permanent loss of ones Constitutional rights due to one infraction, even a non violent one at that.

In answer to your question, without specifics (since I have not contemplated long enough yet), I'd say a method needs to be found that will not be a slippery slope to registration.
Because it is clear that just background checks alone can be used as a quasi registration, which leads to identification, which leads to confiscation.

The idea of lifetime prohibition for anything has always been stupid. If someone is " dangerously unsuitable ", why ever would you let them out?? I don't lile them.I don't respect them.I don't care about their well being." Officer safety" has become an excuse for incompetence, corruption ; and Nanny Statist enforcement.


This is an area that I am having an evolving epiphany. But rather than making a direct comparison between 1st vs. 2nd Amendments rights, lets look at the hypocrisy.
When someone is convicted of a crime, they lose their freedom for a period of time, their voting rights, even their 1st Amendment rights to an extent. This all despite the fact they remain US citizens.
However when they get out of jail, they regain their freedom, and in most states their right to vote.
Yet even though they have "served their debt to society", their 2nd Amendment rights seem to be lost forever.

Now for violent felons, I never thought twice about this as it seems like common sense to prohibit someone from legally buying firearms who would in most instances use that firearm to commit more crime.
However, I see that some people, even those convicted of a misdemeanor or a non violent felony (white collar crime), get caught in this net where they lose their Constitutional rights forever. Am I the only one who finds this unacceptable :confused:

Seeing how CA can even take away your rights just because you are accused of certain crimes as in the CNN report & Archangel14's example, I am beginning to wonder if I am the wrong side of this 2nd Amendment issue.

What say you?
`

Millwright
February 10, 2013, 07:04 PM
Vector:

And you are surprised ? Why ? In the 20th century over 250 million people have been killed by various tyrants. The one common thread woven among these various atrocities was they were all preceded by some form of registration and eventual seizure of private firearms . America is just the latest in a long list.

But what else should we expect when our chief law-enforcement officer - USAG Holder - has publicly proclaimed President Obama determines to whom and with what means the 2nd amendment applies. Or our VP Biden proclaims the "rights of the government" supersedes those enumerated in our constitution. Or our bureaucrats have proclaimed "suspicion searches/seizures of electronic devices from private citizens is a legitimate action . And the list goes on.....and on....and on. >MW

9mmepiphany
February 10, 2013, 07:25 PM
You say it is mostly wrong, yet within the report they said people with misdemeanor battery were prohibited. So it could be inaccurate reporting, or maybe someone can be guilty of a minor infraction yet be lose their Constitutional rights?
Which report?

If you were convicted of battery within a DV case, the reason you lose your rights is the DV provisions, not the misdemeanor battery

Additionally refer to Archangel14's post(#24) where it would seem as if the mere accusation results in losing ones 2nd Amendment rights.
I said the same thing in my post. Although, I note the verbiage seems to be different in the TRO in his area; our local rule do not mandate that the firearms be sold....they can be transferred to another person; most folks who think ahead move them to another family members home before they are even served and can truthfully say they have no firearms in their possession. The local Family Courts have found this meets the requirement

You do have a right to a trial (due process) before the Restraining Order becomes permanent. Went through this is a competitive shooter a couple of years ago and she got all her guns back.

Insp Evans
February 10, 2013, 08:43 PM
XXXplosive, I'd suggest looking at the following on Wikipedia and see if the names look familiar-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_days_in_may

ScrapMetalSlug
February 10, 2013, 08:53 PM
WASHINGTON, DC – A senior U.S. general has confirmed that the military has secretly drawn up plans to round up large numbers of privately-owned firearms from American gun owners.

General James M. Scott of the U.S. Air Force confirmed that the Pentagon received a series of formal directives from the White House between November 7 and December 13 to begin plans for a massive nationwide operation to confiscate guns using a series of federal databases compiled over the last few decades.

General Scott spoke with Duffel Blog reporters in a parking garage in northern Virginia.

Scott also confirmed that a certain four-star general who heads the U.S. Transportation Command was intimately involved in the planning. General Scott would not reveal the general’s name out of concerns for his safety.


The plan, known in the military as Operation PREAKNESS, combines a series of tactics developed for house sweeps and room clearing in Iraq and Afghanistan, which General Scott admitted had been used as test-runs for the U.S.

“If we can confiscate millions of firearms in a country where we don’t speak the language or understand the culture, the U.S. should be easy,” General Scott told The Duffel Blog. “I just feel sorry for that poor Osama fellow we had to kill to justify the whole thing.”


In a dress rehearsal for America, these three Iraqi men have their Second Amendment rights violated
According to Scott, the actual planning for Operation PREAKNESS was initiated in early 2009 and developed in conjunction with the United Nations, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and several other liberal organizations such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, the American Federation of Labor, and the National Rifle Association, which is apparently a front for all the previous groups.

While there was initially some concern about the constitutionality of using the military on American soil, page 2131 of the ObamaCare Act actually amends the Posse Comitatus law to allow the military to disarm private citizens at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Objections by then-CIA Director David Petraeus were quietly silenced in November.

A test-run for PREAKNESS was actually conducted in early December in Clinger, PA. A joint platoon of Army Rangers and UN Peacekeepers, working with select state and local officials and using imagery collected by the Google Street View Car, quietly went door-to-door and managed to collect all the firearms from Clinger owners.

The few owners who did complain were initially transported to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas to explain their case before a special international tribunal, before being sent to the National Center For Gun Control in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A follow-on operation using just the UN Peacekeepers is planned later this week for any owners missed in the previous sweep, although the Peacekeepers have confirmed they will be using a post office truck to infiltrate the area.

Xxplosive, you do know the Duffel Blog is a fake military news site like the Onion, right?

TNBilly
February 11, 2013, 12:19 AM
"Seeing how CA can even take away your rights just because you are accused of certain crimes as in the CNN report & Archangel14's example, I am beginning to wonder if I am the wrong side of this 2nd Amendment issue.

What say you?"

I'd say I've never been on the side you allude to. I've always believed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and that ANY law differing with them which is not an amendment of the originals is unconstitutional.
I'd welcome anyone aboard that has thought it through.

HorseSoldier
February 11, 2013, 12:31 AM
The question is why is this not being used as a prime example of what is already happening?

I'm guessing because decision-maker level types in the pro-2A movement recognize that standing up for the firearms rights of convicted felons and wife beaters is going to have approximately 0% effectiveness in swaying anyone in the middle on gun control to our side.

Another complicating issue may be that California is using a database, but they aren't pursuing policies notably different than anywhere else in the nation. Up here in AK, where we seriously loves us some guns, law enforcement routinely take possession of firearms from residences where DV crimes have occurred and you don't want to be a felon-in-possession during police contact or whenever your PO comes around to do a house visit.

michaelbsc
February 11, 2013, 01:45 AM
Another complicating issue may be that California is using a database, but they aren't pursuing policies notably different than anywhere else in the nation. Up here in AK, where we seriously loves us some guns, law enforcement routinely take possession of firearms from residences where DV crimes have occurred and you don't want to be a felon-in-possession during police contact or whenever your PO comes around to do a house visit.

This is similar to a discussion I was in with someone on another board specifically about a parol officer finding a person with a prohibited weapon, even a BP gun. (In my area a BP gun, many hunting knives, lots of things violate parol.)

This isn't a perfect analogy, so don't expect it to be.

Lets think about another arena, convicted sex offenders who are prohibited from residing within X miles of a school. If you own a rental unit, are you tasked to check the background of every potential tenant to make sure they aren't a prohibited resident?

No. And your rental unit isn't the regulated item, the convicted person is the regulated person. So the regulated person needs to be cognizant of the terms of their release, and stay in bounds or risk incarceration.

But with guns the physical guns are regulated too. And now we're talking about more regulation on them.

RetiredUSNChief
February 11, 2013, 02:33 AM
WASHINGTON, DC – A senior U.S. general has confirmed that the military has secretly drawn up plans to round up large numbers of privately-owned firearms from American gun owners.

General James M. Scott of the U.S. Air Force confirmed that the Pentagon received a series of formal directives from the White House between November 7 and December 13 to begin plans for a massive nationwide operation to confiscate guns using a series of federal databases compiled over the last few decades.

General Scott spoke with Duffel Blog reporters in a parking garage in northern Virginia.

*Ahem*

The Duffel Blog is an American military news satire organization featuring satirical articles reporting on US military news. It was founded in March 2012 by Marine veteran Paul Szoldra, originally as a way to drive web traffic to his website CollegeVeteran.com. It eventually branched out and became its own entertainment website.
Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duffel_Blog

:neener:


EDIT:

Whoops! Looks like ScrapMetalSlug beat me to this!

RetiredUSNChief
February 11, 2013, 02:54 AM
I appreciate you finding this interesting as I feel the same way. As a matter of fact I have probably fit into your generalization of how I feel about felons/criminals possessing firearms.
However because of recent events and this subject in particular, I am beginning to have an epiphany on this subject in the opposite direction.
I will elaborate more on this below regrading permanent loss of ones Constitutional rights due to one infraction, even a non violent one at that.

In answer to your question, without specifics (since I have not contemplated long enough yet), I'd say a method needs to be found that will not be a slippery slope to registration.
Because it is clear that just background checks alone can be used as a quasi registration, which leads to identification, which leads to confiscation.


I, too, have an issue with the permanent loss of rights under many circumstances. This is an entirely different discussion which could drag on over many topics and for an exceedingly long period, all well beyond the scope of this website.

Such topics would include issues with restoration of legal rights, denial of rights appropriate to the offenses convicted of, a system which actively works to reform criminals which are capable of being reformed, and so forth.

But for now, let's just remain on the topic of what a reasonable and workable plan is to enforce the laws with respect to criminal possession of firearms.

And no, I don't believe it necessarily has to involve blanket registration of all privately owned firerms.


We can make some basic assumptions in this discussion, such as:

1. It is NOT possible, nor reasonable, to expect 100% compliance or effectiveness of any given policy.

2. No matter what system is enacted, it can ALWAYS be perverted and abused.

3. It is NOT reasonable to disregard any given plan solely because it is not 100% perfect.


The RKBA is immutable as a whole, in my opinion. However, we have, as a society, deemed it necessary to make some exceptions to this wherein that right to own firearms may be removed by due process. In general, we say that this right may be removed upon conviction for certain (generally violent) crimes against society.

Because of this, there has to be a balancing act between the Second Amendment right and the exceptions. It cannot be all one way or the other.

Vector
February 11, 2013, 11:45 AM
I'm guessing because decision-maker level types in the pro-2A movement recognize that standing up for the firearms rights of convicted felons and wife beaters is going to have approximately 0% effectiveness in swaying anyone in the middle on gun control to our side.

Another complicating issue may be that California is using a database, but they aren't pursuing policies notably different than anywhere else in the nation. Up here in AK, where we seriously loves us some guns, law enforcement routinely take possession of firearms from residences where DV crimes have occurred and you don't want to be a felon-in-possession during police contact or whenever your PO comes around to do a house visit.

While I understand your answer, you are missing the point.

Even though my own views might be changing/evolving regarding non violent felons losing their 2nd Amendment rights forever, that is not the argument I am wondering about.
Rather it is that when anti-gunners claim a federally run national background check will do nothing more prohibit restricted people from buying guns, it is clear that is false.
Even if Obama/Holder were out and some A+ rated president and AG were in, who is to say what the political climate might be 80 years from now. Many of us will be gone, and with the constant brainwashing from the liberal media, education system and Hollywood types, there might be a movement to confiscate guns with little resistance possible from the masses. With a database already in place that our generation allowed to happen, the 2nd Amendment for all in intent and purpose will be eviscerated.

So by pointing out how CA is already using a supposed innocuous background check to confiscate guns, it might open peoples eyes. Not everyone will be able to put two & two together, and will get hung up on the fact that the state needs a way to find these people who have lost their rights.
But at least it will show that what is innocently being claimed as a reasonable effort to prevent gun violence, will be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

BTW - Notice how this task force was not going into slums and ghettos to confiscate the guns. They were going into suburbia. Now some might say if a person by definition of the government is illegally in possession of a
firearm, ghetto or suburbia makes no difference. My point is that most of the statistical gun violence is happening in the slums, yet they seemed to be targeting people in the less crime ridden area. I wonder why, as maybe political correctness is playing a part?
Regardless of the reason, the mere fact that non violent felons or those accused of domestic violence are having their guns confiscated should be setting off alarm bells. Heck before you know it certain places like San Fransisco might say that calling someone a Homo is a hate crime which they will claim is likely to result in a hateful massacre by the person. So it could be on the books that hate crimes = you to lose your 2nd Amendment rights forever.
If CA has already done it with domestic violence and/or misdemeanor battery, who is to say what is next.

`

9mmepiphany
February 11, 2013, 07:18 PM
BTW - Notice how this task force was not going into slums and ghettos to confiscate the guns. They were going into suburbia. Now some might say if a person by definition of the government is illegally in possession of a
firearm, ghetto or suburbia makes no difference. My point is that most of the statistical gun violence is happening in the slums, yet they seemed to be targeting people in the less crime ridden area. I wonder why, as maybe political correctness is playing a part?
I can answer this, as I've taken part in the sweep for illegally posses firearms in "slums and ghettos"...you forgot to mention drug havens, dens of iniquity and houses of ill repute.

It would be a duplication of efforts of probation sweeps, warrant sweeps and searches for Parolees at Large sweeps. We also made arrest for that charge, resulting in record checks, when responding to Community Oriented Policing efforts

Vector
February 11, 2013, 08:59 PM
Which report?

If you were convicted of battery within a DV case, the reason you lose your rights is the DV provisions, not the misdemeanor battery

The CNN report.

One of the guys targeted and arrested had a restraining order against him, and a misdemeanor battery charge. So while someone could argue the battery charge shows a tendency toward violence, for all we know he in a fight with another guy, maybe defending himself, and got charged along with the other guy.
Heck I had a guy one time put his hands on me(an 3 time ex-con) in an aggressive situation, and it did not end well for him. I come to find out the detectives involved wanted to arrest me, and "would have had I been on the scene" when they arrived. Since I was not on the scene, a BOLO was put out for me. The bottom line is that with an attorney I was able to avoid prosecution and prove that he was the aggressor and it was self defense. Yet had I been arrested on the scene, in CA, all of a sudden I would lose my 2nd Amendment rights? No one should be deprived of their Constitutional rights just because they are accused or suspected of a crime.

`


I said the same thing in my post. Although, I note the verbiage seems to be different in the TRO in his area; our local rule do not mandate that the firearms be sold....they can be transferred to another person; most folks who think ahead move them to another family members home before they are even served and can truthfully say they have no firearms in their possession. The local Family Courts have found this meets the requirement

So if someone "does not think ahead", their firearms are taken away? What happens to those firearms, even if the person legitimately loses them due to a conviction?

You do have a right to a trial (due process) before the Restraining Order becomes permanent. Went through this is a competitive shooter a couple of years ago and she got all her guns back.

The court system is biased against men, and favors women. Regardless I wonder how many people think it is ok for people to "temporally lose their 2nd Amendment rights" just because someone gets a restraining order against them. Heck women who are scorned have been known to make all sorts of false accusations against men to get back at them. So if a woman wants to really get back at a guy who is a gun owner, she could file a RO and the poor innocent guy has his guns taken away. What about a neighbor or co-worker who gets a RO due to a dispute. The person is up the creek without a paddle when this task force comes to confiscate the weapons.
Is that justice, CA style?

`

Zoogster
February 11, 2013, 11:26 PM
I have brought this exact subject up in posts before.

They have a system to red flag people that once had a legally owned firearm registered and became prohibited.

They also use the registry, primarily of handguns and registered assault weapons until just recently, (long guns start soon) to consider people armed and dangerous when they deal with them.
I have known people treated like a psycho on a routine stop because they had what the officer considered an excessive number of guns registered to them. The cops acted as if they may need to blow the guy away at any moment and were a lot more cautious and nervous in dealing with him. Even though they had no record or other suspicious details.
So it also poses an additional safety risk to citizens when the wrong officer sees they are dealing with a gun nut on a traffic stop or when reporting to a residence.


9mmepiphany said:

The is a bit of truth in this, but it is mostly wrong.

What you have put forth has it's basis in the Domestic Violence (DV) laws.

No what he is talking about is entirely different. In California there is a range of misdemeanors that revoke the RKBA for 10 years, and some permanently.
Simple assault or battery is one of them, no relation to the person assaulted or battered required.
Considering the typical policy in many altercations is for police to arrest both involved and charge them and let the courts settle it, that means just being involved in a fight or even just some sort of altercation with some intimidation or pushing irregardless of who is at fault can revoke firearm rights.
Police officers and those with a career that requires a firearm can petition the court for an exception to the misdemeanors that revoke the right, most other than those by law enforcement will not be granted.
During the period of time they are prohibited, such as 10 years, the person is considered a prohibited person under the law, no different than a felon. If they possess a firearm they are guilty of the same crime at the state level as a felon in possession is. A felony that would then remove thier rights for life at the national level.

gunnutery
February 11, 2013, 11:39 PM
Sorry if this was explained already, I couldn't watch the vid where I am.

Are they operating without warrants on stale information? Or are they simply going to the person's house and ASKING to search/confiscate?

9mmepiphany
February 11, 2013, 11:45 PM
The CNN report.

One of the guys targeted and arrested had a restraining order against him, and a misdemeanor battery charge. So while someone could argue the battery charge shows a tendency toward violence, for all we know he in a fight with another guy, maybe defending himself, and got charged along with the other guy.

... Yet had I been arrested on the scene, in CA, all of a sudden I would lose my 2nd Amendment rights? No one should be deprived of their Constitutional rights just because they are accused or suspected of a crime.
You seem hung up on the battery charge and and keep pushing the RO to the side. While the reporter in that clip did not make it clear, the reason both guys were in illegal possession of guns was the RO...not the battery. The only time I have seen a prohibition against firearms in a misdemeanor battery conviction is when it was one of the conditions of probation

The court system is biased against men, and favors women. Regardless I wonder how many people think it is ok for people to "temporally lose their 2nd Amendment rights" just because someone gets a restraining order against them.
The obvious answer to avoid this is not to get into violent relationships...gender doesn't matter...if you want to protect your right to posses firearms

What about a neighbor or co-worker who gets a RO due to a dispute. The person is up the creek without a paddle when this task force comes to confiscate the weapons. `
Civil restraining orders fall into a different category and are heard in different courts than Domestic Violence restraining orders.

Even if a Civil RO is issued against you, there is no automatic prohibition against possession of firearms

Is that justice, CA style?
I'm pretty sure the Domestic Violence conviction prohibition against firearms possession is consistent across most states

Vector
February 12, 2013, 01:11 AM
I have brought this exact subject up in posts before.



9mmepiphany said:





Well I am just getting to the party late, but by all means express yourself here in this thread as I might very well be a convert.

As to what 9mmepiphany is saying, he is certainly entitled to his opinion/views, but he sounds more and more like the old me, who was having trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
That is not to knock him, as I certainly perceived myself to be on the correct side of the debate. Now I am not so sure.

`

Frank Ettin
February 12, 2013, 01:21 AM
...One of the guys targeted and arrested had a restraining order against him, and a misdemeanor battery charge. So while someone could argue the battery charge shows a tendency toward violence, for all we know he in a fight with another guy, maybe defending himself, and got charged along with the other guy....Drivel. The bottom line is that he is legally prohibited from possessing a gun, and his possession of a gun is a criminal act. That's current law, and current law can be enforced. No one can have any reasonable expectation that it will not be enforced.

If you don't like the law, our system provides a number of means to seek to change the law or challenge it. Until such laws are changed or successfully challenged, person who violate them risk arrest and jail.

California has a more detailed and extensive list of prohibiting factors than federal law, and the list includes various misdemeanors involving violence or the use of force. It behooves a gun owning resident of California to be familiar with those prohibitions.

California law in this regard may well be unreasonably limiting. But it is the law and subject to enforcement.

9mmepiphany
February 12, 2013, 01:43 AM
Thank you Frank for bringing us back to the root of the matter.

BTW: CA does not have mandatory registration of firearms...only on import or transfer of handguns

RetiredUSNChief
February 12, 2013, 02:11 AM
I'm pretty sure the Domestic Violence conviction prohibition against firearms possession is consistent across most states

Yep. It is, per federal law.

"Federal law prohibits purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by persons who have been convicted in any court of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” and/or who are subject to certain domestic violence protective orders."

Based on 10 USC 922(g)(8 & 9)

http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-firearms-policy-summary/

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+540+0++()%20%20AND%20((18)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w%2F10%20(922))%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

HorseSoldier
February 12, 2013, 04:04 AM
So by pointing out how CA is already using a supposed innocuous background check to confiscate guns, it might open peoples eyes. Not everyone will be able to put two & two together, and will get hung up on the fact that the state needs a way to find these people who have lost their rights.


Understand that I see this situation in California as being highly motivating and noteworthy to gun culture sort of gun owners. But then everything gun related in California is or should be highly motivating and concerning to pro 2A minded citizens . . .

On the other hand, I don't see this as a topic where there is any mileage to be gained with the people in between the two opposing camps on gun control. In fact, I think arguing it on a national level or, say, to anti-gun or undecided acquaintances is probably a losing proposition -- linking gun ownership infringement to an infringement of the rights of criminals is more likely to backfire and paint the pro-2A side as the lunatic fringe the anti-2As claim we are.

The whole debate on guns in the US is not a rational debate. It is a marketing campaign or a psychological operation, and the tools employed to forward the pro-2A agenda need to be carefully considered. The average person hearing this argument is most likely to take away a vague sense of death/danger (since guns + felons --> risk of personal death, down at the lizard brain level, for most people). Making people aware of their own mortality by supporting a perceived threat to it is not a way to sway people to your side of an argument.

Zoogster
February 12, 2013, 09:55 AM
BTW: CA does not have mandatory registration of firearms...only on import or transfer of handguns

It has something close.
While those previously owned in the state are not required to be registered, since the 1990s all legal transfers have resulted in registration.
The 'gun show loophole' is closed, no private transfers in California, so all handguns purchased since then are registered.

Legislation was passed that applies this to long guns starting in 2014.


Starting in 2014 all guns trasnferred through an FFL are automatically registered in California, and in California you must go through an FFL.

This mean any legal transfer in the state of handguns in the last couple decades, and of any gun as of 2014, will register the person. If for any reason they become disqualified they will be red flagged by the Armed Prohibited Persons File.

The only time I have seen a prohibition against firearms in a misdemeanor battery conviction is when it was one of the conditions of probation

CA law states anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault or battery against anyone is prohibited from firearm possession for 10 years.
This is seperate from the domestic violence statute, as that applies for life and applies nationally as well because it is federal law.

It does not need to be a condition, the law states that person is a prohibited person.
As a prohibited person it is a state level felony for them to possess firearms.






An additional category of prohibited persons in California is created by anyone that has a 72 hour psychiatric hold.
These can be given to anyone and require no evidence whatsoever.
Nothing is proven, there is no judicial review. There is no appeal process.
A person does not have to have any mental illness, or be diagnosed with any.
If an officer thinks someone should be evaluated they are, period. That evaluation may be that the person is just fine but was a bit distraught (of course a licensed mental health professional can find something with anyone if they want to.) It doesn't matter, they are still prohibited as a result.
That makes them a prohibited person for 5 years.
This is a tool often used for those who are not committing a crime, but are upset. Especially since it can be used when there is nothing to arrest someone over, but they want to remove them from the situation.
The guy that just broke up with his girlfriend for example that seems a bit too upset may be taken for an evaluation to remove him from the situation.
Many officers are under the impression it is actually being nice, as there is no arrest. So it has been used for other things like someone drunk in public, or to seperate people in a minor domestic dispute. Rather than take them to jail over some petty offense they give them a 72 hour evaluation at a local hospital and no charges. The individual has no say in the matter.

This essentially means anyone at any time can be turned into a prohibited person without even breaking any law at the discretion of a law enforcement officer.
Such people actually make up the largest segment of people on the prohibited armed persons list that they conduct raids to disarm when the system red flags them as a new prohibited armed person.
Most of such people would not have been a problem, however there is always an exception to focus on if they want to show how important it is to disarm them.

From an article on the database:
Detective Vic Brown, a supervisor in the Los Angeles Police Department gun unit, coordinates operations to disarm the roughly 2,700 city residents on the list.

“We just don’t have enough manpower to pursue every one of these cases,” he said. “These cases go on there quicker than we can get to them.”

It is no small task to conduct the necessary background work and knock on someone’s door, Detective Brown said. A case that seems relatively low-risk will usually involve four officers. If it is considered more dangerous, it might take eight. The priority, he said, is on people newly added to the system, because they are more likely to be at the address listed.

The state Justice Department’s firearms bureau does have a small unit, with 20 agents, that tracks down people on the list. Last year, it investigated 1,717 people and seized 1,224 firearms.

The list is growing far faster, however, than names are being removed. “We’re just not a very big bureau,” Mr. Lindley said. “We do the best we can with the personnel that we have.”

The bureau is planning a sweep this spring focused on people on the list for mental health reasons. Last summer, a man from the Fresno area who had recently been released from a mental health facility was found to possess 73 guns, including 17 unregistered assault rifles.

They go on there quicker than they can get to them. So many previously legal gun owners are added on a regular basis disarming them all quickly is challenging.
Right now only handguns are flagging people, as of 2014 rifles and shotguns will be as well, so the number of people flagged for need of immediate disarmament is going to be higher.

Vector
February 12, 2013, 11:50 AM
Drivel. The bottom line is that he is legally prohibited from possessing a gun, and his possession of a gun is a criminal act. That's current law, and current law can be enforced. No one can have any reasonable expectation that it will not be enforced.

If you don't like the law, our system provides a number of means to seek to change the law or challenge it. Until such laws are changed or successfully challenged, person who violate them risk arrest and jail.

California has a more detailed and extensive list of prohibiting factors than federal law, and the list includes various misdemeanors involving violence or the use of force. It behooves a gun owning resident of California to be familiar with those prohibitions.

California law in this regard may well be unreasonably limiting. But it is the law and subject to enforcement.

Interesting reply, and this thread continues to provide all sorts of avenues to explore on this subject. For instance, why are some of US citizens Constitutional rights being permanently taken away, yet others are not. Do we as supporters of the 2nd Amendment feel it has less value than the 1st Amendment?
I would argue the contrary, because taken to it's logical conclusion, you cannot practically protect the other parts of the Constitution from a tyrannical government run amok without the 2nd Amendment.
So if a person will always maintain their 1st Amendment rights, why are we so accepting of those people (non recidivist scumbags) who lose their 2nd Amendment rights for life over a misdemeanor?

Another words, even though you and some others feel comfortable with most or all of CA's current laws that take away peoples 2nd amendment rights, how far would it need to go before you said enough?

`

paw080
February 12, 2013, 12:01 PM
For those of you that miss the point of the law, it's not about confiscating

Illegal firearms from legitimate owners; it's about confiscating ANY firearm

from Illegal owners. So we talk about excluding gun ownership from those

people that should not have them; yet criticize this law that attempts to

justify such action. :confused:

Tony

Vector
February 12, 2013, 03:51 PM
For those of you that miss the point of the law, it's not about confiscating

Illegal firearms from legitimate owners; it's about confiscating ANY firearm

from Illegal owners. So we talk about excluding gun ownership from those

people that should not have them; yet criticize this law that attempts to

justify such action. :confused:

Tony

Hi Tony,

I get your point, and it does seem like a catch-22.

My staunch views are actually evolving on this issue because I, like you, was all for "criminals" not having guns. Overall I still believe that.
However my perception is based on my states laws, and what I thought I knew about most other states(with the exception of variables like CCW, OC vs. CC, etc.)
Also the way someone is defined as a criminal worthy of losing their 2nd Amendment rights forever, was pretty much the assumption you needed to be guilty of a violent felony.

I do not live in CA even though I visit a couple times per year. So some of their laws were not known by me, and now that I have gotten more info, it is leading me to wonder how low the threshold should be to lose ones Constitutional rights.
That combined with the method CA is using to confiscate guns in the state is also something I find disturbing. In my state, the background check is just that, nothing more. So the state has no idea if I went ahead with a legal purchase, nor the type of weapons I might have bought. Under those conditions I have no issue with background checks whatsoever. However if that info will be used by other states, and possibly the federal government some day, it can certainly be abused.
Now you might wonder why that would be a problem if they only want to confiscate guns from bad guys. The answer is that if they can "legally" take guns away from people who have committed misdemeanors today in CA, who is to say the government might not set the bar so low in the future as to confiscate weapons from those who get arrested at a rally for gun rights. Maybe "hate speech" might become a reason because liberals might say hate speech + gun ownership = danger to society. What if an assault weapons ban leads to confiscation of those and other type of weapons in the future from law abiding citizens with a clean record? The only way the tyrannical government could know where to get the guns from would be via records of legal purchases.

I need to run, but do you and others see my point?

`

Librarian
February 12, 2013, 05:13 PM
Another words, even though you and some others feel comfortable with most or all of CA's current laws that take away peoples 2nd amendment rights, how far would it need to go before you said enough?

I would suggest that 'comfortable' is a mis-statement.

IF it is the case that one agrees that some people, who, by their actions, transgress legal standards of behavior, and after due process of law are convicted of a crime, may be deprived of some rights, THEN CA's action looks like a legitimate exercise of police power.

In my experience, most people accept imprisonment as an appropriate result of conviction of some crimes; in prison, the inmates have very few rights. So, from this, I think the base assumption that people can be deprived of rights for some behaviors is established.

But full-on discussion of penology and likelihood of recidivism, social cost and related items would be off topic.

I do think your later concern for 'slippery slope' is well taken. See also http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/05/perils-of-prosecutorial-discretion-in-a-world-where-everyone-is-a-criminal/

Archangel14
February 13, 2013, 12:15 AM
CA law states anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault or battery against anyone is prohibited from firearm possession for 10 years.

I'm sorry to disagree, but this is inaccurate. Again, I'm an active criminal defense attorney in California. From memory, I believe the misdemeanor crimes that will result in a 10 year loss of gun ownership/possession rights are : PC 273.5 corporal injury on a spouse; PC 243(e)(1) domestic battery, and any of the "intimate partner" laws: PC 422, 646.9 and 243.4.

You can be convicted of misdemeanor battery (PC 242) after having punched someone in the face, and not lose your gun rights. It's very restrictive here in California. Yet oddly, California has very strong "stand your ground" and self-defense laws.

Librarian
February 13, 2013, 12:32 AM
From memory, I believe the misdemeanor crimes that will result in a 10 year loss of gun ownership/possession rights are : PC 273.5 corporal injury on a spouse; PC 243(e)(1) domestic battery, and any of the "intimate partner" laws: PC 422, 646.9 and 243.4.

The list is actually quite long and the state maintains a list on line - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/prohibcatmisd.pdf - so no need to keep it in memory.
Firearm prohibitions for misdemeanor violations of the offenses listed below are generally for ten years from the date of conviction, but the duration of each prohibition may vary. All statutory references are to the California Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

• Threatening public officers, employees, and school officials (Pen. Code, § 71.)
• Threatening certain public officers, appointees, judges, staff or their families with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat
(Pen. Code, § 76.)
• Intimidating witnesses or victims (Pen. Code, § 136.1.)
• Possessing a deadly weapon with the intent to intimidate a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.5.)
• Threatening witnesses, victims, or informants (Pen. Code, § 140.) and on and on for a full page, including the already-mentioned • Assault (Pen. Code, §§ 240, 241.)
• Battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243.)
• Sexual Battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4)
• Assault with a stun gun or taser weapon (Pen. Code, § 244.5.)
• Assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, or with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245.) I suspect the notation "... the duration of each prohibition may vary." means 'get a good lawyer'.

Vector
February 13, 2013, 11:39 AM
Understand that I see this situation in California as being highly motivating and noteworthy to gun culture sort of gun owners. But then everything gun related in California is or should be highly motivating and concerning to pro 2A minded citizens . . .

On the other hand, I don't see this as a topic where there is any mileage to be gained with the people in between the two opposing camps on gun control. In fact, I think arguing it on a national level or, say, to anti-gun or undecided acquaintances is probably a losing proposition -- linking gun ownership infringement to an infringement of the rights of criminals is more likely to backfire and paint the pro-2A side as the lunatic fringe the anti-2As claim we are.

The whole debate on guns in the US is not a rational debate. It is a marketing campaign or a psychological operation, and the tools employed to forward the pro-2A agenda need to be carefully considered. The average person hearing this argument is most likely to take away a vague sense of death/danger (since guns + felons --> risk of personal death, down at the lizard brain level, for most people). Making people aware of their own mortality by supporting a perceived threat to it is not a way to sway people to your side of an argument.

I see your point and those of others who cringe at the thought of using "criminals" as a pro-2nd Amendment stance. The trouble is, what are peoples perception/definition of a criminal?

I too, never would have thought someone to be rational, and certainly not pragmatic to proffer the idea that a criminal should be legally allowed to own a firearm.
Then again, I was under the delusion that the definition of a criminal was a violent recidivist scumbag with little to know redeeming qualities.
I never once thought it through to where one time acts of indiscretion such as a bar room fight, a non violent white collar crime, or other such things would mean an otherwise law abiding citizen would be stripped of Constitutional rights for life.

The funny thing is that my original intent with starting this thread was to point out how a national background check could easily be used for eventual confiscation as evidenced by the CA example. Yet the more I think about how many people would perceive the CNN report as a good thing, it got me thinking.
That is especially true reading some of the views of my fellow gun owners regarding their almost dismissive thoughts about how these guys are in violation of the law, so they deserve what they get. Don't get me wrong, I was more or less of the same mind, but with my preconceived idea of what a deserving criminal was.
Now I'm seeing how easy it would be for the government to start coming up with all sorts of crimes worthy of firearm prohibition. Needless to say a national database, whether it was full blown registration, or under the guise of a federal/national background check could very well be used for confiscation.

Another interesting thing that some in this thread have brought up is the question, "how else do you get the guns away from those who have them illegally".
While that is a good question worthy of discussion, I certainly do not think looking to CA and their liberal politicians for answers is the way to go.

`

9mmepiphany
February 13, 2013, 01:00 PM
Don't get me wrong, I was more or less of the same mind, but with my preconceived idea of what a deserving criminal was.
That seems to be the source of your outrage.

Your preconceived idea isn't universal. That is often a source of surprise, that is why it is good to ask questions to see if your perceptions are correct and to do research into the actually definitions

That is especially true reading some of the views of my fellow gun owners regarding their almost dismissive thoughts about how these guys are in violation of the law
I think your perception of us be dismissive is a bit off too.

It isn't that we think "these guys are in violation of the law", it is that they were adjudicated as such...they were afforded due process...they weren't declared that on a whim

Zoogster
February 13, 2013, 02:29 PM
I'm sorry to disagree, but this is inaccurate. Again, I'm an active criminal defense attorney in California. From memory, I believe the misdemeanor crimes that will result in a 10 year loss of gun ownership/possession rights are


No, it is accurate, simple misdemeanor assault or battery is a 10 year prohibiting offense.
I chose not to cite the specific list because it would confuse people especially not from California and make the list seem more reasonable as most other things on the list are serious crimes that are almost universally charged as felonies, and thier being listed as misdemeanors is because they are 'wobblers' that can be reduced to or charged as misdemeanors.
So thier inclusion as prohibiting misdemeanors is almost unnecessary since over 90% of them they are almost always felonies.



You could not only not punch someone, but even getting into a macho intimidation match with either threats like verbal and balling fists and no physical contact (an assault) or minor physical contact (macho chest bumping type scenaio still is battery) could remove rights for 10 years.
Any physical contact out of anger, even the minor pushing that doesn't escalate that young men do all the time over disagreements is a battery.

Since law enforcement generally charge both parties involved when they show up and let the courts deal with the details, whose fault it was or who started what may not even avoid a conviction.



Librarian has linked the list.

A fight or even less in CA generally makes someone a prohibited person for 10 years.


Let us take a common potential issue:

Dating a woman for awhile and her ex shows up angry and starts harassing her? Getting in her face? Being intimidating and having no patience to deal with you intervening?
Won't listen to any verbal ques, and gets hostile towards you when you give any?
Do you let him bully and intimidate and bother your girlfriend?
Intimidate or threaten you when you try to deescalate things or intervene?
Presumably nothing he is doing actually rises to the level of meeting self defense requirements. He can follow her and say whatever he wants angrily or otherwise. He may be hostile, shouting, maybe even grabbing at her hands to keep her attention or continue talking to her.


Well under CA law if you want to retain your firearm rights you better not put hands on him and be a nice timid wimp. Thats the law.
Your options are to try and convince her to leave the situation, as he follows along getting agitated with you and potentially attacking at some point, and to call the police that will take many minutes to arrive, and probably arrive after it is all over.
A physical confrontation, even one he primarily escalates or starts is likely to be seen as mutual combat, resulting in conviction.
In fact even if you do everything right and he simply attacks at some point after getting agitated by your presence, the responding officers are likely to charge both who were involved in an altercation and leave it to you in court to try and prove you were not a mutual combatant.
That may or may not succeed, when it's his word against yours essentially.

Likewise the rude or angry guy that comes and hits on your wife or girlfriend, says vulgar things, continues after learning you are her man, and is generally just disrepectful? Legally you must do nothing. In fact just standing up to him without being physical can lead to it being determined to be mutual combat if he attacks you over it.
No legally you have to act almost timid (or can be seen as responsible for escalation making you a mutual combatant) and leave the situation.
Failing to do so means no firearms for you.

barnbwt
February 13, 2013, 04:01 PM
The meek are easily managed, therefore preferred by police/authorities. And they're harmless; it's not like meek people go on shooting sprees, or anything... (oh, wait...)

TCB

Vector
February 13, 2013, 07:57 PM
That seems to be the source of your outrage.

Your preconceived idea isn't universal. That is often a source of surprise, that is why it is good to ask questions to see if your perceptions are correct and to do research into the actually definitions


I think your perception of us be dismissive is a bit off too.

It isn't that we think "these guys are in violation of the law", it is that they were adjudicated as such...they were afforded due process...they weren't declared that on a whim

On the first point, while I agree, lets not exaggerate by saying I'm "outraged".
Instead it is more being perplexed. Regardless of how I or anyone characterizes it, I think there is probably a disconnect between what people think are the type of criminals who should never have their Constitutional rights restored, vs. what some municipalities/states deem is worthy of such.

As to my comment about dismissive, I hope you do not think you speak for everyone on the other side of the argument. I did not necessarily mean you anyway, so unless you want to go back and read everyones comments and decide which ones you fully support, vs. those you wish to distance yourself from, don't assume to speak for them all.
Plus I do not mean it in a negative/attacking way. It is just that I do not think even staunch believers in crime = punishment would think spitting on the side walk(as an exaggeration) means you can never own a firearm for life.
Rest assured a few were basically saying, you make your bed, you sleep in it. While that old school wisdom is certainly something I subscribe to in general, there is much more to this subject that meets the eye.
That is why I posed the question about how far, would be too far, regarding minor offenses being declared by a liberal city/state as constituting no firearms for life.

I'd love to hear some responses to that question.

`

9mmepiphany
February 14, 2013, 12:23 AM
That is why I posed the question about how far, would be too far, regarding minor offenses being declared by a liberal city/state as constituting no firearms for life.

I'd love to hear some responses to that question.
That might be a bit difficult when folks can't even agree on major offenses which would reach that level.

Being familiar with how the legal system in the state operates, I don't have a problem with a misdemeanor conviction of any of the offenses listed in post #55 having those consequence...remember we're referring to convictions; not arrests or even being charged

Vector
February 14, 2013, 12:16 PM
That might be a bit difficult when folks can't even agree on major offenses which would reach that level.

Being familiar with how the legal system in the state operates, I don't have a problem with a misdemeanor conviction of any of the offenses listed in post #55 having those consequence...remember we're referring to convictions; not arrests or even being charged

Ok, listed in #55 is assault which I assume in most cases is a misdemeanor.

I know enough about the law at least in my state that assault can mean very minor altercations, even verbal ones at that.
So if you were to have an idiot co-worker get in your face and have to deal with him, that should mean you can never legally own a firearm for the rest of your life?

What about the drunk blacksheep 2nd cousin at a family gathering in a restaurant. They do something stupid like throw a drink on your wife, you two get into a scuffle, no one is seriously hurt, yet you get arrested for assault and battery, etc.?

My point is that normal law abiding citizens can get charged and even convicted of minor offenses in everyday life. Yet they certainly should not be deprived their Constitutional rights for life, or even 10 years in my view. If we use CA's standards or even worse in the future, everyone except Mormons and the Amish might be restricted from legally owning a firearm.

`

9mmepiphany
February 14, 2013, 12:39 PM
My point is that normal law abiding citizens can get charged and even convicted of minor offenses in everyday life.
Have you ever seen anyone convicted of simple misdemeanor assault in CA?

You can be arrested for it, you can even be charged with it, but it is about as rare a conviction as one on the AZ law prohibiting donkeys sleeping in bathtubs.

I can't comment on the law in your state as you don't have one listed

Frank Ettin
February 14, 2013, 01:11 PM
...My point is that normal law abiding citizens can get charged and even convicted of minor offenses in everyday life...If someone has committed and been convicted of a crime, he is by definition not "law abiding."

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm not bothered by persons convicted of serious or violent crimes not being able to legally possess guns.

Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a serious or violent crime is loss of gun rights.

Vector
February 14, 2013, 02:25 PM
If someone has committed and been convicted of a crime, he is by definition not "law abiding."

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm not bothered by persons convicted of serious or violent crimes not being able to legally possess guns.

Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a serious or violent crime is loss of gun rights.

Well not to make this personal, but if you care to answer, I'd really like to read your response.

Has your life been so squeaky clean to where you have never had a confrontation with anyone in your life? Note, I did not ask if you have ever been arrested or convicted, just had trouble with a fellow human being. The reason I put it that way is because sooner or later you might find that a situation might get beyond your control, and before you know it, you will have joined the ranks of what you say is the non law abiding. Then, presumably everything about you is now subject to question like, oh say your integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness.
I wonder if you would feel as if that was suddenly a fair situation you found yourself in?

Lastly, answer me this. When someone gets off probation or out of prison for whatever crime, most if not all their rights are restored. Yet for some strange reason their Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights are not.
Since I presume you are a defender of the 2nd Amendment, how do you justify every right being returned except for one?


BTW - Please do not come up with a simpleton answer like "it is the law", as I would be very disappointed.

`

9mmepiphany
February 14, 2013, 03:24 PM
Has your life been so squeaky clean to where you have never had a confrontation with anyone in your life? Note, I did not ask if you have ever been arrested or convicted, just had trouble with a fellow human being. The reason I put it that way is because sooner or later you might find that a situation might get beyond your control, and before you know it, you will have joined the ranks of what you say is the non law abiding.
I'll not attempt to answer for Frank, but I can confidently say that his life hasn't taken him as close to the edge as mine has.

First, there is a huge divide between squeaky clean and been in a confrontation.

Secondly, having trouble with someone doesn't always lead to a confrontation and a confrontation doesn't always get beyond your control. They teach that at good CCW classes and it is always a topic of discussion in Tactical classes....that is part of the responsibility you undertake when you decide to CCW.

Even if it does get beyond your control, it is a long reach to believe that a conviction for a crime is the obvious outcome.

I'm not familiar with your Legal or Criminal Law Training, has your training taught you otherwise?

Has your personal experience been very different?

Frank Ettin
February 14, 2013, 03:25 PM
...I did not ask if you have ever been arrested or convicted, just had trouble with a fellow human being...I have always managed to handle within the law whatever difficulties I've had.

...Lastly, answer me this. When someone gets off probation or out of prison for whatever crime, most if not all their rights are restored. Yet for some strange reason their Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights are not.
Since I presume you are a defender of the 2nd Amendment, how do you justify every right being returned except for one?...It's really not my place to justify it, but we should all be aware that a gun is a unique instrument capable of projecting instant death or grave injury at a distance, and is a tool well suited to assisting in criminal enterprise. As such, one could conclude that it is socially inadvisable to give persons who have demonstrated themselves to be of questionable integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness ready access to such a tool.

In any case, setting penalties for crimes is generally within the purview of the various legislatures. They do so within the framework of the legislative process, as part of which interested parties on both sides of the question make their views known. And politicians who support unpopular positions become vulnerable to losing their jobs.

So it appears that the current range of penalties, including incarceration for a period, loss of voting rights and loss of the right to possess firearms indefinitely (subject to any provisions for restoration of rights), and in some cases a loss of one's property, are generally acceptable to enough voters.

Vector
February 14, 2013, 05:16 PM
I should have been more clear.

I did not mean confrontations with a weapon or involving use of a CCW. Rather just run of the mill encounters with people, many of whom disregard the law, and get you caught up in it.
A few quick examples, are like the ones I gave in the previous post with a co-worker or a drunk 2nd cousin. It could be a fender bender, someone shoves in in the grocery line and will not back off, etc.
Sometimes trying to restrain a drunk fool itching to fight can get you in trouble. From the sound of things, many here are not the passive "B" type personalities that would just sit and observe. Then again, even if that were the case, someone might set his sights on you for whatever reason, and once he puts his hands on you, you are involved, like it or not.

I will respond to other specifics you guys posed, but in the mean time, use the everyday possible examples as your starting point.

TIA

9mmepiphany
February 14, 2013, 05:35 PM
I still don't have a starting point as I generally avoid those kinds of situations.

They don't just start. They are usually preceded by the Monkey Dance. All you have to do is decline to take part in it.

It isn't like you are a LEO who really doesn't have a choice to be there.

It could be a fender bender, someone shoves in in the grocery line and will not back off, etc.
Sometimes trying to restrain a drunk fool itching to fight can get you in trouble. From the sound of things, many here are not the passive "B" type personalities that would just sit and observe. Then again, even if that were the case, someone might set his sights on you for whatever reason, and once he puts his hands on you, you are involved, like it or not.
It sounds like some of your other preconceived ideas of accepted behavior are about to be shaken.

Neither a fender bender nor line jumping are reasons to get into a verbal, much less a physical confrontation.
Why would you try to restrain a drunk in the first place?
What would you have done to have someone set their sights on you; why would you let them get close enough to lay their hands on you?
It isn't a matter of "for whatever reason"; the reason matters...both to you and responding officers

Frank Ettin
February 14, 2013, 06:49 PM
And if it's okay with him, I'll sign on to 9mmepiphany's response. The bottom line is that the vast majority of folks manage to get through their lives without committing crimes, let alone serious or violent crimes.

Vector
February 14, 2013, 07:02 PM
Christ O'Mighty, unless you are being obtuse, you sound like you have lived in a bubble or something.

Assuming you went to college, have had different jobs, attended family gatherings, have had idiot neighbors, gone to sporting events with alcohol, to nightclubs etc., I'd assume you would have encountered some of the possible scenarios I've mentioned.

Then again maybe you live in Bel Aire, attended Stanford, have never had jerk co-workers, all your relatives have great manners, etc.

I live in a big city full of wacko people who have attitudes. While most of my life has been relatively free from problems, when I think back over the years, I certainly have encountered my share of situations that resulted in me being involved with issues that could result in disputes with my fellow man.
I already mentioned one situation where a 3 time ex-con approached me in an aggressive manner in a parking lot, put his hand on me, and trouble ensued. The incident that led up to that was not relevant other than to say I was blocked in, and this fool was the reason. I was trying to be reasonable, he was being an aggressive vulgar tough guy, so I was left with no choice.

Then I can think back a few decades to where a guy was roughing up his girl/wife outside a grocery store I was coming out of, and I intervened. No sooner did I help her by seperating him from her, she turned on me. Had the police been called, there is no doubt they both would have had the same story, and off to jail I would have went. Those are just two of probably a dozen incidents over my life where I could have been on the wrong end of the legal system. Most in my mind were within the law and/or doing the right thing, but others may not have felt the same way.
Ironically I probably have been left alone more often than not because I am a big guy at 6'7" 240lbs, so smaller guys in the same city might very well have more incidents.

I can also pool upon stories other law abiding friends have dealt with like the 2nd cousin example I gave earlier. If you would just sit there while an idiot in-law verbally and physically abused your wife, then you must be an angel or a wimp(no personal offense intended).

My point is that unless you live a sheltered life, sooner or later you will encounter people who are aggressive even if you are calm. Yet all it can take is one minor incident over a lifetime to be able to have your Constitutional right to bear firearms revoked.
As it relates to my overall premise in this thread, CA seems to be not only taking firearms away from those who most people would say deserve it, but also a subset of one time misdemeanor people. That is certainly different than the state I live in, and I suspect it is worse in CA than most other states. I certainly hope other states do not import what CA does. Next thing you know, hate speech might constitute loss of rights, which ironically would deprive people of both 1st and 2nd Amendment protections.

`

Alaska444
February 14, 2013, 07:26 PM
Please don't profane my Saviour's name.

To answer your question, I have not had a physical confrontation with anyone since about age 18. I had a guy pull a knife on me at that time. About 6 months ago, a homeless person did approach me outside our church where I was alone and I had to take a defensive posture and he went away cursing me when I told him I can't help you, but I did hold my ground. That is the only incident in 36 years and all I had to do was to hold my ground. During that 36 years, one of my passions was preaching to maximum security prisoners at a CA facility with a whole bunch of LWOPS. (Life without possibility of parole) Encountering dangerous people, how you respond to them almost always determines the outcome of the encounter.

I am now 54 with no further such encounters. One of my friends is an 8th degree black belt and in the Karate Hall of Fame. Guess what, he has NEVER had to use his knowledge in a self defense situation although one of these days he may take my tongue in cheek challenge to step outside seriously.:what::what: He told me that the closest he ever got to a fight was once. He is now 65 and has been a black belt since his mid 30's.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, but shucks folks can actually make it through each day without getting into an altercation that could turn physical. As they say, it takes two to tango. If you find yourself in frequent situations that could lead to an altercation, perhaps you should consider NOT carrying a sidearm since your past history will be used against you in a court of law. BTW, I have lived a very full life thank you in and out of large cities and 9 years spent in the military.

Zoogster
February 14, 2013, 07:48 PM
I am glad things are so simple for some.



Plenty of people do deal with people that will only get worse if you avoid all confrontation.
Doing some blue collar work at various times I have certainly seen a crowd that has no respect for passive individuals. People that avoid all confrontation will become a target of theft and other things.
Your food or drinks in the workplace fridge, personal items like tools or phones charging, and other personal items etc
Essentially those who are most passive are likely to have a more hostile work environment or be victims.
Those too quick to confrontation have more problems, but those that avoid it all the time have more than those in between.

As far as not even getting in a verbal argument over people cutting or shoving in line. While there is plenty of wisdom for the individual in that, as a society that becomes a pretty crummy society when respect for places in line and similar things mean nothing.
It actually creates more violence and problems later on as everyone does whatever they want that is not illegal and the number of incidents increases. Cut in line, cut and take parking spots, etc.
The only reason there is order is because people in general respect such things, if people with no respect are not even confronted others see it and more start to be that way, getting the benefits of doing the wrong thing until it gets to the point that those adhering to the right thing have it bad.
Those that avoid all conflict benefit from those who do not and so its not as bad as it would be otherwise, they just don't realize it.
You don't want to essentially wind up with a society where only the thugs and criminals can stand up for things. Where in many situations they become more respectable because they will actually speak up or say something when things are done wrong, because the law abiding citizen is trying to remain passive and do no wrong.
A society where only the bad guys can voice thier views becomes one guided by a bad element. Depending on the guy from the motorcycle gang to be the only one willing to open thier mouth when they see the wrong thing being done just gives more credibility and respect and influence to bad elements of society.


Not a big TV person but there is even that TV show where the try to see if people will speak up or do the right thing when they stage situations in public with people doing something wrong. With being confrontational the only 'right' option in many situations.
The solution of some here would obviously be to never do that, because avoiding all confrontation is itself the right thing.

I am reminded of 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' line of Edmonde Burke.


And it goes goes back to the 2nd Amendment Right being restricted over minor things.
Anyone that takes 'from my cold dead hands' literally cannot really combine that with 'unless a vindictive girlfriend/wife lies about domestic incidents, or a drunk gets vulgar with my wife/girlfriend/daughter and won't leave them alone, or...'
It is pretty incompatible, you have rights that shall not be infringed, unless you cross a minor line and then they are revoked?
A society where you must never cross a relatively petty line, and if you do things are beyond repair?
That seems like a ripe situation to turn good people into bad.




Now I am of the mindset to be even more passive if I have a firearm or other deadly weapon. However this applies to people without a firearm too, even ownership is revoked for an assault or someone deemed a mutual combatant when attacked because they are considered to have not avoided the situation if they confronted someone.
But society really depends on some people to speak up, or verbally confront people doing the wrong thing. That is one of the forces that keeps society halfway decent.
Telling everyone they shouldn't be and just be passive witnesses results in a society where criminals and those with less to lose are able to shape things more and bring society down.

9mmepiphany
February 14, 2013, 07:53 PM
Then again maybe you live in Bel Aire, attended Stanford, have never had jerk co-workers, all your relatives have great manners, etc.
You offer this, as if it isn't something to aspire to. I do indeed expect my daughter to attend Stanford and my son is attending an equivalent college in his field (no, he hasn't had any violent encounters either)

My experience has been somewhat similar to that of Alaska444. I'm 59 and I can't even remember the last confrontation I've had, in my personal life, where calm did not sooth flaring tempers...I'm not talking about staying calm, but actually having inner calm, likely much like his Karate friend.

I wouldn't call you obtuse, since it isn't constructive, but perhaps you should look within yourself to see where these issues are rooted

nazshooter
February 14, 2013, 09:01 PM
And if it's okay with him, I'll sign on to 9mmepiphany's response. The bottom line is that the vast majority of folks manage to get through their lives without committing crimes, let alone serious or violent crimes.

Certainly self control and wise choices hugely impact the likelihood of getting into trouble but circumstances and luck can play a roll as well. I heard recently that by age 40 nearly 80% of black males have been arrested at least once.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Frank Ettin
February 14, 2013, 09:05 PM
...Assuming you went to college, have had different jobs, attended family gatherings, have had idiot neighbors, gone to sporting events with alcohol, to nightclubs etc., I'd assume you would have encountered some of the possible scenarios I've mentioned.

Then again maybe you live in Bel Aire, attended Stanford, have never had jerk co-workers, all your relatives have great manners, etc......Plenty of people do deal with people that will only get worse if you avoid all confrontation.
Doing some blue collar work at various times I have certainly seen a crowd that has no respect for passive individuals. People that avoid all confrontation will become a target of theft and other things....Nonetheless we are all expected to deal, without committing criminal assault, with the various frictions and minor affronts each of faces living among other humans. And indeed most people do. And I can't say that I'm very troubled by some folks not having ready access to guns after they have demonstrated through the criminal justice system that they can't.

gripper
February 14, 2013, 09:20 PM
Ever been in a fight? Ever been falsely accused in a civil or criminal matter? Ever made a paperwork error? The constantly expanding grounds for becoming a" prohibited person" combined with a push for UBC's( effectively a ban on private FTF sales) could lead many advocates for UBCs to realize they screwed up.
I work as an armed security officer at the FAA.I hold redundant state licensing backstopped by federal( triplicate) clearances.I work for a veteran owned firm that hires the same.And guess what? I get denied on FFL transactions by the same state police administration that issues my armed security license. This in turn has the NICS examiners stating in conference calls with my attorney (08/21/12) that they are aware of my contradictory statuses, but so far no action...and this has dragged on since 2010.
I said it before- NICS is a lie.If you're not to be trusted with all civil rights, you shouldn't be walking around outside the wire.
Stop considering it( UBC, NICS etc) anything but what it is: piecemeal infringement and loss of the RKBA.

nazshooter
February 14, 2013, 09:41 PM
Nonetheless we are all expected to deal, without committing criminal assault, with the various frictions and minor affronts each of faces living among other humans. And indeed most people do. And I can't say that I'm very troubled by some folks not having ready access to guns after they have demonstrated through the criminal justice system that they can't.

I would be pretty surprised if less than half the male population had NEVER technically commited assault. Most of these situations never involve the police but would you really be comfortable with permanently taking away a constitutional right from anything close to that fraction of the population?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Frank Ettin
February 14, 2013, 09:57 PM
I would be pretty surprised if less than half the male population had NEVER technically commited assault. Most of these situations never involve the police but would you really be comfortable with permanently taking away a constitutional right from anything close to that fraction of the population?Phooey! I have no reason to believe your numbers.

nazshooter
February 14, 2013, 10:18 PM
Phooey! I have no reason to believe your numbers.

So would you be comfortable with permanently taking away a fundamental right from even half that number? Personally I think that's something that can only be justified under the most dire of circumstances.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

9mmepiphany
February 14, 2013, 10:44 PM
I would be pretty surprised if less than half the male population had NEVER technically commited assault. Most of these situations never involve the police but would you really be comfortable with permanently taking away a constitutional right from anything close to that fraction of the population?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
I'd ask you the same question I presented in Post #63

There is a huge difference in committing an Assault and being convicted of an illegal assault. I would be highly surprised it the number were greater than a small fraction of 1%. In 28 years of dealing with the Court system, the Correctional system and in LE, I've never seen or met anyone convicted solely of PC 240

nazshooter
February 14, 2013, 11:25 PM
I'd ask you the same question I presented in Post #63

There is a huge difference in committing an Assault and being convicted of an illegal assault. I would be highly surprised it the number were greater than a small fraction of 1%. In 28 years of dealing with the Court system, the Correctional system and in LE, I've never seen or met anyone convicted solely of PC 240

I don't think the fact that most are not caught/convicted really strengthens the moral case for permanent removal of a fundamental right. If anything it just makes the law seem more arbitrary. I would also add that the sorts of people most likely to be involved in these crimes are also more likely to live in a place where self defense is important to their survival.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

9mmepiphany
February 14, 2013, 11:38 PM
I don't think the fact that most are not caught/convicted really strengthens the moral case for permanent removal of a fundamental right
It isn't meant to.

It weakens the case for the argument that that right can be removed for what you have said is such a common crime. If no one is ever convicted of it, what difference does it make how common it is?

I would also add that the sorts of people most likely to be involved in these crimes are also more likely to live in a place where self defense is important to their survival.
Self-defense isn't an affirmative defense for simple assault (PC 240)

nazshooter
February 15, 2013, 01:04 AM
It isn't meant to.

It weakens the case for the argument that that right can be removed for what you have said is such a common crime. If no one is ever convicted of it, what difference does it make how common it is?

Serious penalties for minor crimes which are rarely or selectively enforced encourage corruption and discourage respect for the law.


Self-defense isn't an affirmative defense for simple assault (PC 240)

What I was trying to point out is that many of the people convicted of a crime that would get their 2a rights taken away live in places where they really do need a gun for self protection. As a result they have to choose between risking their lives and remaining a criminal by keeping a gun illegally.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Vector
February 15, 2013, 01:09 AM
Please don't profane my Saviour's name.

To answer your question, I have not had a physical confrontation with anyone since about age 18. I had a guy pull a knife on me at that time. About 6 months ago, a homeless person did approach me outside our church where I was alone and I had to take a defensive posture and he went away cursing me when I told him I can't help you, but I did hold my ground. That is the only incident in 36 years and all I had to do was to hold my ground. During that 36 years, one of my passions was preaching to maximum security prisoners at a CA facility with a whole bunch of LWOPS. (Life without possibility of parole) Encountering dangerous people, how you respond to them almost always determines the outcome of the encounter.

I am now 54 with no further such encounters. One of my friends is an 8th degree black belt and in the Karate Hall of Fame. Guess what, he has NEVER had to use his knowledge in a self defense situation although one of these days he may take my tongue in cheek challenge to step outside seriously.:what::what: He told me that the closest he ever got to a fight was once. He is now 65 and has been a black belt since his mid 30's.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, but shucks folks can actually make it through each day without getting into an altercation that could turn physical. As they say, it takes two to tango. If you find yourself in frequent situations that could lead to an altercation, perhaps you should consider NOT carrying a sidearm since your past history will be used against you in a court of law. BTW, I have lived a very full life thank you in and out of large cities and 9 years spent in the military.

Well let me start out by saying your right. I meant no disrespect or blasphemy as he is my Savior as well. That said, just like you may be more religious or strictly adhere to your denominations teachings, your perspective is much different than some other Christians. Other aspects of life also have very divergent points of view.

Now on to the bigger picture, I do find it hard to believe people such as yourself are representative of the majority of people in our country. Even friends who live in rural America can still get into scuffles, sometimes with friends. After it is over they dust themselves off and have a beer together. Then of course there are those who come from a more urban area. Even though you lived in a big city, maybe yours was much more civil, educated, less ethnic, place.
My guess would be that people living in places like Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle, etc., might not experience the same problems as those in Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Los Angles, etc.

While I have an A type personality, I do not go looking for trouble. Then again I will not shy away from it in the situations I mentioned either. I doubt you or your karate buddy would stand by while a guy got physical with a woman, but you tell me?

As to carrying a firearm, I have done so, and not even thought about it during most situations because it was not life and death. Aside from my size, I can handle myself pretty well, so if it comes to a fight, I am not looking to use a firearm.
Now one night many years ago I was with a girl in a park and three guys were making a bead right for us. They were staring right at us and not looking away despite me staring back at them. Before they got too close I yelled out and said to go away. They did not stop coming toward us, so I upholstered my gun, and made sure they could see it as I pointed it to the ground. They stopped in their tracks, and headed in a different direction. There was no need to draw down on them, and we got out of there ASAP. So even at a younger age, I certainly could tell the difference when a firearm may be needed vs. a one on one verbal altercation that could turn physical.

Lastly, the point I am making is that I do not want violent/career criminals to own firearms. However if the state decides to start lowering the threshold of what constitutes a lifetime restriction on your Constitutional right to bear arms, then I will be more vocal in my opposition. Like I said, this is new territory for me being a law & order guy, but the CNN report I posted got me thinking.


You offer this, as if it isn't something to aspire to. I do indeed expect my daughter to attend Stanford and my son is attending an equivalent college in his field (no, he hasn't had any violent encounters either)

My experience has been somewhat similar to that of Alaska444. I'm 59 and I can't even remember the last confrontation I've had, in my personal life, where calm did not sooth flaring tempers...I'm not talking about staying calm, but actually having inner calm, likely much like his Karate friend.

I wouldn't call you obtuse, since it isn't constructive, but perhaps you should look within yourself to see where these issues are rooted

Maybe we are speaking different languages or something. I never implied that people should not aspire to clean living and having the best/safest lives possible. However not everyone is able to live the dream of Beverly Hills/Stanford/business owner, etc.
As someone pointed out, blacks for example have a very different life experience in general, so their lives might involve more troubled situations.

I have gone out of my way to say I am not getting personal with you, and wondering if you were being obtuse does not change that. I am certainly not being obtuse, but listening to some of you saying you are one with nature and your fellow man, with nary a dirty look in your entire lives is hard to believe.
I know a decent amount of people who live law abiding lives, yet encounter problems with others from time to time. Maybe it is just where I live that creates more situations for trouble among the populace. It certainly is not Mayberry, MD, nor is it laid back. When I travel to smaller towns, I definitely notice a difference as to how much slower everyone drives, how much more patience they have waiting in line, politeness, and so on.
I certainly do not get that feeling in LA, Miami, NYC, etc.

Just remember that if enough people like me have our rights stripped away from us, you will be severely outnumbered if a tyrannical government ever decides to abolish our Republic. Then again, even if you are still armed, it does not sound like you would lift a finger to oppose whatever the government might decree. To do so would be a violation of the law. ;)

`

9mmepiphany
February 15, 2013, 01:22 AM
Serious penalties for minor crimes which are rarely or selectively enforced encourage corruption and discourage respect for the law.
Where do you get the idea that they are rarely or selectively enforced?

I've certainly never said it

What I was trying to point out is that many of the people convicted of a crime that would get their 2a rights taken away live in places where they really do need a gun for self protection.
Maybe they shouldn't engage in behavior that leads to committing those crimes...isn't that what our society aspires to?

nazshooter
February 15, 2013, 01:40 AM
Where do you get the idea that they are rarely or selectively enforced?


I had pointed out that low level assault (minor fights etc) are fairly common and your response was that it didn't matter since few people are ever convicted of such things. That sounds like rare and selective enforcement to me.

Maybe they shouldn't engage in behavior that leads to committing those crimes...isn't that what our society aspires to?

Never the less a pretty significant fraction of the population does and if a right is fundamental then taking it away should be a last resort.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

9mmepiphany
February 15, 2013, 01:45 AM
Then again, even if you are still armed, it does not sound like you would lift a finger to oppose whatever the government might decree. To do so would be a violation of the law.
It seems that whatever I say will not change your mind. Perhaps they are just things that are beyond your ken.

Growing up in the 60s as a minority had it's own challenges and the changes we fought for were a bit different, but believe me that living a moral life isn't the same as living an ethical one

9mmepiphany
February 15, 2013, 01:58 AM
I had pointed out that low level assault (minor fights etc) are fairly common and your response was that it didn't matter since few people are ever convicted of such things. That sounds like rare and selective enforcement to me.
Perhaps definition of terms is the disconnect.

Simple Assault (PC 240) isn't minor fights. It is "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."...in essence, making a threat

Conviction of a crime isn't the same as enforcement of the law against it. Enforcement entails making arrest (LEO), submitting for warrants (Det.) and filing charges (DA)
Conviction is the providence of the Courts, it's officers and juries...due process

nazshooter
February 15, 2013, 02:35 AM
9mm: I'm talking more broadly about the principle that fundamental rights shouldn't be taken away permanently over an activity that so many feel the need to engage in, not just PC 240.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Frank Ettin
February 15, 2013, 02:57 AM
...fundamental rights shouldn't be taken away permanently over an activity that so many feel the need to engage in...So many people feel the need to commit a violent, criminal assault? That's makes it an okay thing to do? Preposterous.

9mmepiphany
February 15, 2013, 03:22 AM
9mm: I'm talking more broadly about the principle that fundamental rights shouldn't be taken away permanently over an activity that so many feel the need to engage in, not just PC 240.
Then I think that takes us back to Frank's Post #64

Unless you seriously believe that the widespread and common practice of Domestic Partner Abuse (1 in 3) and Sexual Abuse (1 in 4) should be more socially acceptable

Robert
February 15, 2013, 08:18 AM
This one is just going around in circles now so let's call it done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun owner database already being used for confiscation in CA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!