1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun owner database already being used for confiscation in CA

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Vector, Feb 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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;


    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?

  2. mrvco

    mrvco Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    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.
  4. Darkhorse

    Darkhorse Well-Known Member

    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...
  5. berettaprofessor

    berettaprofessor Well-Known Member

    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe CA has mandatory registration and this is not a surprise.
  6. Deltaboy

    Deltaboy Well-Known Member

    Callie gone Communist.
  7. MAKster

    MAKster Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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?

    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.) .

  9. TNBilly

    TNBilly Well-Known Member

    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!
  10. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    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
  11. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Well-Known Member

    My cousin in cali posted something about the numbers
    there are 33 of them
    they get about 2-3000 a year...
  12. runnn

    runnn Member

    Bring on the confiscation I guess.
  13. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Well-Known Member

    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?"
  14. G.barnes

    G.barnes Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. gripper

    gripper Well-Known Member

    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!
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2013
  16. Akita1

    Akita1 Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2013
  17. gripper

    gripper Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. Akita1

    Akita1 Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. gripper

    gripper Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Akita1

    Akita1 Well-Known Member

    Come down South brother; perhaps a bit friendlier here? Still think you guys have the BEST state motto though...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page