CA DOJ visited me tonight

[gbran]

I'm in California and 3 agents from DOJ knocked on my door tonight looking to take guns owned by my son, who recently got a restraining order in his divorce. He doesn't live with me but gets mail here.

As soon as he got his restraining order, I transfered all his guns into my name on official DOJ forms. The s/n number was incorrect on two of the handguns and the transfer was messed up to the point these two guns were listed in his name still. The agents inspected the guns and s/n numbers, were logged incorrectly....... on one of the guns an I was used in place of a 1, on the other I had sent the wrong number, but upon inspection, the correct number was on the gun. It was a Makerov.

Long story short........ they didn't take any guns and said they would fix the DOJ database for me.

CA has recently approprisated $millions to hunt down people who have become prohibited gun owners.

 

[Oceanbob]

You were lucky. Those roaming Task Forces that work for CDOJ are all over, everynight here in Southern California.

They are doing a brisk business checking not only divorce restraining orders, but people arrested in 1976 for having an argument with their girl-friend; the police come, arrest the young man; he pleads out (not a Felony) because he's 19 and doesn't have money for an attorney. No time, just informal probation that drops off after a couple of years. 38 years go by, the young man in an adult, maybe a grandpa. The CDOJ is now knocking on his door and taking his guns. He had a lifetime ban and didn't know it...

One thing noted in the Newspaper reports of these Task Forces....they don't have a warrant. They rely on people to just let them in and open the Gun Safe. No kidding.

Be careful out there.

 

[splithoof]

What county did this happen in?

 

[kwguy]

Scary.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Scary.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that the people who would be losing their guns are legally prohibited, under either state law or federal law, from possessing a gun, and possession of a gun by them 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, persons who violate them risk losing their guns (and perhaps arrest and jail).

 

[kwguy]

Newspaper reports of these Task Forces....they don't have a warrant. They rely on people to just let them in and open the Gun Safe. No kidding.

That's the part I find scary.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

Insane. Wonder why they don't hunt criminals like that or deadbeat dads and such... Oh yeah, because gun owners are much worse... I truly hope this isn't our nations future.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Just proof that firearms registration works, some of the time anyway. It provides a means to aid the government in confiscating firearms.

Nowhere in the above statement did I say registration was a good thing. I am only stating that this proves that firearms registration works to aid the government in confiscating firearms.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I've just been pondering the point that many domestic violence laws,(the way they are worded varies from state to state), violate equal treatment under the law because they discriminate against a person by marital or family status. A person NOT related or living with another is charged with a crime resulting from an identical act (let's say simple assault), and receives a lesser penalty (no automatic loss of gun rights) than persons RELATED OR LIVING TOGETHER. This is clearly some kind of discrimination, and the domestic violence laws could be challenged under "discrimination by marital status", etc. Seems stupid that a street thug WON"T lose his gun rights for assault but your family member, living in close proximity and subject to WAY more stress in a situation, pays a higher price for his/her acts than a person who assaults from a less provoked situation.

 

[HexHead]

You let them in without a warrant?

 

[lemaymiami]

The body of law concerning domestic violence issues is growing (understatement) as legislatures react to whatever the latest atrocity is in one state or other... Along with it comes the confiscation of weapons by well meaning authoriities. As Mr. Ettin noted, do something about the laws in your state if you disagree with them....

Closer to home, my only son has had a series of domestic problems resulting in divorce and then dangerous child custody issues (his ex-wife has serious emotional issues and is currently being looked at for child abuse incidents). We long ago counselled him to remove weapons and take other precautions to preclude any on the spot weapons confiscation when officers are called out to his residence. These are serious issues for anyone confronted with them. He's currently the single parent of three small kids as a result...

When I was in police work the first item on my list when dealing with officers who had domestic problems was to advise them to remove any weapons from their house until the situation cleared up. Rarely does anything good come of these kind of troubles...

 

[MErl]

So what exactly is the legal requirement to get a restraining order on somebody? Lets go with CA since OP is there.

It seems that any divorce that gets a little messy ends up involving one.

My point being that if someone can just make a statement and suddenly you are prohibited there is a big problem.

 

[Midwest]

So what exactly is the legal requirement to get a restraining order on somebody? Lets go with CA since OP is there.

It seems that any divorce that gets a little messy ends up involving one.

My point being that if someone can just make a statement and suddenly you are prohibited there is a big problem.

Imagine if the person makes his livelihood selling firearms as an FFL. Now not only they can't have firearms, they now lose their firearms business and a resultant loss of income.

 

[gbran]

BTW, I'm in Kern County, the agents were DOJ, Division of Law Enforcement, Buerau of Firearms out of Fresno. While I have a problem with there being far too many restraining orders in divorces (atty's often file as std practice), This task force doesn't and can't know whether the now prohibited firearms owners are dangerous or not.

 

[jrhyne]

I'm in California and 3 agents from DOJ knocked on my door tonight looking to take guns owned by my son...

Well, at least they knocked!

 

[razorback2003]

The smart thing would be to just get an attorney and let the attorney deal with the situation. Why would you give up your guns without seeking legal counsel? I guess this is a case of people not knowing their own rights.

 

[MErl]

The smart thing would be to just get an attorney and let the attorney deal with the situation. Why would you give up your guns without seeking legal counsel? I guess this is a case of people not knowing their own rights.

There was a divorce ongoing which resulted in a restraining order. One hopes OP's son already has a lawyer.

The issue I see here is that the order was issued. Legally he cannot possess guns at that instant. A lawyer would probably tell him to do exactly what he did, transfer them to someone else.

So now he must fight the restraining order as well as the divorce. Can one even contest such an order or are you expected to just comply?

 

[Yo Mama]

That's the part I find scary.

Why? Just don't let them in. Simple.

 

[Onward Allusion]

#1 - DV laws are out of control and are usually one way streets.

#2 - RO's are too easy to falsify. Caller ID's & Emails are too damn easy to spoof. A claim by a soon-to-be ex's corroborated by the STBX's best friend will have the other party screwed.

#3 - You should NOT have let them in without a warrant.

 

[9w1911]

they have to find was to get our guns, first it will be like examples above then it will be something else in the future, when it comes to deadbeat dads they don't care because once in the system they are easily processed unlike a law abiding citizen. So they have to concoct legal ways to take weapons from citizens who obey the law.

 

[Thermactor]

I'll never go back until there's a regime change in CA, which won't happen in my lifetime.... happy to deal with seasons in the midwest and still have my freedom.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...they have to concoct legal ways to take weapons from citizens who obey the law.

No. Actually the people the authorities are taking the guns from aren't obeying the law. They are under the law prohibited from possessing a gun and thus violate the law by possessing a gun.

You might think the law is wrong, but while it is the law, those folks are violating it.

 

[ole farmerbuck]

Can one even contest such an order or are you expected to just comply?


I had one on me during out divorce until the X shoved the cop. He told her the order is now off!

 

[Jim K]

During the investigation of the Beltway sniper in MD, Montgomery County police seized every AR-15 they could find ("assault rifles" are registered in MD, soon they will be banned from sale in the state). Most were returned after being checked out, or at least were supposed to be. But the police worked a neat scam. They would go to a home in the daytime, while the man was probably at work, and ask about the gun. If the woman produced the gun, an officer, usually another woman, would tell her how evil those guns are, that they are criminal guns, ask why the man could possibly want one, etc. Then came the deal - if the woman just signed this paper to surrender the gun, the police would take it away and no one would get in trouble. Since MD is a community property state, it was all legal.

Jim

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if the woman just signed this paper to surrender the gun, the police would take it away and no one would get in trouble. Since MD is a community property state, it was all legal...

Cute scam, but as a point of clarification, Maryland isn't a community property State. There are nine community property States: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.