California seizing guns? Bogus or true?

[KMatch]

This popped up in a facebook link and looks bogus to me, and a look around THR I didn't see anything. Is there any truth to this? http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/why-is-california-seizing-legally-purchased-guns.html

California is taking the unprecedented and extreme measure of confiscating legally-owned guns. More than 20,000 people who purchased their guns legally had them confiscated after they were suddenly classified as “prohibited persons” from owning a weapon. California Gov. Jerry Brown authorized a $24 million budget for hiring additional officers to help with the crackdown.

 

[MErl]

Been going on for a while. Laws get passed that change peoples status to prohibited or a restraining order or something. Since CA has a registry they can and do cross check the two lists.
All perfectly legal until thy get the wrong person.

 

[ChaoSS]

It's the APPS cops, the Armed Prohibited Persons System.

I'm not sure about back taxes and tickets. But yes, they are going door to door and confiscating weapons from people who are now prohibited persons, and yes, California has an ever expanding list of what is a prohibited person.

Although technically, no, they aren't confiscating legally owned guns. It's legally purchased guns, by people who are no longer "qualified" to own them.

 

[hso]

California is taking the unprecedented and extreme measure of confiscating legally-owned guns.

Not true.

When you become a prohibited person in CA, like anywhere in the country, you no longer can legally own guns so they're not confiscating legally-owned guns (BTW, California is just going to the trouble actively do this and most don't).

The issue here is that because CA requires registration and because they have decided to now search the various databases on citizens of CA for any reason they have become prohibited persons AND because they're spending the time and money to implement a new program to confiscate any guns prohibited persons possess we see a large number of people having those taken without any compensation.

On the other side of the coin, if you become a prohibited person and don't get your firearms into the hands of someone else legally you're subject to this anywhere in the country. The problem is that you may not know you've become a prohibited person.

 

[carbine85]

This sounds like a good argument for opposing any gun registration.

 

[hso]

Yep

This is the perfect example to point out to people who say registration doesn't lead to confiscation.

You can become a prohibited person for such a wide range of reasons, some of which are not even following due process, that such efforts can be far wider reaching than all but the shiniest of us would have believed.

 

[danez71]

But the flip side is that 'we' are always saying 'they' should enforce the laws are ready on the books.

That's what CA is doing. And I don't really have a problem with that.

What I do have an issue with is what crimes cause you to become a prohibited person.

 

[Outlaw Man]

I agree they should enforce the laws already on the books....rather than making new ones. Ultimately, though, the laws should be repealed and restrictions should be loosened.

This just proves that "enforcing the laws already on the books" isn't always the BEST answer.

 

[dastardly-D]

Prohibit !

So California is going to budget $24,000,000 to catch prohibited people from having guns , and at the same time how much are they spending and actually catching of all those millions of prohibited/illegals they have running around their state ? Those guns that were actually paid for by legal citizens should be legally re-reimbursed to those people that actually paid for them . If the ''prohibited'' were in jail , his house and other belongings wouldn't be taken from him or his family. What makes a gun the exception to the rules or laws ? .....

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I agree with danez71.
My only problem is some of the things that a lot of non-violent offenses get you on the list.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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).

 

[grubbylabs]

Just another of the many reasons I am glad to have left California. They are not going to be happy until they have legislated guns out of the state.

 

[ChaoSS]

But the flip side is that 'we' are always saying 'they' should enforce the laws are ready on the books.

That's what CA is doing. And I don't really have a problem with that.

What I do have an issue with is what crimes cause you to become a prohibited person.

Keep in mind that by and large, they are going after soft targets, and not after the real criminals. When you have a very large net of prohibited persons, you can selectively pick out the safe targets.

So yes, they are just enforcing the law, but not in a very good way, not in a way that is likely to catch the dangerous people.

Heavy covert surveillance, or some sort of mobile shot spotter system, could have them rounding up hundreds of illegally purchased firearms in neighborhoods like mine on days like the 4th of July or New Years Eve. Instead, the police wait until the shooting is over and then drive through the neighborhood to let everyone know the fun and games are over, and don't make any arrests.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Kind of makes me wonder about all those folks in Marijuana Legal States that have some kind of prescription AND own guns.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Just another of the many reasons I am glad to have left California. They are not going to be happy until they have legislated legal guns out of the state.

Fixed that for you.

 

[danez71]

Keep in mind that by and large, they are going after soft targets, and not after the real criminals. When you have a very large net of prohibited persons, you can selectively pick out the safe targets.

So yes, they are just enforcing the law, but not in a very good way, not in a way that is likely to catch the dangerous people.

Heavy covert surveillance, or some sort of mobile shot spotter system, could have them rounding up hundreds of illegally purchased firearms in neighborhoods like mine on days like the 4th of July or New Years Eve. Instead, the police wait until the shooting is over and then drive through the neighborhood to let everyone know the fun and games are over, and don't make any arrests.

I'll pretty much agree with that.

Kind of makes me wonder about all those folks in Marijuana Legal States that have some kind of prescription AND own guns.

For now... the states are ignoring that its classified as a Schedule 1 drup and the Fed expressly prohibit the combo.

But the Feds could easily tell CA (and those other states) "Give us that list and that list" and enforce it themselves under Federal law.

Frank has nailed it though (per usual).

 

[fastbolt]

A significant number of the people from whom these firearms and ammunition are being seized are the very people that responsible gun owners would also agree shouldn't own, possess or control guns & ammunition. State and federal laws are involved, as has been previously mentioned.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?id=9256473

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/01/29/35796/gun-control-all-agree-start-seizing-guns-people-le/

http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releas...nnounces-more-2000-firearms-seized-prohibited

http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releas...s-applauds-governors-signature-bill-take-more

Having been involved in such a program prior to my retirement, I don't see this as some gov conspiracy intent on depriving lawful gun owners of their property.

 

[ChaoSS]

Danez71, I don't believe there is a list or MM users. I could be wrong. But it's a prescription, not a license, at least in theory.


Fastbolt, you are technically correct. It isn't a government conspiracy intent on depriving lawful gun owners of their property. It is, however, a government conspiracy intent on making more and more gun owners "unlawful" and then depriving them of their property, while ignoring the big problems.

 

[danez71]

ChaoSS, I guess youre right.

But the Fed could seize customer lists when they raid the shops and then tell CA to give them the handgun list (and soon to be rifle list)

Where are you at BTW? You could PM if you want.

 

[alsaqr]

AND because they're spending the time and money to implement a new program to confiscate any guns prohibited persons possess we see a large number of people having those taken without any compensation.

It is not a new program; CA has been doing this for years. APPS recently hired about 25 new officers.

BTW: They cross check five databases.

 

[Midwest]

California is not the only state doing this, Illinois is too.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/28/sheriffs-team-working-to-seize-guns-from-thousands-in-illinois/


"An Illinois sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the Chicago suburbs in an effort to seize guns from thousands of people whose right to own a firearm has been revoked, the Chicago Sun-Times reports. According to the paper, more than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked Firearm Owners Identification Card, or FOID, which is required to legally buy guns or ammunition."

 

[ChaoSS]

ChaoSS, I guess youre right.

But the Fed could seize customer lists when they raid the shops and then tell CA to give them the handgun list (and soon to be rifle list)

Where are you at BTW? You could PM if you want.

I'm in California.

I wonder if the courts would hold up that sort of thing. I mean, it would be illegal to do so, but I suppose that someone could say that they bought the MJ for someone else...


The feds and the states need to get this issue worked out. It's getting tiresome. I thought that the whole point of the 10th amendment was to separate the powers of the feds and the states. These days that would mean that states would have zero power, of course, but it would be interesting to see the fallout of the courts forcing the government to return to that . Either the feds would have to give up some power, or the states would force it to. Even California, I'd think. Anyway, that's a bit off topic, but there's getting to be too many conflicts between state sovereignty and federal power, and it's bleeding over into gun issues, so maybe it's not so off topic.

 

[Twiki357]

The whole procedure in California should be illegal. The problem is that the scumbags in the CA legislature keeps changing the laws that result in what were legal gun owners suddenly becoming prohibited. Not because of anything they did, but because the new/revised laws now make them prohibited. What may have been a miner misdemeanor at the time has suddenly become punishable by a year in prison or has been reclassified as a felony. CA goes back and reclassifies prior convictions, frequently where someone has just pleaded guilty to a miner offence to pay a fine and walk away and the offence now has been reclassified and they are now a prohibited person.

As other have said, it’s the CA liberals way of trying to eliminate private ownership of firearms in the state.

 

[MarkDido]

It's the APPS cops, the Armed Prohibited Persons System.

I'm not sure about back taxes and tickets. But yes, they are going door to door and confiscating weapons from people who are now prohibited persons, and yes, California has an ever expanding list of what is a prohibited person.

And yet, CA can't locate several million illegals.....

 

[danez71]

I'm in California.

.

LOL... I knew that... I meant where in Ca,

I agree with your other stuff too. Its spilling of in other areas too and with more state legalizing it for Medical and also recreational, its going to come to head at some point.

Only time will tell...... yawn.