Quantcast
  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. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,223
    Location:
    New Jersey
    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.
     
  2. fastbolt

    fastbolt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,668
    Location:
    Within the lightning
    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:
     
  3. Vector

    Vector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    675
    Location:
    USA
    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.


    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.


    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?

    `
     
  4. Millwright

    Millwright Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    396
    Location:
    New Jersey
    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
     
  5. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,820
    Location:
    northern california
    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

    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.
     
  6. Insp Evans

    Insp Evans Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    24
  7. ScrapMetalSlug

    ScrapMetalSlug Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Bluegrass state
    Xxplosive, you do know the Duffel Blog is a fake military news site like the Onion, right?
     
  8. TNBilly

    TNBilly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    "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.
     
  9. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    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.
     
  10. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    374
    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.
     
  11. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,193
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    *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!
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  12. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,193
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    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.
     
  13. Vector

    Vector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    675
    Location:
    USA
    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.

    `
     
  14. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,820
    Location:
    northern california
    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
     
  15. Vector

    Vector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    675
    Location:
    USA
    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.

    `


    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?

    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?

    `
     
  16. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,095
    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:

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  17. gunnutery

    gunnutery Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Iowa
    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?
     
  18. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,820
    Location:
    northern california
    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 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

    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

    I'm pretty sure the Domestic Violence conviction prohibition against firearms possession is consistent across most states
     
  19. Vector

    Vector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    675
    Location:
    USA
    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.

    `
     
  20. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,585
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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.
     
  21. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,820
    Location:
    northern california
    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
     
  22. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,193
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    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/... USC):CITE AND (USC w/10 (922)):CITE
     
  23. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    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.
     
  24. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,095
    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.

    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:
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  25. Vector

    Vector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    675
    Location:
    USA
    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?

    `
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page