Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
No, this isn't something fake and exaggerated that popped up from some fringe, wingnut website.
Big Brother - the PC Edition
Big Brother - the PC Edition
On Jan 1, 2016, CA Police Can Seize Guns From Law-Abiding Citizens Not Charged With A Crime
- Thread starter Rey C.
- Start date
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
But since "there is no requirement for law enforcement officers or mental health workers to meet with the gun owner prior to the issuance of the restraining order", can you explain to me just how this determination will be made?
A "potential criminal"... interesting terminology, in that it pretty much covers most of the human population. Where have I heard similar logic and reasoning? Ah yes, I believe it was Catharine MacKinnon, who proclaimed that all men are potential rapists, so incarcerating any man based on any charge of sexual misconduct was perfectly acceptable. And similar to this situation, the police could become the weapons of people with grudges or axes to grind against an innocent person. This is why I support a system of just laws, and not kangaroo courts backed up by ad hoc laws. But that's not where we are going. I know that. I accept that. And I am sorry.
The Republic and the Constitution are dying a slow, miserable death. May God help us all.
A "potential criminal"... interesting terminology, in that it pretty much covers most of the human population. Where have I heard similar logic and reasoning? Ah yes, I believe it was Catharine MacKinnon, who proclaimed that all men are potential rapists, so incarcerating any man based on any charge of sexual misconduct was perfectly acceptable. And similar to this situation, the police could become the weapons of people with grudges or axes to grind against an innocent person. This is why I support a system of just laws, and not kangaroo courts backed up by ad hoc laws. But that's not where we are going. I know that. I accept that. And I am sorry.
The Republic and the Constitution are dying a slow, miserable death. May God help us all.
You think police would just seize someone's guns just because a neighbur reported that they could be suspicious ? Off course not. And even if they do, they would do some investigation and restore the guns after they found the person poses no threat at all.
Now, tell me what's worst ?
A) Someone' report that his neighbour might be preparing a mass shooting, police get there, seize the guns, do some backgound research, have the persons physcholigicaly examined and the restore the guns a few weeks after if they found nothing
OR
B) Someone reports that his neighbour migh be preparing a mass shooting, police starts some background checks but the persons kills a dozen of people before police investigations could find that that person was indeed up to no good...
Now, tell me what's worst ?
A) Someone' report that his neighbour might be preparing a mass shooting, police get there, seize the guns, do some backgound research, have the persons physcholigicaly examined and the restore the guns a few weeks after if they found nothing
OR
B) Someone reports that his neighbour migh be preparing a mass shooting, police starts some background checks but the persons kills a dozen of people before police investigations could find that that person was indeed up to no good...
There is no God
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I'm stating how the law is written, not how you wish it was written. And yes, among other things, the suspicions of a neighbor could very well factor into their decision since (again) "there is no requirement for law enforcement officers or mental health workers to meet with the gun owner prior to the issuance of the restraining order".
Right. Because we all know that the only way to buy a gun is to go to a gun shop and submit to a background check. If someone is planning a criminal act, do you not understand that words on a piece of paper mean nothing to that person? Seriously. How do you think gang members, with more felony convictions than sharks have teeth, are able to secure firearms? Do you not know that in the United States, it is already strictly prohibited for such persons to own or possess firearms... or even a single round of ammunition? And yet (fake shock), these people break the law! :eek:
As I've said many, many times, although I am greatly in favor of efforts to reduce violent crime, including firearms violence, poorly written and constructed laws, dreamed up by people who have ulterior motives, aren't worth a damn.
Your opinion is noted.
The police in the USA can seize any property they want with no explanation, it's called civil forfeiture.
The biggest political fight in your countrys history has been over whether poor people should be able to see a doctor. Another pretty big one is whether US citizens should be allowed to get married if they're homosexual. Over half of your school aged children are living in poverty. Police are killing people with impunity and rolling through the streets in armored military vehicles. Celebrity culture. Crumbling infrastructure. Massive national debt. Crippled, ineffective government. The list goes on.
But THIS is the thing that worries you? Everything was fine until this one thing happened? No wonder your country is so fucked up.
The property owners can retrieve their property by disclosing how they acquired it. Most people that obtain property legally have no problem doing this and one other thing, civil forfeiture has rarely been used against people that are not engaged in criminal activity. In fact, I cannot think of one instance that it has been exercised against someone that was charged with a crime and ultimately found not guilty..
This California law will not make it past the Summer SCOTUS session.
Classic anti-gun control law ; Guns laws are useless since criminals break these laws so let's not have gun laws.
Then, since thives steal things even if stealing is illegal, what's the point of having laws against thieves ? Let's make stealing legal. Pedophiles rape kids even thought pedophilia is illegal so let's make it legal. Murder is illegal but murderers still murder people so let's make murder legal...
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Let the lawsuits begin! :yoda:
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Sounds to me like a good way to push a frustrated person into a dangerous corner. All I see coming from this is more violence and bodies. I also wouldn't put it past them to be counting on exactly that, to happen.
This is a disturbing law nonetheless. I guess you've never heard of judge shopping.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
You've been here longer than I have, though you may not have read or understood some of my past posts, so if you believe that THIS is the only thing that worries me, you are sadly mistaken. I don't post in this child's playground as much as I used to. But I've posted on a fairly broad array of topics, including civil rights, crime, poverty, health care, financial market reform, etc., in the past. If you'd prefer to make a point about these other topics, create a thread. If I have the time and desire, I'll address the topic. But for now, this is the topic at hand. Understood?
I consider this measure to be within the same realm as civil asset forfeiture laws, which I have also long opposed. Some, though not all, civil asset forfeiture laws provide a mechanism for legal relief. This California law does not. I have an issue with that.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
As with many of the other feel good, populist measures that are cobbled together by political hacks, this one seems to lack the one thing that a good law should focus on: effectiveness. If law enforcement truly believes that someone poses a threat to public safety, you believe that simply removing guns from the residence, and then sending him back out into the community, is all that needs to be done? Really? Seriously?!
And again, I have not and have never said that gun laws (all) are useless. If you can find a post anywhere on this site where I have said that, link it here and I'll buy you two round-trip tickets to anywhere in the world for a vacation. Real deal. But I don't buy tickets based on false claims and childish hyperbole. Sorry. Well thought out measures, which address the root cause(s), will always be more effective than these naive, fantasy measures, that baby-step around the actual problem.
But as I said before, we live in a new (age) time now. So if these nanny state measures make you feel good, feel safe, feel warm inside... then more power to you.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Then it seems that this law is rather superfluous. But in truth, arrest warrants and 5150 holds provide the accused with a day in court. The 5150, depending on the state, expires after a certain number of hours (72, I believe it is, in my state) and then the person is taken for a hearing.
My concern here is the precedent that is being set. As I read the summation of this law, it's set up so that a person wouldn't have to face charges or even be subjected to a psychological assessment... ever. All of that could be bypassed and the order could simply be renewed annually. If they were convicted of a crime or were found to be mentally ill, in most states, that in itself would prohibit them from legally owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition. As a temporary measure, I still have some issues with it, though I believe that if it was better written, those civil liberty concerns could be addressed. But because of its rolling, perpetual nature, I have a massive problem with this. The opportunity for abuse is simply too great - no different than the law signed by Reagan in the 80's, which gave the state the power to seize private property (real estate) if drug transactions occurred on property belonging to a landlord or hotel owner. How reasonable was that? Have you ever submitted to a background check when checking into a hotel? Have you ever been asked if you were a drug dealer when checking into the Marriott? Neither have I. So that law was also easy to abuse, and it was abused.
My belief is that at some point, every American citizen deserves a day in court if the state seizes legally owned private property from them. I don't care if it's a house, a car, a stack of cash... or a gun. And the onus should be on the state to prove its case.
