Posted on 02/25/2018 7:52:26 AM PST by DoodleBob
...A broad, bald Tennessean, Richardson runs a six-person team of California Justice Department agents who are coming for your guns, but only if you no longer have the legal authority to own one in this state that has tightened firearm laws in increments over the years.
His division is the only law enforcement agency in the country assigned specifically to track down and take guns from felons, the mentally ill and others whose Second Amendment rights have been curtailed in court because of public safety concerns. That is, the people who even the National Rifle Association says should not have guns, a statement echoing in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The program makes California’s gun-control policy perhaps the most aggressive in the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I believe this is the official list of the mentioned approximately 37 qualifying misdemeanors. Of course, this list isn't too shocking but I'm reminded of this quote from Atlas Shrugged:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
I don’t see anyone on that list who I’d have a problem with having these guys go collect their guns. Note that most are obvious and most have indication it is occurring via a court order. I’d sure hate to have that job though. We need this in every state.
One of the few places that you’ll ever see the State of California use the proper words of “illegal alien”.
Johnny Cash “He shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”. I thought he was still in Folsom prison. Must’ve broke out.
Per the list guns are prohibited to
Sure their guns should be rounded up, but the individuals should be rounded up too.
At what point does the structure of such an organization with funding and budget begin to morph into a political tool?
At what point when the guns are confiscated does such a group begin to have to create a new greater need to exist? This is one of those initiatives which have an upside down outcome. The more they do their job well the less they are needed. That does not fit the profile of our modern government and it's club for growth?
The NRA supports prevention of these folks from possessing weapons.
In many cases that’s not Constitutional.
The list of misdemeanors is clearly a violation, and most would not survive a Federal Court challenge.
The key word in this article is “registered”. They are going after registered guns. It appears Kalifornia requires registration of hand guns and assault weapons.
I agree people with certain mental illnesses and only those convicted of felonies where guns were used or lives were endangered by another weapon type should not be allowed to have a gun.
In a way I’m happy progress is slow, meaning they do not have enough resources “yet” to go after all registered guns.
A prime target would be some war vet with PTSD that has never endangered the life of anyone, other than the enemy, being targeted by the lefties.
Seriously, why would California enforce the law against these people’s guns but not, you know, THEM!
Answer to both questions: registration.
Now, if registration can be used to track down these high-profile (and legitimate) targets, why can't it be used to harass and rob legitimate gun owners? Which is its inevitable goal.
So yes, some short-term benefit may arise from getting guns out of the hands of the people cited here. But once that door is opened a crack, it's just a matter of time before it's sprung wide and we're all targets.
“It appears Kalifornia requires registration of hand guns and assault weapons.”
And supposedly, if you decide to build a firearm, you have to “register it!”
Mission creep is inevitable. The task force’s mandate will expand as the polls broaden anti-2nd amendment laws.
Every home needs a soil line bypass section installed in the plumbing. Cast iron. Capped at both ends.
UNCONSTI-EFFING-TUTIONAL!.............There is no 'safety concerns' clause in the 2nd amendment............
I have to disagree. This is not something we can leave to “friends, neighbors, family, and clergy”. First, too many instances, such as Newtown, where Mom was complicit and died for it. What about the loner? Or, say, for example, the Texas church shooter? He killed the family and clergy. No, these people need to speak up yes, but if they haven’t taken the guns away, the state needs to do so.
That depends. Short story.
My brother and his wife got in an argument. She called the police and told them he threatened her. (Don’t know if it’s true or not since she is a big lib nut) They arrested him and confiscated all his guns. All of them legal. He goes to court on a ‘terrorist threat’ because that’s what they call them in California now. Judge decides he can’t have his guns back. Brother and wife split up and he moves to another town. About 1 year after the incident these guys pull up in a couple of black SUVs in front of his house and ask him very politely if he has any guns. He says no, the judge took them all. They shoot the breeze for a few minutes and then leave even though they could have legally searched his house. Ex wife now says she’s sorry and hires a lawyer who gets them back into court so she can recant and apologize. Judge takes away the injunction and he can have his guns back now.
Took about 2 1/2 years and lots of money for attorneys for the whole thing.
Somebody needs to beat the Chicago Mayor and IL Governor over the head with this article and ask why they haven’t been doing this for decades.
(the answer is because they profit from the Mob/gang/crime relationship)
It's called a court order enforced.
But realize the first shmuck who's wife claims abuse, real or not, the right to the second amendment is now null and void.
I sure hope you never make enemies with a neighbor? One who is anti second amendment and claims you threatened him or her?
If there is a felony conviction, the conviction should include the transfer of guns to an estate attorney for temporary or permanent disposition to a lawful recipient of choice. The arms should not be surrendered to the state!
Strongly disagree. Yes the mother of Adam Lanza was grossly irresponsible and her prize was three shots to the head. But the father was worse. Just kept shoveling her $14k a month (IIRC) and took no responsibility for the consequences. If you are a male, in that position, you must stand up and take responsibility. No ifs ands or buts.
“They shoot the breeze for a few minutes and then leave even though they could have legally searched his house.”
If he was not on probation or parole, they could not enter his house without permission.
They could not have searched against his will, as you state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.