Mel Gibson 'ordered to give up guns'

digitalspy ^ | 12 Nov 2010 | Jennifer Sill

[smokingfrog]

Mel Gibson has been ordered to surrender multiple guns to the Los Angeles Police Department, it has been revealed.

According to a document obtained by TMZ entitled "Receipt for Property Taken Into Custody", Judge Scott Gordon forced the actor to turn in seven different firearms following a domestic violence claim by ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva.

He is said to have been in possession of items including "a blue steel, semi-automatic 9 millimetre Glock handgun, a blue steel, semi-automatic 9 millimetre Beretta handgun, a blue steel, semi-automatic 12 gauge Benelli shotgun, a blue steel, lever action Winchester rifle" and several magazines and speed loaders for the weapons.

[sport]

He can forget about them, if he hasn’t already.

[sport]

Right after”Sepreation of Church and State”. Just before a “woman’s right to an abortion”. It is in the fine print.

[The Comedian]

Why the hell is the police releasing this information? This is a massive violation of privacy, to say nothing of the Second Amendment.

Yeah, no kidding. And on what grounds can police order a non-felon to give up anything?

Sounds like Mel could use the assistance of some local Tea Party types.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[IMR 4350]

“Better to keep all of your handguns in one caliber”

Not even maybe.

Variety is the spice of life.

[freedomwarrior998]

Nope... still don’t see the word “privacy”. Perhaps it is hiding within a “penumbra” or “emanation?”

[Walts Ice Pick]

Charlton Heston was no wimp. He would have told this judge to shove it:

"from my cold dead hands!"

[smokingfrog]

Chuck was no wife-beater either.

[MHGinTN]

Mel needs to get the heck out of leftafornia and move his fortune and businesses to a state more sane than where he is mired now.

[AvOrdVet]

Nope... still don’t see the word “privacy”. Perhaps it is hiding within a “penumbra” or “emanation?”

Yeah, whatever... The founders put the Constitution together with very simple and specific language so people with COMMON SENSE could understand it.

[freedomwarrior998]

Like with the word “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment?

[Eastbound]

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments pretty well cover what the government can do and to violate the right of privacy is not one of them. Their powers are enumerated.

Those not enumerated are retained by the people, particularly if it's an enumerated right, which the right to privacy is. The right to be secure in your home IS the right to privacy. I sense that you are not willing to learn, but only to argue for the sake of argument.

End of discussion.

[freedomwarrior998]

The Ninth Amendment does not grant any substantive rights. Further, there is nothing in either Amendment regarding a “right to privacy.”

[Eastbound]

"The Ninth Amendment does not grant any substantive rights. Further, there is nothing in either Amendment regarding a “right to privacy.”"

Jeez, lemme spell it out for you:

On second thought, forget it.

[Pontiac]

It would also be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

He has surrendered his firearms with out due process.

[freedomwarrior998]

When you get a J.D. then you can “spell out” things for me.

[Eastbound]

Will do. Meanwhile, it wouldn’t hurt for you to take a refresher course in Interpretation of Reading Materials. Your previous response to my reply was totally meaningless.

[Charles Martel]

And on what grounds can police order a non-felon to give up anything?

Under the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, A/K/A the "Lautenberg Amendment" to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Anyone convicted of a *misdemeanor* domestic violence charge (or under a restraining order for same prior to trial) can be made to hand over their firearms (though I believe simply removing the guns from the defendant's immediate control is sufficient). IOW, you can give them to a relative to store in their separate residence. IF you know what's coming and move the guns as soon as you make bail.

Horrible piece of legislation; blurring the line between misdemeanors and felonies is very slippery slope kind of stuff.

[freedomwarrior998]

Incorrect, thus you would do well to take your own advice.

[Eastbound]

Proof is there for all to see. Giving you the last word because you’re the type that demands it and you don’t deserve further comment from me, so why don’t you just end this with your final stupid remark?

[freedomwarrior998]

Fallacy. And if you actually believed the spew that you type, you wouldn’t have had a need to type that last response.

Great job!

You desperately want your interpretation and view of the Constitution to be right. You WANT a “right to privacy” to appear in the Constitution, even though it is quite clear that no such “right” exists. When someone calls you out on your faulty interpretation, you resort to logical fallacies as a smoke screen.

You fail.