Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson 'ordered to give up guns'
digitalspy ^ | 12 Nov 2010 | Jennifer Sill

Posted on 11/12/2010 7:48:50 PM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at digitalspy.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; oksanagrigorieva
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last
To: Revel

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


81 posted on 11/13/2010 6:00:03 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

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


82 posted on 11/13/2010 6:12:52 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
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.

83 posted on 11/13/2010 6:14:59 AM PST by The Comedian (Time and tide wait for no man. But who needs a bad magazine and cheap soap?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

Not even maybe.

Variety is the spice of life.

84 posted on 11/13/2010 6:29:48 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AvOrdVet

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


85 posted on 11/13/2010 8:56:18 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

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

"from my cold dead hands!"

86 posted on 11/13/2010 9:12:04 AM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

Chuck was no wife-beater either.


87 posted on 11/13/2010 9:14:12 AM PST by smokingfrog (Because you don't live near a bakery doesn't mean you have to go without cheesecake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

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.


88 posted on 11/13/2010 9:14:44 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
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.

89 posted on 11/13/2010 12:45:49 PM PST by AvOrdVet ("Put the wagons in a circle for all the good it'll do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AvOrdVet

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


90 posted on 11/13/2010 1:00:46 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
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.

91 posted on 11/13/2010 1:39:06 PM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

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


92 posted on 11/13/2010 2:25:20 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
"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.

93 posted on 11/13/2010 2:35:58 PM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
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.

94 posted on 11/13/2010 2:56:48 PM PST by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

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


95 posted on 11/13/2010 6:06:24 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

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.


96 posted on 11/14/2010 9:22:19 AM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
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.

97 posted on 11/14/2010 10:45:16 AM PST by Charles Martel ("Endeavor to persevere...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

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


98 posted on 11/14/2010 1:03:43 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

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?


99 posted on 11/14/2010 8:30:56 PM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

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.


100 posted on 11/15/2010 6:05:27 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson