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

Skip to comments.

California seizes 1200 illegally owned guns
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 17, 2011 | Don Thompson

Posted on 06/17/2011 11:57:33 AM PDT by driftdiver

California law enforcement agents have seized 1,200 firearms from people who cannot legally own them because of mental illness or restraining orders.

However, Attorney General Kamala Harris said Thursday that more than 34,000 handguns and nearly 1,600 assault weapons are still believed to be held statewide by people who should not have them.

Most people bought the weapons legally but were later prohibited from owning guns.

But 12 people were arrested on suspicion of illegally owning assault weapons or grenades during a six-week sweep by the state Department of Justice in April and May.

Harris said 90 percent of the people who had guns seized were barred from owning weapons because of mental illness and 10 percent because of restraining orders or convictions usually related to domestic violence.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; california; homosexualagenda; india; jerrybrown; kamalaharris; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; neelkashkari; prop8; rongold; timdonnelly
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: Domangart

If your firearms are taken away it won’t be a secret to the local thugs, either.


41 posted on 06/17/2011 1:14:36 PM PDT by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Yep. A close family member’s wife filed charges against him saying he threatened to beat her up. He was prosecuted. The wife went in and said ‘hey, I made it up cause I was mad’. The judge excused the case but an order against him possessing weapons had already been made and passed onto the feds. He had the judge in the case vacate the whole thing so he could get his weapons back. The feds in their black SUV showed up at his house to check and make sure he still didn’t have his weapons. He told them the judge vacated it and they essentially said....we don’t care, doesn’t matter.
As far as the feds are concerned he cannot have a weapon in his house for 10 yrs from the date the order was made.
I better check and make sure he wasn’t one of the ones arrested. lol


42 posted on 06/17/2011 1:14:55 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Let me guess, they picked the easy, low-hanging fruit, people technically not supposed to own guns, but not all that likely to harm anyone with them.

I seriously doubt they went into the “hood” or the “barrio” to seize guns from the gang bangers who are very likely to use them.


43 posted on 06/17/2011 1:45:04 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

They’re not illegal, they’re just “undocumented.”


44 posted on 06/17/2011 1:46:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Why is it that legal guns are illegal but illegal aliens are not?..............


45 posted on 06/17/2011 1:56:36 PM PDT by Red Badger (Nothing is a 'right' if someone has to give it to you................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Fresh Wind

Technically they are not ‘owned’ by the thief, or whoever, but are in their ‘possession’, hence ‘possession of stolen property’...........


46 posted on 06/17/2011 2:01:06 PM PDT by Red Badger (Nothing is a 'right' if someone has to give it to you................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Indeed. Or a noisy neighbor that claims your repeated attempts to quiet them are harassment..........


47 posted on 06/17/2011 2:03:18 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
California seizes 1200 "illegally" owned guns

Well, assuming the laws making it "illegal" to own those guns pass muster themselves, and the safest assumption is that they do not. Safe both for statistical reasons (how many reasonable gun laws consistent with IIA have you seen?) and in terms of the Goldwater test (does the pro-rights or pro-state assumption work out worse if you guess wrong).

48 posted on 06/17/2011 2:04:03 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
They’re not illegal, they’re just “undocumented.”

Doing the jobs American guns with birth certificates won't do!

49 posted on 06/17/2011 2:09:43 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

“”Harris said 90 percent of the people who had guns seized were barred from owning weapons because of mental illness”

And what qualifies as “mental illness” such that 30 thousand people had cops show up at their doors demanding their guns? They obtained a Rx for anti-depressants? That sounds like a lot of civil committment orders if that’s what they base it on. Or are Doctors turning in their patients? Is this why doctors in lib states are asking patients if they own guns?”

I Lost a lot of respect for my doctor and doctors in general the first time they asked that question.

Frankly its none of their business what I own. A gun infinitely less an active health threat then a car. And probably a tiny fraction of the threat of many of the other things in your home.

Simply put unless you got shot a its none of a doctors business.


50 posted on 06/17/2011 2:23:44 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Actually unless you are in the home it still none of the doctors business.


51 posted on 06/17/2011 2:46:04 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

The massive perils of gun registration. Gun confiscating Big Brother will always know who and where you are.


52 posted on 06/17/2011 2:47:36 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
And what qualifies as "mental illness"?

It's whatever they say it is. The Soviets had that down to a fine art.

53 posted on 06/17/2011 2:49:07 PM PDT by Noumenon ("One man with courage is a majority." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Meanwhile the gangbangers who routinely murder people get a pass.


54 posted on 06/17/2011 3:00:30 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Mental illness is defined, by the BATF, as involuntary commitment to a mental facility. Any court order thereof is an involuntary commitment. It also would include involuntary commitment to drug treatment centers.


55 posted on 06/17/2011 3:03:43 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them. -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
And what qualifies as "mental illness" such that 30 thousand people had cops show up at their doors demanding their guns? They obtained a Rx for anti-depressants?

No.

From the FBI website:

■ A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

56 posted on 06/17/2011 3:06:57 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them. -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
It's whatever they say it is.

You are correct, but the definition at this point in time is "■ A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial."

57 posted on 06/17/2011 3:08:04 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them. -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh; driftdiver

Please see my citations before going to the wrong assumptions, guys.


58 posted on 06/17/2011 3:09:14 PM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them. -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

And easily amended to, “...as well as anyone who disagrees with us.”


59 posted on 06/17/2011 3:16:09 PM PDT by Noumenon ("One man with courage is a majority." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We know you're crazy, Laz. That's why we love you. ;-).

I'd hope the authorities were able to properly distinguish between clearly dangerous people, and others who are simply eccentric or momentarily dispossessed of their better natures, but as to the State's ability to do so effectively, I respectfully remain a skeptic.

60 posted on 06/17/2011 3:45:00 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next 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