Posted on 03/13/2013 9:46:13 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who'd recently spent two days in a mental hospital.
They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.
California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.
(Excerpt) Read more at santacruzsentinel.com ...
Coming to a Theater of Operations near you - anyone who wants to own a gun or believes in the US Constitution must be crazy and they need to take his gun(s)...
They want us dependent. We're easier to control that way.
I just don't think...
Probably should have stopped right there. This isn't about helping people, this isn't about punishing criminal actors... This is about CONTROL and stripping us of our Rights.
Period.
I started shooting when I was 7. My 5 year old Son has already fired his first firearm. My 9 year old Daughter is helping me customize her first AR-15.
Your hoplophobic talking points could come directly from a Brady Campaign talking points memo.
Take your concern troll crap elsewhere.
I started mine at nine. I'd bet it's not his firearm.
Your hoplophobic talking points could come directly from a Brady Campaign talking points memo.
Nonsense. The standards I proposed are the same as for putting people in prison. Unless you are advocating allowing prisoners to keep and bear arms, you are being inconsistent.
time to start shooting the bastards
Actually, I rebuilt that Mossberg .22 specifically for him. It's his. Same for the AR for my Daughter. The .357 I first fired is sitting in a pistol case in my closet at home...
The standards I proposed...
Have no basis in our Nations history and are not germane to the lead article. So far, the only thing you've done on this thread is try to provide cover for these illegal actions by California "law" enforcement and to throw up strawmen.
No, he’s right, shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. Who decides who is unfit or not, can you guarantee the jury is of sound people of sound mind and straight and true conservatives and not stacked the other way? He’s right, it’s a slippery slope.
Even if a criminal is out of jail, I say let them own guns, if we can’t trust them with guns, what in sam hill are they doing out of jail then?
Are you on the right site? I’m curious now, I’ve read a few of your posts now, and they’re way out left somewhere.
I'd have waited a couple of more years.
Have no basis in our Nations history and are not germane to the lead article. So far, the only thing you've done on this thread is try to provide cover for these illegal actions by California "law" enforcement and to throw up strawmen.
Poppycock. The article demonstrated an illegitimate standard for deprivation of rights. I proposed a legitimate standard, a court trial with appeals. It's the same standard as for committing people to prison. You just couldn't deal with it.
You waded in with an attack on another poster. When called on it, you backed up and started in with this other completely irrelevant crap.
Classic concern troll.
From the reaction on FR to this article, I'd suggest not. I wrote it.
I call that BS. Here's what I said with respect to the case:
Let's see, I called the State action "clearly unconstitutional." How is that an attack? How is that "trolling"? How is that inconsistent with the standards of FR? How does that disagree with anything you have held.
Then I proposed a solution you apparently don't like:
It's the same standard as sending people to prison. You can't handle that. Tough. There were legal standards for deprivation of rights from the day the founders penned the Constitution. The standard is due process. The suggestion I offered is due process. There is nothing inconsistent about it.
You clearly believe criminals belong in prison. So do I. You clearly believe the constitutional standard for committing a person to prison and depriving them of liberty are sufficient. So do I. Yet by that standard, unless you think the Second Amendment mandates that prisoners should be armed, you are being inconsistent.
Clearly, disarming a person is a deprivation of liberty. The Constitution has a standard for deprivation of liberty: DUE PROCESS. That's what I suggested.
Get real. The Treasury owes the Fed Res banks $16T. Total public and private debt exceeds $200T. Who do you think is going to pay that back? It cannot be repaid by a constitutional Republic with free elections. Citizens will disavow public obligations (taxes) for credits drawn by others Ref: Greece. Barring default the debt can only be done via dictatorship and defacto slavery.
If you’d been alert you’d have noticed that beginning with TARP the government has chosen debt repayment vs. default. Default may still be in the works but many powerful people expect and demand to be repaid. To them your rights are meaningless while your freedoms are preposterous and wasteful.
The standard you proposed is as you say for punishing people who committed a crime. What you're proposing is applying this to people who have NOT commited a crime, but rather you're imposing prior restraint on people who are not guilty of any criminal activiy. This is the sort of thing that tyrannies love to do, but has no place in a free country. Slippery slope - apparently a concept that you can't acknowledge.
You just couldn't deal with it.
I would say that the posters here have dealt with your liberal ideas just as they deserved to be dealt with.
Which has nothing to do with the topic at the top of the thread.
I believe that the victim of a crime should be the first to decide a criminals fate at the point of the original offense. Can't do that if your State is running around taking your guns away for an ever increasing array of fictional paper-crimes.
Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation. Maybe someone can show me differently?
I would argue that they already have plenty of people who fit that definition in their current ranks.
...........................................................
And you would be right.
The way so many Freepers brag,Im wondering where all the 2A groups are showing up to defend these people.Answer is nowhere,the same place they will be when they show up to take thier guns.All talk,no action and its already too late for talk and action both.
BZZZT!!! Wrongo! It's also the system used for committing people who have committed no crime to mental institutions. It's called DUE PROCESS, a standard that has existed in law from before the Second Amendment was written.
What you're proposing is applying this to people who have NOT commited a crime, but rather you're imposing prior restraint on people who are not guilty of any criminal activiy.
Please learn to use the spell check provided.
We do have mental hospitals in this country. There is a process for putting people in them and has been for over a century. Not everybody who is crazy is incapable of functioning in free society, to a degree. I have an ex-step-sister for example, who has been mentally retarded from birth. She has a custodian. She may not drive. Yet I have seen no significant abuse of that system. Are you telling me, that she should be free to bear a firearm anywhere she chooses?
Yes, any system is capable of abuse. Just because it is, doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. That's what the vigilance of the people was all about.
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.