[zeugma]

I see some bait-and-switch in this story: The author says you can get your guns taken if you’re late on your Fast-Trak (toll roads), but does not say what Mendez’s problem is. Is he a wife-beater? Doesn’t say. A felon? Doesn’t say. On probation? Bail? Doesn’t say.

I fail to see where that matters. The consitution says "shall not be infringed" it doesn't say, "except for wife-beaters, or felons", or any of a thousand other ways too many have bought the big lie that they have the power to regulate our bearing of arms.

[Cyber Liberty]

You and I may have good objections to those “Statutory causes” on constitutional grounds, but at the moment our opinion doesn’t matter to anybody but us. What does matter is what are the CA Statutory restrictions, and did they really increase them dramatically recently as the author claims?

Is the author’s example case somebody who had been restricted for years based on Statutes that have existed a long time? Doesn’t say. Was he late on his Fast-Trak payment, as the author now claims is a gun-grabbing offense? Doesn’t say. In that light, this article reads less like news and more like agitprop.