California Now Confiscating Legally Purchased Guns

[Old Bookaroo]

Mad Machinist:

I'm going with "probably not."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dave44]

The real danger of this is the fact that it can be used by one side or the other to achieve whatever they want. The right or left can decide that because the other side doesn't believe what they believe then they obviously must be mentally ill. Throw up a few fruit loops from either side and viola, you have reason to use a broad brush.

Mad Machinist:

I'm going with "probably not."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

In reference to Mads post, A simplistic answer of "Probably not" Is not an acceptable response. It shows a lack of comprehension and care. Totalitarianism is Not as nice as "probably".

Will your liberty be denied today for no reason? "Probably" not. Your response is perfectly political, no answer at all, simple rhetoric to fill space and build a post count.

When you leave all options open you can never be wrong can you?

 

[Unclebuck257]

"...people on the so-called APPs list...at one time purchased firearms legally, but have since run afoul of the law, Yo says. 'Such as maybe a felony conviction, mental health commitment, they received a restraining order, domestic violence restraining order — some type of a misdemeanor conviction that prohibits them from possessing firearms.'"

One By One, California Agents Track Down Illegally Owned Guns : NPR

Personally, I see nothing wrong with taking firearms away from convicted felons or people with serious mental health issues. No matter how they first acquired them.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

OB,

Felons, of a violent crime, do not need to be owning weapons legally. On that we agree! On the rest of your examples, we don't agree. Let me give you a couple of examples. Having handled many domestic matters, one of the things an angry, soon to be ex wife REALLY likes to do in many cases is screw up the soon to be ex husband's life. For the safety of all women, the courts are quick to issue restraining orders, as they should be in most all cases. As a result, you are saying that a man should then lose his right to own firearms? Most divorce filings by a woman carry a restraining order as part of the divorce papers. Just the restraining order alone isn't that hard to get and man, can it screw with a man's life! Again, until convicted, no man should be considered guilty until PROVEN guilty! Isn't that what you said about posting mug shot photos of people? Why different now?

What mental issues would you say can't own a firearm? That's a VERY broad spectrum and many who have sought help for mental issues are no more dangerous than anyone else. It all depends on what those issues are. In certain cases with VERY serious mental problems, I'd agree, but again we must be careful of the rights of ALL people!

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Unclebuck257:

I would certainly agree with you that we have to be very careful of the rights of ALL people. Including school children. Those shot ten and twelve times just a year ago didn't have many rights, did they? Killed by a mentally ill (by general agreement) person. His Mom had numerous guns in her home. Didn't appear to make her any safer.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[packerbacker]

We aren't talking about convicted felons or deranged people in the original post. If you actually read the attached article it states, " These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns." It goes on to say that this list of reasons to confiscate guns is continually growing. My comment to the "original" post is, if true, everyone better hide their guns and ammo. It's amazing that a democracy that is supposed to allow more freedoms for its citizens, is coming up with new laws every day to restrict existing freedoms. Seems it should be eliminating the ridiculous laws and making life easier for everyone. We keep changing our world here in Calif. to appease a bunch of bozos that couldn't make their own peanut butter and jelly sandwich to take care of themselves.

 

[packerbacker]

The LAST way to protect a child is to put him in a gun-free zone!

 

[Unclebuck257]

Unclebuck257:

I would certainly agree with you that we have to be very careful of the rights of ALL people. Including school children. Those shot ten and twelve times just a year ago didn't have many rights, did they? Killed by a mentally ill (by general agreement) person. His Mom had numerous guns in her home. Didn't appear to make her any safer.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

OB,

Yes, it was a horriffic shooting. On that we all agree, of course! However Lanza did NOT own any weapons, but rather stole them from his mother to commit that crime. He was mentally ill to the point that he should not have been allowed to own weapons, and he wasn't! Reports showed he tried to buy his own weapons and was rejected due to his mental problems. The system worked and prevented him from owning a weapon. Lanza then turned around and stole the weapons he needed from his mother, who was a legal weapons owner, after killing her. Are you then saying that because one person in any family has serious enough mental problems that all members of that family should be prohibited from owning weapons or have the ones they own taken away? What about the family member not living in the same household? There have been several cases I can immediately think of where a grandson broke into, or just went into, the grandfather's home at a different location and stole a weapon, and then committed a serious crime.

 

[NHBandit]

Unclebuck257:

I would certainly agree with you that we have to be very careful of the rights of ALL people. Including school children. Those shot ten and twelve times just a year ago didn't have many rights, did they? Killed by a mentally ill (by general agreement) person. His Mom had numerous guns in her home. Didn't appear to make her any safer.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Unclebuck257 this comment should show you that it's OB's position that NOBODY should have guns no matter what under any circumstances. OB is clearly saying the mom who has done nothing wrong should not have been allowed to have guns. And THAT it the ultimate goal of the people he supports. What's next ? Blaming some law abiding hunter when a gang banger STEALS his rifle and shoots someone ? Sorry man but it's waste of time trying to have an intelligent discussion about "ex felons", "people who have been diagnosed as being depressed" or any of those other smoke & mirrors words when the ultimate goal it total confiscation. We are in a battle with these type of people over our basic rights to protect ourselves and our families and the first rule of battle is to know the enemies ultimate goal. When they say they only want to take the guns away from the "bad people" they are lying through their teeth.... Feinswine and that whole lot are OB's "people" and they make it known what they're ultimately after if you read between the lines. Come on Old Bookaroo, man up.. Step out from behind the curtain and admit that your real feelings are that NOBODY should be allowed to keep their guns.....

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

wow...seems the rabid supporters of the second amendment...refusing to give up their rights...are fine with removing others from weapons ownership...

nothing in the second amendment says criminals cant have weapons...or crazy persons...

but typically, the fanatics forget themselves and want to remove others from owning weapons...how odd.

 

[Unclebuck257]

Unclebuck257 this comment should show you that it's OB's position that NOBODY should have guns no matter what under any circumstances. OB is clearly saying the mom who has done nothing wrong should not have been allowed to have guns. And THAT it the ultimate goal of the people he supports. What's next ? Blaming some law abiding hunter when a gang banger STEALS his rifle and shoots someone ? Sorry man but it's waste of time trying to have an intelligent discussion about "ex felons", "people who have been diagnosed as being depressed" or any of those other smoke & mirrors words when the ultimate goal it total confiscation. We are in a battle with these type of people over our basic rights to protect ourselves and our families and the first rule of battle is to know the enemies ultimate goal. When they say they only want to take the guns away from the "bad people" they are lying through their teeth.... Feinswine and that whole lot are OB's "people" and they make it known what they're ultimately after if you read between the lines.

Bandit,

I fully realize how OB apparently feels and many that think like him feel, however I have always been able to have a good conversation with OB on various subjects and enjoy engaging in those conversations with him. Afterall, if we don't understand how those with opposite views are going to come at us, we may miss something useful at a later point. As you said, we are in a battle and we should never turn down an opportunity to hear what the other side is saying for possible future reference and use, in my opinion.

Now pip is a whole other story!! LMBO!!

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Unclebuck257:

Thank you for a thoughtful post! You wrote "Are you then saying that because one person in any family has serious enough mental problems that all members of that family should be prohibited from owning weapons or have the ones they own taken away?" No, I am not.

I pointed out the facts. If my post is factually incorrect, show me and I will correct it.

Please don't read anything into it that is not there (which you didn't - all you did was ask).

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

You wrote: "These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns."

Is that true? Is that an accurate summary of the program?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Unclebuck257]

Unclebuck257:

Thank you for a thoughtful post! You wrote "Are you then saying that because one person in any family has serious enough mental problems that all members of that family should be prohibited from owning weapons or have the ones they own taken away?" No, I am not.

I pointed out the facts. If my post is factually incorrect, show me and I will correct it.

Please don't read anything into it that is not there (which you didn't - all you did was ask).

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

OB,

Your post is not factually incorrect, just factually incomplete and therefore your conclusion is flawed for the reasons I pointed out.

 

[NHBandit]

Well OB once again the comments you chose NOT to respond to reveal more about your position than the ones you did respond to. Still being predictable. That's not a bad thing I suppose.. Unclebuck maybe if you ask him nice how he feels about the rest of us having guns you can get a straight answer. I get the impression he dosn't like me much...

 

[packerbacker]

OB......did you also notice that I said, "My comment to the "original" post is, if true, everyone better hide their guns and ammo" Now we are finally discussing the original post and its contents. Not convicted felons or the severely mentally ill but possible confiscation for other reasons. Welcome aboard!!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

wow...seems the rabid supporters of the second amendment...refusing to give up their rights...are fine with removing others from weapons ownership...

nothing in the second amendment says criminals cant have weapons...or crazy persons...

but typically, the fanatics forget themselves and want to remove others from owning weapons...how odd.

Under Federal conviction it is automatic, with states it is up to each state's law.

Supreme court has upheld the state's right in denying convicted felons the right to own firearms.....

 

[NHBandit]

wow...seems the rabid supporters of the second amendment...refusing to give up their rights...are fine with removing others from weapons ownership...

nothing in the second amendment says criminals cant have weapons...or crazy persons...

but typically, the fanatics forget themselves and want to remove others from owning weapons...how odd.

"rabid supporters" ? Plural ? I saw ONE guy make a comment about violent felons not being allowed to EVER have firearms. There you go trying to fit us all into a neat little box again. MY beliefs if you care to listen to them are that the Constitution protects everyone. There have to be consequences for illegal actions, I agree. Criminals need to pay for their crimes, as it should be. But... Lets suppose a guy commits a crime when he's 18. For the sake of your argument it's even a "violent" crime. He gets in a fight and someone gets hurt and he is arrested. He gets probation for a period of a year because it's his first offense and the judge makes an educated decision that this "kid" is not a danger to society and will most likely turn his life around if given a second chance. The kid turns his life around, goes to College, gets a good job, raises a family, and NEVER does another single thing wrong. The courts decided his debt to society was paid in full at the end of that year probation but YOU think he should lose his Contitutional rights to keep & bear arms, to vote, and all of that other stuff FOREVER ?

 

[Chadeaux]

Treasure Hunter;

How about a person taken in on a 5150 - a "mental health commitment?" Some people claiming to be "gun rights supporters" believe the mentally ill shouldn't have ready access to firearms.

How about people with domestic restraining orders against them? How about convicted felons?

Many states have a process for convicted felons to reobtain the right to vote. It is often abused by a political party scared to follow the law.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Dave44:

Keep tap dancing away from the facts.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Tapdancing?

Yep, you're pretty good at it.

Until they are committed, they should be allowed to own and use their firearm ...

after all, you logic says that until someone is convicted, even their photo on the internet is an invasion of privacy.

Besides, I always thought that the rule of law in this country was "innocent until PROVEN guilty."

 

[NHBandit]

The games the government is playing aren't always obvious either. Example... you go to your regular family doctor for your yearly physical. One of the questions you are often asked is "do you have guns in the house" I respond "NA" since it has NOTHING to do with why I'm there. Then they often ask if you've been having any feelings of depression. Seems innocent enough right ? But.. with the Government having their noses in the healthcare records how you answer that seemingly innocent question could come back to bite you at some point in the future when "they" come knocking on YOUR door.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Unclebuck257:

My conclusion was Adam Lanza's mother wasn't any safer having numerous guns in her home. I think the evidence for that is pretty clear.

I didn't discuss possible solutions. Others have speculated (wildly in one case) what that solution might be.

What if she'd locked her guns up? Would she have heard her son trying to break into them? What if the firearms had trigger locks?

I'm not suggesting these are one-size fits all solutions. I'm simply pointing out there are more than one possible solutions. Taking a legally-owned firearm away from someone because someone else in the family has a mental health issue is not a solution I support. I believe you brought that one up.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo