Posted on 04/20/2013 11:53:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sounds like right-wing, anti-Obama rhetoric, doesn't it? In California, it is dangerously close to true. Thursday, the state legislature approved $24 million to expedite gun confiscation. They are coming for your guns! And if they show up at your door in California, without a search warrant, you still don't have much of a choice but to hand over the weapon. Does this sound like a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
This is a very slippery slope.
The text of the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
SB-130 states that California's database, called Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), is crosschecked against the Department of Justice's Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account for people prohibited or soon-to-be prohibited from owning a handgun or assault weapon.
A "prohibited person" is one with a criminal conviction, an existing restraining order, or a mentally ill person. Hospitals and doctors report people determined to be a danger to themselves or others and/or those that consent to mental treatment....
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.gather.com ...
” A “prohibited person” is one with a criminal conviction”
What does that mean? Does a speeding ticket count? Drunk driving?
Conservatives in California don’t have a lot of good options other than to move elsewhere. It’s a shame what has happened to that state.
And a restraining order is not a conviction on anything. I can get a restraining order on you in about two hours!
I wonder how many law enforcement officers they will lose trying to enforce this?
One word: Texas.
It doesn’t matter what is written. These people are morons ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c
Is an illegal alien a prohibited person?
Not only that, but how many law enforcement officers fall under this statute? Hahahahahaha! Can’t carry or own a firearm, gonna be difficult to be a police officer, huh?
Of course not, silly. It’s Kuh-lee-fone-ia.
Looks like kali ain’t gonna let ny out-kalifornicate them. No siree Bob. I’ll see you and raise you by one.
Most of my neighbors are new arrivals from California and other oppressed lands. Good conservatives, all of them. The liberals coming here tend to go to Austin. That is another issue.
I think part of the strategy behind laws such as this is NOT the confiscation of guns, or the enforcement of Obamacare, but rather to relegate “The Law” in general and ultimately “the Constitution” meaningless and unenforceable.
I think another part of the strategy behind unconstitutional laws such as this is to specifically incite rioting and or some form of uprising that the government can then use to justify implementing martial law.
Clearly we do not have the power to stop our elected officials from passing such garbage... but let us be careful about becoming the very activists they are looking for.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
There was a case here in Spartanburg, SC, recently, concerning a convicted felon using a gun to shoot 2 intruders dead, as they were trying to break into his girl friend’s apartment. The cops let him go on the grounds that even a convicted felon should have the right and means to defend himself. Since then - about a year later, they have charged the guy with using a handgun after being a convicted felon.
I side with the original finding by the cops - even a convicted felon should be able to defend himself. I may get flamed, but having the ability to defend yourself is God given right that should not be infringed.
The alternative could be considered ‘cruel and unusual punishment’...
When liberals say they’re not coming for your guns, I’m always reminded of a wife beater who says “I’m NOT beating you. Your face keeps hitting my fist”.
I thought it was spelled “Clownifornia”
Actually you do have another choice besides handing them over, but you have to be willing to accept all the consequences of that choice.
Doesn't that fall short of the standard set in the 5th Amendment ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... which has been the standard observed by the states and the FedMob until now? A person had to be adjudicated mentally incompetent in a court of law before they were lawfully deprived of their fundamental rights.
Toomey-Manchin was going to sweep that away on the national level.
This appears to be doing it on the state level in CA.
It seems to me that the government, state or FedMob, doesn't give a fat rat's arse about anything in the Constitution anymore.
Aren’t there tens of millions of people in this country who are in treatment for mental illness? And what constitutes “mental illness” under this law? And how is having a restraining order filed on you a crime? This means almost every ex-spouse will now be sure to file a restraining order against their former husband or wife.
Wasn’t “mental illness” how the former Soviet Union justified jailing many of their political prisoners?
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.