Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

They Are Coming for Your Guns!
Gather ^ | April 20, 2013 | Lora Covrett

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 ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 4thamendment; banglist; california; democrats; fourthamendment; gunconfiscation; guncontrol; secondamendment
Aren't about half the people in California disenfranchised based on how this is written?
1 posted on 04/20/2013 11:53:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

” A “prohibited person” is one with a criminal conviction”

What does that mean? Does a speeding ticket count? Drunk driving?


2 posted on 04/20/2013 11:59:56 AM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Obama is the Chicken Little of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


3 posted on 04/20/2013 12:02:27 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

And a restraining order is not a conviction on anything. I can get a restraining order on you in about two hours!


4 posted on 04/20/2013 12:03:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I wonder how many law enforcement officers they will lose trying to enforce this?


5 posted on 04/20/2013 12:03:27 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas

One word: Texas.


6 posted on 04/20/2013 12:03:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It doesn’t matter what is written. These people are morons ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c


7 posted on 04/20/2013 12:04:42 PM PDT by shove_it (long ago Orwell, Huxley and Rand warned us about 0bama's USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Is an illegal alien a prohibited person?


8 posted on 04/20/2013 12:04:56 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

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?


9 posted on 04/20/2013 12:05:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Of course not, silly. It’s Kuh-lee-fone-ia.


10 posted on 04/20/2013 12:06:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Looks like kali ain’t gonna let ny out-kalifornicate them. No siree Bob. I’ll see you and raise you by one.


11 posted on 04/20/2013 12:07:06 PM PDT by rktman (BACKGROUND CHECKS? YOU FIRST MR. PRESIDENT!(not that we'd get the truth!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


12 posted on 04/20/2013 12:08:20 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


13 posted on 04/20/2013 12:11:08 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“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’...


14 posted on 04/20/2013 12:18:25 PM PDT by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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”.


15 posted on 04/20/2013 12:35:16 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (Buck Off, Bronco Bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I thought it was spelled “Clownifornia”


16 posted on 04/20/2013 12:49:51 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Actually you do have another choice besides handing them over, but you have to be willing to accept all the consequences of that choice.


17 posted on 04/20/2013 12:50:13 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
...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....

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.

18 posted on 04/20/2013 1:04:53 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

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.


19 posted on 04/20/2013 1:08:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Wasn’t “mental illness” how the former Soviet Union justified jailing many of their political prisoners?


20 posted on 04/20/2013 1:10:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas

Well unfortunately the liberals there are moving to conservative states as well. It seems the liberal utopia isn’t quite that utopia. . But that doesn’t stop them from trying to convert their new home’s local laws to their beliefs.

Why dont they just stay in California? Why don’t we just refuse to let liberals to move in?


21 posted on 04/20/2013 1:10:51 PM PDT by Wildbill22 (They have us surrounded again, the poor bastards- Gen Creighton Williams Abrams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

While giving battle rifles to the enemy.

20,000 U.S. M-16s stolen from unguarded warehouse in Kuwait
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3010249/posts


22 posted on 04/20/2013 1:13:18 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns; Trod Upon

“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.” A description of tyranny if ever I saw one. As to the use of the term “activist” the patriots on the green would be described as such today by a progressive-minded thinker. Not to cast aspersions upon you.

As to, “Actually you do have another choice besides handing them over, but you have to be willing to accept all the consequences of that choice.” Which is what those “activists” did in Concord and Lexington.


23 posted on 04/20/2013 1:14:24 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
To answer both of your posts ... Yes!

Another interesting discussion here. Related to this one IMO.

24 posted on 04/20/2013 1:14:51 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Actually, I hope that California does try this as I suspect that it will turn into a disaster. If this happens and I lived there, I would move. If I owned a business, I would also move the business to another state.

This is going to be a disaster if it is allowed to happen in terms of people subject to criminals, in terms of loss of taxpayers and tax revenues to the state.

As to the people of California, well, I am sorry, but you get what you elect.

25 posted on 04/20/2013 1:15:05 PM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Is an illegal alien a prohibited person?

It use to be for at least 90 days. But or Attorney General is trying to change that so "legal aliens" can buy firearms more quickly. I wonder why?

http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/04-1133/

26 posted on 04/20/2013 1:18:58 PM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Robert357

This is probably the best thing that’s happened to Texas since Independence or the discovery of oil.


27 posted on 04/20/2013 1:19:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66; Safrguns
I think part of the strategy behind laws such as this is ... to relegate “The Law” in general and ultimately “the Constitution” meaningless and unenforceable.

...but let us be careful about becoming the very activists they are looking for.

I agree that that is their goal. In light of that I have no problem proudly declaring myself "an activist they will be looking for."

MOLON LAVE! You'll get them bullets first.

28 posted on 04/20/2013 1:23:51 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66

>>> As to, “Actually you do have another choice besides handing them over, but you have to be willing to accept all the consequences of that choice.”

To expand upon my point, I would say that this is what they are “baiting” us to.

In a sense, I SUSPECT that the intent of these garbage laws is to BLUFF us into action. Maybe it would be better to simply call their bluff and see if they are capable of enforcement before we start considering that other choice you refer to.


29 posted on 04/20/2013 1:28:26 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

30 posted on 04/20/2013 1:51:56 PM PDT by Perseverando (The truth is hate to those who hate the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns; TigersEye

“Maybe it would be better to simply call their bluff and see if they are capable of enforcement before we start considering that other choice you refer to.” Committing an act is no bluff. They mean to do as they say and the passage of a law clearly warns of an intent, much as the cocking of an arm and clenching of a fist is a preparation for a strike. Addressing the “before we start considering” portion of your remark it falls short in that once you observe the obvious preparation for a strike by an opponent, if you haven’t considered a response before the prepartion is observed, which, in my book is no preparation beforehand at all. Remember he adage regarding cordiality yet being prepared to kill all you meet. As you can see there is no simple in “simply” calling their bluff. Calling their bluff in this instance would be the final resistance offered in defense. Parties may jabber a great deal prior to the clenching of fists but once the first swing is thrown all bets on a peaceful solution are off.

There is no “we’ in this equation. They will enforce their edicts, tyrannically arrived at, one progressive step at a time, from one “activist” individual to the next and resistance will fall to that level. Remember, an army is composed of individuals and force is dealt to each on that basis regardless of their number or location. The ability to stand or fall is based on individual thinking and effort alone or in concert with others. Waiting for the “we” to appear next to you for assistance in maintaining that which you hold dearest to your breast reveals insincerety in your belief of its importance to you. IMHO. I’ve already hashed this out so-to-speak.

Semper Fidelis


31 posted on 04/20/2013 2:18:17 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas
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.

You are right. I hope to be out of here soon. I am going to John Galt these bast----. Check out my tagline.

32 posted on 04/20/2013 2:30:14 PM PDT by Mark17 (My body is in California, but my heart is in the Philippines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

A lot of liberals are just plain ignorant. They have never given politics much thought other than what some socialist/progressive teacher taught them in high school or college. For that matter, most people don’t have a consistent personal philosophy or set of beliefs. A lot of these liberals and apolitical people could become conservatives over time, but the damage they do getting from point A to point B makes trying to convert them almost not worth the effort.

Texas has a litmus test of sorts. Unless the liberal goes to Austin, he or she will most likely develop an allergic reaction to the number of mega churches and 4 wheel drive trucks they encounter. LoL.


33 posted on 04/20/2013 2:43:12 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

Good luck over there. I hear the cost of living is low and the attitude towards Americans is pretty good.

Don’t tell anyone you are leaving for a while. The IRS might charge an exit tax.....LOL...


34 posted on 04/20/2013 2:45:11 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66; Safrguns
Very well stated. I couldn't possibly add to that except to say that I am not, never was and will not be the aggressor. IMO "we" (ie law-abiding citizen gun owners) cannot possibly be cast, honestly, as aggressors in this push-and-shove over the supremacy and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. "We" have never been anything but defenders of that founding legal principle.

It is telling that the one means to alter that principle that a Constitutionalist patriot would have to accept if it did alter it, a Constitutional Convention to ratify a new Amendment, is the one avenue of change the gun grabbers have never considered trying.

35 posted on 04/20/2013 2:52:21 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Paisan
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.

I agree with the stipulation being an ex-felon committing a crime with a gun should suffer a strike three type sentence.

36 posted on 04/20/2013 3:01:05 PM PDT by Starstruck (Don't rest. We came close to the 2nd Amendment being field tested.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

You and I are in agreement as stated. As to the Constitutional Covention, why amend the rules of the game when they are broken by the players? Lack of enforcement is the problem. The People’s problem. I believe the left is fearful of pursuing that option as they know they are outnumbered in force and therefore effect. There would be war, not progress through incremental means. IMHO


37 posted on 04/20/2013 3:06:41 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m willing to bet not one person will resist either- Sure, they may scream and yell- but in the end they will comply- Why? Because they have NO organized force to fall in behind to resist en mass- individuals iwll not resits by themselves knowign it will be futile but given a large enough group- Many coudl send a pwoerful message that govenrment officials WILL NOT confiscate their guns

Where the hell is the NRA? They aqre the ONLY group large eno0ugh to mount a massive civil disobedience movement capable of shuttign down the left’s VIOLATIONS of our Inalienable rights!- Simply aloowing the confiscaTION TO HAPPEN, THEN FILIBNF A COUPEL OF LAWSUITS ISN’T GOIGN TO CUT IT- PEOPLE’S INALIENABLE rights ARE BEIGN VIOLATED NOW!


38 posted on 04/20/2013 3:13:34 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66

I’m not sure they have a fist to clench yet.

Too many sheriffs and other officials are announcing their intention to defy enforcement orders.

Make no mistake... I have no intention of giving up my guns.
Also, I hope you don’t think I am advocating passivity.
Being passive, and not taking their bait is two different things.


39 posted on 04/20/2013 3:21:36 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas
Don’t tell anyone you are leaving for a while. The IRS might charge an exit tax.....LOL...That is only funny, because there is an element of truth to it. I would not be surprised by anything these lunatics in government try to do.
40 posted on 04/20/2013 3:23:07 PM PDT by Mark17 (My body is in California, but my heart is in the Philippines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66

I think there are two practical reasons they don’t want to try a CC to obtain their goals. 1) They know full well the American people support the 2nd A. and a CC would fail miserably. 2) Changing the law through a CC would reaffirm the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and that would negatively affect their overall goals.


41 posted on 04/20/2013 3:25:03 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Being passive, and not taking their bait is two different things.

Absolutely. I am saying the same thing even if it is put in a somewhat different way.

42 posted on 04/20/2013 3:28:55 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They do that in MA. all the time.


43 posted on 04/20/2013 3:32:11 PM PDT by freedomtrail (EEOC- Eventual Elimination Of Caucasians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

I equate the law to the clenching of the fist. It is a warning of impending enforcement. Cocking the arm and swinging is the assault, or enforcement, if you wish.

I would not presume your position as being one of passivity. You and I are on the same plane, merely struggling over semantics in the expression of our thoughts. We are both conversing at Free Republic and I will submit my remarks to you on that basis. You’re welcome in my two-man fighting hole when it comes to that.


44 posted on 04/20/2013 3:33:55 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paisan

thing is if federal law goes, if your state constitution or laws has it, you’ve still got it legally recognized, so that’s why many states included the same language of the federal constitution in their state constitutions.


45 posted on 04/20/2013 4:48:10 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin
Yes, very lose term, anyone whom the state sees as an enemy could be placed on the list. Too bad the majority will see this law as just plain ole common sense.
46 posted on 04/20/2013 7:19:05 PM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paisan
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.

Agreed. Anyone who cannot be trusted with a weapon should not be running around loose.

47 posted on 04/21/2013 10:54:07 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Robert357
But or Attorney General is trying to change that so "legal aliens" can buy firearms more quickly.

That's so legal Muslims can defend themselves when we finally wake up.

48 posted on 04/21/2013 12:14:39 PM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson