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 ...
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.
Absolutely. I am saying the same thing even if it is put in a somewhat different way.
They do that in MA. all the time.
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.
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.
Agreed. Anyone who cannot be trusted with a weapon should not be running around loose.
That's so legal Muslims can defend themselves when we finally wake up.
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.