California to confiscate guns!

1. 95

   wildernessposted 7 years ago

   California AB1014 is scheduled to take effect this Friday.  California has had the legal ability to take guns from people that licensed therapists have determined to be a danger to themselves or the community: now they can take second amendment rights (and your gun) because a family member or a cop says you might be a danger. 
   
   The court may consider past felony arrests (with or without conviction), the purchase of a weapon or ammunition or evidence of alcohol abuse (is there an empty bottle in your trash?).  You need not be notified and will not have any opportunity to protest the confiscation, although if it is to continue beyond 3 weeks (maximum of 1 year) it must be presented in court.
   
   The new law is in response to the 2014 shooting by Elliot Rodgers; police interviewed Rodgers prior to the shooting and concluded that he was no danger so did not search his home.  (No, I don't get the connection either)  The new law would give police the right to immediately search and confiscate any guns Rodgers might have under the assumption that he might be "potentially" dangerous (who isn't, under the right circumstances?).
   
   Does anyone at all believe that cops, judges and liberals in general won't find the purchase of a gun to automatically indicate you are "potentially dangerous" (the only use for a gun is to KILL with)?  That they can't dredge up a threat to someone, sometime in your past (did you threaten to spank your child)?  How many of us don't have a drop of ethanol in the house (got a half empty bottle of wine after Xmas dinner)?  Have never been arrested (no need for a conviction - a mere arrest is sufficient)?  Got a sibling or cousin that you don't get along with? 
   
   Want to bet what arrest rates, with quick release, for felonies is going to do when it gives cops the power to search your home and confiscate all weapons years from now?  Particularly if your gun has been registered and they know you have it?
   
   http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/calif … d-weapons/
   http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Califo … id/707588/
   
   
   Can we hear it once more from the liberals of HP?  All together now - "WE DON'T WANT YOUR GUNS!"  (now whisper) We'll just take them any time we can wriggle a way around the constitution.
   
   On the plus side, this will of course be contested in court.  Thank God for the NRA - such nonsense is beyond any reason.  Lose your constitutional rights because your animal loving cousin found out you bought a box of ammo to go hunting with and you were falsely arrested 10 years ago for a felony with all charges promptly dropped?  Be subject to a home/car/personal search for the same reasons?  Have your personal property confiscated without recourse and for up to a year?  The goals may be worthy - they usually are, or are at least presented that way - but the means in this case refutes the entire project.  The Patriot Act was bad enough, but this travesty deserves nothing but file 13.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Andy Lee Lawsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Okay, so, I think my views on gun control are less conservative than your's. However, I cannot see the justification for allowing a therapist to report you to authorities as potentially dangerous. I in no condone or advocate the confiscation of firearms. I think any decision on gun control must be based on a consensus of the people. Giving any governmental body the authority to confiscate property is dangerous. That, I believe is potentially a slippery slope. I have visited a mental health professional before. What I were judged potentially dangerous? Couldn't we all be judge potentially dangerous? I don't like this. As much as I want to see gun crimes diminish, draconian measures are not acceptable. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I think you missed the point: California can take your guns now, based on the report of a licensed therapist.
         
         As of Jan. 1, they can take them because a cop or a relative thinks you may be dangerous.  Quite a change!

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Andy Lee Lawsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Oh no, I see that point I see the change. What I'm pointing out is that the initial legislation was already to all encompassing.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I see.  Not sure I can agree, but I have strong reservations about what mental illness is, how it is defined and how we find it. 
               
               Were we able to actually keep guns away from people that are mentally ill to the point that they would harm others, and not deny anyone else, I wouldn't have a problem.  But we can't.  We can't even come close to that ideal.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Andy Lee Lawsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, if you're going to target a group for confiscation, the "mentally ill" are statistically unlikely to commit crimes. If you were confiscating based on statistical probability of crime commission, there are several other more prudent demographics to focus on.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Perhaps they are statistically unlikely.  But then so is every other group, and every murder has been committed by a mentally ill person.  Not every death, mind you, but every single legal murder.  Which goes back to that definition of just what mental illness is.

                     replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I have heard so many conservatives complain that the typical law abiding gun owner should not be inconvenience by the irresponsible use of firearms by the mentally ill. Here is a chance to get them away from their weapons and looks who is howling?
      
      Law enforcement has to convince a judge before a warrant can be issued to search private property. A judge has to make the decision based on compelling evidence, not just hearsay. If you want the good people of Mayberry to be left alone, with no one losing their gun, can we have some course of action to detain and remove firearms the criminally insane, based on compelling evidence?
      
      If served a warrant the state can take whatever it is that the warrant is directed to , so what is the difference here?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         But the "compelling evidence" you mention consists of the opinion of a family member and nothing more.  Or maybe an arrest that never had a conviction.  Or the purchase of ammunition.  Or the opinion of a cop, completely untrained in mental illness.  And these opinions need be no more than thinking that potential violence is present!  Not that anything at all has been done - just that you have the potential for violence (which is present is each and every one of us).
         
         These are "compelling reasons" to declare a person mentally unfit?!?!  No thank you, Credence; our country is NOT founded on such principles.  There are severe restrictions on government tyranny for very good reasons, ans this ridiculous law skirts around them all.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The opinion of a family member is not compelling evidence. While this gives is a clarion call for the 'gun people', I am sure that there is plenty of pressure make certain that this law is not abused.
            
            It is the opinion of the judge, not the cop or family member. The same argument can be used to keep judges from issuing warrants to search and seize. Do you think that they are allowed to operate in a flippant way?
            
            I think that our debate surrounds what contitutes  "compelling evidence", I am against the law if there are not sufficient protections for the gunowner regardless of who is making the charges.
            
            Nobody seemed to have no problem bringing jackboot approaches to Harlem, Chicago, Compton CA,  trampling on the rights of all, with the only compelling evidence that a miscreant had a gun was  that he had a dusky complexion, was male and was out at night. They never had the opportunity to be properly searched under a warrant, it was all left up to the cop. Seems funny, thats all.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               You're right - the argument is over what is compelling evidence.  And those presented in the article linked to clearly presents a total lack of evidence, let alone that it should be compelling.
               
               Judges issue warrants based on evidence, not on opinions from untrained people that someone may be mentally ill to the point they are dangerous.  Opinions that in many cases will have an axe to grind with the accused.  But suddenly those opinions not only supply a "reason" for a search but denial of constitutional rights and confiscation of legal private property!
               
               The article also makes very clear that there is no protection for the gunowner (or anyone else the cop wants to search).  Not for 3 weeks of confiscation and not for a search.  The only thing mentioned is that there is a fine for frivolously reporting someone to be a danger and that is fraught with potential for abuse. 
               
               Haven't a clue what you're talking about in Chicago, Harlem, etc., but it sounds like you were appalled at the trampling of rights.  Just as this new California law will absolutely trample rights, so how is it that this one is supported?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Therefore, let's argue and debate and parse words like "compelling" to the point where no on acts on anything and the killings continue.

                  replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If someone tries to board a plane with a gun, should that gun be allowed on board?
      
      When the gun is confiscated, it is done so because the TSA agents have the opinion that the gun represents a threat.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Your point?  That a cop on the beat, or a family member angry at you, has the same training and experience of a TSA agent looking at airline travelers?  And those travelers with guns, actively disobeying the law, are somehow similar to the homeowner that exercises his 2A rights?  That taking a gun from a passenger that wishes to board an airline with or without their gun is equivalent to searching a home and confiscating all guns there?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You really think that a cop is a less-qualified judge of a dangerous situation than a TSA agent?
            
            I thought my point was obvious. If someone represents a potential danger to other people, it is the DUTY of public officials to investigate and remove that gun if they have a reasonable belief about that danger.
            
            We do it with guns on planes. We stop and remove drunken drivers from cars. If a cop or court believes that a homeowner is a danger to other people, then yes, they should step in and act in the same way they do with other situations.
            
            Just to be clear, I don't think a family member claiming that a relative is dangerous by itself should any way justify removing a gun.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "That a cop on the beat, or a family member angry at you, has the same..."
               
               Did you bother to read the entire thing or just cherry pick?  But in any case, no a cop may not do a search and seizure simply because he wants to or because he thinks it might help someone.
               
               "If someone represents a potential danger to other people, it is the DUTY of public officials to investigate and remove that gun if they have a reasonable belief about that danger. "
               
               Here we will go our different ways, for a "reasonable belief about that danger" is insufficient to take any action at all except further observation.  You're completely throwing out the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - something that is extremely important in our justice system.
               
               And no, we do not do it with planes.  We do not do it with drunk drivers.  There is nothing we currently do that authorizes a search and seizure of your castle based on nothing more than a "feeling" from a untrained cop or family member that you might be dangerous.
               
               This is a totally new thing in our justice system - search and seizure based on nothing at all - and simply isn't and should never be a part of our justice system.  Not even the cop end of it - cops are not judge, jury and executioner in our system.
               
               If it's that serious, let the cop arrest you and have you examined by a professional therapist - someone that has studied mental illness and can recognize it.  And when that therapist says there is nothing wrong with you, you can sue for false arrest - as it is now there is no recourse at all.  The victim simply has to suck it up take whatever is dished out.
               
               You know. it isn't just confiscation of a weapon being carried by someone - it is the outrageous precedent being set for a home search (without notifying the victim) and seizure of any and all guns.  Without recourse, without oversight, without evidence, without any of the restrictions and safeguards the law provides for.  It is a complete about face from the very foundations of our society and justice system - it provides an easy avenue to gross abuse, legal and unassailable by the victim.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You misunderstood my point about the family member even more than my original point.
                  
                  Read it again. I was agreeing with you that the word of a family member should not justify removing a gun.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I understand that.  I also gather that you think it reasonable that a cop be able to enter your home (while you are away), conduct a search of it and terminate your 2A rights by confiscating your property, all without any more reason than a gut feeling you might be dangerous.  "Evidence" can consist of a false arrest decades ago, purchase of ammunition or most anything else, whether relevant or not!
                     
                     And that is perhaps even worse than the feeling from a family member.  Talk about a police state - the cop has nearly free reign  here!

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Not at all. I believe in due process.
                        
                        Police and federal agents invade homes all of the time with a warrant signed by a judge and based on evidence of potential danger to society.
                        
                        Do you find the following sentence unreasonable?
                        
                        "This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified."

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Ah.  With "reasonable cause" being defined as being arrested (not conviceted, just arrested) for a felony.  Or having purchased ammunition for the deer hunt tomorrow.  Or having a family member say they think it is so.
                           
                           When you finish the paragraph with the necessary definitions then no, it most certainly is not reasonable.  Considering that not one but two constitutional rights (second and fourth amendments) are being violated, it isn't even close.
                           
                           Do you disagree?  Is a judicial officer able to determine "reasonable cause" without any evidence whatsoever outside of the untrained opinion of a cop or other citizen?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Police and federal agents raid homes, make arrests and confiscate weapons all the time after receiving a warrant signed by the judge who reviews the evidence and appropriate laws -- including the ones related to the Bill of Rights.

                              replyreport
                        2. 78

                           Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           That is your 'reasonable' interpretation of the California law, observe the reaction that you get...

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              That is not my interpretation of the law. It comes from the law itself.

                              replyreport
                     2. 78

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        The law, if it has all the shortcomings that you believe is in it, will be challenged by the courts and declared unconstitutional.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Agreed.  As explained in the links given, there is virtually zero chance this will not be challenged and fail that challenge rather severely.
                           
                           For this thread, however, it is used more as an indication to what lengths some liberals will go to in order to confiscate guns from the populace.  All while loudly proclaiming "We don't want your guns!".  Well, we see the answer here - a violation of the second and fourth amendments, without recourse or oversight, and for no more reason than someone, somewhere, thinks in their untrained opinion, that you may be a threat to yourself or community.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              lol...C'mon wilderness, 2 HOURS ago you wanted to HANG all Mentally ill individuals with Gunz from that Burning Building in Dubai, or at least HANG all you're "Gun Crime Issues" on THEM....Now, all of a sudden you're their BESTist Friend ~
                              
                              This dosen't AFFECT you anyway and Just be THANKFUL you live in a lovely state Waaaay over there where 5 year old children can play unimpeded with Bazookas, Automatic Rifles, Tanks, Hand-Grenades, Pitchforks, Air-Craft Carriers, Battle Ships, and other Extremely Dangerous objects like a "Picture of Chris Christie PRETENDING to SHOOT Down a Russian  Fighter Jet" ~

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 "2 HOURS ago you wanted to HANG all Mentally ill individuals with Gunz from that Burning Building in Dubai"
                                 
                                 Please show any evidence at all that such a statement has even the slightest bit of truth in it.
                                 
                                 AP, your barrage of outright lies has become tiresome.  Do not expect any response until you can back them up with hard facts.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              The NRA will spend enormous amounts of money to kill it.
                              
                              They will threaten or destroy any elected representative who stands in their way.
                              
                              They will bombard online boards with a massive propaganda campaign.
                              
                              In other words, they will do what they usually do -- stand in the way of progress.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 promisem ~ If this were Kentucky or Texas, you might a have a Legitimate Point, but it's NOT, this is Progressive California where "Common Sense" Gun Regulation is WELCOMED ~ Believe me, we are NOT Interested in the CONservative Republican Retarded Idea of "FLOODING the Streets" with even MORE Gunz as an Insane Solution, or OBSTRUCTING Progress at ALL Cost ~
                                 
                                 The NRA is essentially impotent in their Assault on Progressive Democrats and the Popularity of such a Corruptive Organization such as the National Rifle Association is Minimal in states like California where we live in the "Here & NOW" Not in the 1700's like most Republican states ~ Campaign Contributions by said NRA are Miniscule for Democrats as compared to Republicans, and that's a FACT ~
                                 
                                 Who knows, a Frivolous Law Suit or 2 might surface, I mean what else do Republican Politicians have to do these days, but it certainly won't receive a Glorious Heartfelt Welcome like it would in the south ~

                                 replyreport
                              2. 95

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 That's my projection, too - the NRA (probably coupled with another half dozen programs supporting freedom and fighting tyranny) will come down on it like a ton of bricks. 
                                 
                                 But if this is "progress" - to deny rights to anyone the cops decide they don't like - I'll have none of it.  This is "progress" only to those that want government in total control, with individuals subject to every whim of any government "servant".  No thank you - I'll take my government with a strong dash of citizen control (more than we have, for that matter).

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    lol.....Um....wilderness ~ U don't have to "Have none of it" because you don't LIVE in California !!..... So LITERALLY, "You Don't have to Have NONE of it" if that's your DESIRE ~ But WE ALL want "SOME of it" and that's WHY we LIVE in a Progressive State like California and U Don't 
                                    
                                    P.S. ~ Back on that "Tyranny" thing again ?? ~ Just Curious, so what is NOT "Tyranny" to a Conservative Republican ~ That word is tossed around just as liberally by Republicans as they Toss around "FRACKING Licenses" ~

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Unfortunately, I DO have to have some of it.  Altogether too many californians, fed up with the stupidity in their state, move into mine.  But are too stupid themselves to understand that bringing their liberal baggage with them will only turn their new home into a copy of the old one.
                                       
                                       Unfortunate, but all too true - that's one way to spread the insanity of the liberal mind.  All it takes is lemmings, controlled to the max until they are forced out of their chosen homeland.  Whereupon that take that insanity with them as they go.

                                       report
                                 2. 59

                                    Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well wilderness, you've STUMBLED Upon the GRAND Master-Plan ~ Breed em' in BLUE n' send em' to RED ~ BRILLIANT
                                    
                                    C'mon now wilderness in all seriousness, I don't know where you're getting your INFO but as usual, it's WRONG Again ~
                                    
                                    NOBODY from Beautiful Balmy California is moving to God Foresaken Wyoming or North Dakota or wherever you live ~ I didn't even know we still owned these REMOTE Isolated places ~ Maybe we should just SELL, Cut our Losses and use ALL the proceeds to BUY your HERO Republican Trey Gowdy a Zeleous Defense for the Law Suit(s) filed against him ~
                                    
                                    And considering DICK "I Helped George W Bush Cripple America a DECADE Ago" Cheney lives in Wyoming too, I think a DEEP Price Discount for the sale of this Decrepit Territory would be in order ~
                                    
                                    ONLY one mistake in the new policy as I see it, the inclusion of the "Confiscation" of Darrell Issa & his INSANE Tax Dollar Wasting Politics is NOWHERE to be Found ~

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       You would probably be wise to get rid of the remote places - that way when your economy fails from stupid liberal policies you can ask them for help.  They won't have had the influx of liberals to ruin their own economy, so could help support the liberal socialists of neighboring states. 
                                       
                                       Just as is being done now - where do you think California gets is power from, as they consistently refuse to allow power plants to be built (NIMBY is alive and well in California)?  Where do you think it gets its water from as it won't pay for desalinization plants (too busy supporting illegal aliens, I suspect)?  Within another decade or so you won't be able to get health care regardless of how much insurance you have, because all the hospitals will have folded from too many non-paying illegal aliens.  But don't worry - you can still run into Nevada or Idaho for your plastic surgery - we'll be glad to do it for a small profit.
                                       
                                       As far as data source, I don't make claims without basis as you do:
                                       https://stateimpact.npr.org/idaho/maps/ … -to-idaho/
                                       The two states with the biggest migration to Idaho are California and Washington; both bastions of liberalism the people are fleeing from.  Wish you'd keep the whackos at home; they're ruining the state for those of us that actually understand how to operate a government.

                                       report
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   A few things that the court systems , the police , the FBI , the  ATF  , and any other of the  great federal government  , state or local  government CANNOT seem to do  !
   
   - Keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons
   - Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill
   - keep guns out of the hands of home grown terrorists
   - Keep guns ot of the hands of foreign born terrorists
   - Keep guns out of the hands of  petty criminals
   - Keep guns out of the hands of domestic violence perpetrators
   - Keep guns out of the hands of gang members
   - keep  them out of the hands of  rogue cops
   - keep guns out of the hands of illegal immigrants
   - keep guns out of the hands of foreign  enemy insurgents
   
   And yet liberal  utopian" intellectuals"  want  a few more more laws on the books because ..........?

   replyreport
3. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago

   I am astounded that a therapist rating a person as "an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another" does no already allow confiscation of weapons.  That seems like an obvious necessity to me.
   
   You think someone should express an actual desire to shoot people within hours or days should be just sent, fully armed, on their way?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But it does, at least in California. 
      
      The new law just adds that any family member or cop with the same opinion also allows it.  No training needed.

      replyreport
4. 80

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   Kaliforniastan!
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 83

      psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You really, really think someone who intends to shoots someone within hours or days and has expressed that wish to a therapist should be able to go about armed.  Really?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         A rhetorical question no doubt.

         replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Again, it does not have to be a therapist and nothing has to be verbalized (or written, either).  Just a simple opinion by a random cop or family member that there is a potential for danger.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The cop or family member has to make a compelling case to the judge before any confiscation action is authorized. Hopefully, there is more involved than 'he said, she said'.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Well, it's fine to hope; hope is what keeps us going sometimes.
               
               But in this case, at least in the article, it would seem that hope is all there is to prevent severe abuse by government.  There is no recourse, after all - the gun owner likely won't even know his home has been violated until after the fact.  There is no oversight - all it requires is an opinion.  There is nothing but the good will of the liberal political machine that wants to ban all guns to stop the abuse directed at gunowners.  This hardly seems adequate and even if it IS adequate with current cops and judges it won't remain that way.  Power corrupts, remember, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; in the matter of gun control this law is absolute power and WILL be taken advantage of.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That is simply not true. The law clearly requires due process. Please restrain yourself from NRA propaganda.
            
            https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face … 0140AB1014

            replyreport
5. 59

   Alternative Primeposted 7 years ago

   Once Again, you can Observe the Republican CON Job in Microcosm RIGHT Here in this Forum ~
   
   Republicans CRY about the Mentally ill obtaining guns, then we begin to COLLECT the gunz from the Mentally ill and Republicans start CRYING about the 2cnd Amendment which dosen't EVEN Apply to the Law ~
   
   EXAMPLE 2 ~ We now have a "NO Fly List" of Individuals who can believe it or NOT, actually BUY Gunz due to Republican Negligence, a policy which Republicans NOW Support because they say the LIST is Un-Constitutional, just another Mis-Informed Opinion, but if we didn't have a "List" and someone who should have been on a LIST commits a CRIME, Then, Republicans would be CRYING "WHY didn't we have a "LIST" ??
   
   It's the same old tired CONservative "Running Around in Circles" Nonsense ~ So now, the Talking is over thank GOD and it's LONG Past Time to actually start doing something about the GUN Problem in the United States ~
   
   P.S. ~ 1000 DIFFERENT People have 1000 DIFFERENT Interpretations and or OPINIONS about the United States Constitution so NOTHING said here in this Chat FORUM can be considered as "Concrete FACT" ~

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "then we begin to COLLECT the gunz from the Mentally ill"
      
      Except that it isn't just the mentally ill that will lose their constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Hordes of innocent people can expect the same when there is no checks or balances in the law.  It is, after all, what the law is designed to do - take rights from anyone that someone thinks shouldn't have them, whether that someone has any credentials or reasons to back it with or not.
      
      Still haven't figured out what a secret list of people being denied a priviledge has to do with denying anyone a constitutional right.  Can you explain this a little better?
      
      Oh yes, there are facts aplenty.  Like the fact there is no correlation between the murder rate and gun ownership rate.  Like the fact that the constitution guarantees everyone the right to own and bear arms (notwithstanding your irrelevant opinion to the contrary).  Like that fact that no country on earth has been able to show that taking guns - any guns from anyone - has had the smallest effect on homicide rates. 
      
      By the way - where is that mathematical proof that taking guns will prevent homicides?  I'm still waiting for it...

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         wilderness, you are simply WRONG on your Constitutional OPINION ~
         
         And REALLY, So what's your problem NOW ?? NOT more than 5 minutes ago you and Will Starr, and colorfulone, and ahorseback and ALL the other Gun NUTz were runnin' around all over the place in a Literal "TIZZY", sayin' "Pleez DON"T Take my GUNz go get the Mentally ill, they are the REAL Problem !!!!! "
         
         SO NOW, we're begininng to TAKE steps toward Common Sense Gun Control and you're still CRYIN" ....???? This is the "Talking in Circles" NONSENSE that goes on in the Republican Side of Congress EVERY Day, and you actually WONDER WHY President Obama out of Necessity, Exercises Unilateral Action to get things done ?? .....
         
         Backward Republicans can just Keep on TALKIN' and we Progressive Democrats will get the JOB Done for "We the People"....FINALLY ~

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately I have the SCOTUS on my side - it trumps every ill informed opinion you might ever produce. 
            
            "we're begininng to TAKE steps toward Common Sense Gun Control and you're still CRYIN"
            
            No you're not - you (California) has enacted a law that allows search and seizure based on nothing more than an opinion, real or just anger, from an untrained family member that you might be dangerous.  That's all it takes to remove 2 contstitutional rights in that stupid law.  So when you proclaim it as "common sense" to violate rights and protections because an angry spouse wants to hurt you, well, even you know better than that.  This law isn't about protecting people from the mentally ill - it's about another grab for guns.
            
            Yes, the libs will "get the job done" if they can - the job of disarming the population and reinforcing the "sheep" concept they promote.  I get that, which is why I will fight it every inch of the way.  I make a poor sheep.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               C'mon wilderness ~ OPINIONs are like "Horses ASSiz", there's a MILLION of em' out there ~ ~ AND.... Maybe you should submit your BRILLIANT Ideas on "HOW To"  REDUCE Gun Violence BEFORE Legislative or Unilateral Action is TAKEN....Maybe you can save us ALL some Time....
               
               SCOTUS has an OPINION, the Attorney General has one, Sean Hammerhead has one, Bill o'reilly has one, and although he has obviously NEVER read the Constitution, EVEN a Guy like Delusional Ben Carson has one  ~
               
               But don't FEAR, I'm sure another Big WASTE of Tax Payer Money will be coming soon in the form of a Frivolous LAW  Suit to TEST this Policy Right ??
               
               I mean, that's what CONservative Republicans NOW use their ELECTED Offices for these days right ?? "COURT & Fraudulent Congressional Committees" "Court & Fraudulent Congressional Committees" "Court & Fraudulent Congressional Committees" .......AND so it goes ......

               replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   JMO ,I ain't scared ,   but I wish there WAS a state or federal entity that would begin a gun confiscation ,    Its getting past time where it matters that there  were not  such stupid extremes in American politics and in the American public .     Truth is almost non-existent on the left   . On the right there will be no compromise .    What this country is moving towards is a revolution of rhetoric.
   
   Extremism , elitism and   exhibitionism  is he new public political  norm  , not only in the news media  but even in places like  this .   I'd rather see a cleansing , a returning to a more sober  and settled  kind of American culture .    What I have seen developing  in recent years is a maturity at  the level of sophomoric    high school  equivalence  whenever  one is entering into political  forums . 
   
   I believe that's what happens though in an environment of  social activism , brought n by a president who welcomed  such discourse ,  Its the typical mentality  of  a much younger crowd  and that's all fine .   But the young and the left in America has to ask itself a  very serious question , do you  believe that  someone among you   is going to fight the fight for you ?
   
   What WILL you do when  you turn on the TV and watch as police ,   perhaps even military troops begin marching into AMERICAN  neighborhoods  and why ? All because of political correctness  manifesting from a  White House's    eight year sophomore president ?    When American blood starts flowing in American streets ,   and not from  liberal incited  street violence but from a real revolution  caused by the denigration of  cultural respect for the very constitution  of the United States .
   
   Maybe it's time ,  bring on the revolution  , begin the confiscation of  law abiding American's  heritage  , traditions and  freedoms ,  start   trying to confiscate our second amendment  and  our guns and when you've decided  to initiate that , you'd better hire the U.N. because there are no  Leftist Americans who will fight that  fight for you .

   replyreport
7. 79

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

   We asked for common sense, and it sounds like that is what California is giving us.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yep!  As long as "common sense" means "do whatever I want without regard to the rights of anyone else".  It's pretty common, but I'm not sure about the "sense" part - as soon as it is the speaker it's being done to it suddenly doesn't make much sense anymore.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Kathleen Cochran ~ Don't MIND wilderness and his GRUMPY irritable behavior, with the implementation of OUR new Policies in California, if he LIVED Here, he would certainly be at Risk of being RENDERED GUNLESS if U know what I mean ~
      
      YES California is indeed "Ahead of the Curve" on many things including Gun Control & Abatement and we are Finally beginning to take Gun Violence Seriously starting with Common Sense Controls & Restrictions applied to individuals who are unfortunately suffering from Psychological Issues ~
      
      Republicans believe the ONLY answer to Gun Violence is to "Flood the Streets" with even MORE Gunz, any deviation from this belief is met with Obstruction and I'm not sure how you would realize a Reduction in Gun Crime with that strategy ~ But Progressive Democrats believe in Common Sense Controls, Restrictions, & Abatement to Reduce the total number of Gunz in Circulation ~
      
      Completely OPPOSITE Positions from completely different political parties ~

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Yes Kalifornica  IS leading he way as usual !  Among  cities having the most violent people in the country ,  the most lenient laws as well ,   the tightest gun controls   and I might add the most liberal fanatics in the world !   Every evil known to modern man , like leading the way  in   drug abuse , illegal immigration,  gang violence , the idiocy of Hollywood celebrity's , the least amounts of criminal punishment  in the world. .  I'm moving to la -la land too  ,    might as well join in on the  leading causes of demise in American values , lowering morals and increasingly  deviant human behavior .
         
         Seriously , The GOOD  people of California  ought to leave  and let it literally sink into  the ocean along with it's stupid politics . .

         replyreport
8. 80

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   California is losing it. Now, they are banning grand juries in police shootings. The report says they made this bill because of grand juries like Darren Wilson.  Which worked fine, he was innocent and civilians saw that.   
   
   Instead of a panel of civilians they are going to leave it up to a prosecutor?
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cal … 3c12bebda7
   
   More stupid legislation to come from California...(reminds me of the old saying, "Everything starts first in California.")

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ~ WE must be doing something right in the Great Golden State of California, pushin' 40 MILLION Strong in Population ~ Um.....What's the Population of North Dakota again ??

      replyreport
      1. 80

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         What does North Dakota have to do with this?

         replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think it is a grand jury that "has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system." (from the link); it is the failure to convict each and every cop that shoots a dark skinned person. 
      
      If California wants to avoid suspicion, all it has to do is immediately hang any cop that shoots anyone, which is probably the next step in that silly state.  Of course, they won't have many cops for very long, but that's what happens when you kill the messenger if you don't like the message.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         +1
         Yes, you said it better then I did...you are so good at expressing what you know to be true in your knower.   Visiting California vicariously is interesting enough but its not on my bucket list.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            colorfulone & ahorseback NOT coming to visit California ? GREAT way to start off the NEW Year with the BEST News of the DAY ~
            
            ~ Fabulous to hear colorfulone and we FINALLY Agree on something ~
            
            With your Pathetic 1950's Racist Attitude, Militant Tone, Radically Extreme Politics, Strange Backward Motion Behavior, Disdain for FACT Based Science & MATH, Desire for Insane Right Wing Politicians like Ted Cruz & Ben Carson to CONTROL a Woman's Body for Religious Purposes, and your Obliviously Inept Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution ~ I can say this with the UTMOST Conviction & CONFIDENCE ~ STAY right where you're at cuz you're Definately NOT a "Good Fit" for California & Her Robustly Progressive Democratic Lifestyle ~
            
            P.S. ~ AND Yes, with our new Cutting Edge FOCUS on the Critically Important Issue of Gunz & Mitigating Possession of said Dangerous Weapons by those individuals who are "Psychologically Unstable" ? ~ Well, for that reason alone it might be a GOOD Idea for U to ADD North Dakota  & Alabama and REMOVE the Great Golden State from your "Bucket List" ~

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Actually , having been there a couple times , Its a great  and picturesque state .   The people  I met were nice , the northern coast was extremely  awesome  , the inland  national forests , wow .    But the politics ,   Listening to some of the most abstract  people on the planet ;  watching as a human culture deteriorates before the worlds very  eye's ;      It  always shows the worst in human entitlements an it's manifestation into the human psychy ?  And it never disappoints us !

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not even sure what that even means ahorseback, but I guess that's WHY you live in "Hillbilly-Land" with your OWN Language & Beliefs and we here in the GREAT Golden State DON'T ~ It's exactly what I'd expect from an individual who will actually VOTE for an Insane Republican who has plans to TAKE Away Social Security & Medicare from our Senior Citizens, and GIVE even MORE of OUR Wealth to Greed Driven Wall Street Corporations ~  Go Figure ~
                  
                  Anyway, I can certainly understand WHY you and colofulone would NOT feel "At Home" here in the SouthWest because crazy us, we like to ride around with SURF-Boards & Snow Skis in the back of our Modified Sun-Drenched Pick-Up Trucks, NOT Tattered Confederate FLAGz Flappin' Aimlessly in the Breeze ~
                  
                  And hey, you and wilderness & colorfulone and anyone else around here can Continue to CONTRADICT what you've been advocating for at least M*O*N*T*H*S here on these boards, "Whining" about the Mentally ill over and over and over again, or you can Man-&~Woman Up to accept the FACT that this is the first step toward a LONG Term Strategy to Mitigate Gun Crime ~

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't know what you're talking about , you're the only mentally challenged person I know  here . The rest of us are just rednecks of one color or another .   But let me ask you this [without expecting a clear answer ]   Why DO you continue to spout the same boring drivel , you know  ! Like a broken  45 record or something .

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I guess that's just ONE More Difference between us ahorseback OUR Conflicting Definitions of "Boring Drivel" ~

                        replyreport
                  2. 95

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Or, alternatively, you could man up yourself and come clean about why you so hate guns?  Do you just like the feeling of controlling others?  Do guns really frighten you that much?  Does the idea of people actually being responsible for themselves scare you that badly?  Is it just a sick love for big government?
                     
                     We know it has nothing to do with crime mitigation - gun control won't accomplish that and we all understand that simple fact - so what is it?  C'mon, AP, man up and be honest for once.  What scares you so bad about a chunk of iron?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Just like your assessment of the 2cnd Amendment, your "Speculation" of my thought process couldn't be further from the TRUTH wilderness, Except of course the "BIG Government" thing which I'm in favor of 100% ~ BIG Government Equals Efficient & Effective Government & Secure LONG Term JOBs for Millions of Americans and even though you DESPISE OUR 4 Million Federal Employess, I like that idea ~ But that's another subject ~
                        
                        I just watched an Idiot Politician from Texas "Bragging" about the state's "Open Carry" situation and I'd like to say I was ASTONISHED, but his Retarded View of GUNz and how to Reduce Gun Violence was NO Less than INSANE but certainly NO Surprise ~ So Now, in Texas, you can walk around the STREETS in a Cowboy Costume and "PRETEND" you're Wyatt Twerp, NOT Good ~ His STANCE ? MORE Gunz EQUALS Less GUN Violence which is Absolutely Ridiculous, just like MORE Cars Equals Fewer Auto Accidents etc ~ But I understand his rhetoric,  he was Obviously Compelled to Espouse this NONSENSE for FEAR of NRA Repercussions ~
                        
                        Let em' STAY in Texas with their Tattered Confederate Flagz, Quasi-Sanitary Out-Houses, Crudy Hank Williams Jr &  Lynryd Skynrd, The Quasi-Coherent Bush Family, and ALL the little GUNz & Bullets their little Hearts Desire ~ I'm just HAPPY the Southwest is on the EXACT Opposite Track, the RIGHT Track ~
                        
                        P.S. ~ I'm quite Comfortable with my Masculinity, I don't need to walk around the streets with a "Phallic Symbol" such as a rifle to COMPENSATE like most GUN NUTz do ~

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Maybe I WAS mistaken.  Anyone that thinks bigger government means better government may also be confused enough to think that taking guns means less violence.  It takes all kinds, I guess, and a refusal to study and learn will always promote ignorance.
                           
                           But isn't it past time you produced that mathematical proof that fewer guns means fewer murders?  We're all still waiting with bated breath for that astounding bit of arithmetic.

                           replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Alternative power , Come on man , I mean wouldn't you like to just blow away some target .  I'll tell you what I do , I love to take my 44 magnum and shoot ice chunks  out of the river .  I mean  they just explode like rouge planets   !    It's really good for the soul,  you know .   You could come up sometime and I'll let you try it  .   Of course  , don't tell all your  liberal  peer groupies .  I don't have room for them all ,   One of them  would certainly get on my case about target shooting in the buff . Know what I mean ?

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    Anti gun people ,............ I'll bet you that they are all   vegetarians too ............You know where  that word came from ?  It's an old Indian term  for ........."him terrible hunter ".

    replyreport