California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

moriar said:

Walking - I will spell it out for you since you and David are special as special gets, the owners did not say you can not enter. They did not refuse their service. Thus there cannot be trespass. My property lines have no trespass signs up, when I come across hunters that have barely come into my property I don't call police, I politely ask them to leave if they don't then I call police and trespass them, I now have a reason to trespass. David has yet to cite laws of ability to carte Blanche trespass an entire police department. That would be like me filing trespass against fair fax county police and fish and wildlife

Click to expand...

Let me spell it out for you! Neither David or I said they trespassed the officers. YOU on the other hand seem to invent things in the mind, like suggesting David was calling for violence or resisting arrest. Obviously YOU missed that they NEVER were under arrest. David does not have to cite laws that he can trespass, those are his rights as a property owner. Maybe YOU need to cite laws that he cannot. Please cite one law that states a property owner has to give a reason to eject somebody from their property?

WalkingWolf said:

Let me spell it out for you! Neither David or I said they trespassed the officers. YOU on the other hand seem to invent things in the mind, like suggesting David was calling for violence or resisting arrest. Obviously YOU missed that they NEVER were under arrest. David does not have to cite laws that he can trespass, those are his rights as a property owner. Maybe YOU need to cite laws that he cannot. Please cite one law that states a property owner has to give a reason to eject somebody from their property?

Click to expand...

I have previously cited notice of trespass case law .. you may search for it ...

You would know that when they come on your property that they are there either: for good reason that they can be there or are trespassing

I don't think that just because they know that you own a gun that its PC to enter the house w/o a warrant...this issue is becoming more important now that various bills are being examined regarding registration & confiscation....

In CT, they get warrants ... I have read about 50 case files and judges issue them out like candy but it still goes before a judge.

I don't know if CA also requires a warrant ... anybody?

moriar said:

Walking - I will spell it out for you since you and David are special as special gets, the owners did not say you can not enter. They did not refuse their service. Thus there cannot be trespass. My property lines have no trespass signs up, when I come across hunters that have barely come into my property I don't call police, I politely ask them to leave if they don't then I call police and trespass them, I now have a reason to trespass. David has yet to cite laws of ability to carte Blanche trespass an entire police department. That would be like me filing trespass against fair fax county police and fish and wildlife

Click to expand...

No trespass signs do not mean that people cannot enter the property .. they can still go onto the driveway, walkways to the home etc..

I had a thread about trespass posted about 3 months back full of legal authorities....its YOUR land and, believe it or not, you still have the authority to keep anyone off you like.

Cops can enter if they have a warrant or want to arrest you though ... firemen can still respond to a fire , etc.

You are free to file a notice of trespass against the police and F/Wildlife authorities ...

I do not have "no trespassing" signs as its only specific parties I want kept off my land due to abuse.

moriar said:

the owners did not say you can not enter. They did not refuse their service. Thus there cannot be trespass.

Click to expand...

100% correct .. that is why you need to learn your rights BEFORE they knock on the door .. they'll say and can say anything to gain entry. Up to you to know if you can deny and then to actually perform.

I've had FBI agents say I need to let them in or I would be arrested .. and then slammed the door in their face & guess what? They went away. 'Cause I did nothing illegal.

davidmcbeth said:

100% correct .. that is why you need to learn your rights BEFORE they knock on the door .. they'll say and can say anything to gain entry. Up to you to know if you can deny and then to actually perform.

I've had FBI agents say I need to let them in or I would be arrested .. and then slammed the door in their face & guess what? They went away. 'Cause I did nothing illegal.

Click to expand...

David, I agree with the first half which so far did not think was possible.

However f/wildlife have specific exemptions in law that they can walk thru tracts of land during hunting seasons with or without permission. So with said exemption how would that come to stop by trespass? Or better yet what department will charge said trespasser ?

moriar said:

However f/wildlife have specific exemptions in law that they can walk thru tracts of land during hunting seasons with or without permission. So with said exemption how would that come to stop by trespass? Or better yet what department will charge said trespasser ?

Click to expand...

Cite, please?

moriar said:

David, I agree with the first half which so far did not think was possible.

However f/wildlife have specific exemptions in law that they can walk thru tracts of land during hunting seasons with or without permission. So with said exemption how would that come to stop by trespass? Or better yet what department will charge said trespasser ?

Click to expand...

I would not be surprised .. wacky EPA & whatnots ... CFR Chapter 40 weighs as much as all other CFRs combined....ooooh, the environment ..

Me thinks thou doest protest too much...

davidmcbeth said:

One reason why I filed a notice of trespass ... keep them off your land.

Click to expand...

Uhm...one problem who would prosecute them (police) for the misdemeanor crime of trespass? Oh yeah the city prosecutor, who basically works for the police...yeah good luck with that McBeth.

Nice idea but the system is rigged against just about everyone standing outside of it looking in, IMHO.:uhoh:

FreeInAZ said:

Uhm...one problem who would prosecute them (police) for the misdemeanor crime of trespass? Oh yeah the city prosecutor, who basically works for the police...yeah good luck with that McBeth.

Nice idea but the system is rigged against just about everyone standing outside of it looking in, IMHO.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

We had three police officers arrested for several crimes including breaking into a home. ARRESTED by their own department.

http://www.wral.com/three-durham-police-officers-arrested-in-disturbance/11999150/

The truth is: Your home is your castle. And as a homeowner and as long you haven't done anything illegal, you have the right to kick anyone (including the Police and the FBI) off of your property if you feel that they are unwelcome in your home. Unless, the Police or the FBI have a legal and official reason for being there (by warrant or other executive order), you can legally order them to leave your property. If they don't comply, you have the authority to trespass them.

I will take this opportunity to refocus our attention(s) back to the point of the story linked to in the OP.

The point is not trespass (OT in my view), the point of this story is that citizens (California citizens in this instance) may be deprived of their 2A right without due process. Bureaucratic findings are not due process as far as I know but it is California.

How did Mrs. Phillips end up on a prohibited person database? That is the point of her story. She may have a very good chance of regaining her firearms if LE acted upon a bureaucratic finding and not as a result of due process. Those cops will not, and should not be held to account unless it can be proven that they knew that their task was the result of a bureaucratic finding and not due process.

A reasonableness test if you will, but that can only be determined in a courtroom. Mrs. Phillips did not begrudge those cops. I hope she retains a attorney and seeks redress. Her case could be a game changer for all citizens where the specifics of her situation are concerned.

The question remains, how did Mrs. Phillips get on a database of prohibited persons.

Trespass is OT with regards to the point of this story.

SixGunCowboy said:

The truth is: Your home is your castle. And as a homeowner and as long you haven't done anything illegal, you have the right to kick anyone (including the Police and the FBI) off of your property if you feel that they are unwelcome in your home. Unless, the Police or the FBI have a legal and official reason for being there (by warrant or other executive order), you can legally order them to leave your property. If they don't comply, you have the authority to have them forcefully removed from your property (trespass them).

Click to expand...

People are going to go to jail or get killed listening to this crap.

There are lawful reasons for police to enter your premises without a warrant (or "other executive order," whatever that is). Exigent circumstances come to mind first. If they are on your property, lawfully, but without warrant, and you tell them to leave, they are going nowhere. If you attempt to forcefully remove them, they will arrest you. If, in your moral (but misplaced) indignation, you resist, you will be forcefully subdued. Then, if you think this is a legitimate self-defense situation, and decide to kill one of the officers (as has been suggested by another poster in another thread), I see one of three outcomes for you: (1) in jail for the rest of your natural life, (2) in jail until your natural life is ended by chemicals introduced by a state-ordered needle, or (3) (most likely) dead on-the-spot.

The legal analysis of trespassing LEOs in the performance of their duty is a helluva lot more complicated than a bunch of IANALs will try to make it seem. Since consulting a lawyer while you are in the middle of it, you need a plan that will both protect your rights AND not get you killed.

IANAL and am not offering legal advice. I am just warning you to get REAL legal advice before following the "trespass the cops" crap.

What would I do? First, I'd never assume that, without a warrant, the LEOs have no justifiable reason to be on my property and that I can (forcefully or otherwise) kick them off. Much like with an encounter on the street, I'd try to ascertain whether the action was lawful. Failing that, I'd proceed as though it was lawful, getting my objections on the record.

For example, if a group of officers knocked on my door and demanded entry, I'd ask them for ID and a warrant. If they produce a warrant, I'd inspect it, allow them in if it had my address on it, and either way, I'd contact a lawyer immediately. If they did not have a warrant, I'd tell them that I do not consent to any searches, that I will not invite them into my home, and that I want them to leave my property.

If they do not go and insist on coming in, I do not know whether their actions are lawful or not, so I will inform them that I still do not consent, but will not resist.

Of course, everything will be recorded. Rights violations can be fixed later. Dead can't.

There is exercising your rights intelligently; then there is being stubbornly and stupidly getting yourself justifiably jailed or killed. Choose wisely. And "wisely" ain't listening to a bunch of IANALs on telling you how to man up when faced with a bunch of armed officers.

eye95 said:

People are going to go to jail or get killed listening to this crap.

There a lawful reasons for police to enter your premises without a warrant (or "other executive order," whatever that is). Exigent circumstances come to mind. If they are on your property, lawfully, but without warrant, and you tell them to leave, they are going nowhere. If you attempt to forcefully remove them, they will arrest you. If, in your moral (but misplaced) moral indignation, you resist, you will be forcefully subdued. Then, if you think this is a legitimate self-defense situation, and decide to kill one of the officers (as has been suggested by another poster in another thread), I see one of three outcomes for you: (1) in jail for the rest of your natural life, (2) in jail until your natural life is ended by chemicals introduced by a state-ordered needle, or (3) (most likely) dead on-the-spot.

The legal analysis of trespassing LEOs in the performance of their duty is a helluva lot more complicated than a bunch of IANALs will try to make it seem. Since consulting a lawyer while you are in the middle of it, you need a plan that will both protect your rights AND not get you killed.

IANAL and am not offering legal advice. I am just warning you to get REAL legal advice before following the "trespass the cops" crap.

What would I do? First, I'd never assume that, without a warrant, the LEOs have no justifiable reason to be on my property and that I can (forcefully or otherwise) kick them off. Much like with an encounter on the street, I'd try to ascertain whether the action was lawful. Failing that, I'd proceed as though it was lawful, getting my objections on the record.

For example, if a group of officers knocked on my door and demanded entry, I'd ask them for ID and a warrant. If they produce a warrant, I'd inspect it, allow them in if it had my address on it, and either way, I'd contact a lawyer immediately. If they did not have a warrant, I'd tell them that I do not consent to any searches, will not invite them into my home, and want them to leave my property.

If they do not go and insist on coming in, I do not know whether their actions are lawful or not, so I will inform them that I still do not consent, but will not resist.

Of course, everything will be recorded. Rights violations can be fixed later. Dead can't.

There is exercising your rights intelligently; then there is being stubbornly stupid and getting yourself justifiably jailed or killed. Choose wisely. And "wisely" ain't listening to a bunch of IANALs on telling you how to man up when faced with a bunch of armed officers.

Click to expand...

Eye95...

you are wise

OC for ME said:

I will take this opportunity to refocus our attention(s) back to the point of the story linked to in the OP.

The point is not trespass (OT in my view), the point of this story is that citizens (California citizens in this instance) may be deprived of their 2A right without due process. Bureaucratic findings are not due process as far as I know but it is California.

How did Mrs. Phillips end up on a prohibited person database? That is the point of her story. She may have a very good chance of regaining her firearms if LE acted upon a bureaucratic finding and not as a result of due process. Those cops will not, and should not be held to account unless it can be proven that they knew that their task was the result of a bureaucratic finding and not due process.

A reasonableness test if you will, but that can only be determined in a courtroom. Mrs. Phillips did not begrudge those cops. I hope she retains a attorney and seeks redress. Her case could be a game changer for all citizens where the specifics of her situation are concerned.

The question remains, how did Mrs. Phillips get on a database of prohibited persons.

Trespass is OT with regards to the point of this story.

Click to expand...

to get back on track,

I definitely think now note think. That california has their mental database hooked up to the flagging system, so once she became a temporary patron of the hospital, she was immediately flagged. Which is rather unfortunate and concerning.

now the lady should sue the hospital into the ground. do not settle, but sue.

OC for ME said:

...Trespass is OT with regards to the point of this story.

Click to expand...

Sorry about my last post on the topic of trespass. I had not seen your objection. Anyway, I still feel that someone needed to refute this bum legal advice being given out. I've said my piece and will not reply further in this thread to the trespass-the-cops crowd.

On topic: No, bureaucratic findings should not be used to strip the RKBA. The Constitution prohibits the government from taking one's life, Liberty, or property without due process of law. To me, that means a hearing of the facts in a public setting where you have the right to legal representation and can face any accusers. Bureaucrats make these calls without hearing all the facts, behind closed doors, and where neither you nor your legal representative is present and, therefore, cannot confront any accusers.

This case may be the one to get the courts to formally put the seal on this reality as it relates to the federal law outlining "prohibited persons." I hope she pursues it and that one of the major gun rights groups helps her out. Except for the NRA, any of these groups that pitches in will earn membership dues and donations from me.

moriar said:

to get back on track,

I definitely think now note think. That california has their mental database hooked up to the flagging system, so once she became a temporary patron of the hospital, she was immediately flagged. Which is rather unfortunate and concerning.

now the lady should sue the hospital into the ground. do not settle, but sue.

Click to expand...

Hospital, maybe. I would suspect that, if legal counsel is retained, a competent attorney would find more than just the hospital to be held accountable. I would hope that the California Department of Justice would also be named in a suit, excluding those particular officers, for aiding and abetting in what appears to be a rights violation.

eye95 said:

Sorry about my last post on the topic of trespass. I had not seen your objection. Anyway, I still feel that someone needed to refute this bum legal advice being given out. I've said my piece and will not reply further in this thread to the trespass-the-cops crowd.

On topic: No, bureaucratic findings should not be used to strip the RKBA. The Constitution prohibits the government from taking one's life, Liberty, or property without due process of law. To me, that means a hearing of the facts in a public setting where you have the right to legal representation and can face any accusers. Bureaucrats make these calls without hearing all the facts, behind closed doors, and where neither you nor your legal representative is present and, therefore, cannot confront any accusers.

This case may be the one to get the courts to formally put the seal on this reality as it relates to the federal law outlining "prohibited persons." I hope she pursues it and that one of the major gun rights groups helps her out. Except for the NRA, any of these groups that pitches in will earn membership dues and donations from me.

Click to expand...

No apology necessary. Your assessment of, and your recommendations regarding the "trespassing" of LEOs, can not be disputed. Though, sadly, some do continue to cling to that absurd notion regarding trespassing a LEO on our private property.

+1 to you Sir.

Back OT, the real travesty, in my view, is that her husband has also been deprived of his 2A right as a result of a apparent bureaucratically initiated miscarriage of justice. I hope that he too seeks a redress via the courts as a separate case against those responsible. The stickler may be that the hospital in question may be a "private institution" and not a "state institution." I know that the distinction may be difficult to discern from time to time, but a distinction there is from time to time.

OC for ME said:

Hospital, maybe. I would suspect that, if legal counsel is retained, a competent attorney would find more than just the hospital to be held accountable. I would hope that the California Department of Justice would also be named in a suit, excluding those particular officers, for aiding and abetting in what appears to be a rights violation.

Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone above the hospital would be at fault. here is my rationale on that.

NOTE** Database should have several checks on it to whom and how they are added.

But, since it is obvious that there are no checks. The fault goes on the hospital. an overzealous nurse made the issue of someone's mental status was at fault. The doctors initially committed but atleast released her under the allotted time.


The big issue was that she was added to the database by the hospital on the actions of a nurse that is not qualified to make the appropriate decisions.

Nurses need to remember two things, they are patient advocates, and lastly do not practice medicine but apply medicine.

moriar said:

I don't think that anyone above the hospital would be at fault. here is my rationale on that.

NOTE** Database should have several checks on it to whom and how they are added.

But, since it is obvious that there are no checks. The fault goes on the hospital. an overzealous nurse made the issue of someone's mental status was at fault. The doctors initially committed but atleast released her under the allotted time.


The big issue was that she was added to the database by the hospital on the actions of a nurse that is not qualified to make the appropriate decisions.

Nurses need to remember two things, they are patient advocates, and lastly do not practice medicine but apply medicine.

Click to expand...

I agree in part and disagree in part.

The state mandates that the database exist and thus they too are liable if the database is incorrect. The state must ensure that any "hit" is carefully reviewed, by investigating the validity of the data associated with the "hit." If additional resources are required to be sure that the "hit" is legitimate under the applicable statutes then they must proceed as the law provides.

I do not contend that a investigative protocol was not followed, I contend that the protocol may be fundamentally flawed. Bureaucrat drones will implement the policy/protocol without thinking and this includes bureaucrat drones in the California Department of Justice.

The California Department of Justice must prove in a court of law, in front of the citizen(s) deprived of their property and 2A right, and a jury, that they are not to be held liable for their acts. The specific officers involved, unless it can be proven otherwise, are to be held harmless. They apparently blindly followed the directions of bureaucrat drones in the California Department of Justice.

A prohibited person under the law can be deprived of their 2A right only after due process. The hospital did not deprive Mrs. Phillips and her husband of their 2A right the California Department of Justice and thus the state of California deprived them of their 2A right.

moriar said:

You cannot file trespass law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Cite?

again, David is advocating potentially violent outcomes towards police.

Click to expand...

David may be a bit out there, and he may have made violent remarks on other occasions (I don't know one way or the other), but this accusation is so wildly inaccurate in this case that I'm forced to make the call:

professional shill, if not actual LEO.