Gun Confiscation! On YOUR watch?

[ryanburbridge]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Thomas Jefferson
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]"

PROPOSED Virginia CONSTITUTION. FORD ED., ii, 27. (June, 1776.)


What would YOU do if you knew guns were being TAKEN from FREE men in your town? Would you resist a government who would do such?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...y-34000-remain/2011/06/16/AGBRA1XH_story.html


Calif. agents seize 1,200 firearms from people! And say 34,000 still remain.

They are coming NOW and using your money to do it!

The last time California conducted a similar sweep was in 2007, when a third as many weapons were seized.

Now if you read the full article you may blow this off and think it is justified. I say that WE are no better then the Germans who allowed millions to be led to the slaughter!

First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
By Pastor Martin Niemöller

You sleep tonight knowing WE let this happen! You take you fight to the same court that let this happen!

This WILL happen to ALL of us! And sadly it will be on OUR watch!

"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

 

[coolusername2007]

The Madison Society has brought a lawsuit fight against misdemeanor DV disarmament.

 

[We-the-People]

Love "high security operations" because they "have weapons and are known to be dangerous".

So how many people who had a restraining order filed on them by a spouse in a nasty divorce are going to find their doors kicked in by M16 wielding SWAT teams so that the cops can find out that....OOOPS.....Mr. Citizen's guns aren't here because he stored them with relatives until the nasty divorce is over with?

Too damn easy to make an allegation and have a restraining order placed on someone simply because of an accusation. TOO easy and certainly shouldn't be considered the necessary due process to remove ones constitutional rights.

 

[cato]

Because restraining orders work sooooo well:

http://m.ibtimes.com/jerry-steele-cecilia-child-molestor-mother-daughter-shooting-164529.html
RIP

Restraining orders, properly issued, should come with a loaner pistol, emergency ccw (Vermont style in a perfect world), and shooting lessons.

Ryan you are a little ahead of your time. But your heart is in the right place. We have to let the court processes work (it will take years and decades). So yes I will stand by while prohibited persons get their doors kicked in.

 

[cato]

The Madison Society has brought a lawsuit fight against misdemeanor DV disarmament.

http://www.madison-society.org/laws/08+1st+Amended+Comp[1].pdf

 

[We-the-People]

That lawsuit is an interesting read. Seems for many of the plaintiffs that it's an ex post facto problem in addition to the legal arguments made in the suit.....plead to a crime that didn't have the penalty of loss of firearms rights and then a later law said "oops, sorry, changing the rules".

I have no idea how the disturbing the peace conviction of one of the plaintiffs is supposedly a lifetime ban on weapons. Go figure.

We have a similar problem here in Oregon with convicted felons who can petition for the right to purchase firearms but, until our last legislative session were still prohibited from possessing the very firearms they were able to purchse (if their petition was sucessful). We got that fixed but now the knucklehead (Prozanski) who wrote the bill is crying that he didn't mean to do what he did (even though the bill sailed through both houses with, I believe, absolutely NO votes against it).

 

[Gunslinger]

The PDR is bankrupt, but the ******* from Frisco wants to find more money to kick in doors. I was surprised he didn't say "do it for the children..." Personally, I think a DV conviction should continue to prohibit--for life, possession of a firearm. But I have a problem with the Gestapo tactics so typical to Kalifornia.

 

[Gunslinger]

Because restraining orders work sooooo well:

http://m.ibtimes.com/jerry-steele-cecilia-child-molestor-mother-daughter-shooting-164529.html
RIP

Restraining orders, properly issued, should come with a loaner pistol, emergency ccw (Vermont style in a perfect world), and shooting lessons.

Ryan you are a little ahead of your time. But your heart is in the right place. We have to let the court processes work (it will take years and decades). So yes I will stand by while prohibited persons get their doors kicked in.

I agree with you. Too bad your state makes it virtually impossible for the innocent to defend themselves against the predators. In CO, you can get an emergency CCW within 'hours.' In Kalifornia, never. That is the crux of the problem.

 

[ryanburbridge]

Ryan you are a little ahead of your time. But your heart is in the right place. We have to let the court processes work (it will take years and decades). So yes I will stand by while prohibited persons get their doors kicked in.

I am also standing by watching this happen. I just want people to think and talk about it. I have a hard time listening to people who support the second amendment for them but would take that same right from others in some "class".

I always say free is free. If you are locked up you are not free. After 25 years in prison once you are free you should be fully restored as a free man.

If the crime is soo bad then why are they let out?

If 80% of the people in jail on unconstitutional charges were free you could keep the real criminals in jail for there full term.

A tactic of the worst dictators is to create "classes" of people. Once everyone is brainwashed to believe this "class" needs to be dealt with everyone just goes along.

How many good German families stood by and watched a "class" of people wiped out?

"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

 

[ryanburbridge]

Personally, I think a DV conviction should continue to prohibit--for life, possession of a firearm.

may I ask why you feel this way? Do you truly belive that if a person in this "class" wants a gun to harm someone they will not be able to get one? Do you also agree with the failed background check system.

What about the guy who screwed up when he was young who now is a grandfather and can not leagly protect his family?

In a free country we only punish action not what "could" happen.

Someone made a very clear statement about the 2ndA. They compared cars to guns.
Cars are soo important to our daily lives we accept the thousands of inocents deaths every year. Guns are more important to a FREE people and we should accept the thousands of innocent deaths each year due to guns.

Criminals have always been here and always will be. They used other tools before guns and will use other tools after they are taken.

Please give me some of your reasons so we can debate this subject.

Thanks

"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

 

[Gunslinger]

The personality type who commits violence on a "loved" one is unstable, has serious psychological issues and has the highest recidivism of any criminal. Having a gun--and yes, he can get one illegally, increases the likelihood of murder. To make it difficult to get one--impossible legally under Federal law, decreases that eventuality to a large degree. I agree that 'mistakes' in youth are a topic for debate as to forgiveness later in life. There are legal provisions to address this for someone who truly regrets his action and has lived a stellar life after. He, I believe, is a very small minority, though. You lose rights when committing many offenses--often for life. I can see reformed bank robbers or car thieves much easier than those who abuse helpless people they claim to have loved. Just my 2c, of course, but while we punish offenses which have occured, that doesn't mean we can't take action to prevent their reoccurence--possibly in a much more serious action.

 

[Firemark]

Too damn easy to make an allegation and have a restraining order placed on someone simply because of an accusation. TOO easy and certainly shouldn't be considered the necessary due process to remove ones constitutional rights.

Very correct! dealing with DV at work I see it all the time that a woman who wants to get a restraining order against a man, without any evidence or proof other than her story, can get a temporary order filed and have a court date set (upto 90 days out) to "discuss" it in front of a judge. This temp order requires the individual to surrender their weapons to LE. And when the court date happens, they both tell their stories, and the judge says "there is no case, no evidence, this restraining order is bogus" the individual has to pay a processing fee to retrieve his weapons from the Sheriff.

Any DV call where it is man on woman and the woman calls, they are always encouraged by LE to file a restaining order, regardless of whether there is evidence of assault or threat or not. Many women owing money get out of paying ex boyfriends back this way. Very common and well known tactic.

 

[We-the-People]

I've also seen PERSONALLY how the government treats the issue.

A friend was on medication for a disease. That medication would make him "loopy"...the result being that he couldn't remember if he took his meds but he knew he needed to take them. His long term live in girlfriend kept the meds secured and gave them to him as she could ensure he didn't keep taking them.

One day she went to work and didn't secure them. He ended up taking several and when she arrived home from work found him. He was "out of it". She found that he'd taken a bunch of the pills and when he tried to hang himself....this is how far out of it he was, he tried to hang himself by putting his belt around his neck and pulling it up with his hand..... she called 911 to get him help.

They had no cell or land line, only an internet VOIP phone. In the course of the 911 call the internet dropped the call.

Police arrive, arrest and cuff him because, in this state interupting a 911 call is a crime and they wouldn't listen to her story.

Next thing you know, on his release there is a restraining order on him....no contact, no phone contact no third party messages, no access to weapons, yadda yadda. So the girlfriend moves in with her mother and he stays in their home.

SHE applies to the court to have the restraining order lifted and the judge says (paraphrased) "no, I hear DV case where the woman says she wasn't a victiim all the time". On the other hand he ALSO rules that, because his work as a handyman is found through her job in a real estate office and that she calls him with assignments that......(again paraphrased)...."She can call him to communicate jobs to him but they can not discuss anything personal".

Now what the heck is with that? The reason for prohibiting phone contact is to prohibit harassment. If you're going to allow the SUPPOSED victim to call the SUPPOSED perpetrator what sense does it make to prohibit personal commmunication when the purpose of such an no contact order is to keep a perp from harassing a victim....who isn't going to call the alleged perp if he's harassing her (or if she does then her bad).

Of course the public defender kept trying to get him to plead to a "minor" DV charge that would "go away" with lots of "anger management" classes that he would or course have to pay for AND for the restraining order to be lifted regarding no contact, SHE would have to go to "victim courses" which of course she had to pay for.

NOPE, DV charges should NOT be an automatic lifetime prohibition against firearms ownership when they are leveled in cases such as these. Now, if there is a conviction for some VIOLENT act, we can discuss the merits. However, I generally belief that if you're a danger to society then you need to be in lock up. If you're not in lockup and your probation (still part of the sentence) is complete....FULL RIGHTS RESTORATION.

Also, NO LAW is going to prevent the violent person who intends to use a firearm to wreak havoc from obtaining and using a firearm.
WTF