quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
Would Gun Violence Restraining Orders be a solution. Family members get a path to stop potentially violent people.

The people being accused would have clear due process to restore their rights.

Seems like a win/win. At least as close as you can get in this situation. It the person, not the gun? Right?

A Gun-Control Measure Conservatives Should Consider

quote:

registered gun owner

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

registered gun owner

Registration is one thing that scares the bejeebus out of me.

It can be use for good but then again we have a plethora of laws that are not being enforced or not enforced evenly.
You know there are some individuals, states and areas that will use it to simply take your guns.
Yeah, I have concerns and California is illustrating it well.

quote:

Originally posted by dsmack:
Here's my area of concern: "A dozen years ago, the state set up a database that flags law enforcement officials when a registered gun owner is convicted of a felony, deemed mentally ill, has received a restraining order or committed one of about 37 qualifying misdemeanors." (Bolded emphasis mine...)

I want to see the list of "about 37 qualifying misdemeanors".

It has always been my understanding that the prohibited citizens were those who had been convicted of a Felony.

And you can bet that next year that list will have expanded even further. Under what authority, I ask?

Don

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

registered gun owner

Registration is one thing that scares the bejeebus out of me.

It can be use for good but then again we have a plethora of laws that are not being enforced or not enforced evenly.
You know there are some individuals, states and areas that will use it to simply take your guns.
Yeah, I have concerns and California is illustrating it well.

It's one of those benign steps into oppression that Progressivism delivers. How long did it take California to start actively confiscating based on a registry? Confiscation is another step into oppression that begins benignly with action against those we all agree have lost their rights. All that is left from there is redefining who has lost their rights. Committed a felony? Lost yer rights. Beat yo baby mama? Lost your rights. Owe taxes? Lost your rights. Vindictive wife reports you have psychological/emotional problems? Lost 'em. Get in a bar fight? Gone. Visit the wrong websites? No gunz fer you! Say the wrong thing, chew a poptart in the wrong shape, cry in public? Outta here with your rights. Gum on your shoe?.....

See where this all goes eventually? Gov't cannot be trusted with our rights.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

registered gun owner

Registration is one thing that scares the bejeebus out of me.

It can be use for good but then again we have a plethora of laws that are not being enforced or not enforced evenly.
You know there are some individuals, states and areas that will use it to simply take your guns.
Yeah, I have concerns and California is illustrating it well.

It's one of those benign steps into oppression that Progressivism delivers. How long did it take California to start actively confiscating based on a registry? Confiscation is another step into oppression that begins benignly with action against those we all agree have lost their rights. All that is left from there is redefining who has lost their rights. Committed a felony? Lost yer rights. Beat yo baby mama? Lost your rights. Owe taxes? Lost your rights. Vindictive wife reports you have psychological/emotional problems? Lost 'em. Get in a bar fight? Gone. Visit the wrong websites? No gunz fer you! Say the wrong thing, chew a poptart in the wrong shape, cry in public? Outta here with your rights. Gum on your shoe?.....

See where this all goes eventually? Gov't cannot be trusted with our rights.

VERY well said. Perfectly actually.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

registered gun owner

Registration is one thing that scares the bejeebus out of me.

It can be use for good but then again we have a plethora of laws that are not being enforced or not enforced evenly.
You know there are some individuals, states and areas that will use it to simply take your guns.
Yeah, I have concerns and California is illustrating it well.

It's one of those benign steps into oppression that Progressivism delivers. How long did it take California to start actively confiscating based on a registry? Confiscation is another step into oppression that begins benignly with action against those we all agree have lost their rights. All that is left from there is redefining who has lost their rights. Committed a felony? Lost yer rights. Beat yo baby mama? Lost your rights. Owe taxes? Lost your rights. Vindictive wife reports you have psychological/emotional problems? Lost 'em. Get in a bar fight? Gone. Visit the wrong websites? No gunz fer you! Say the wrong thing, chew a poptart in the wrong shape, cry in public? Outta here with your rights. Gum on your shoe?.....

See where this all goes eventually? Gov't cannot be trusted with our rights.

VERY well said. Perfectly actually.

This CA activity follows the saying "show me the man and I will show you the crime". This time they went after alleged criminals, next time they'll make up something about an innocent gun owner just to kick his door in and make an example of him.

Good luck with a court defense, the state has many, many more resources than the average Joe.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog7972:
The 39 visits to the kids house get's tossed around a lot. I'd like to know what where those 39 visits were about. I have not heard anything mentioned about that. Where they for the kid and his guns, domestics involving him, the neighbors or what. Just because the Police visited his house 39 times over a period of thime it doesn't mean it was for him or a gun. Could have been a sibling, mom and dad, a beef with the neighbor, loud parties, cars parked illegally, dog barking, a host of things other than something connected to guns.

I posted a long, drawn out reply in another thread that also touched on "it ain't illegal to be crazy unless you are a danger to yourself or others", and how mental health will take people who are obviously nuts and send them back home after being picked up for such hijinks because "that was then. Now, they are no longer a threat". EVERY town in America has a dude that the cops have been out to the house 39 times, and there is nothing by law that they can do. I know you have seen it many times and so have I. If the Parkland thing was mishandled, yeah that needs to be handled, but 39 calls and "the police failed to act" in most cases is actually "the police has nothing they can do by law". I deleted my post (twice) because I was for sure that someone would come along and try to claim I was making excuses for Mr. 39. I'm not and far from it.

The mental health laws in this country are broken, they are nonexistent and no one wants to fix it because it costs money. No one wants to keep anyone in jail because it costs money.

quote:

Originally posted by dsmack:
I want to see the list of "about 37 qualifying misdemeanors".

quote:

• Threatening public officers, employees, and school officials (Pen. Code, § 71.)
• Threatening certain public officers, appointees, judges, staff or their families with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat
(Pen. Code, § 76.)
• Intimidating witnesses or victims (Pen. Code, § 136.1.)
• Possessing a deadly weapon with the intent to intimidate a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.5.)
• Threatening witnesses, victims, or informants (Pen. Code, § 140.)
• Attempting to remove or take a firearm from the person or immediate presence of a public or peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148(d).)
• Unauthorized possession of a weapon in a courtroom. Courthouse, or court building, or at a public meeting (Pen. Code, § 171(b).)
• Bringing into or possessing a loaded firearm within the state capitol, legislative offices, etc. (Pen. Code, § 171(c).)
• Taking into or possessing loaded firearms within the Governor's Mansion or residence of other constitutional officers (Pen. Code, 171(d).)
• Supplying, selling or giving possession of a firearm to a person for participation in criminal street gangs (Pen. Code, § 186.28.)
• Assault (Pen. Code, §§ 240, 241.)
• Battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243.)
• Sexual Battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4)
• Assault with a stun gun or taser weapon (Pen. Code, § 244.5.)
• Assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, or with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245.)
• Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument; by any means likely to produce great bodily injury or with a stun gun or taser on a school employee
engaged in performance of duties (Pen. Code, § 245.5 .)
• Discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (Pen. Code, § 246.3.)
• Shooting at an unoccupied aircraft, motor vehicle, or uninhabited building or dwelling house (Pen. Code, § 247.)
• Inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or significant other (Pen. Code, § 273.5.)*
• Wilfully violating a domestic protective order (Pen. Code, § 273.6.)
• Drawing, exhibiting, or using deadly weapon other than a firearm (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1) & (a)(2).)
• Inflicting serious bodily injury as a result of brandishing (Pen. Code, § 417.6.)
• Making threats to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person (Pen. Code, § 422.)
• Bringing into or possessing firearms upon or within public schools and grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.9.)
• Stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9.)
• Armed criminal action (Pen. Code, § 25800.)
• Possessing a deadly weapon with intent to commit an assault (Pen. Code, § 17500.)
• Driver of any vehicle who knowingly permits another person to discharge a firearm from the vehicle or any person who willfully and maliciously
discharges a firearm from a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 26100, subd. (b) or (d).)
• Criminal possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 25300.)
• Firearms dealer who sells, transfers or gives possession of any firearm to a minor or a handgun to a person under 21 (Pen. Code, § 27510.)
• Various violations involving sales and transfers of firearms (Pen. Code, § 27590, subd. (c).)
• Person or corporation who sells any concealable firearm to any minor (former Pen. Code, § 12100, subd. (a).)
• Unauthorized possession/transportation of a machine gun (Pen. Code, § 32625)
• Possession of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor (Pen. Code, § 30315.)
• Carrying a concealed or loaded firearm or other deadly weapon or wearing a peace officer uniform while picketing (Pen. Code, §§ 830.95, subd. (a),
17510, subd. (a.)
• Bringing firearm related contraband into juvenile hall (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 871.5.)
• Bringing firearm related contraband into a youth authority institution (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1001.5.)
• Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person receiving in-patient treatment for a mental disorder, or by a person who
has communicated to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against an identifiable victim (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 8100.)
• Providing a firearm or deadly weapon to a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 8100 or 8103 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 8101.)
• Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person who has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender or
found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity, and individuals placed under conservatorship
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 8103.)
• Assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 23515, subd. (a).)
• Shooting at an inhabited or occupied dwelling house, building, vehicle, aircraft, housecar or camper (Pen. Code, §§ 246, 29800, subd. (a)(1), 17510,
23515, subd. (b).)
• Brandishing a firearm in presence of a peace officer (Pen. Code §§ 417, subd. (c), 23515, subd. (d), 29800, subd. (a)(1).)
• Two or more convictions of Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2) (Pen. Code § 29800, subd. (a)(2).)
• A “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” (18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A), 922(g)(9).)

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog7972:
The 39 visits to the kids house get's tossed around a lot. I'd like to know what where those 39 visits were about. I have not heard anything mentioned about that. Where they for the kid and his guns, domestics involving him, the neighbors or what. Just because the Police visited his house 39 times over a period of thime it doesn't mean it was for him or a gun. Could have been a sibling, mom and dad, a beef with the neighbor, loud parties, cars parked illegally, dog barking, a host of things other than something connected to guns.

I posted a long, drawn out reply in another thread that also touched on "it ain't illegal to be crazy unless you are a danger to yourself or others", and how mental health will take people who are obviously nuts and send them back home after being picked up for such hijinks because "that was then. Now, they are no longer a threat". EVERY town in America has a dude that the cops have been out to the house 39 times, and there is nothing by law that they can do. I know you have seen it many times and so have I. If the Parkland thing was mishandled, yeah that needs to be handled, but 39 calls and "the police failed to act" in most cases is actually "the police has nothing they can do by law". I deleted my post (twice) because I was for sure that someone would come along and try to claim I was making excuses for Mr. 39. I'm not and far from it.

The mental health laws in this country are broken, they are nonexistent and no one wants to fix it because it costs money. No one wants to keep anyone in jail because it costs money.

quote:

Shooting at an unoccupied aircraft, motor vehicle, or uninhabited building or dwelling house (Pen. Code, § 247.)

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Shooting at an unoccupied aircraft, motor vehicle, or uninhabited building or dwelling house (Pen. Code, § 247.)

As a reason to be a Prohibited Person, that one seems too vague. What if the unoccupied vehicle is a target at a legitimate shooting range (or even on someone's personal property)? The rule does not appear to exempt such a use.

flashguy