TexasCHLforum.com

Gov. Jerry Brown announced Wednesday that he has signed legislation expanding the ability of state agents to seize firearms from nearly 20,000 Californians who are not allowed to have them.

They collectively own more than 39,000 handguns and 1,670 assault weapons but are prohibited from owning firearms because they have been convicted of crimes, ruled mentally unstable or are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05 ... =obnetwork

Hmmm.... if California DOESN'T keep a registry, then how do they KNOW the number of guns held by these individuals?

And if they DO keep a registry, what makes them think that those are the only guns those individuals have?

I'll bet a lot of 'em had unfortunate accidents in lakes and ponds...

Seriously, if these folks are felons and folks who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, I'm all in favor of them not being able to have weapons, but what about family members that cohabitate with these prohibited people? Have they given up their rights, as well?

Bucket of worms, Jerry.

n5wd wrote:Hmmm.... if California DOESN'T keep a registry, then how do they KNOW the number of guns held by these individuals?

And if they DO keep a registry, what makes them think that those are the only guns those individuals have?

California kind of does. Their dealers have to process what is called a DROS or Dealer Record of Sale when transferring a gun to a person. California also requires, with very few exceptions, that all private transactions are also processed through an FFL, also requiring a DROS to be generated. This information gets sent over to the California DOJ which I'm suspecting is where they are compiling this information from.

Maybe Perry could work out something with them to send the guns here for sale

RPBrown wrote:Maybe Perry could work out something with them to send the guns here for sale

Ooohhh...I like it. Perhaps we could offer to buy them for pennies on the dollar. California could get rid of the evil guns instead of destroying them, the California govt. could make a little money to help out with their debt, Texans could get a good deal on used guns....

That is thinking out of the box, sir.

They may not keep a registry, but they know what guns you have bought.

Some years ago, one of my pistols went missing, after I had unloaded my gun safe to move it while some remodeling was being done. We got a call early one morning from San Diego PD, did I own a pistol such and so, and was it missing. They knew who to call within hours of retrieving it, loaded, from under the seat of a car in the parking lot of a local high school, occupied by two punks who had no business having a weapon in their possession. The two punks claimed they had bought it from "some dude."

Every gun I have bought in the last 20 years or so is in that computer. I'm not sure about those purchased before that. Every gun I have sold as well.

I wonder if I have to tell them "goodbye?"

The people who are being looked at are people you may not want having guns anyway, felons etc. This is not by any means the worst of the "infringement" that has been growing here the last 20 years or so.

California has always seen itself as the "smarter sibling" in the family of states. They are convinced that where they go - the rest of the states will eventually follow. Probably just a " Hollywood " hangover.

Truth is most of the other states have given up on California.

Reviving and old thread here.

What are your thoughts on this? Limited info in the article but what about the concept?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/23/ci ... s-lawsuit/

Don Kilmer is a good lawyer with an excellent reputation and very active in Second Amendment issues in California.

However much we agree that she has a right to have guns, it is a very hard sell to convince a judge to not err on the side of caution when a local government pleads for it. If anything happens later, that judge would be crucified in public opinion, a very courageous decision indeed.

I was in Panama (under Noriega) and later in Peru (under Fujimori) when the governments were pushing an "amnesty" for firearms registration. In both instances, shortly after these amnesty periods concluded the government went after political opponents who had registered firearms. Registration leads to confiscation--sooner or later.

This attitude needs a beat down:

“We don’t want to turn the guns over and we don’t have to turn the guns over. The courts have agreed with us,” Doyle told the station.

Translation:

We won't want to respect the plaintiff's 2nd Amendment rights. We don't have to respect the plaintiff's 2nd Amendment rights. The court agrees with us that the plaintiff, never having committed any kind of crime nor having ever been adjudicated as psychiatrically incompetent, has no 2nd Amendment rights.

We don't need cops like that.

But it's okay if you live in a sanctuary city and are an illegal alien.

The Wall wrote:But it's okay if you live in a sanctuary city and are an illegal alien.

It is amazing how even these sorts of situations morph.
in 2012
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/ ... nt-rights/

...and now...

http://www.guns.com/2015/08/21/second-a ... mmigrants/

chasfm11 wrote:

The Wall wrote:But it's okay if you live in a sanctuary city and are an illegal alien.

It is amazing how even these sorts of situations morph.
in 2012
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/ ... nt-rights/

...and now...

http://www.guns.com/2015/08/21/second-a ... mmigrants/

To be honest, I can see both sides of this argument.

• On hand, if they are granted any other protections under our constitution, then why not be granted all the protections it offers? Relegating the RKBA to a second-class right does none of us any benefit.
• On the other hand, why should those who criminally trespass in our country be afforded ANY constitutional rights at all? The constitution is (or at least should be) a document that protects the citizens and legal residents of this country from an oppressive government. It's not here to empower those who enter and stay illegally, if you ask me.

Vol Texan wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

The Wall wrote:But it's okay if you live in a sanctuary city and are an illegal alien.

It is amazing how even these sorts of situations morph.
in 2012
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/ ... nt-rights/

...and now...

http://www.guns.com/2015/08/21/second-a ... mmigrants/

To be honest, I can see both sides of this argument.

• On hand, if they are granted any other protections under our constitution, then why not be granted all the protections it offers? Relegating the RKBA to a second-class right does none of us any benefit.
• On the other hand, why should those who criminally trespass in our country be afforded ANY constitutional rights at all? The constitution is (or at least should be) a document that protects the citizens and legal residents of this country from an oppressive government. It's not here to empower those who enter and stay illegally, if you ask me.

I'm struggling with this one myself.