California Begins Gun Confiscation

[PratchettFan]

California Begins Gun Confiscation

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh who coordinates the operations around California, said: “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun. The only people we’re contacting are people who are prohibited from owning guns.” Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Weapons and ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Philllips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image Lynette and David Phillips

Lynette Phillips, 48, and her husband, David Phillips, 51, sit in their home in Upland, California on March 5, 2013. Lynette, a nurse, had to surrender three guns after spending two days in a mental hospital in December. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Weapons with ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Phillips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

California Department of Justice police agents walk towards a house near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh with the California Department of Justice drives out to seize illegal firearms near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg

They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program. ​

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg

Well........it's started.

Hope you've made whatever arrangements you can make.

First the excuses will seem rational but eventually they will start dreaming up more and more excuses to seize our guns. It's hard to imagine what excuse they'll come up with to take them but the goal is to make private gun ownership a thing of the past.

It's far worse than that. Right this very minute uniformed men are invading the cells of peaceful prison inmates and taking anything which even appears to be a weapon. Even something like a sharpened toothbrush. A TOOTHBRUSH! Is there no end to what the fiends will do to destroy our sacred freedoms? Seriously people. I think the time has come to start hoarding tootbrushes before the government takes them away from you.

 

[Oldguy]

There's always more to the story and there is in this case. Of course, you'd never know that if you did a Google search on this woman's name, as I did, and had to wade through 14 pages of right-wing websites "reporting" the exact same story, from the exact same source, ad nauseum.

First of all, this woman was involuntarily committed to the Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, CA. "Involuntary" is the operative clause in so far as California law is concerned. Respecting legal and professional rules regarding patient/Doctor confidentiality, the hospital did not respond to questions about the woman's allegation that nurse who admitted her "exaggerated" magnitude of our condition. Here, it would be appropriate to mention that few, truly ill mental patients believe there is anything wrong with them and most committed will tell you they've been either framed or misunderstood, just as convicts often do.

In any case, California has some strict and clear laws about who can, and who cannot, possess firearms. Among those denied the right are those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, as this woman was. Legally, she can't have guns and neither can anyone else who resides with her because of availability issues.

This isn't something brand new and devious. California has been doing this for some years and, in fact, in the first 11 months of 2012, they seized 2033 firearms and 117,000 rounds of ammunition from those who either have felony convictions, are under restraining orders or who have diagnosed mental problems.

https://www.cslea.com/news/article/doj_special_agents_seize_firearms_from_the_armed_dangerous

My editorial comment: It seems that I remember the NRA and the Nutter's here in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, saying that new gun control measures weren't the answer. Keeping crazy people from having guns was. Remember? That was the line: Keep guns out of the hands of loonies and leave the legal gun owners alone.

Well...that's exactly what California is doing, but now the Nutter's are all up in arms about THAT.

What's wrong? I thought keeping guns away from mentally unbalanced people was the right thing to do? Now that it's being done, is it suddenly wrong?

ps: By the way, Ms. Phillips said she does not blame the agents for taking their guns, based upon the information they had. She does, however, believe she should still be legally able to purchase a firearm, but state law obviously disagrees with her.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-11/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms

 

[mudwhistle]

It would only be a problem in the inner cities. The rest of us seem to manage going all our lives without shooting someone. I know,amazing right?

Its not all inner city violence

White Males are the Mass Shooters

The horrific mass murder at a movie theater in Colorado , another at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin , another at a manufacturer in Minneapolis in —and then the unthinkable nightmare at a Connecticut elementary school in December—are the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings* across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012. .


White men are having a crisis of both aggrievement and entitlement. One need only look at the 2012 election season to see less brutal but equally mind-numbing examples of white men going mad because they are losing their power. The "Republican Meltdown" is a perfect example of men who previously had all the control escalating to madness when that control was lost.

Until the 1980s, when semi-random spree murders "inexplicably" became the province of young white men, there was no need for young white men to resort to this kind of thing. Whatever happened in society, they would be the winners. These days, it's still not the worst thing to be a white male -- not by a long shot -- but it's not nearly as cushy as it used to be. Women's rights have grown by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years. Marriage has become more advantageous to women than men since no-fault divorce and custody policy favoring women have become the norm. We have... (gasp)... a black president. If someone grew up indoctrinated into the God and Country of the White Man, it's easy to understand how regardless of personal circumstance, feelings of entitlement and superiority could already be on shaky ground. One need only look up any of the hundreds of "Men's Rights Movement" websites, which are often thinly veiled hate groups, to see examples of (usually white) men who seem to be feeling very emasculated and powerless.

Why Most Mass Murderers Are Privileged White Men

So you're saying it's worse when the mentally ill kill compared to people who do it for drug money?
And besides way more people die because homie needs a fix then by mass shooters.

Brothers invented busting caps in a theater because somebody told them to hang up their cell-phone.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Exactly, keeping guns from people who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions seems like a reasonable action.

Saying they shouldn't do what is wise based on speculation that they'll take it further and start taking guns from depressed people or drunk drivers doesn't make sense to me, you make the best decision for the community not one based on speculative fear of future legislation.

 

[t_polkow]

Its not all inner city violence

White Males are the Mass Shooters

The horrific mass murder at a movie theater in Colorado , another at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin , another at a manufacturer in Minneapolis in —and then the unthinkable nightmare at a Connecticut elementary school in December—are the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings* across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012. .




White men are having a crisis of both aggrievement and entitlement. One need only look at the 2012 election season to see less brutal but equally mind-numbing examples of white men going mad because they are losing their power. The "Republican Meltdown" is a perfect example of men who previously had all the control escalating to madness when that control was lost.

Until the 1980s, when semi-random spree murders "inexplicably" became the province of young white men, there was no need for young white men to resort to this kind of thing. Whatever happened in society, they would be the winners. These days, it's still not the worst thing to be a white male -- not by a long shot -- but it's not nearly as cushy as it used to be. Women's rights have grown by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years. Marriage has become more advantageous to women than men since no-fault divorce and custody policy favoring women have become the norm. We have... (gasp)... a black president. If someone grew up indoctrinated into the God and Country of the White Man, it's easy to understand how regardless of personal circumstance, feelings of entitlement and superiority could already be on shaky ground. One need only look up any of the hundreds of "Men's Rights Movement" websites, which are often thinly veiled hate groups, to see examples of (usually white) men who seem to be feeling very emasculated and powerless.

Why Most Mass Murderers Are Privileged White Men

So you're saying it's worse when the mentally ill kill compared to people who do it for drug money?
And besides way more people die because homie needs a fix then by mass shooters.

Brothers invented busting caps in a theater because somebody told them to hang up their cell-phone.

“The demographics race we're losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We're not generating enough angry white guys

 

[mudwhistle]

There's always more to the story and there is in this case. Of course, you'd never know that if you did a Google search on this woman's name, as I did, and had to wade through 14 pages of right-wing websites "reporting" the exact same story, from the exact same source, ad nauseum.

First of all, this woman was involuntarily committed to the Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, CA. "Involuntary" is the operative clause in so far as California law is concerned. Respecting legal and professional rules regarding patient/Doctor confidentiality, the hospital did not respond to questions about the woman's allegation that nurse who admitted her "exaggerated" magnitude of our condition. Here, it would be appropriate to mention that few, truly ill mental patients believe there is anything wrong with them and most committed will tell you they've been either framed or misunderstood, just as convicts often do.

In any case, California has some strict and clear laws about who can, and who cannot, possess firearms. Among those denied the right are those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, as this woman was. Legally, she can't have guns and neither can anyone else who resides with her because of availability issues.

This isn't something brand new and devious. California has been doing this for some years and, in fact, in the first 11 months of 2012, they seized 2033 firearms and 117,000 rounds of ammunition from those who either have felony convictions, are under restraining orders or who have diagnosed mental problems.

https://www.cslea.com/news/article/doj_special_agents_seize_firearms_from_the_armed_dangerous

My editorial comment: It seems that I remember the NRA and the Nutter's here in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, saying that new gun control measures weren't the answer. Keeping crazy people from having guns was. Remember? That was the line: Keep guns out of the hands of loonies and leave the legal gun owners alone.

Well...that's exactly what California is doing, but now the Nutter's are all up in arms about THAT.

What's wrong? I thought keeping guns away from mentally unbalanced people was the right thing to do? Now that it's being done, is it suddenly wrong?

ps: By the way, Ms. Phillips said she does not blame the agents for taking their guns, based upon the information they had. She does, however, believe she should still be legally able to purchase a firearm, but state law obviously disagrees with her.

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Businessweek

You have a point, but since I already mentioned the fact that my spouse has already fallen victim to Obama's new background check regulations that he signed by executive order I think the threat of abuse is highly possible. I'm not gonna repeat the post.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, oldguy, I'm sure you can find something that supports this but then again that's all they need to go after gun owners, an excuse that on the surface seems rational.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because it is ration, mud.

 

[Spoonman]

How long before they start handing out the brown shirts?

 

[bodecea]

California Begins Gun Confiscation

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh who coordinates the operations around California, said: “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun. The only people we’re contacting are people who are prohibited from owning guns.” Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Weapons and ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Philllips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image Lynette and David Phillips

Lynette Phillips, 48, and her husband, David Phillips, 51, sit in their home in Upland, California on March 5, 2013. Lynette, a nurse, had to surrender three guns after spending two days in a mental hospital in December. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Weapons with ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Phillips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

California Department of Justice police agents walk towards a house near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh with the California Department of Justice drives out to seize illegal firearms near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg

They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program. ​

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg

Well........it's started.

Hope you've made whatever arrangements you can make.

First the excuses will seem rational but eventually they will start dreaming up more and more excuses to seize our guns. It's hard to imagine what excuse they'll come up with to take them but the goal is to make private gun ownership a thing of the past.

Mudwhistle is the Poster Child for the Gun Nuts WANTING those who have mental health issues to have guns.

 

[bodecea]

That's some scary stuff..We have come full circle with our rights being stripped

"Our"? You've spent time in a mental hospital? Color me not surprised by that.

 

[bodecea]

What do you mean by "arrangements"?

None of your God Damned business you bastard.

Tough guy.

 

[bodecea]

Exactly, keeping guns from people who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions seems like a reasonable action.

Saying they shouldn't do what is wise based on speculation that they'll take it further and start taking guns from depressed people or drunk drivers doesn't make sense to me, you make the best decision for the community not one based on speculative fear of future legislation.

Not to two groups (that may overlap):

1. The gun nuts (not all gun owners)

2. The mentally ill

 

[mudwhistle]

California Begins Gun Confiscation

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh who coordinates the operations around California, said: “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun. The only people we’re contacting are people who are prohibited from owning guns.” Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Weapons and ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Philllips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image Lynette and David Phillips

Lynette Phillips, 48, and her husband, David Phillips, 51, sit in their home in Upland, California on March 5, 2013. Lynette, a nurse, had to surrender three guns after spending two days in a mental hospital in December. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

Weapons with ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Phillips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

California Department of Justice police agents walk towards a house near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg
Enlarge image Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh with the California Department of Justice drives out to seize illegal firearms near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg

They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program. ​

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg

Well........it's started.

Hope you've made whatever arrangements you can make.

First the excuses will seem rational but eventually they will start dreaming up more and more excuses to seize our guns. It's hard to imagine what excuse they'll come up with to take them but the goal is to make private gun ownership a thing of the past.

Mudwhistle is the Poster Child for the Gun Nuts WANTING those who have mental health issues to have guns.

Wrong!!!

The mentally-ill should never have guns.

The untrained should never have guns.


I just have issues with the low standards the left wants to disqualify us with.

A patient talks to a doctor about depression.......let's take their guns.
A 76 year old woman is falsely accused of assault.....let's take their guns.
A farmer fires a warning shot at a trespasser.......let's take their guns.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did they take all the knives away as well.
How about the power tools,hammers saws,
Any baseball bats around.

Now we are taking actions against people before any crime is committed.

Reductio ad absurdum alert.

 

[sitarro]

Again, not seeing the problem here... Crazy people shouldn't have guns.

Of course, it would probably disqualify 90% of the gun nuts on USMB.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

You definitely don't qualify for gun ownership you tiny brained fuck, you live in shitago!

 

[PredFan]

Taking guns away from crazy people?

The fiends!

Who gets to define crazy? IMO, you aren't exactly sane.

 

[PredFan]

Problem is in this case the woman wasn't crazy. There's the rub. You don't have to be crazy, just be accused of being crazy.

All it takes is some low-life swearing out a warrant on you or signing some document on you and you're fucked.

She was sufficiently whacked enough to be confined to a mental hospital for a couple of days.

And frankly, if someone swears out a warrent on you, you've probably done something to deserve it.

The only time I've filed a legal complaint on anyone in my life was after everything else I tried failed, and my lawyer told me I had no choice. I can't imagine anyone does this frivolously.

You imbecile. I've already provided a perfect example where this happened to my wife and you're still talking shit.

STFU

Joe would be stripped of his guns in Cali. He isn't stable.

 

[PredFan]

That's some scary stuff..We have come full circle with our rights being stripped

Do you think people with mental illness have the right to own a gun?

Yes. "Mental Illness" is too broad a term.

 

[bodecea]

That's some scary stuff..We have come full circle with our rights being stripped

Do you think people with mental illness have the right to own a gun?

Yes. "Mental Illness" is too broad a term.

Does anyone here think that a person who has their guns taken away does NOT have the recourse of going to court to have them returned?