California Passes Bill To Confiscate Guns [Pic+]

Submitted by: McGovern1981 4 years ago in

But we"re not taking anything from you they said.....
There are 71 comments:
Male 37,794
One Sunny Day in California:
*ding dong*
Government Guy: Hello! I am here to confiscate your guns! Hand them over, or else! :-)
Legal Citizen: What? Why?
GG: It seems your brother is taking anti-depressants, so you`ve lost your rights!
LC: My brother lives in Portugal! I haven`t seen him in years!
GG: Details! Details! Cough up the firearms or go directly to prison...

Naw, that will never... oh wait! It`s ALREADY happening, and in New York too!
0
Reply
Male 579
It`s ok, I`m pretty darn sure they`ll NEVER EVER abuse this law. Ever.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
OldOllie

"If you`re stupid enough to live in a disarmed socialist $#!+hole like CA, NY, CT, MA, DC, or IL, you deserve to die begging an armed criminal not to kill you."

Hahahaha. Yes. I`ll live in my sunny, 75 degree, beautiful town with a thriving economy and culture that people pay money just to be at for a few days. You stay in whatever little s.hithole, nowhere, contribute nothing, meaningless town you live in that you were born and raised near and never had the balls or intelligence to leave.

Sit there seething and angry and miserable and alone jacking off to rush limbaugh and spewing hatred on the internet, I`m off to the beach.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"If you`re stupid enough to live in a disarmed socialist $#!+hole like CA, NY, CT, MA, DC, or IL, you deserve to die begging an armed criminal not to kill you."

In other words, places people desire to live in (maybe not DC).
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]If you`re stupid enough to live in a disarmed socialist $#!+hole like CA, NY, CT, MA, DC, or IL, you deserve to die begging an armed criminal not to kill you. [/quote]

I live in MA while I dissagree with people here who know nothing about guns making laws for them I`m most certainly not disarmed and won`t be no matter what they put on paper.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]2)I still object, a crime you committed in the past should not disqualify you from owning a gun. It can get just as draconian as the ineffective "no-fly" list.[/quote]

BINGO if it were any other right taken away permanantly with no option to refute it imagine what these hippies would say.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]OR are you such a gun idiot [Like Old Ollie obviously is] that you think criminals, would-be terrorists, and the mentally insane have every right to own a firearm? [/quote]

Except that this isn`t just taking away from them if they deem you to close to a mentally ill person they`ll take yours too.

[quote]All they`re trying to do is enforce existing laws (like you said you wanted!) and you get all up in arms about the wrong damn bill! lol[/quote]

Lol! show me the law that states you can take the guns of someone close to someone mentally ill! It`s already been done how about we take them from relatives of criminals like you Sleepyhallow sound good that`s where you`re going with this.
0
Reply
Male 1,983
Yeah, God forbid we make any effort whatsoever to get ILLEGAL firearms off the streets.

You did see where this is only for taking illegal weapons [like the sawed off shotguns, and fully automatic machine guns pictured above] and the firearms in the possession of convicted felons didn`t you?

OR are you such a gun idiot [Like Old Ollie obviously is] that you think criminals, would-be terrorists, and the mentally insane have every right to own a firearm?


I am a Liberal. I live in California. I am a responsible gun owner and there isn`t a single thing in this law that will affect me or in the least.

My brother, however, being a convicted drug felon, will lose everyone of his guns and that makes me feel a lot safer.

If guns don`t kill people, but people kill people, then maybe we should be running background checks on people, don`t you think?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
If you`re stupid enough to live in a disarmed socialist $#!+hole like CA, NY, CT, MA, DC, or IL, you deserve to die begging an armed criminal not to kill you.
0
Reply
Male 3,461
@HolyGod, which brings me to my point: an individual must be personally responsible for his/her actions. People scream equality, but there is hardly equality when there is no trust and when there is no accountability for one`s actions.

Just because you don`t trust somebody else doesn`t mean everybody else`s personal freedoms should be taken away.

We enjoy the freedom to own firearms, as a society, we suffer the burden of accidents happening, also as a society. It`s a trade off.

I`m willing to suffer through accidents, even if they happen to me, to be able to protect my home. Granted, I don`t actually own a firearm.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Two things:
1)Misleading title
2)I still object, a crime you committed in the past should not disqualify you from owning a gun. It can get just as draconian as the ineffective "no-fly" list.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"Which laws states if someone mentally ill is close to you your firearms are not legal [blah, blah, blah..."> Ya that sounds legal......"

You really have no clue on this, do you? Knee-jerk react much? :D This particular bill (SB 140) has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with ANY of the garbage you`re ranting about. ALL it does is reallocate funds to help dig through the backlog of cases that have ALREADY BEEN DEEMED ILLEGAL! This has NOTHING to do with "confidential medical records", or disarming "whomever they dislike", or any of the other tin-foil-paranoia you love to spew... All they`re trying to do is enforce existing laws (like you said you wanted!) and you get all up in arms about the wrong damn bill! lol
0
Reply
Male 8,132
DuckBoy87

"So then what`s the problem if a "crazy person", who shouldn`t have access to guns, lives with you if "nobody has access to (the gun) but (you)"?"

I trust myself to keep my gun locked up at all times. I don`t trust society at large. People don`t keep guns locked up.

I could own a nuclear bomb and know that there was never a risk of me setting it off, that doesn`t mean I trust OTHER people to have nuclear bombs.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Maybe if we pass enough laws, the world will be a government created paradise!!!!!!!!!Of course it will work...How can you be so dense?
0
Reply
Male 3,461
HolyGod: "I`ve taken numerous gun safety courses and nobody has access to it but me."

So then what`s the problem if a "crazy person", who shouldn`t have access to guns, lives with you if "nobody has access to (the gun) but (you)"?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"There ya go folks the future letting a small minority dictate the choices and lives of the majority in the name of "safety.""

Numb nuts, it isn`t about the safety of a minority vs the safety of the majority, it is about the safety of a minority over the inconvenience of the majority.

Worst case scenario of allowing peanuts in school? A 7 year old with a severe allergy they may not have known about dies from coming into contact with them.

Worst case scenario of banning peanuts in school? Kids eat turkey sandwiches instead.

So potentially risk a child`s life for a sandwich preference? How are you this dense?
0
Reply
Male 110
Problem I see here is that they are only taking guns from those who own them illegally. Doesn`t mean they`re trying to take your guns away if you are a lawful owner. The title of this post is VERY misleading.
0
Reply
Male 2,549
*Gasp* I guess that you`ve figured me out!! I support peanut control...namely because peanuts are BANNED in my children`s schools and daycare facilities.

That`s okay, I keep my peanuts at home.
But if I ever had a child or spouse with a severe peanut allergy, you can bet that I would give up my peanuts in a heartbeat.

That`s just the way I am.

I understand that you see an injustice in certain aspects of peanut control. That`s your right. I don`t think any less of you because of it.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
There ya go folks the future letting a small minority dictate the choices and lives of the majority in the name of "safety."
0
Reply
Male 14,334
SO you support peanut control!
0
Reply
Male 2,549
@McGovern, which bubble would that be?
The one that segregates all of the little allergic children from their peers at all times like the asylums of yesteryear?

Or

The one that prohibits me from enjoying a few food items for a portion of the day?

I`d rather be in the latter than walk the Earth in a bubble of ignorance that unwittingly causes your grave discomfort, hospitalization or death.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
@Geogypsy

I`m very allergic to Macadamia nuts you know what I don`t do? I don`t ask everyone to no longer buy and eat them I ask if they`re in anything I`m eating and look at ingrediants. Enjoy life in the bubble that`s were you`re heading.
0
Reply
Male 2,549
LOL sorry, I was just going over this thread and I found, McGovern1981: "Along with the disarming of anyone close to them gee ya that`s fair! Being punished because of someone elses actions/illness that`s what you have here."

You know what? You`re totally right! I think that I`m going to pack peanuts in my kid`s lunches tomorrow. I`m sick of all of those kids with severe allergies dictating the way that I conduct my life...(<.<) (>.>)
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Whether for or against gun control you gotta admit THIS IS A HUGE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.

This tramples right over millions of peoples rights, with the slim hope it might prevent a couple criminals from getting a gun.
0
Reply
Male 2,762
Working with the numbers supplied in the article- taken for what it`s worth- that`s $600 per gun; Hardly seems economical, and very reminiscent of those notorious $1200 screwdrivers from the `70s.
If they know about the guns, know they`re illegal, why can`t they get the job done on their existing budget?(Yes, it`s a facetious question).
0
Reply
Male 759
Good. The more the merrier
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]Wait a minute... aren`t you one of the loudest screamers of "enforce the laws already on the books!"?? This is trying to do just that. Make up your mind already!![/quote]

Which laws states if someone mentally ill is close to you your firearms are not legal and must be confiscated permanantly? Or that the police have the right to look at your medical records and deem you mentaly ill and not fit for possesion without due process? Ya that sounds legal......
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]Are you claiming that this bill means that everybody`s medical records are trawled by the police in a bid to remove everyone`s guns? Is that your point?[/quote]

I`m claiming this bill gives them the ability to do that if they want to.

[quote]I suppose that would be liberal reformers. You think they were wrong[/quote]

Partially yes some people are so ill they need supervision and people to assist them in medication regiments.

Why is it that this country has a long history of acess to firearms but suddenly we`re no longer deemed responsible enough for certain types or if the far left has their way all of them because of the actions of a few who broke laws already in place?
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Wait a minute... aren`t you one of the loudest screamers of "enforce the laws already on the books!"?? This is trying to do just that. Make up your mind already!!
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`They used to put types like that away in asylums but some group deemed that inhumane geee who would that be?`

I suppose that would be liberal reformers. You think they were wrong?
0
Reply
Male 7,123
` If a doctor think they`re a serious threat then someone should be notified...`

That`s all I was asking.

`That`s the type of thinking that will get us to become well... like you!`

Actually I`m not anti-gun. I like shooting, used to be a fair shot with a rifle and grew up in a rural area where shotguns were common. I could own a gun but I don`t need one so don`t have one.

Are you claiming that this bill means that everybody`s medical records are trawled by the police in a bid to remove everyone`s guns? Is that your point?
0
Reply
Male 14,334
And I don`t think you should be able to take away someones rights perminantly without trial and without the ability or for that matter the ability to get it revoked.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]Dodged the question. Do you believe doctors should be forbidden to inform the authorities if they consider a patient to be a real and present danger to themselves or others?
[/quote]

They used to put types like that away in asylums but some group deemed that inhumane geee who would that be? If a doctor think they`re a serious threat then someone should be notified but what that dosen`t entail is police going through everyones records for the sake of grabbing guns that is a violation of privacy.

[quote]As to the second point, if a person who is deemed to be so mentally disturbed that they should be kept away from firearms then any firearms they have access to are relevant, regardless of who is the named keeper.[/quote]

And what would be considered access? Beter disarm cops! Oh they can break into peoples house beter disarm everyone then! That`s the type of thinking that will get us to become well... like you!
0
Reply
Male 7,123
McGovern1981

Dodged the question. Do you believe doctors should be forbidden to inform the authorities if they consider a patient to be a real and present danger to themselves or others?

As to the second point, if a person who is deemed to be so mentally disturbed that they should be kept away from firearms then any firearms they have access to are relevant, regardless of who is the named keeper.
0
Reply
Male 2,468
[quote]Gerry.......California is crazy. The idea of confiscating "illegal weapons" sounds nice but California is not capable of doing this in any reasonable manner.[/quote]

^
This.

While well intentioned the bill isn`t solidly financed. It`s knee-jerk legislation that will trample the rights of some while in the end do little to correct the problem.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
@HolyGod

That`s not possible but if it were I guess I would. Problem is that you can burn off fingerprints. Side note my prints are on file it`s a requirement in my state for license.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"And what would that cost? What would the relability of such a thing be?"

We`re talking in hypotheticals here. Let`s say the device was 100% reliable and unobtrusive. Plus it was fairly inexpensive and you got a tax credit for the cost of doing it. All guns could be retrofitted with it.

Then you would never have to worry about a child getting a hold of a gun again or a stolen gun being used in a crime. Plus once you committed any violent crime and your fingerprints are on file you can never have a gun loaded with your print.

Would you support it?
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]Brilliant. Most people don`t lock up their guns though. Can we legislate that they HAVE to be locked up? [/quote]

Alot of states do CA being one of them.....

[quote]How about this: All guns have to manufactured with a thumb print scanner that only allows the gun to be fired by the owner. All other guns must be deactivated or retrofitted. You support that? [/quote]

And what would that cost? What would the relability of such a thing be? The answer is no I don`t support a law applying to devices that exsisted before the law was passed they call that being "grandfathered."
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]I just never cease to be amazed how people like you are so against ANYTHING that might make it harder for criminals and crazy people to get guns.[/quote]

I`m against people going through other peoples confidental records and taking away guns from people who obey the laws but know someone deemed mentaly ill. There are laws already to stop criminals and crazy people from getting guns but imagine this they don`t follow laws!! How does more red tape help what other laws failed at doing?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"Pehaps you should use this device called a lock! Why should someone get punished because of anothers action does that sound fair and free to you?"

Brilliant. Most people don`t lock up their guns though. Can we legislate that they HAVE to be locked up?

How about this: All guns have to manufactured with a thumb print scanner that only allows the gun to be fired by the owner. All other guns must be deactivated or retrofitted. You support that?

0
Reply
Male 2,549
I can`t ever get a gun license because of my mental health history.
I`ve dwelt in a home with a gun and my ceaseless awareness of that and the obsessive fantasies that ensued were grossly unwanted.
I can honestly tell you that the only, only, only reason I`d EVER want to own a gun would be to kill myself.

So, I believe in some cases these laws are greatly justified. Obviously in others they are not...but to create a screening process that would sift unstable from the stable? I believe that such an undertaking would prove very difficult.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]Even the NRA supports bills that keep guns from the mentally ill,[/quote]

What does the bill consider mentally ill and is there a way to get it revoked if deem mentally sound? Notice politicians keep this info from you wonder why that could ever be LOL!!
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"Take all the guns away then there`s where you`re heading."

No it isn`t. Because even people you think are "gun grabbers" like me would be against that.

I own a handgun for personal protection / zombie apocolypse. I`ve taken numerous gun safety courses and nobody has access to it but me.

I have NO PROBLEM with properly certified people owning hand guns for protection and rifles or shotguns for hunting. I just never cease to be amazed how people like you are so against ANYTHING that might make it harder for criminals and crazy people to get guns.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
@HolyGod

Pehaps you should use this device called a lock! Why should someone get punished because of anothers action does that sound fair and free to you?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Even the NRA supports bills that keep guns from the mentally ill, like this one in Florida.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
@HolyGod

And where would the law draw the line at what is unfit and how far they should be from said weapons? Locks aren`t enough someone crazy on the block? city? Take all the guns away then there`s where you`re heading.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"Being punished because of someone elses actions/illness that`s what you have here."

So if my son commits a violent crime and goes to a hospital for the criminally insane when he gets out and moves back in with me you think it is perfectly fine for me to have a stockpile of weapons that he has access to?
0
Reply
Male 38,483

Case in Point: My neighbor found love notes on his wife`s email. He smashed the keyboard. This creates an "atmosphere of fear" and he is convicted of Domestic Violence. Because of that conviction he is not allowed to own a gun in California. Even though he never laid a hand on anyone, the state will take away his pistol.

Meanwhile, an actual criminal keeps his gun because he plea-bargained down to a minor offense.

California is crazy. The idea of confiscating "illegal weapons" sounds nice but California is not capable of doing this in any reasonable manner.

0
Reply
Male 14,334
@LordJim

Along with the disarming of anyone close to them gee ya that`s fair! Being punished because of someone elses actions/illness that`s what you have here.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
mcgovern1981

"While David has no history of sickness or criminal activity it seems ownership means that his wife has access, too a reality that is apparently unacceptable"

Praise allah. Crazy people can`t have guns in their house. Wouldn`t it have been nice if someone would have told Adam Lanza`s mother she couldn`t have guns in the house because her son was crazy?
0
Reply
Male 14,334
@HolyGod

HAHAHAH did you even read what I posted simplton?
0
Reply
Male 14,334
Along with permently revoking a persons right by deeming them mentaly ill without due process and no way to revoke it. Paving quite the nice path there.....
0
Reply
Male 38,483

The ways you can lose the right to own a gun are really widerange in california. You don`t actually have to commit a crime to lose the right to own a gun, so no, I am not in favor of this.

Bad guys won`t pay any attention to this, they`ll go out and get another gun. This is a waste of manpower and money.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`Doctors and hospitals are required to report to the state individuals who were found to be a danger to themselves or others, ...`

You oppose that? You think medical confidentiality should include those who are a threat, whose mental state is such that their doctors consider them to be actively dangerous?

0
Reply
Male 8,132
HAHAHA. Did you even read the article before you posted it simpleton? The first paragraph even?

So you have a problem with the state seizing ILLEGAL GUNS?

What happened to your "enforce the laws that exist" mantra?

If your reading comprehension is this bad maybe you should just focus on posting meme pics since anything with more than 6 words clearly is a problem.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
The story posted below. It`s illegal from what I know for people to go through your medical record why does the peoples republic of California get a pass?
0
Reply
Male 14,334
Keep reassuring yourself though they`ve given themselves a way to take from whomever they dislike even if they`re obeying the laws.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
So, it’s clear that the law will likely impact others beyond just those individuals with mental illness or criminal records; it will apparently also take aim at their friends and loved ones with whom they reside.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
Lynette Phillips of Upland, California, told TheBlaze in a phone interview that she had purchased a gun years ago for her husband, David, as a present. That gun, as well as two others registered to her law-abiding husband (who does not have a history of felonies or mental illness), were seized earlier this year.

Here’s why: Phillips had been in the hospital voluntarily for mental illness last year. The episode was apparently due to medication she was taking. Despite the voluntary nature of her hospitalization, it seems her ability (or her husband’s rather) to own a gun has been impeded. While David has no history of sickness or criminal activity it seems ownership means that his wife has access, too — a reality that is apparently unacceptable (read the full story here).

0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: This is mama gov`t at the state level. And if you aren`t owning a gun illegally, what`s the problem?
0
Reply
Male 329
A tad leading... it`s a bill aimed to collect the large backlog illegally owned guns. Not legally owned guns by law abiding citizens.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
If an employer looked through your confidential you`d have a big f**king problem why does mama government get a pass?
0
Reply
Male 7,123
When law abiding citizens can`t hold illegally owned ... um, wait.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
Except that this also has a guideline deeming you unfit and an illegal owner if you have mental issues deem through looking at you`re confidential medical records. Ya wow what a spin!
0
Reply
Male 2,549
Oh dear, they`re planning on confiscating illegal weapons including those possessed by former convicts and the mentally ill? *sighs heavily* That`s just too bad. They really shouldn`t encroach upon people`s rights to break the law in California of all places!
0
Reply
Male 1,625
Because taking illegal guns out of communities is such an awful idea. How dare they. Pesky government taking measures to reduce gun violence with ILLEGAL weapons.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
After further reading it seems this targets people who are no longer allowed firearms they once legally purchased. I see no problem with this, and neither should you as it only takes away guns from people legally prohibited from having them, ensuring that legal gun owners like yourself don`t have to put up with as many criminals illegally owning guns.
0
Reply
Male 761
unless it is illegal for you to own a gun.

Jesus, I hate people trying to spin crap like this. Literally the first paragraph states it clearly:

"The California state legislature passed a bill Thursday approving $24 million to expedite the confiscation of the estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons illegally owned by Californians."

If you LEGALLY are in the right to own a gun, specifically not a convicted felon then you are fine.
0
Reply
Female 1,540
"illegally owned" Nothing to see here, move along.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Wait, so government passes a bill to confiscate *illegally owned* firearms, and this is a problem? What is the law in Cali?
0
Reply
Male 14,334
Link: California Passes Bill To Confiscate Guns [Pic+] [Rate Link] - But we`re not taking anything from you they said.....
0
Reply