Ca. is "consficating" guns from People that shouldn't have them

[SSGSAD]

I saw, tonight on CBS Evening News, with Scott Kelley, that for the past 5-6 years, Ca. has had a "list" of people, that shouldn't have guns, and they are going to houses in the dark of night, and taking them. The one they showed, the guy was a Felon, in possession, of two handguns.
How do "they" have a list, of ANYONE, who has a gun ?????

 

[Mgderf]

A little birdie told 'em.

 

[daddymikey1975]

I saw, tonight on CBS Evening News, with Scott Kelley, that for the past 5-6 years, Ca. has had a "list" of people, that shouldn't have guns, and they are going to houses in the dark of night, and taking them. The one they showed, the guy was a Felon, in possession, of two handguns.
How do "they" have a list, of ANYONE, who has a gun ?????

maybe their neighbor ratted them out ?

 

[Bunnykid68]

California has had a registry for some time now

 

[Scutter01]

Felons register their guns? Why don't they just arrest them when they register the gun?

 

[Willie]

I do believe that they have "universal background checks" too...

Hmmmm.....

 

[SSGSAD]

California has had a registry for some time now

So, registry DOES lead to Consfication !!!!!

 

[Willie]

Felons register their guns? Why don't they just arrest them when they register the gun?

I think most are gun owners that become felons after the fact...

 

[87iroc]

I think most are gun owners that become felons after the fact...

That would be my guess.

We all agree felons shouldn't own guns.<--Its not purple. Its just easier to know there as they have a registry. Never mind the fact they don't fund it adequately and they have a huge backlog. The guys that have them confiscated probably have been felons for 10 yrs.

I saw the ad and mentioned to my wife that they could make good money off of selling those guns and help fund more officers...but I'm sure they destroy the evil little devils.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here it is:

Tense moments as California agents confiscate illegal guns - CBS News

What about the obvious question: Why have none of these dangerous people so much as made an attempt to harm the police? I have a funny feeling that it is not because of sneaking up on them in the dead of night, but rather that they are disinclined to do so. This raises the question of whether or not lifetime demotion to second-class status is in fact correctly identifying people who are actually dangerous.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That would be my guess.

We all agree felons shouldn't own guns.<--Its not purple. Its just easier to know there as they have a registry. Never mind the fact they don't fund it adequately and they have a huge backlog. The guys that have them confiscated probably have been felons for 10 yrs.

I saw the ad and mentioned to my wife that they could make good money off of selling those guns and help fund more officers...but I'm sure they destroy the evil little devils.

No we do not all agree that felons should not have guns, some of us believe some people should not be labeled felons for many many crimes.

 

[Scutter01]

"They are those people who have been proven to violate the law and present a threat to public safety. And I'm going after them."

If they're a threat to public safety, I'd be interested in knowing why California is OK with them being out on the street instead of behind bars. I guess if they confiscate their guns, they're no longer a threat? How convenient.

 

[cobber]

Felons register their guns? Why don't they just arrest them when they register the gun?

Um...

I wonder if Di Fi is aware of this little glitch in her beloved Heimat's law?

 

[KLB]

No we do not all agree that felons should not have guns, some of us believe some people should not be labeled felons for many many crimes.

If they're a threat to public safety, I'd be interested in knowing why California is OK with them being out on the street instead of behind bars. I guess if they confiscate their guns, they're no longer a threat? How convenient.

Agreed!

 

[IndyDave1776]

If they're a threat to public safety, I'd be interested in knowing why California is OK with them being out on the street instead of behind bars. I guess if they confiscate their guns, they're no longer a threat? How convenient.

I agree completely. I am also wondering why none of these scary dangerous felons have shot any of the police who were trick-or-treating them. It would seem to undermine the argument that this is necessary.

 

[MikeDVB]

Everybody has the right to defend themselves but I suppose the thought is that if you're a felon you're likely to use said weapon during the commission of another felony?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Everybody has the right to defend themselves but I suppose the thought is that if you're a felon you're likely to use said weapon during the commission of another felony?

That guy I know with the felony rap for pot is a good example, wait no it isn't

 

[Scutter01]

Everybody has the right to defend themselves but I suppose the thought is that if you're a felon you're likely to use said weapon during the commission of another felony?

Ah yes, the Pre-Crime Act of 2006. Everyone is already guilty, they just haven't done the crime yet.

 

[Gabriel]

That would be my guess.

We all agree felons shouldn't own guns.

We do?

 

[Hoosier8]

A felon cannot be prosecuted for not registering a gun. That would lead to self incrimination. Haynes v US

Background of the case

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
Majority opinion

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.