California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

Roverron · #1 03-12-2013, 08:28 PM

....and this from New Jersey.........

Herein lies the problem with the mental health angle they are pushing for... A progressive liberal politician will report people like this and say they were threatening and that she needed to seek help and have her committed all because she spoke out and read the Constitution... we are on a slippery slope if we accept their mental health aspect on background. To progressives all gun lovers are crazy and this is an open door for them to walk us through... They are trying to make her out to be unstable.....

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/...-meeting-54802

Jubz · #2 03-13-2013, 12:50 AM

Living in CA, I've got mixed opinions on this.

Generally I think it's a good thing to have firearm rights be temporarily taken away (5 years) if someone has been 5150'd (72 hr involuntary hold for danger to self, danger to others or gravely disabled). I've seen severely mentally disturbed people who should not have firearm rights until they are psychological stable.

But I've also seen folks who've been wrongfully 5150'd; the evidence did not rise to a valid 5150. Fortunately, these folks can petition the court (CAL. WIC. CODE § 8103) and get their firearms rights restored with an attorney and facts in one's favor.

5150's are important tools when properly used, and unfortunately can also be exploited. And more unfortunately, there are way too many politicians who have no real sense or even good info on firearms and firearms rights issues and will exploit/perverse whatever they can for their own political gains.

glider · #3 03-13-2013, 09:23 AM

This amounts to confiscation without ever being convicted of anything. There should be a court hearing and a ruleing made as to the competence of the individual before personal property is siezed. There are people in the mental health community that would say firearm ownership is an indication that a person is unstable, used in that context anyone that has a firearm should have it taken away. This isn't complicated, some people in government would like to sieze all privately owned firearms and will use any excuse to do so. Catch 22 ring any bells ?

Big Smoke · #4 03-15-2013, 12:38 PM

I wonder if they are going to go to all the convicted felons and remove their guns as well? Don't hold your breath.

DrHenley · #5 03-15-2013, 01:23 PM

Are these "mentally disturbed" people allowed to own kitchen knives? automobiles? baseball bats? swimming pools? ladders? matches?

Why isn't anyone afraid they will kill someone with something else?

US.45 · #6 03-15-2013, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrHenley

Are these "mentally disturbed" people allowed to own kitchen knives? automobiles? baseball bats? swimming pools? ladders? matches?

Why isn't anyone afraid they will kill someone with something else?

Because it's not about safety. It's all about control. Back in the 1800's they used gun control to keep guns out of the hands of minorities so they could better control that part of the population. If it was about safety, gun confiscation, so-called "hi-capacity" magazine bans and all the rest would be overcome with the facts that guns in our hands save our lives more than they take them. IMHO.

Carl in GA · #7 03-15-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US.45

Because it's not about safety. It's all about control.

That's it exactly. Any objective person with half a brain could see the places with the most gun control, Chicago, DC, etc., tend to be the places plagued with crime and violence and corruption. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means more safety, not less.