Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Risky Job - Gun Confiscation
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2148682" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>YIKES!</p><p>"A felony conviction or restraining order is flagged as a 'disqualifying event' in California’s database, <strong>but it isn’t sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant</strong>, says John Marsh, a supervising agent who coordinates the seizures. So the agents-there are 33 statewide-<strong>often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons.</strong>" </p><p></p><p>Have these goons never heard of the Fourth Amendment, not to mention the Second? Get a warrant with all the required Fourth Amendment specificity <em>before</em> you search, dummies! "Talking" their way into a residence almost certainly means lying their way in, else they would not get in! For any truthful "talking" would have to include something like, "Under the Fourth Amendment you have no obligation whatsoever to let us in. Do you waive your Fourth Amendment rights?"</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, how on earth does this pass Fifth Amendment muster (to say nothing of Second and Fourth)?</p><p>"They had better luck at the ranch house in nearby Upland, where they seized the three guns from the home of a woman who’d been hospitalized for mental illness. One gun was registered to her, two to her husband. 'The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm, regardless of who the registered owner is,' says Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office."</p><p></p><p>It is pretty clear that the husband was deprived of his property without due process of law, as he apparently has been convicted of no crime. Where the Hell are Kalifornia gun owners' groups on this crap? They should be able to knock it out of the park!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess this:</p><p>"Many states lack the ability to confiscate firearms because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most sales to go through a licensed dealer and be reported. “Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” says Wintemute, who helped set up the program."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2148682, member: 5183"] YIKES! "A felony conviction or restraining order is flagged as a 'disqualifying event' in California’s database, [B]but it isn’t sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant[/B], says John Marsh, a supervising agent who coordinates the seizures. So the agents-there are 33 statewide-[B]often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons.[/B]" Have these goons never heard of the Fourth Amendment, not to mention the Second? Get a warrant with all the required Fourth Amendment specificity [I]before[/I] you search, dummies! "Talking" their way into a residence almost certainly means lying their way in, else they would not get in! For any truthful "talking" would have to include something like, "Under the Fourth Amendment you have no obligation whatsoever to let us in. Do you waive your Fourth Amendment rights?" Furthermore, how on earth does this pass Fifth Amendment muster (to say nothing of Second and Fourth)? "They had better luck at the ranch house in nearby Upland, where they seized the three guns from the home of a woman who’d been hospitalized for mental illness. One gun was registered to her, two to her husband. 'The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm, regardless of who the registered owner is,' says Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office." It is pretty clear that the husband was deprived of his property without due process of law, as he apparently has been convicted of no crime. Where the Hell are Kalifornia gun owners' groups on this crap? They should be able to knock it out of the park! I guess this: "Many states lack the ability to confiscate firearms because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most sales to go through a licensed dealer and be reported. “Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” says Wintemute, who helped set up the program." [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Risky Job - Gun Confiscation
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
