Gun Watch
What is happening in California, as shown in this Fresno Bee article, is slow motion gun confiscation over time. California has established gun confiscation squads that move through California confiscating guns that were registered. As predicted in the essay "Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation" written in 2000, gun confiscation is not being implemented in massive door to door searches, though such confiscations have happened in recent history, such as in the Philippines in 1972, and even during a flood in Canada this year (2013).
The agents are part of the California Department of Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), a program that takes firearms from people barred from owning them. The law says that group can include ex-felons and people deemed to be mentally unstable.Because the agents are using registration lists, and it is illegal to sell a firearm in California privately (all sales must go through federal dealers), the "I sold it" excuse is not allowed:
Team members say they are dogged: They will press a prohibited person to allow them to search a home to look for the gun and ask to see the paperwork if they are told a weapon has been sold.This is the purpose of gun registration and the requirement to report a gun as stolen. With these requirements, a person does not have the legal recourse to simply say the gun was sold, stolen, lost, or given away. The presumption of property rights in simple possession has been lost. Unless you can show that you have documented permission from the state, possession of a gun is de-facto illegal.
The agents are in full tactical gear, and claim that the job is very dangerous. I have yet to see a single article about a gun fight that resulted from these confiscation raids.
I can't see what's wrong with this? It almost sounds like a gun-control site describing how well things work in California.
Removing guns from people who are unfit to own them is a far cry from the alarmist version of "confiscation" that the gun nuts often use. And even these most fanatical of gun-rights fanatics admit that not a single gun fight has resulted. Maybe the 3%ers are more like the .03%ers.
What do you think?
"They will press a prohibited person to allow them to search a home to look for the gun and ask to see the paperwork if they are told a weapon has been sold"
ReplyDeleteWow, these people really need to pull their heads out.
Or just admit that their policies make it easier for prohibited people to have access to firearms.
Try and remember that the next time you call me an "anti-gun bigot" that I actually looked into the "pro-gun" claims and saw that they were pretty much bullshit.
I would also add that calling a person "sheeple" implies that they mindlessly accept what they are told.
No, Laci, you're just a bigot. An ignorant, self-satisfied bigot.
DeleteLaci, Considering the names that you like to call people here, perhaps you shouldn't complain about it. How exactly is "sheeple" any more pejorative than "gunloon" for instance.
ReplyDeleteI actually have a friend out in California who has recently retired from a long career in law enforcement. He has noticed the gradually growing list of offences that will make you a prohibited person in California.
That is one reason for example that pro-choice advocates fight hard for "reasonable" restrictions on abortion rights and why others fight just as doggedly(no pun intended) in the area of first amendment rights.
Except in your world, Mike, it's close to 200 million people who you call unfit to own firearms. So that's a pretty massive police state operation right inline with the alarmists' version.
ReplyDeleteHow do you figure 200 million? I'm sure you have an answer, math is your thing, after all.
DeleteThere are 310 million people in the USA. You say half the people are unfit plus the people who you call too young or too old (regardless of fit). That's a whole lot if people who aren't allowed to own guns in your world. I roughly said something south of 200 million- give or take.
DeleteWell, the adult population which chooses to not own guns should not be considered "unfit" to do so.
DeleteI can see describing the kids that way, and of course the 50% of lawful gun owners who I consider incapable of exercising the right for one reason or another. So, your 200M is a bit of an exaggeration. It's more like 100M, give or take.
Except that your 50% idea is something you cooked up out of fairy dust and unicorn horns.
DeleteSo someone with a violent history, a drug abuse history, and a mental ill history, isn't "unfit" to own guns until they decide to own guns? Huh???
DeleteNo, it's not that. It's simply that they are removed from the equation. You want to include them in order to beef up the numbers. This is an example of lying by exaggeration.
DeleteWhat happens the the aforementioned insane violent drug abuser goes to buy his first gun? He's not on your list? Your list of disqualified people must include people who don't currently own guns, don't you think?
DeleteYeah, I suppose you're right. So? You wanna put the figure back up to 200M now? Is that it?
DeleteYeah, that's how many people you need to watch. You gotta catch guys lilke the Tucson shooter and VT shooter who bought their first gun to go on a shooting spree.
DeleteAs I've said all along, what the government doesn't know about, the government has a harder time taking away.
ReplyDeleteYes, actively circumvent the law, and law probably won't know, but of course, you are then a lawbreaker.
Delete