Thursday, March 14, 2013

Husband's Guns Confiscated Because Wife is a Disqualified Person

The Blaze

Lynette Phillips of Upland, Calif., told TheBlaze in a phone interview Monday 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 last Tuesday.

“My husband is upset that they took the right from us that should never have been taken, Phillips told TheBlaze.

But according to the state of California, that doesn’t matter.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm” regardless of who the registered owner is.
It's a damn shame, but what can you do?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. And so, because his wife is disqualified from owning a gun, this man is given two choices by the state--give up any and all means of protecting himself from violent attack, or divorce and abandon her.

    I'm not overstating this. You gun control types often suggest pepper spray or tazers etc. But these are illegal in some states like youre NY paradise, and even in states where they're legal and the gun laws are loose, disqualified persons are typically banned from possessing them or having access to them by the same rules.

    So this woman can have little more than a cellphone and a rape whistle, and her husband is likewise barred. Wonderful setup Mike.

    Also, notice, this is further proof of why we argue against registries--confiscation is the result, and your type cheers for it. Cheer on this type of thing. Asshole.

  2. OK, your excerpt was bad enough, but I went on to check out the actual article for details, and this is a steaming pile of fail.

    1: Commitment was voluntary but was recorded incorrectly as involuntary resulting in the loss of rights.

    2: Treatment was sought because of a bad reaction to medication which has been corrected, so there is no ongoing need for disqualification.

    This is a miscarriage of justice in having the wife even be disqualified, much less the husband. The fact that you like this case and its outcome simply shows why we are so distrustful of even the current system of checks and disqualifications. The system is merely set up to try to disqualify as many people as possible. If that wasn't your goal, you would be arguing that this went too far.

    Chalk this up as another reason we oppose your ideas of universal checks, registration, etc.

  3. It's a damned shame for your cause. You keep telling us that no one is coming after our guns. The woman in this case just visited a hospital voluntarily for a consultation. She wasn't a danger to self or others. But because California is fucked beyond what a reasonable person would have thought possible, her husband loses his guns?

    This is why we oppose registration. This is why we oppose allowing the state to pry into health records. And this is why no compromise will ever be possible with your side.

    1. How do you know she wasn't a danger to herself or others. Maybe she was a ticking time bomb and the did the right thing.

    2. And that, Mike, is why we refuse to submit to any more of your damnable suggestions. From the report, it's pretty obvious that there was nothing to suggest that she was a ticking time bomb as there has been in the histories of many crazy shooters.

      There's no more here to suggest that she was or is a ticking timebomb than there is in anyone else's life. By arguing that she might have been and that the state did the right thing here, you show that you have an overactive imagination that sees--by your own arguments in recent posts--all gun owners as potential time bombs, and that you would support any decision by any state to take guns away from anyone.

      All of your registry schemes are merely the setup to declare all of us mentally unfit to own guns and try to confiscate them, one person at a time, over a period of time, in order to disarm us gradually so that, you hope, we won't resist.

      We see through the ploys, and we are not going to accept this type of California bullshit in other states or at the Federal Level.

    3. Because unlike you, Mikeb, I don't judge people before the facts. Unlike you, I don't advocate infringing on rights due to speculation. Unlike you, I don't live in terror of what citizens might do.

    4. Per the article you cited, she does not appear to have been a danger to herself or others. I notice there is to be an investigation and perhaps a hearing to determine competency. As for the "ticking time bomb" argument, the reality is that mental health patients, including Lynette Phillips, are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators of violence.

    5. How do you know I am not a ticking time bomb?

    6. How do we know that a given person isn't a ticking time bomb? We don't. That's the risk of a free society. The principle of liberty is that until a person does something wrong, that person is free to act.

  4. Greg: "Unlike you, I don't live in terror of what citizens might do."


    1. And Mike resorts to ridicule, because that's all he can do when he can't come up with a retort.

      Seriously, dude, spend less time with Dog Gone--she's rubbing off on you.

      Greg and the rest of us don't live in terror of what others might do. We realize there's the possibility of someone doing us harm, so we come up with a plan to defend ourselves, either with a gun, a knife, or whatever else we decide on, and then we go about our day.

      You, on the other hand, are so terrified of what one of us might do if we suddenly ticked down to zero that want to change the entire legal system and toss out due process when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

      Of course, the truly sad thing is that I've wasted my time typing the above because you are either too stupid to understand it, or you understood what Greg was saying all along, but just opted to ridicule him as a red herring.

      Either way, it doesn't say much about you.

    2. Actually, I would like to throw out the 2A entirely or a least relegate it to the scrap heap of irrelevance, but that's not what we've been suggesting lately. We're talking about what we believe are reasonable restrictions, which are allowed.

    3. They're just incremental steps to achieve the goal you have been talking less about. Your endgame is to get these and a few more and then get the court to say that anything goes, and then you'll be able to ignore the Amendment.

      So, No. No deal. As for what you'd like to do, you can try to pass an amendment revoking the 2nd. Anything less than that is unconstitutional, and you know it. But then, you only care about constitutional limits when they protect things You like. Makes for a pretty piss poor lawyer.

    4. Thanks, Anonymous. Like you, I don't expect him to listen.