California seizes guns from owners - and it might become a national model

[JackFrost]

In the state of California, factors such as a felony conviction or a history of mental health issues mean roughly 20,000 gun owners are holding onto their firearms illegally. Slowly but surely, though, Golden State police officers are prying them away. There’s more, though: backers of the program suggest this becomes a nation-wide practice, and are asking the White House to help make it happen.

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program tells Bloomberg News. Wintemute helped set up a program on the West Coast that monitors not just licensed gun owners but also watches for any red flags that could be raised after admittance to a mental health institute or a quick stint in the slammer.

Wintemute says that as many as 200,000 people across the United States may no longer be qualified to own firearms, and in California they are making sure that number drops day by day. In one example cited in this week’s Bloomberg report, journalists recall a recent scene where nine California Justice Department agents equipped with 40-caliber Glock pistols and outfitted in bulletproof vests knocked on a suburban residence, requested to speak to a certain gun owner and then walked away with whatever arsenal they could apprehend.

In California, some shortcuts are already meaning weapons are being removed from lawful owners. Bloomberg reports cite the example of 48-year-old Lynette Phillips, a California woman who was recently hospitalized for mental illness. When a team of agents went to collect her two registered firearms, they also walked out with one registered to her husband.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

California seizes guns from owners - and it might become a national model ? RT USA

I will be searching for more information, but this doesn't look good

 

[Tigger]

This is one of those things that has been a potential issue for quite a while. It's quite routine around here for gun owners/licensees who are suddenly subject to an order of protection to have the police knocking on their doors and demanding they turn over their firearms

 

[ecofarm]

I will be searching for more information, but this doesn't look good

Why not?

Most felons (and "crazies") should retain their right to self defense, but we don't know anything about the cited cases.

 

[ecofarm]

This is one of those things that has been a potential issue for quite a while. It's quite routine around here for gun owners/licensees who are suddenly subject to an order of protection to have the police knocking on their doors and demanding they turn over their firearms

"Suddenly" subject? Is it random?

 

[madman]

California seizes guns from owners - and it might become a national model ? RT USA

I will be searching for more information, but this doesn't look good

RT? I mean, really? RT???

Hell, just look at the title " California seizes guns from owner"

plz show me where this is happening

 

[Un biased]

Although i agree people with mentall illness should not have acces to guns ( or poison or really really really sharp knives ) but can they really do that to a lawful gun owner or will it get shotdown if it gets to a court setting

 

[Tigger]

Why not?

Most felons (and "crazies") should retain their right to self defense, but we don't know anything about the cited cases.

In the state I live in, Massachusetts, they are able to confiscate firearms from legal gun owners under any/all of the following conditions:

Convicted of a Felony
Convicted of an Alcohol/Drug related offense (even misdemeanors)
Committed to a mental health facility (even for a single night)
Subject of an Order of Protection or Restraining Order
Fail to have your CCW license in your possession while carrying a concealed firearm
Fail to have your new license in your possession on the day your old license expires.

 

[ecofarm]

Although i agree people with mentall illness should not have acces to guns ( or poison or really really really sharp knives ) but can they really do that to a lawful gun owner or will it get shotdown if it gets to a court setting

I think it should depend on the felony and the mental illness. If someone was an arms trafficer or is definately very suicidal/psychotic...

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I've got 2 issues here.

1. What is mental illness for the purposes of seizures? Most people experience mental illness at some point. Are we talking moderate depression, or severe schizophrenia? Why do I never see anyone being specific about this? For that matter, what's a felon? Are we talking about someone who imported an illegal plant? That's a felony. This is a larger problem of felonious charges being too broad.

2. Under what power do they seize the arms of the lawful gun owner? Adults with children in the home can have firearms. Adults can legally possess firearms, and have a felon as a guest in their home. So why is this different? What is the actual legal power behind this, and what is the justification for it if there is any?

"Suddenly" subject? Is it random?

"Subject" the adjective.

 

[ecofarm]

"Subject" the adjective.

I found the term a bit victimly.

Out of nowhere! An Order of Protection.

Like it could sneak up on anyone.

 

[ecofarm]

In the state I live in, Massachusetts, they are able to confiscate firearms from legal gun owners under any/all of the following conditions:

Convicted of a Felony
Convicted of an Alcohol/Drug related offense (even misdemeanors)
Committed to a mental health facility (even for a single night)
Subject of an Order of Protection or Restraining Order
Fail to have your CCW license in your possession while carrying a concealed firearm
Fail to have your new license in your possession on the day your old license expires.

Do you disagree with any of those and would you resist such a demand resulting from one of those?

 

[Tigger]

"Suddenly" subject? Is it random?

Fred and Mary have a verbal altercation. Mary gets talked into taking out an Order of Protection against Fred. When Fred gets served with the OoP, they're likely going to take his guns away. The determining factor is generally whether or not Mary remembered to tell them he's a gun owner or not.

 

[ecofarm]

Mary gets talked into taking out an Order of Protection against Fred.

I think more than a verbal altercation and someone talking her into something is required. I tell plenty of people to eat a crap and they can't get Orders.

 

[Tigger]

Do you disagree with any of those and would you resist such a demand that resulting from one of those?

I have an issue with the Order of Protection one. Unless there is significant evidence that the individual is LIKELY to be a threat of physical violence, that one does concern me. Especially with the ease in which those orders are issued these days.

 

[Tigger]

I think more than a verbal altercation and someone talking her into something is required. I tell plenty of people to eat a crap and they can't get Orders.

Be happy you don't live here in the Northeast.

 

[joko104]

California seizes guns from owners - and it might become a national model ? RT USA

I will be searching for more information, but this doesn't look good

So... it fact there already is registration of firearms. This also means the federal law requirement that background check records at the government level be destroyed within 24 hours is being openly violated.

This, of course, raises still another gun control issues. Those supporting gun control generally are lying, the the government also openly lies about what the legislation does and just spits on any citizen's rights protections put within those laws.

Figure ANY person pushing for ANY gun control legislation is knowingly, deliberately and willfully lying and that such person absolutely will break any laws to obtain any goal.

 

[rocket88]

RT? I mean, really? RT???

Hell, just look at the title " California seizes guns from owner"

plz show me where this is happening

What's wrong with RT?

 

[joko104]

"Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program tells Bloomberg News. Wintemute helped set up a program on the West Coast that monitors not just licensed gun owners but also watches for any red flags that could be raised after admittance to a mental health institute or a quick stint in the slammer.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I've got 2 issues here.

1. What is mental illness for the purposes of seizures? Most people experience mental illness at some point. Are we talking moderate depression, or severe schizophrenia? Why do I never see anyone being specific about this? For that matter, what's a felon? Are we talking about someone who imported an illegal plant? That's a felony. This is a larger problem of felonious charges being too broad.

2. Under what power do they seize the arms of the lawful gun owner? Adults with children in the home can have firearms. Adults can legally possess firearms, and have a felon as a guest in their home. So why is this different? What is the actual legal power behind this, and what is the justification for it if there is any?



"Subject" the adjective.

Yes - and how accurate is the current information? Looking at the picture - they're not filing them away and document who/when/where so if they make a mistake the firearm owner can reclaim their illegally taken firearm.

 

[joko104]

Also notice in the picture at the top of the OP link, it states it is a picture of "illegal guns." It appears ALL are ordinary shotguns and bolt action rifles.

This also tells us the push of the government and the media. It is NOT about assault rifles or magazines or even Joe Biden's shotgun. In their minds, ALL FIREARMS are ILLEGAL and it is only a matter that laws have not yet been passed in all areas or at the federal level ratifying their illlegality.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Figure ANY person pushing for ANY gun control legislation is knowingly, deliberately and willfully lying and that such person absolutely will break any laws to obtain any goal.

And it is those lying criminals who want the power to determine who is a “criminal” or “mentally ill” or otherwise ineligible for the rights affirmed by the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not anywhere allow for any authority on the part of any level of government to determine who is and is not entitled to the rights affirmed therein. This right belongs to all free Americans, not just those to whom government wants to allow this right. We've foolishly allowed government to illegally claim this authority. Too many of us thought it was a good idea to allow government to deny this right to convicted felons, and this only opened the door for government to expand this prohibition against certain misdemeanors, nonviolent crimes, alleged “mental health issues”, and such, to the point that there is not one of us who cannot be judged to fall under some category that may be used to deny us these rights.

 

[joko104]

I do not think firearms should be seized in regards to protective orders since divorce courts hand those out like candy and they are routinely granted without any hearing whatsoever - meaning NO due process.

In addition, there is no justification for the government to confiscate and destroy someone's firearms. However, due process, property rights and and ownership really does mean nothing to the government and much of law enforcement. Anything they see they want they can just take and keep or destroy for any or no reason - with nothing you can do about it.

The greatest criminal theft organizations in this country are governmental entities. And since they are the courts and cops, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[joko104]

Do you disagree with any of those and would you resist such a demand resulting from one of those?

I disagree with all of them.

 

[blaxshep]

In their minds, ALL FIREARMS are ILLEGAL and it is only a matter that laws have not yet been passed in all areas or at the federal level ratifying their illlegality.

In DIRECT conflict with their constitutional oaths of office.

They should be arrested tried for treason and shot.

 

[JackFrost]

More info on Lynette Phillips, where they took her and her husbands guns. She was "involuntarily held" at a mental hospital, and her condition was "exaggerated" by the admitting nurse! And she can still possibly be charged with a felony!

This is truly shocking, folks:shock:

Involuntarily Held
In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.
Todd Smith, chief executive officer of Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, where documents provided by Phillips show she was treated, didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment on the circumstances of the treatment.
Phillips said her husband used the guns for recreation. She didn’t blame the attorney general’s agents for taking the guns based on the information they had, she said.
“I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun,” Phillips said. “I’m not a threat. We’re law-abiding citizens.”
No one was arrested. Most seized weapons are destroyed, Gregory said.
“It’s not unusual to not arrest a mental-health person because every county in the state handles those particular cases differently,” Gregory said by e-mail. “Unless there’s an extenuating need to arrest them on the spot, we refer the case” to the local district attorney’s office, she said.

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg

Also, here is the 2008 Dangerous Weapons Control Law section on maintaining the database:

ARTICLE 1.5. PROHIBITED ARMED PERSONS FILE

12010. (a) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain an online database to be known as the Prohibited Armed Persons File. The purpose of the file is to cross-reference persons who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, as indicated by a record in the Consolidated Firearm Information System, and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or possession of a firearm, fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
(b) The information contained in the Prohibited Armed Persons File shall only be available to those entities specified in, and pursuant to, subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11105, through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, for the purpose of determining if persons are armed and prohibited from possessing firearms.
12011. The Prohibited Armed Persons File database shall function as follows:
(a) Upon entry into the Automated Criminal History System of a disposition for a conviction of any felony, a conviction for any firearms-prohibiting charge specified in Section 12021, a conviction for an offense described in Section 12021.1, a firearms prohibition pursuant to Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or any firearms possession prohibition identified by the federal National Instant Check System, the Department of Justice shall determine if the subject has an entry in the Consolidated Firearms Information System indicating possession or ownership of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, or an assault weapon registration, or a .50 BMG rifle registration.
(b) Upon an entry into any department automated information system that is used for the identification of persons who are prohibited from acquiring, owning, or possessing firearms, the department shall determine if the subject has an entry in the Consolidated Firearms Information System indicating ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, or an assault weapon registration, or a .50 BMG rifle registration.
(c) If the department determines that, pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), the subject has an entry in the Consolidated Firearms Information System indicating possession or ownership of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, or an assault weapon registration, or a .50 BMG rifle registration, the following information shall be entered into the Prohibited Armed Persons File:
(1) The subject's name.
(2) The subject's date of birth.
(3) The subject's physical description.
(4) Any other identifying information regarding the subject that is deemed necessary by the Attorney General.
(5) The basis of the firearms possession prohibition.
(6) A description of all firearms owned or possessed by the subject, as reflected by the Consolidated Firearms Information System.
12012. The Attorney General shall provide investigative assistance to local law enforcement agencies to better ensure the investigation of individuals who are armed and prohibited from possessing a firearm.

12010 thru 12012 Prohibited Armed Persons File - Dangerous Weapons Control Laws - Bureau of Firearms - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General