[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles

Title: Police May Confiscate Guns without Notice to Owner Starting January 1
Source: breitbart.com
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/california ... tice-owner-starting-january-1/
Published: Dec 29, 2015
Author: AWR Hawkins
Post Date: 2015-12-29 20:33:17 by Stoner
Keywords: None
Views: 15608
Comments: 58

Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.

This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.

According to KPCC, GVROs “could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.” And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.

To be fair, Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore does not use the word “confiscate” when talking about confiscating firearms. Rather, Moore says, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”

KPCC reports that “California law already bans people from possessing guns if they’ve committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.” And now, with GVROs, California law allows judges to bar people from possessing guns even if they have not committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed. Because of this, Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes warns that GVROs “may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”


You can bet that the ones that dreamed this up, promoted it, and voted for it, will NOT be the ones in the line of fire trying to carry this out.

This will NOT end well !

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Stoner (#0)

You can bet that the ones that dreamed this up, promoted it, and voted for it, will NOT be the ones in the line of fire trying to carry this out.

Nor will they or their bodyguards ever be subjected to it.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-29   20:50:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: sneakypete (#1)

" Nor will they or their bodyguards ever be subjected to it. "

Yep. The laws are for the peons, not them.

As George Carlin said, THEY are in the Club, and we are not!

I can't believe there is anyone with two brain cells that is still living in that zoo.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-29   21:00:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Stoner (#0)

if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.

It means there is substantive or supporting evidence that the person in possession of firearms has shown irresponsible actions about their ownership of firearms.

Folks - this stuff is already written on the legal books in every state of the union. It means, "don't beat your wife or kids."

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-29   21:15:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: buckeroo (#3)

" if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police. "

" It means there is substantive or supporting evidence "

So, no real proof, other than the word of a pissed off ex wife, or an eager beaver Barney.

Sure, sounds right.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-29   21:42:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Stoner (#4)

[S]o, no real proof, other than the word of a pissed off ex wife, or an eager beaver Barney.

What's new, here?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-29   22:29:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Stoner (#0)

Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.

In California anything is possible with the exception of sanity.

rlk  posted on  2015-12-29   23:00:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Stoner (#2)

I can't believe there is anyone with two brain cells that is still living in that zoo.

If that's all you know,it is normal.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-30   1:14:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: buckeroo (#3)

Folks - this stuff is already written on the legal books in every state of the union. It means, "don't beat your wife or kids."

HorseHillary! What it really means is "If your wife wants to punish you,all she has to say is you beat her one time several years ago,and have threatened to do it again. You are presumed to be guilty,and punished without a trial or any actual evidence.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-30   1:16:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: sneakypete (#8)

have you stopped beating your wife yet?

paraclete  posted on  2015-12-30   6:40:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: rlk (#6)

" In California anything is possible with the exception of sanity. "

LOL !!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-30   6:58:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Stoner (#0)

Be interesting to see what happens when they go after the Militias.

Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-12-30   8:19:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: paraclete, sneakypete (#9)

have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Pete, Proverbs 32:6 is clear, spare the rod, spoil the wife.

Now let's see if anyone can quote Scripture telling you that wife spanking is un-biblical.

Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-12-30   8:21:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: BobCeleste (#11)

" Be interesting to see what happens when they go after the Militias. "

Sure will. Likewise with the Bloods, Crips, MS 13, mosques, Black Panthers, etc, etc. Of course, they will primarily only go after some old honkey dudes first.

I suspect the clowns in favor of this are in for an enormous surprise.

They may be wanting a violent reaction. They would use that as an excuse to declare martial law. But I suspect they will get first hand experience of the principle of "Unintended Consequences"

You can bet the "gun grabbers" in DC & the other states will be watching. And I suspect the 2nd Amend supporters will be closely watching as well.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-30   8:34:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: buckeroo (#5)

"What's new, here?"

What's new is that you could lose your 2nd amendment right based on the statements of non-professionals without actually having done anything.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-12-30   9:46:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#14)

Also, that many innocent law abiding citizens may end up going down in a hail of bullets, or flames ( like Waco ) based on the statements of non-professionals without actually having done anything.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-30   13:36:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: paraclete (#9) (Edited)

have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It wouldn't surprise me to see that as a new question on the Form 4473.

In fact,the more I think about it,the more shocked I am that it hasn't been s standard 4473 question for years now.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-30   13:51:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: BobCeleste (#12)

Now let's see if anyone can quote Scripture telling you that wife spanking is un-biblical.

Wasn't there some sort of Biblical rule about not beating her with a switch larger than your thumb?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-30   13:53:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Stoner (#13)

They may be wanting a violent reaction.

They may THINK they want a violent reaction from White People,but I'm guessing they won't be so happy with it if it happens.

White people don't tend to riot as a shopping tool. They riot to kill people.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-30   13:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: sneakypete (#18)

" They may THINK they want a violent reaction from White People,but I'm guessing they won't be so happy with it if it happens.

White people don't tend to riot as a shopping tool. They riot to kill people. "

Hammer,meet nail !! LOL !!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-30   14:08:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Stoner (#13)

hey may be wanting a violent reaction. They would use that as an excuse to declare martial law.

I would love to see that done,

www.christianpatriot.com/oath.htm

Martial law would be considered an attack.

Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-12-30   15:40:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: sneakypete (#17)

Actually there isn't a proverbs 32it, only goes to 31, but if there was a 32, it would say Spare the rod, spoil the wife for after all , are you sitting down? Solomon, the writer of Proverbs, had 700 wives and 3oo concubines or second class wives.

Can you imagine living with 1,000 women? you would need a switch as biga round as your thumb and 6 feet long.

Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-12-30   15:45:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: BobCeleste (#21)

Can you imagine living with 1,000 women?

It would be peaceful because they would spend every waking moment attacking each other.

It's only when you are one on one with them and they feel secure that they start toget nasty.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-30   18:02:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#14)

What's new is that you could lose your 2nd amendment right based on the statements of non-professionals without actually having done anything.

Could? Explain how I could LOSE any rights without being convicted of a felony.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-30   21:54:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: sneakypete (#8)

HorseHillary! What it really means is "If your wife wants to punish you,all she has to say is you beat her one time several years ago,and have threatened to do it again. You are presumed to be guilty,and punished without a trial or any actual evidence.

Naw. There has to substantive evidence in order to show legal certainty consistent with the US Constitution of and about the loss of ANY right in America. You are getting all workeddupped over nothing, Pete. Relax dude and have a doobie or the other way around, which ever comes first.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-30   22:00:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: buckeroo (#24)

Naw. There has to substantive evidence in order to show legal certainty consistent with the US Constitution of and about the loss of ANY right in America.

Have you ever explained that to anyone who has ever been falsy accused of child molesting?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-30   22:05:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: sneakypete (#25)

Nope. I don't know anyone that has been a child molester. But, the state better have substantive evidence in order to convict.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-30   22:17:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: buckeroo (#26)

But, the state better have substantive evidence in order to convict.

They don't have to have ANY evidence RIGHT NOW to confiscate your guns. ALL it takes is an accusation by your wife or child that you are abusive and violent.

Guess what you have then,if you do go to court for this later? That's right,a "history of abuse".

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-31   0:18:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: buckeroo (#23)

"Could? Explain how I could LOSE any rights without being convicted of a felony."

That's the subject of the above article. Did you read it?

If a judge hears testimony from family and friends that you're a danger to yourself and others, you can lose your second amendment right to keep and bear arms and have your guns taken away.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-12-31   10:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: misterwhite (#28)

It can not happen. PERIOD.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-31   19:28:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: sneakypete (#27)

They don't have to have ANY evidence RIGHT NOW to confiscate your guns. ALL it takes is an accusation by your wife or child that you are abusive and violent.

Are you suggesting that the jurisprudence concept of "presumption of innocence" is a vestige in the USA? Let me tell you something, Pete, don't worry your pretty head off. What you are reading is about repeat offenders or some other characteristic that requires expedient handling of restraint to avoid a danger to the community. It is considered prudent in rare cases based on substantive or otherwise supporting information beyond mere hearsay.

Sorry but the justice system still presumes innocence. Your dignity, much less constitutional RIGHTS can not be taken away at any level of government entertainment unless appropriate adjudicated processes were in effect.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-31   20:42:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: buckeroo (#30)

Are you suggesting that the jurisprudence concept of "presumption of innocence" is a vestige in the USA? Let me tell you something, Pete, don't worry your pretty head off. What you are reading is about repeat offenders or some other characteristic that requires expedient handling of restraint to avoid a danger to the community. It is considered prudent in rare cases based on substantive or otherwise supporting information beyond mere hearsay.

I see. "Don't worry,be happy!",huh?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-31   21:06:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: buckeroo (#30)

The California DOJ employs over sixty Special Agents whose mission it is to seize illegally owned guns from ‘prohibited persons’ in the state. (Photo credit: ABC7 News)

http://www.guns.com/2014/02/07/california-mans-home-raided-guns-seized-incorrect-information-video/

Career criminals...

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, confiscated guns

http://www.guns.com/2011/06/20/california-agents-seize-1200-firearms-from-various-owners/
California Agents Seize 1,200 Firearms From Various Owners


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-12-31   21:37:31 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: hondo68 (#32)

The gun owners were felons and continued their actions. PERIOD.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-31   22:24:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: sneakypete (#31)

I see. "Don't worry,be happy!",huh?

Oh no. "It" can't happen here.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-12-31   22:25:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: buckeroo (#33)

The gun owners were felons and continued their actions. PERIOD.

Ok,so you are a cop. You have to be because nobody else believes that nonsense and cops HAVE to believe it to justify doing the things they do to keep their jobs.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-01-01   5:58:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: buckeroo (#29)

"It can not happen. PERIOD."

That's the law in California.

Oh, you say that's contrary to federal laws? Well, so are California's marijuana laws, but you support them, don't you?

You're all for "state's rights" ... but only when the state does things you favor. Welcome to the real world, buckeroo.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-01   9:31:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: hondo68 (#32)

"California Attorney General Kamala Harris, confiscated guns"

Well. Now nobody's going to commit crimes with those guns anymore. Not that they would have anyways.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-01   9:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: misterwhite (#36)

That's the law in California.

Enjoy your "law"; while you are at it, save them the tyme & trouble of coming after you and just turn 'em in.

You are fuckin' idiot, 'white.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-01   12:27:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: buckeroo (#38)

"Enjoy your "law"

It ain't my law, buck. I don't live in California. If that's what the citizens of California want, who am I (or you) to tell them differently? Right?

Butt out.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-01   12:46:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: misterwhite (#39)

You are a dumb fuck. Archaic laws can not be enforced by any level of US, State, County, Special District, City or the local dawg pound governments that denies the presumption of innocence of any US Citizen. Well ... unless you believe in a government that denies your rights to liberty, freedoms, rights and your individual dignity. Again, 'White you are a dumb fuck.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-01   13:03:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: misterwhite (#39)

If that's what the citizens of California want, who am I (or you) to tell them differently?

He hates our republican forms of representative government. His personal feelings are all that matter to him.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-01-01   13:08:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Roscoe (#41)

Hey roscoe! Go back to FreeperKlub and give JimRob a BIG wet kiss on his ass.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-01   13:14:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Stoner (#0)

Time to leave Commiefornia if you can.

goldilucky  posted on  2016-01-02   0:59:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: buckeroo (#40)

"Archaic laws can not be enforced by any level of US, State, County ..."

It's not an archaic law. It was just passed by the legislature, and there is nothing in the California state constitution that protects against such a law.

Are you now saying that federal laws should apply to California?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-02   10:14:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: misterwhite (#44)

That's why he hates the Constitution. He thinks it's archaic, same as the leftists do.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-01-02   12:48:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: goldilucky (#43)

" Time to leave Commiefornia if you can. "

If I lived there, there would be NOTHING to keep me from leaving, except death.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

Stoner  posted on  2016-01-02   12:56:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: misterwhite (#44)

... and there is nothing in the California state constitution that protects against such a law.

'White, you are full of shit, as is usual. The California State Constitution has several sections that protect the individual against an abusive government, just as any archaic law attempts to deny the rights of an individual to a jury trial in front of an impartial judge; it is called "due process." The entire idea is "presumption of innocence."

There can be no prior restraint until fully adjudicated.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-02   13:55:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: buckeroo (#47)

Since the California State Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing to adjuducate.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-02   21:01:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: misterwhite (#48) (Edited)

Since the California State Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing to adjuducate.

I see it all now. A firearm owned by any US citizen living in the state of California is NOT personal property. And there are no laws preventing the impound or confiscation of personal property without due process.

'White, go fly a kite on another planet. Go back to where you came from in otherwords.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-03   14:02:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: buckeroo (#49)

"And there are no laws preventing the impound or confiscation of personal property without due process."

Your personal property may be seized without due process if the state has a reason to believe it was associated with a crime, right? Asset forfeiture? Ring a bell?

Well, here California is saying they have the power to confiscate a lethal weapon if they have a reason to believe you may harm yourself or others.

You get your due process when you attempt to retrieve your property.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-03   15:26:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: misterwhite (#50)

You get your due process when you attempt to retrieve your property.

Let us see THE VERY FIRST CASE presented under this new state "law." I want to see your favoured outcome of legal breaching of any tool for the individual/family/home. I am confident you beg for a government over-stepping the boundaries of its appropriate territority within a republic that contains a jurisprudence system that is continuously reviewed.

You could be hung by the neck by advocating your silly perspective.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-03   15:38:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: buckeroo (#51)

"You could be hung by the neck by advocating your silly perspective."

I have advocated no position. I merely stated the facts.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-03   17:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: misterwhite, yukon (#52)

I have advocated no position. I merely stated the facts.

The idea that you personally defend government over-reach in America; by advocating fascism and an obvious police state, is a bonafide and quick method to ensure your magnificence within the kanary klub. I am confident you made "yukon" happy today.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-03   17:26:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: misterwhite (#52)

Facts are his enemy.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-01-03   17:43:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: buckeroo (#53)

"The idea that you personally defend government over-reach in America"

The stupid citizens of California decided NOT to protect their right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution. That's not my fault.

And unless you live in California, why do you care? It's THEIR state -- let them live how they want to live.

Unless you're saying you want centralized government with one set of rules for all states. Is that what you want?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-04   9:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: misterwhite (#55)

The stupid citizens of California decided NOT to protect their right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution.

Not explicitly. However, it did establish state preemption, stating that, "An ordinance contradicts state law if it is inimical to state law; i.e., it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids." State legislation then explicitly excluded cities and counties from licensing and registration of firearms.

That was what nullified Diane Feinstein's municipal anti-handgun law as contrary to the state constitution.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-01-04   10:27:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: misterwhite (#55)

That's not my fault.

No one is accusing you of anything other than being stupid; your stupidity was probably perpetuated by a pair of idiot savant parents and their respective long lineage of being stupid.

This "law" is not compliant to enforcement methods. It will be changed as soon as there is some use of the "law" that attempts to confiscate a citizen's right to bear arms.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-01-04   19:34:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: buckeroo (#57)

"It will be changed as soon as there is some use of the "law" that attempts to confiscate a citizen's right to bear arms."

Eventually, the legal challenge will work it's way to the 9th Circuit. How do you think they'll rule?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-01-05   8:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com