California seizing guns

[Nessie]

So there are states which don't bother to take guns off criminals or nuts?

In the UK if you are charged with a crime of violence your gun is seized and stored. If convicted it is kept, if not it is returned. If you have mental issues then again it is seized and stored until a full assessment is made and decision as to whether or not you are safe to get it back. That involves the police and doctors.

 

[tyr_13]

So there are states which don't bother to take guns off criminals or nuts?

In the UK if you are charged with a crime of violence your gun is seized and stored. If convicted it is kept, if not it is returned. If you have mental issues then again it is seized and stored until a full assessment is made and decision as to whether or not you are safe to get it back. That involves the police and doctors.

Indeed, I don't see the issue here. That's how it's supposed to work. If that's not how it's working (they aren't taking them, they're taking them without good reason, or they aren't returning them when they should) then it needs correcting.

 

[Nessie]

Indeed, I don't see the issue here. That's how it's supposed to work. If that's not how it's working (they aren't taking them, they're taking them without good reason, or they aren't returning them when they should) then it needs correcting.

This certainly comes over as a classic example of how there would be far fewer deaths if the whole of the USA had uniform laws and enforced them.

It beggars belief to the point where states are being negligent by not confiscating guns from criminals and nuts.

 

[WildCat]

I have no issue seizing guns from violent criminals without compensation. But in cases such as a household member is declared insane they should either compensate the owner for the gun or allow a reasonable time to sell it privately.

 

[cwalner]

You think comparing voter registration to gun registration is sensible?

Yes. They are both rights guaranteed by the constitution. Why is it that you think voter registration does not infringe on that right, but gun registration does?

 

[Ranb]

Yes. They are both rights guaranteed by the constitution. Why is it that you think voter registration does not infringe on that right, but gun registration does?

Think about what you just posted. As a registered voter I am registered, my vote is not. I can register but not vote. Should I be required to admit that I voted for Obama (or anyone else) to keep my right to vote?

As a gun owner it is my guns that are regsitered (some of them anyway), not just me. That I am identified as a person who is allowed to own a gun should be enough. I should not be required to register and be excessively taxed on my gun collection just because it gives some politician a "do-gooder" feeling to require it.

Ranb

 

[Anerystos]

I have a big problem with the US population’s attitude to guns. Why the hell do they want them?

All these arguments, as one of those above, that not permitting people to own guns will lead to (in this case) Hitler, don’t seem to me to make sense. Some people seem to enjoy playing with bang-bangs. I don’t. All these argument seem to me to be spurious.

But the ready availability of firearms means that people will have them and be ready to use them. Result – dead people, as in the recent case of Oscar Pistorius. I’ve no doubt that he didn’t intend to kill his girlfriend, but the ready availability of firearms meant that a case of mistaken identity resulted in tragedy.

For what it’s worth, I joke to people that I have enough weapons in my house to start a small war. Fortunately they are bows and arrows. And for anyone who doesn’t think they are lethal, see the time I put an arrow through half an inch of sold bone. (It wasn’t live at the time.) It’s just that it takes skill to use them. If I have a miscreant in my house a cricket bat (baseball bat?) would be more useful.

As a matter of interest, I decommissioned a compound bow today. I disposed of it in three separate bins (each limbs and the riser). I don’t want any idiot thinking he could reassemble it and injuring himself.

 

[Biscuit]

I have no issue seizing guns from violent criminals without compensation. But in cases such as a household member is declared insane they should either compensate the owner for the gun or allow a reasonable time to sell it privately.

The government should not compensate people for violating the law.

It's the gun owners responsibility to sell the fire arm if their loved one becomes insane. Thats part of the responsibility that goes along with gun ownership. Its your job to make sure your guns don't fall into the hands of people who are not legally allowed to have them. A little personal responsibility would go a long way here. If one chooses not to deal with the situation and the police have to then tough luck, you had your chance.

 

[Polaris]

I have a big problem with the US population’s attitude to guns. Why the hell do they want them?

Because we do. For the same reason you like playing with "plong plongs".

 

[Ranb]

I have a big problem with the US population’s attitude to guns. Why the hell do they want them?

I probably enjoy making and shooting firearms as much as you enjoy your bow. That is why I own mine.

Fortunately they are bows and arrows. And for anyone who doesn’t think they are lethal, see the time I put an arrow through half an inch of sold bone. (It wasn’t live at the time.) It’s just that it takes skill to use them. If I have a miscreant in my house a cricket bat (baseball bat?) would be more useful.

As a matter of interest, I decommissioned a compound bow today. I disposed of it in three separate bins (each limbs and the riser). I don’t want any idiot thinking he could reassemble it and injuring himself.

Let's say a person has a big problem with your weapons and claims that it doesn't make sense to them. Will you disagree if they claim your reasons for enjoying these lethal weapons are not genuine?

Ranb

 

[WildCat]

Yes. They are both rights guaranteed by the constitution. Why is it that you think voter registration does not infringe on that right, but gun registration does?

Voter registration is necessary to protect the integrity of elections, otherwise people could vote in every precinct or even multiple times in the same precinct. How is that similar to gun registration?

And Chicago charges $15 to register a firearm, would you be OK with a $15 fee to register to vote?

 

[WildCat]

I have a big problem with the US population’s attitude to guns. Why the hell do they want them?

I have a big problem with the foreign obsession with soccer. Why the hell do they need it? look at all the violence it causes, it should be banned. How many more people need to die?

 

[joesixpack]

I see a slippery slope here. It would be trivially easy to restrict gun ownership for lesser and lesser offenses. Child support? A mistake on a tax return? Speeding? Mentally ill family member who may visit? What about a mentally ill person who is medicated? What about a specious restraining order?

If a person is convicted of a felony, or has a mentally ill person living with them, then why not allow the gun owner to place the gun on consignment at a gun store?

I don't have a problem with enforcing the law as it currently stands, but I do have a problem with HOW it is being done.

 

[Biscuit]

I see a slippery slope here. It would be trivially easy to restrict gun ownership for lesser and lesser offenses. Child support? A mistake on a tax return? Speeding? Mentally ill family member who may visit? What about a mentally ill person who is medicated? What about a specious restraining order?

If a person is convicted of a felony, or has a mentally ill person living with them, then why not allow the gun owner to place the gun on consignment at a gun store?

I don't have a problem with enforcing the law as it currently stands, but I do have a problem with HOW it is being done.

There is a reason why the slippery slope is a fallacy. By your reasoning violent felons should be allowed to own guns because any restriction will lead to total restriction.

ETA: What's wrong with HOW they are doing it?

 

[Polaris]

I see a slippery slope here. It would be trivially easy to restrict gun ownership for lesser and lesser offenses. Child support? A mistake on a tax return? Speeding? Mentally ill family member who may visit? What about a mentally ill person who is medicated? What about a specious restraining order?

If a person is convicted of a felony, or has a mentally ill person living with them, then why not allow the gun owner to place the gun on consignment at a gun store?

I don't have a problem with enforcing the law as it currently stands, but I do have a problem with HOW it is being done.

See the War On Drugs for examples of how laws can be abused.

 

[rwguinn]

Taking them and storing them for people who are temporarily unable for legal reasons is fine. Destroying their property that was legally obtained at the time of purchase or whatever is not. If the state is going to seize something then it should reimburse the owner for it's current market value just like they do for imminent domain cases.

At the very least they should give the owners a reasonable time period to sell the property themselves, but that wouldn't meet the goals of the gun grabbers who want them to all go away and don't care whose rights they have to trample to do so.

For anyone who said that registration lists wouldn't result in seizures this is a prime example of it being done. What happens when they decide to add to the list of crimes that can result in weapon seizures? Late on child support? How irresponsible, lets take their guns. Too many traffic tickets? Clearly an irresponsible person, lets take their guns too. One DUI thirty years ago that was a misdemeanor at the time? Too bad, gimmie your guns.

Gil the A.R.M. would become a reality...

Good deal. You draft the law and I'll start drumming up support.

Anyway, I hope you were just being sarcastic rather than engaging in a tired, NRA-sponsored slippery slope fallacy.

 

[joesixpack]

There is a reason why the slippery slope is a fallacy. By your reasoning violent felons should be allowed to own guns because any restriction will lead to total restriction.

ETA: What's wrong with HOW they are doing it?

Come again?

No, by my reasoning felons (violent and non-violent alike) are already prevented from owning firearms. Those firearms could certainly be taken from them under the current law, however there is no justification for seizure without compensation. This is why I say that there is something wrong with the way the law is being enforced. If the court demanded during the sentencing phase of my trial that my firearms be either sold or gifted, and I failed to comply, then I could understand the seizure.

Make no mistake, possession of a sufficient amount of contraband narcotics is enough of a felony to bar me from ownership of a weapon. This is not just violent felons who are having their second amendment rights revoked.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Come again?

No, by my reasoning felons (violent and non-violent alike) are already prevented from owning firearms. Those firearms could certainly be taken from them under the current law, however there is no justification for seizure without compensation. This is why I say that there is something wrong with the way the law is being enforced. If the court demanded during the sentencing phase of my trial that my firearms be either sold or gifted, and I failed to comply, then I could understand the seizure.

Make no mistake, possession of a sufficient amount of contraband narcotics is enough of a felony to bar me from ownership of a weapon. This is not just violent felons who are having their second amendment rights revoked.

If you are in violation of the law, why should you be compensated rather then facing forfeiture of the offending item?

If I buy a peice of land and proceed to use it for growing MJ, should the Police compensate me when they sieze the land under the Misuse of Drugs Act?

 

[sarge]

It's not a crime if your spouse is declared insane.

It is a crime to retain a gun in a house with an insane person (assuming that it is, of course)

In such a case, I'd be fine with either of the following:

The state pays to store the gun for the non-insane legal gun owner, so long as the gun owner volunteers the gun.

The state confiscates the gun and destroys it without compensation if the gun owner fails to voluntarily surrender the gun.

 

[joesixpack]

If you are in violation of the law, why should you be compensated rather then facing forfeiture of the offending item?

If I buy a peice of land and proceed to use it for growing MJ, should the Police compensate me when they sieze the land under the Misuse of Drugs Act?

Sorry, you're confused. The government doesn't get to seize your property when you're convicted of a crime except under very specific circumstances. If I own a gun legally and then commit a crime that does not involve that gun, I shouldn't have to forfeit it without compensation. Just like if you commit a crime, you're house or car don't get seized unless they were used in the commission of that crime.