• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

California seizing guns

WildCat said:
You think comparing voter registration to gun registration is sensible?
Click to expand...

Well, in the original constitution, gun ownership was much better defended than voting registration...
 
joesixpack said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Where is the personal responsibility?

If you are convicted of a crime that would result in the forfeiture of your right to bear arms you should not be compensated for your guns. There are consequences to committing crimes.
 
joesixpack said:
I see a slippery slope here. It would be trivially easy to restrict gun ownership for lesser and lesser offenses.
Click to expand...

Biscuit said:
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.
Click to expand...

joesixpack said:
Come again?
Click to expand...

You admit you are arguing down a slippery slope I just moved you further up that slope.
 
Ranb said:
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
Click to expand...

So how do you get guns away from people you don't think should own them?
 
Biscuit said:
No. Where is the personal responsibility?

If you are convicted of a crime that would result in the forfeiture of your right to bear arms you should not be compensated for your guns. There are consequences to committing crimes.
Click to expand...

If you look at the legal principles that underpin sentencing, you will see that your argument is completely without merit.
 
Babbylonian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Every argument is not necessarily a strictly logical argument.Thus not every argument is invalid that references slippery slopes. An argument can be consistent, logical, empirical and also detail a slippery slope without running afoul of a fallacy.

Human beings do things that are not strictly logical.

That we have evidence these things happens is support for any given slippery slope.

Thus outlining how human nature leads one to chip away at civil rights is not a fallacy, and cannot be fallacious due to the lack of a strictly logical argument, but one that demonstrates accuracy through history/empiricism.

Categorical error!

TLDR:

You should feel bad that you cannot make the distinctions I can. :flamed:

/snark off
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because to do otherwise gives government officials a means to steal from you under the guise of enforcing the law, as is the case in the drug war, where it is not an uncommon occurance for drugs to be "found" in an expensive car the local officers have their eyes on.
 
Babbylonian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually it was a little bit of both. I was quite serious about uncompensated seizures of legally purchased firearms being destroyed but being a bit hyperbolic about changing conditions where firearms may be seized but were perfectly legal to own before the laws changed. In this type of case unless the law has a backwards limit it's entirely possible to say that anyone with this type of behavior on record can no longer own a firearm (we currently do this with felons where they may have bought a firearm when their status was "Not a felon"). Now if it said from this point onwards anyone who engages in this type of behavior or lives with someone who has engaged in that type of behavior (that is not a felony) is subject to losing the right to own a firearm I'd have no issue with it, as long as the owner was justly compensated through either the state or by being given time to sell it.

Even felons can live in a house with firearms owned by someone else that lives there, they just can't have physical possession of it. But by the way this article states it if someone is deemed to have had mental issues in the past, regardless of that condition being remedied through medication or therapy or not, or if it was misdiagnosed (as indicated by a 2 day mandatory stay in a mental institution for observation that had no follow up), that someone else who shares a residence with them is subject to having their property seized.

Often times a person who is normally mentally sound can get put into a 3 day (maximum) hold in a mental facility for observation. At the end of that period they can either keep them in confinement for their own (or others safety) or release them. The rules are fairly lax on the initial judgement call which is usually made in the field and they tend to favor being on the safe side (which is why there's a 3 day limit on how long someone can be held. A writ of habeas corpus comes to mind here). One of the examples in the OP was someone who was held for 2 days. Without knowing the details it's entirely possible that she was put in on a Friday night and the person who had the authorization to sign her release didn't come in until Monday morning. Meanwhile her spouse has to lose his rights over a possible red tape paperwork procedure.
 
joesixpack said:
If you look at the legal principles that underpin sentencing, you will see that your argument is completely without merit.
Click to expand...

Could you be less specific?

joesixpack said:
I don't think you fully understand the term. I won't argue it with you so I'll just substitute "Creeping Normalcy".
Click to expand...

Call it whatever you want but your argument still ignores that a middle ground can and does exist.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how do you get guns away from people you don't think should own them?
Click to expand...
If the police have reason to believe a person is illegally possessing a gun, then they get a warrent to seize the property. If the police see contraband, they seize it. How else should it be done? Isn't this the way property is normally seized?

Ranb
 
One option is to turn your guns over to your lawyer, who will safeguard them appropriately. I you can't 'possess' them legally, he can liquidate your property for you without you ever possessing them again.

Whether you ever expect to see any money from your lawyer is a subject for another thread. ;)
 
casebro said:
One option is to turn your guns over to your lawyer, who will safeguard them appropriately. I you can't 'possess' them legally, he can liquidate your property for you without you ever possessing them again.

Whether you ever expect to see any money from your lawyer is a subject for another thread. ;)
Click to expand...
Whoa there, aren't lawyers dangerous enough without guns?
 
WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or, how about not infringing on the innocent party's rights to own that weapon. Seems pretty simple to me.

If for some unknown reason my wife or one of my kids was declared crazy by a court (I suspect my wife is crazy already, but "redhead" doesn't legally qualify :D ) why would I, a law abiding, non-mental person, be required to forefit MY rights? I can understand the courts asking me to remove the weapon, but seizing it is wrong, IMO.
 
Biscuit said:
The government should not compensate people for violating the law.
Click to expand...

There's a law in California that says that? Interesting. Surprised it hasn't been challenged in court as being unconstitutional.

Do you happen to know anything more about this law?
 
triforcharity said:
Or, how about not infringing on the innocent party's rights to own that weapon. Seems pretty simple to me.

If for some unknown reason my wife or one of my kids was declared crazy by a court (I suspect my wife is crazy already, but "redhead" doesn't legally qualify :D ) why would I, a law abiding, non-mental person, be required to forefit MY rights? I can understand the courts asking me to remove the weapon, but seizing it is wrong, IMO.
Click to expand...
True, simply removing it from the house should be good enough.
 
joesixpack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to think about it a little further. Should you commit a crime that disqualifies you from gun ownership, then owning a gun becomes a felony in itself. If you fail to get rid of it, then you would be commiting a crime in which the gun is being used in the commision of that crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom