California seizing guns

[PhantomWolf]

They fine you until you prove compliance. I'm most familiar with local building code enforcement since some of my work is correcting violatons, once cited you are given a fixed time to comply, and you have to appear before an administrative judge. If you fail to prove compliance (such as with receipts and pictures) you are fined each and every day of non-compliance. If you're at least making a good-faith effort the judge will probably reduce the fine, if you ignore it the city can continue to levy fines or even condemn and demolish the property in extreme cases.

Ahhh, so they do have to prove that you are not in compliance before leveling fines.

Under that system they would actually have to prove that you were still in possession of the offending weapon before dishing out fines. How would they do that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I already told you how I'd like to see it done. And I don't see how anyone would object unless their intent is to enact a ban subsequent to registration.

So it is record keeping you object to. I know forcing inventory and sale records on gun dealers are ridiculously high standards.

But clearly no one would want to say see the person who made an illegal gun sale to a criminal that was then used to murder someone prosecuted. That is like banning firearms.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Something can be done. However, whatever it is, must be done without infringing on someone else's constitutional rights.



I'll take Ignorant Comments from personal ignorance with no factual basis for 100 please Alex....

But it is their constitutional right and doing anything about it would be wrong!

 

[ponderingturtle]

And not because of any possible legal penalties?


What's to keep the governmnet from fining you $500/day, garnishing your wages or auctioning off your house if necessary, until you either show proof you no longer have the guns or turn them over? Why do you think these remedies are unique to the IRS?

See a good use for registration to show such transfers of ownership.

 

[WildCat]

Ahhh, so they do have to prove that you are not in compliance before leveling fines.

At an administrative hearing the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Under that system they would actually have to prove that you were still in possession of the offending weapon before dishing out fines. How would they do that?

No, they only have to show you did not comply. And if you don't have the paperwork to show you complied that's proof enough.

 

[WildCat]

So it is record keeping you object to. I know forcing inventory and sale records on gun dealers are ridiculously high standards.

But clearly no one would want to say see the person who made an illegal gun sale to a criminal that was then used to murder someone prosecuted. That is like banning firearms.

See a good use for registration to show such transfers of ownership.

Why do you keep ignoring it when I say I'd be fine with registration if there were Constitutional guarantees against banning high capacity magazines, semi-autos, etc?

Would you support such an Amendment?

 

[joesixpack]

The IRS don't send warning letters out to 45-55 million households, they have the man power and laws that allow them to enforce their fines as well, often by taking it directly from your wages or bank account without even leaving the office. They also know whether or not you comply with the letter without leaving their office. Are you suggesting that this is in any way the same as having to go and search a property?

The IRS most certainly does send out letters, and i can tell you from personal experience that the letter results in compliance pretty damned quickly in almost all cases.

 

[PhantomWolf]

At an administrative hearing the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Never said it had to be beyond reasonable doubt. I said they had to prove you were not in compliance, thank you for confirming this.

No, they only have to show you did not comply. And if you don't have the paperwork to show you complied that's proof enough.

I took the gun apart and threw it out in the trash over 4 weeks, sorry the garbageman didn't give me any paperwork to declare it gone.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The IRS most certainly does send out letters, and i can tell you from personal experience that the letter results in compliance pretty damned quickly in almost all cases.

You seem to be under the impression I said that they didn't send out any letters. Please re-read what you quoted to see what I actually said, not what you want me to have said.

 

[triforcharity]

But it is their constitutional right and doing anything about it would be wrong!

Wow, more ignorance on display.

The SCOTUS has already ruled, many years ago, that certain people forfeit their right to own a weapon. Felons and the mentally incompetent are two of them. The SC ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right.

 

[WildCat]

Never said it had to be beyond reasonable doubt. I said they had to prove you were not in compliance, thank you for confirming this.



I took the gun apart and threw it out in the trash over 4 weeks, sorry the garbageman didn't give me any paperwork to declare it gone.

Then be prepared to pay whatever penalty that entails. And if your gun ever shows up anywhere in one piece you get a felony perjury charge.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Then be prepared to pay whatever penalty that entails. And if your gun ever shows up anywhere in one piece you get a felony perjury charge.

Glad I live in this country and not the land of the free were the Government is happy to fine people with no evidence of wrong doing.

 

[beren]

Glad I live in this country and not the land of the free were the Government is happy to fine people with no evidence of wrong doing.

I imagine testifying that you disposed of the gun improperly or not in accordance with the law would be considered evidence of "wrong doing" in this hypothetical scenario.

If i am understanding this correctly. Perhaps I am not.