• 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

Xulld said:
Ridiculous to begin with, I object to the government telling me what property I can own in my own home because a person has a medical condition who lives with me.
Click to expand...

Nice to see people supporting people like the sandy hook shooters access to fire arms.
 
WildCat said:
If you have registration you don't need to search 30 million homes. You only need to send out 30 million letters threatening prosecution unless you prove you no longer have the gun.

And that's something they can do in a heartbeat, even on a much larger scale than 30 million. See income tax compliance for an example.
Click to expand...

And a letter is going to do what exactly? Is it going to magically jump out of the envelope, track down the guns, bundle them up and take them away?

What difference is there in passing a law that bans handguns and putting a notice in the locl paper, on TV and radio telling people that possession after day "X" is illegal and can result in prosecution, and passing a law that bans handguns and sending handgun owners a personal letter telling them that possession after day "X" is illegal and can result in prosecution?
 
PhantomWolf said:
And a letter is going to do what exactly? Is it going to magically jump out of the envelope, track down the guns, bundle them up and take them away?
Click to expand...
Apparently it was good enough for Australians to turn in 631,000 newly illegal guns once their law was passed. I'm assuming, maybe they didn't even need a letter. Maybe just the knowledge they could never take those guns out shooting was good enough.

And letters sure get people to comply with the IRS, don't they? I don't know many people with the gumption to ignore a letter from the IRS, because a legal nightmare awaits those who do.

PhantomWolf said:
What difference is there in passing a law that bans handguns and putting a notice in the locl paper, on TV and radio telling people that possession after day "X" is illegal and can result in prosecution, and passing a law that bans handguns and sending handgun owners a personal letter telling them that possession after day "X" is illegal and can result in prosecution?
Click to expand...
The letter means they know who you are and that you have a gun that is suddenly illegal. Registration makes that all possible, it's the logical first step for those who want to ban them entirely. And many such people don't even keep that a secret.

If you want me to support registration you'll have to first get a Constitutional Amendment that forbids the government or agencies they control from ever using registration lists to identify gun owners in possession of newly-illegal guns or prohibiting the sale or transfer of said guns. This should be fine with the pro-registration folks if they really have no interest at all in using such registration to separate people from their firearms or prevent their accustomed use and possession.

Hilited phrase used to avoid the mindless semantic argument about "confiscation".
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Apparently it was good enough for Australians to turn in 631,000 newly illegal guns once their law was passed. I'm assuming, maybe they didn't even need a letter. Maybe just the knowledge they could never take those guns out shooting was good enough.

And letters sure get people to comply with the IRS, don't they? I don't know many people with the gumption to ignore a letter from the IRS, because a legal nightmare awaits those who do.


The letter means they know who you are and that you have a gun that is suddenly illegal. Registration makes that all possible, it's the logical first step for those who want to ban them entirely. And many such people don't even keep that a secret.

If you want me to support registration you'll have to first get a Constitutional Amendment that forbids the government or agencies they control from ever using registration lists to identify gun owners in possession of newly-illegal guns or prohibiting the sale or transfer of said guns. This should be fine with the pro-registration folks if they really have no interest at all in using such registration to separate people from their firearms or prevent their accustomed use and possession.

Hilited phrase used to avoid the mindless semantic argument about "confiscation".
Click to expand...

Fight for the constitutional rights of the insane and felons to self defense too. Background checks are always total BS!
 
ponderingturtle said:
Then how do you determine when a gun moved from the legal market to the illegal?

So you are only for laws as long as they are unenforceable.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That depending on the insane and criminals not to break the law isn't that good an idea and maybe something serious should be done.
Click to expand...

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

ponderingturtle said:
Not going to happen I know, gun owners like to be able to sell their guns to criminals but still a dream.
Click to expand...

I'll take Ignorant Comments from personal ignorance with no factual basis for 100 please Alex....
 
Dr. Keith said:
And if the courts ask you to remove the guns from the home, even notify you that such removal is required, then what?
Click to expand...

Then I hire an attorney and file an appeal and ask for an injunction, as I have done nothing wrong to justify removing my rights.

Dr. Keith said:
Let's say you refuse to remove them. Should they be confiscated at that point? Or should they just keep sending notices?
Click to expand...

No, they'll need to prove to a higher court that the order is legal and justified.

Dr. Keith said:
At some point seizure is the right answer, the discussion is where is that point.
Click to expand...

When the owner of said weapon has violated the law, or shown to be mentally unfit to own such weapons. Not before.
 
WildCat said:
Apparently it was good enough for Australians to turn in 631,000 newly illegal guns once their law was passed. I'm assuming, maybe they didn't even need a letter. Maybe just the knowledge they could never take those guns out shooting was good enough.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the fact it was national news for some time before being implimented and was well advertised prior to the fact allowed people to know as well?

And letters sure get people to comply with the IRS, don't they? I don't know many people with the gumption to ignore a letter from the IRS, because a legal nightmare awaits those who do.
Click to expand...

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 letter means they know who you are and that you have a gun that is suddenly illegal. Registration makes that all possible, it's the logical first step for those who want to ban them entirely. And many such people don't even keep that a secret.
Click to expand...

It's also a logical step in being able to track the movements of a weapon to figure out hoiw it got into the wrong hands.

If you want me to support registration you'll have to first get a Constitutional Amendment that forbids the government or agencies they control from ever using registration lists to identify gun owners in possession of newly-illegal guns or prohibiting the sale or transfer of said guns.
Click to expand...

Are you meaning not using it to determine lists the identify gun owners that hold classes of weapons that the Government bans, in which case the second part would appear to contravine the purpose of said ban, or do you mean where weapons go from legally held to being held illegally via the actions of the owner?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Perhaps the fact it was national news for some time before being implimented and was well advertised prior to the fact allowed people to know as well?
Click to expand...
And not because of any possible legal penalties?

PhantomWolf said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?

PhantomWolf said:
It's also a logical step in being able to track the movements of a weapon to figure out hoiw it got into the wrong hands.
Click to expand...
OK, so as a compromise would you support a Constitutional Amendment affirming the right of the people to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles and handguns with high-capacity magazines? Then you get your registration, and gun owners are assured they won't subsequently be banned barring a repeal of said Amendment? Win-win, right?

PhantomWolf said:
Are you meaning not using it to determine lists the identify gun owners that hold classes of weapons that the Government bans, in which case the second part would appear to contravine the purpose of said ban, or do you mean where weapons go from legally held to being held illegally via the actions of the owner?
Click to expand...
See above.
 
WildCat said:
And not because of any possible legal penalties?
Click to expand...

Do you drive at the speed limit because you want to try and obey the laws of the land, or do you do it because your will end up with a legal penalty if caught breaking it?

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?
Click to expand...

Whats to stop them launching a Predator Drone to blow up your house unless you provide proof you no longer have the guns or turn them over? You're going into the realm of fantasy.

OK, so as a compromise would you support a Constitutional Amendment affirming the right of the people to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles and handguns with high-capacity magazines? Then you get your registration, and gun owners are assured they won't subsequently be banned barring a repeal of said Amendment? Win-win, right?
Click to expand...

I'd honestly have to see how such an amendment would be worded. From a personal perspective, I have no issue with suitably trained and vetted people having access to semi-automatics. I also have no issue with high capacity magazines, and would point out that at Columbine the guy with the 10 round mag killed the majority of people by a large number, so small mags are no defence there. My issues are making sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands, not that they aren't there at all. This is why I'd have to see how it would be worded, the last thing that would be needed is an amendment that could be used to allow those currently banned from ownership to regain it via poor wording. If it was worded in such a way that only those with suitable training and clean backgrounds were guaranteed them, then I'd be fine with it.

See above.
Click to expand...

The option you gave above wasn't actually what you stated previously.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Do you drive at the speed limit because you want to try and obey the laws of the land, or do you do it because your will end up with a legal penalty if caught breaking it?
Click to expand...
I usually exceed it and keep a sharp lookout. Haven't been caught in 10 years (knocks on wood).

PhantomWolf said:
Whats to stop them launching a Predator Drone to blow up your house unless you provide proof you no longer have the guns or turn them over? You're going into the realm of fantasy.
Click to expand...
"Fantasy"? Such remedies are not limited to the IRS. It's how building code compliance is enforced, labor laws, workplace safety laws, etc etc. This is how regulatory agencies typically operate in the USA.

PhantomWolf said:
I'd honestly have to see how such an amendment would be worded. From a personal perspective, I have no issue with suitably trained and vetted people having access to semi-automatics. I also have no issue with high capacity magazines, and would point out that at Columbine the guy with the 10 round mag killed the majority of people by a large number, so small mags are no defence there. My issues are making sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands, not that they aren't there at all. This is why I'd have to see how it would be worded, the last thing that would be needed is an amendment that could be used to allow those currently banned from ownership to regain it via poor wording. If it was worded in such a way that only those with suitable training and clean backgrounds were guaranteed them, then I'd be fine with it.



The option you gave above wasn't actually what you stated previously.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm not a lawyer so don't look to me to properly word an Amendment. The gist is it is that it affirms that gun ownership is a right, even semi-automatics and handguns.

If such an amendment were enacted I don't think gun owners would be so averse to registration. I certainly wouldn't be.

For the record, mine are registered in Chicago. But if need be I have the ability to remove them from the city, as my family has a summer house in gun-friendly Indiana so I'm not worried about losing them regardless. Besides, Indiana is where I do almost all my shooting. Of course, they're far more likely to get stolen from there as it's unoccupied and unvisited for months on end in the winter. Unintended consequences...
 
WildCat said:
"Fantasy"? Such remedies are not limited to the IRS. It's how building code compliance is enforced, labor laws, workplace safety laws, etc etc. This is how regulatory agencies typically operate in the USA.
Click to expand...

Really, so they just start fining you until you can prove you are innocent? Seems unconstitutional to me.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Really, so they just start fining you until you can prove you are innocent? Seems unconstitutional to me.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom