Gun Confiscation Has Already Begun

[PraiseKek]

The next chapter of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting saga has begun. Anti-gun interest groups and politicians have used the Parkland shooting to launch what, until recently, they regarded as a distant dream — a wave of state legislation authorizing the confiscation of firearms.

Quietly, but quickly, a raft of identical gun confiscation bills have been filed by liberal politicians in states across the country. They are all copies of a ballot measure that passed in Washington State in November 2016. And that ballot measure was loosely based on a California gun confiscation law enacted in 2014 and a much older Connecticut law from 1999.


1) The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte” provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.

2) Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.

3) Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may in trouble.

4) Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...rusade-begins/

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18...31_00_0000.pdf

It's time to start fighting back, any officer of the state executing these unconstitutional and unlawful orders is a criminal engaged in theft and citizens have the right to defend their liberty and property with deadly force until this nonsense can make it to the SCOTUS, if the SCOTUS fails to hear the case then our Constitutional Republic is dead and it will be time for armed insurrection.

"[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Jade Dragon]

[katzgar]

The next chapter of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting saga has begun. Anti-gun interest groups and politicians have used the Parkland shooting to launch what, until recently, they regarded as a distant dream — a wave of state legislation authorizing the confiscation of firearms.

Quietly, but quickly, a raft of identical gun confiscation bills have been filed by liberal politicians in states across the country. They are all copies of a ballot measure that passed in Washington State in November 2016. And that ballot measure was loosely based on a California gun confiscation law enacted in 2014 and a much older Connecticut law from 1999.


1) The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte” provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.

2) Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.

3) Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may in trouble.

4) Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...rusade-begins/

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18...31_00_0000.pdf

It's time to start fighting back, any officer of the state executing these unconstitutional and unlawful orders is a criminal engaged in theft and citizens have the right to defend their liberty and property with deadly force until this nonsense can make it to the SCOTUS, if the SCOTUS fails to hear the case then our Constitutional Republic is dead and it will be time for armed insurrection.

"[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Do you have a list of abandoned Walmart that gun owners will be held in

[Cypress]

I am beginning to think that rightwing gun humpers are literally retarded.

Even in Vladimir Putin's Russian dictatorship, private gun ownership is allowed (with restrictions) for hunting, self defense, and sporting.

It is possible that gun humpers are literally stupid enough to not realize that people around the world go hunting and target shooting. It is not just limited to 'Merica.

If private gun ownership is allowed in Putin's Russian dictatorship, why do gun humpers relentlessly claim or imply that there is a credible plot here to ban "all" guns?

[Flash]

"The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law."

Must be a different 4th Amendment.

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[floridafan]

Do you have a list of abandoned Walmart that gun owners will be held in

Wasn't it our dear leader who wants guns confiscated without due process? He is worse than any Democrat

[Nordberg]

Taking away their guns, takes way their manhood and their power. They are powerless little girls without weapons. The better the weapon, the better their self esteem. ARs make them more powerful. The next generation weapons will make them even more so.There is no end. Constitution guarantees your right to own one of these,.

[CFM]

Taking away their guns, takes way their manhood and their power. They are powerless little girls without weapons. The better the weapon, the better their self esteem. ARs make them more powerful. The next generation weapons will make them even more so.There is no end. Constitution guarantees your right to own one of these,.

Yet I haven't seen you do anything but claim they should be taken away. When are you going to start trying to take them?

[archives]

Brietfart, next

[Bourbon]

What time are they coming for my Gun because I have an appointment later.

[CFM]

What time are they coming for my Gun because I have an appointment later.

Quit pretending you have guns.

Even your mother knows you're not capable of having them.

[Granule]

Government control makes me tingle, right down there.

-- Jade Dragon

[Bourbon]

It sure would be nice to have the Names of the people who are coming to my house to take my Guns ...

.... any idea what time I should expect them?

[RB 60]

Taking away their guns, takes way their manhood and their power. They are powerless little girls without weapons. The better the weapon, the better their self esteem. ARs make them more powerful. The next generation weapons will make them even more so.There is no end. Constitution guarantees your right to own one of these,.

If you think the AR15 (.223) is better or more powerful than all but 3 (they're ,22's) of my rifles, you're a complete idiot (but then again, you're a complete idiot anyway).

[evince]

it is Russian meme designed to destroy and paralyze this nation and split the people in two


the NRA is a tool of the Russian and chinese