proof that registration does lead to confiscation

It doesn't say that he was deemed mentally incompetent or that the police had exhausted civil methods of obtaining the property that he supposedly was no longer deemed qualified to own.
 
Thing1 said:
Did you see the part about the owner being in a mental hospital?
Click to expand...
this means what? it's meaningless when the state bypasses due process rights and can 'willy nilly' involuntarily put you in a mental hospital. there was zero legal or judicial documentation that legitimately vacated this persons 2nd Amendment right, so what is it you're trying to say?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this means what? it's meaningless when the state bypasses due process rights and can 'willy nilly' involuntarily put you in a mental hospital. there was zero legal or judicial documentation that legitimately vacated this persons 2nd Amendment right, so what is it you're trying to say?
Click to expand...

In the article, there aren't enough details regarding the mental state of the owner or the reasons they were in a mental hospital for me to judge. Other than that, this seems to be exactly why registration should be required.
 
Thing1 said:
In the article, there aren't enough details regarding the mental state of the owner or the reasons they were in a mental hospital for me to judge. Other than that, this seems to be exactly why registration should be required.
Click to expand...
how can you possibly come to the conclusion that this is why registration should be required when you just admitted that you can't see enough details as to the whys and whats of the mental state or why they were in the hospital? are you not jumping to a conclusion that violates the rights of an american citizen without due process?
 
You are both right .... generally.....this is why registration should be required but as with all liberal good intentions, they have a tendency to
to over step their bounds.....there must be some semblance of due process here.....

we see it with 5 and 6 year old kids getting expelled from tot school for cupcakes and finger guns.....which is insanity itself.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how can you possibly come to the conclusion that this is why registration should be required when you just admitted that you can't see enough details as to the whys and whats of the mental state or why they were in the hospital? are you not jumping to a conclusion that violates the rights of an american citizen without due process?
Click to expand...

You're arguing 2 separate issues. The title of the thread leads one to believe that you don't think there should be registration, because it leads to confiscation. Most people would argue the opposite just in general - that is it good to have registration, so that those who purchase guns and are later deemed to be mentally ill, or convicted of a crime, etc., can be tagged in the database and have their guns confiscated.

I would assume you agree with that general concept - that the mentally ill or convicted felons should not have the right to firearms, even if they already own a gun.

The other issue is how mental illness is determined, and the nature of due process. It seems to me that in this case, the state could potentially be overreaching, but after last year, I don't think anyone wants a situation where someone misuses a firearm and it is reported after the fact that this person was in a mental hospital, the state knew it & yet they were still allowed to own that firearm.
 
Peole need guns to protect themselves from other people with guns becaue the police won't protect you from people with guns because people with guns won't let them.
 
Thing1 said:
You're arguing 2 separate issues. The title of the thread leads one to believe that you don't think there should be registration, because it leads to confiscation. Most people would argue the opposite just in general - that is it good to have registration, so that those who purchase guns and are later deemed to be mentally ill, or convicted of a crime, etc., can be tagged in the database and have their guns confiscated.

I would assume you agree with that general concept - that the mentally ill or convicted felons should not have the right to firearms, even if they already own a gun.
Click to expand...
you would assume wrong. 'shall not be infringed' is quite clearly the proof needed to show that the framers intended the federal government absolutely no power over firearms. Now, I know that this is a state issue and california does not have any right to arms in their state constitution, but they are now bound by the 2nd Amendment throught Heller and McDonald. Nevertheless, it has always been my opinion that if you have been imprisoned for a crime and cannot later be trusted in public with a weapon, you cannot be trusted in public, period. A free man/woman is exactly that.....free.

Thing1 said:
The other issue is how mental illness is determined, and the nature of due process. It seems to me that in this case, the state could potentially be overreaching, but after last year, I don't think anyone wants a situation where someone misuses a firearm and it is reported after the fact that this person was in a mental hospital, the state knew it & yet they were still allowed to own that firearm.
Click to expand...
the founders considered this the price of freedom from tyranny and it still stands today. the governments have seized too much power over our freedoms, this is just one of them.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you would assume wrong. 'shall not be infringed' is quite clearly the proof needed to show that the framers intended the federal government absolutely no power over firearms. Now, I know that this is a state issue and california does not have any right to arms in their state constitution, but they are now bound by the 2nd Amendment throught Heller and McDonald. Nevertheless, it has always been my opinion that if you have been imprisoned for a crime and cannot later be trusted in public with a weapon, you cannot be trusted in public, period. A free man/woman is exactly that.....free.

the founders considered this the price of freedom from tyranny and it still stands today. the governments have seized too much power over our freedoms, this is just one of them.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to realize that you're way out on the fringe then. At the very least, you would find little agreement that anyone deemed mentally ill should be allowed gun ownership, and certainly anyone who was convicted of a violent crime.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, you have to realize that you're way out on the fringe then.
Click to expand...
I'd rather be right and alone, than to be wrong and silent or in the majority.

Thing1 said:
At the very least, you would find little agreement that anyone deemed mentally ill should be allowed gun ownership, and certainly anyone who was convicted of a violent crime.
Click to expand...
again, if they can't be trusted in public with a weapon (since weapons of all types are in easy reach anyway) then they can't be trusted in public. that means that they should remain behind bars, even if that offends your liberal sensibilities.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I'd rather be right and alone, than to be wrong and silent or in the majority.


again, if they can't be trusted in public with a weapon (since weapons of all types are in easy reach anyway) then they can't be trusted in public. that means that they should remain behind bars, even if that offends your liberal sensibilities.
Click to expand...

It actually offends common sense - there is nothing liberal about it. If someone has committed a violent crime, they have chosen to forfeit certain rights. If someone is mentally ill, they should not own a gun.

You're not right & alone. You're simply wrong. I don't understand your logic or the way you think, one iota.
 
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
The police don't want to protect you. And have no duty to do so.
Click to expand...


I understand that the police owe no duty to individual members of the public. I also understand that when the police take steps to protect the general public from persons that own firearms, like this fella in the OP, the first people to bitch about it are the people that bitch about the police not protecting the public and thus requireing their personal ownership of firearms.
 
Thing1 said:
It actually offends common sense - there is nothing liberal about it. If someone has committed a violent crime, they have chosen to forfeit certain rights. If someone is mentally ill, they should not own a gun.

You're not right & alone. You're simply wrong. I don't understand your logic or the way you think, one iota.
Click to expand...
how is it common sense to release a known violent criminal or violent mental patient in to the public sector and simply shake your finger saying 'you're no longer allowed to own a gun' as you wave bye bye???? by stating that I believe they should still stay imprisoned makes me right and you wrong, no matter how you want to look at it. if you can't understand that logic, maybe you should go back to first grade.
 
Dungheap said:
I understand that the police owe no duty to individual members of the public. I also understand that when the police take steps to protect the general public from persons that own firearms, like this fella in the OP, the first people to bitch about it are the people that bitch about the police not protecting the public and thus requireing their personal ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...
faulty assumption of facts not in evidence.
 
Dungheap said:
I understand that the police owe no duty to individual members of the public. I also understand that when the police take steps to protect the general public from persons that own firearms, like this fella in the OP, the first people to bitch about it are the people that bitch about the police not protecting the public and thus requireing their personal ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

I guess we have to assume everyone will recieve due process when their mental health is determined
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...wners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns
Click to expand...

so the registration caused the gun reposession? Not the mental illness?

To bad all states do not track and disarm mentally unstable people.
 
http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/11/16/3613913/state-agents-sweep-fresno.html

The sign in the window warned burglars that the homeowner owned a handgun and would use it in self-defense. The state agents knocking on the door were there to confiscate the weapon.

The agents are part of the California Department of Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), a program that takes firearms from people barred from owning them. The law says that group can include ex-felons and people deemed to be mentally unstable.

Often arriving in SUVs and dressed in black tactical uniforms, the teams regularly sweep through California cities with a list of names and addresses.

It was Fresno's turn last week.

Thursday night, the agents went to the home near Roeding Park to collect a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol from a woman who had been evaluated under California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 as a danger to herself and others. As such, she had been ordered to surrender any firearms in her possession and had not.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/11/16/3613913/state-agents-sweep-fresno.html#storylink=cpy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top