PDA

View Full Version : Another FFL throws us under the bus


Sawdust
05-02-2007, 7:41 PM
This guy owns Greta's Guns in Simi Valley.

He also is a regular advertiser in the CRPA's monthly newsletter.

Apparently, he is a fan of CA gun laws, and thinks that gun control laws would have prevented the VT massacre.

Note how he also is against CCW on campus - how much do you wanna bet *he* has a license to carry.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/may/02/system-failed-innocent-virginia-tech-students/


System failed innocent Virginia Tech students and faculty

By Chris Biller
Wednesday, May 2, 2007


As a retail gun-store owner and a retired Los Angeles detective/sergeant with 29 years' experience in law enforcement, I feel compelled to respond to the well-meaning Ventura County citizens who have written letters condemning the sale of firearms.

The letters were motivated by the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, resulting in the slaughter of 32 of America's brightest and best. This mass murder was committed by Cho Seung-Hui, a noncitizen who had been judged to be a danger to society and had obtained two pistols legally as per Virginia laws.

In California, Cho could not have obtained these firearms. The Department of Justice, Firearms Detail has access to all California agencies, such as Department of Motor Vehicles and Mental Health facilities. If a person has been committed for a psychiatric evaluation; has traffic warrants; a revoked or suspended driver's license; or failed to provide child support, he can't buy a firearm.

In short, California has done an excellent job trying to prevent the purchase of firearms by individuals who have demonstrated social irresponsibility or are mentally unstable. California has a 10-day waiting period.

I am in favor of these laws that are viewed by many gun owners as restrictive and unnecessary. Had these laws been in effect in Virginia 32 of our finest would be alive today.

I can certainly understand the anger the Virginian Tech massacre has generated. Such acts of barbarism are not foreign in our society.

Aug. 1, 1966, on the campus of the University of Texas in Austin, Charles Whitman climbed a university tower and shot 31 people, killing 16.

Jan. 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy shot 30 people in a Stockton schoolyard, killing five. Purdy used an assault rifle.

Feb. 23, 2001, David Edward Attias, a mentally disturbed student at UC Santa Barbara, ran down a group of students, killing four.

July 16, 2003, George Russell Weller, an 86-year-old retired salesman, ran down dozens of innocent shoppers at a weekly Santa Monica farmer's market, killing 10.

These are acts of mean, cruel and sick people who used any vehicle as a weapon to inflict death and destruction and, in most instances, firearms were used.

The political rhetoric that these horrific incidents generate are not new, and are very predictable. In our nation, we have the Constitution, and we are guaranteed the freedom of speech, our most sacred right. As is the freedom to bear arms. I respect those individuals who voice their objection to firearms and I understand their anxiety and apprehension. But this vitriol dialogue serves no purpose except alienation on both sides.

I do not seek to convince those of you who hate firearms to see my view, but respect my view as I respect yours. I am not seeking to change anybody's mind. I have read that many gun proponents suggest that an armed student could have engaged Cho, thus terminating the carnage. One armed student on the campus was enough. Those on the opposite side condemned high-capacity magazines. Cho had many magazines. What difference does the amount of bullets make when the end result is the same?

The Virginia Tech massacre occurred because a mentally ill, noncitizen was allowed to purchase firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law that prevented noncitizens from purchasing firearms. Loopholes in Virginia's laws, which that state's governor has since closed, also allowed Cho to buy these firearms. I firmly believe that the Supreme Court should review its ruling.

The bottom line, 32 innocent young people were murdered because the system failed, and, as is the case in the above horrific shootings. Many of them have been forgotten. I have not forgotten.

Chris Biller lives in Simi Valley.

He also is quoted in another article that I'll post in a new thread.

This makes me so mad that I could just spit nails - with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Sawdust

PistolPete75
05-02-2007, 7:46 PM
i hope no one patronizes this guy.

LAK Supply
05-02-2007, 8:05 PM
I definitely won't. Here is the "contact us" link from Greta's website for anyone else that is interested in passing their opinion on to Mr. Biller:

http://www.gretasguns.com/html/contact_us.html


I already sent him one..... maybe we can flood his inbox with the real view of CA's gun community.....:)

KenpoProfessor
05-02-2007, 8:13 PM
:eek: Hello, and welcome to the Gretaís Guns website!! Greta's Guns is the largest retail firearmís store in East Ventura County, California. We have been in business and at the same location in Simi Valley since 1994. We are located in Ventura County, which is north of Los Angeles, so none of L.A.ís weird rules apply to us.

Greta's Guns is named after Greta, a wonderful lady and great boss, who also happens to be a Rottweiler dog. Gretaís is owned by Chris, who retired from the Los Angeles Police Department after 28 years of dedicated and faithful service. The manager of the store is named Jason, and he comes from a background in the Marines and is a longtime hunter and shooter. Marty has a long association with firearms and is our resident target shooter, so if you need to know anything about target rifles, he is the man to ask.

Greta's Guns prides itself on being well stocked and reasonably priced on all of your firearm and ammunition needs. We have an Assault Weapon License and a High Capacity Magazine License, so we are able to purchase registered assault weapons and order any Law Enforcement gear that you may need. We are a full stocking dealer for almost every manufacturer. We also have, used and consignment firearms. If you are looking to sell or consign your firearms, please drop by and let us see what you have, maybe we can work a deal!

Thank you for stopping by our site, and if you donít see what you are looking for, give us a call or drop us a line, and we will do our best to get you what you want!


They don't have LA's wierd gun laws and he sells AWs:eek:

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

slick_711
05-02-2007, 8:23 PM
We have an Assault Weapon License and a High Capacity Magazine License, so we are able to purchase registered assault weapons and order any Law Enforcement gear that you may need. We are a full stocking dealer for almost every manufacturer.


They don't have LA's wierd gun laws and he sells AWs:eek:


No, what that says is that they prefer to deal with LEOs.

gose
05-02-2007, 8:24 PM
Excellent. Another gun store I'll never spend a cent in.

1919_4_ME
05-02-2007, 8:30 PM
Call his store and ask him is he drives bus's for a living/If hes says no then say "How come we saw your driving a bus over our gun rights the other day":eek:

no2statism
05-02-2007, 8:32 PM
I sent him an email letting him know I wont be shopping there, EVER.

AJAX22
05-02-2007, 8:45 PM
It's a shame the guy's such a d*ck, he has a large number of high quality older handguns in stock, a well cest la vie.

thedrickel
05-02-2007, 8:48 PM
Don't retired LEO's automatically get CCW's?

bwiese
05-02-2007, 9:39 PM
Don't always believe what you read.

He could well have been misquoted or the reporter used various remarks out of context.

Remember how the Capitol Weekly article on AB2728 turned out.

Biff...
05-02-2007, 9:58 PM
not getting my $$ thats for sure

Sawdust
05-02-2007, 10:02 PM
Uh, Bill, this is an editorial that he wrote himself for the paper.

Sawdust

Sam Hainn
05-02-2007, 11:16 PM
In short, California has done an excellent job trying to prevent the purchase of firearms by individuals who have demonstrated social irresponsibility or are mentally unstable. California has a 10-day waiting period.

How do those laws do that at the corner of Jefferson & St. Andrews in LA? Does the buyer pay and come back 10 days later at a certain time? For the 10-day pick up does the buyer look for it hidden by the seller under a bush or park bench?

tenpercentfirearms
05-02-2007, 11:23 PM
Uh, Bill, this is an editorial that he wrote himself for the paper.

Sawdust

You never know what the media might turn around on you. :D

elsolo
05-03-2007, 6:44 AM
I don't think that noncitizens with a history of mental illness, who have been judged to be "a threat to themselves or others" should be able to buy guns legally either.

Not that CA gun laws would stop a psychopath intent on killing innocents.

KenpoProfessor
05-03-2007, 7:04 AM
Not that CA gun laws would stop a psychopath intent on killing innocents.


http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/cgi-bin/p/psafe/psafe.cgi?http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/May/01/local/stories/01local.htm

Nope, it won't stop the psychos.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

FortCourageArmory
05-03-2007, 8:16 AM
As the other gun store in Simi Valley, I catagorically reject Mr. Biller's position on current CA laws. The 10-day wait WOULD NOT have stopped Cho becasue he purchased at least one of his firearms more than 30 days before he went on his rampage. Secondly, Cho's medical files are specifically EXCLUDED from the state's background check when a firearm is registered. The only way he would have been caught here is if he had been commited by the court...which he wasn't. He volunteered to check himself in for observation. No one would have been allowed BY LAW to see that information. Mr. Biller's interpretation of the gun laws are incorrect.

This kind of editorial give all FFLs in CA a bad name.....

mark3lb
05-03-2007, 8:23 AM
The Virginia Tech thing is water under the bridge. The only reason for people to keep rehashing it is to use it for a tool for gun control. It was a horrible event and the background check in that state needs to be stronger, but I see no need to debate it or even talk about it. It's in the past. I personally would not shop at this guys store.

MIKEUSMC2005
05-03-2007, 8:32 AM
What Cho did, prior to the shooting was to systematically plan, and execute his psychotic, deranged killing. No waiting period was necessary in his case; he was determined to commit this shooting well in advanced.

If someone has intent on committing a sensational murder, he/she will stop at nothing to commit it. If it wasn't a gun in this case, he could have mowed people down with his car, made a bomb, who knows...

Joe Register
05-03-2007, 8:42 AM
Interesting that he should write that. I won a rifle as a door prize at the CRPA annual dinner two years ago in Irvine. They mandated that all transfers must take place at Gretas in Simi - a long way from Irvine. I didn't think much about it because it is hard to not be happy about getting a free .22 for just the DROS fee. The whole dinner was speeches about over restrictive laws and the need to fight against them. I guess CRPA's official transfer dealer, circa 2006, sees things differently.

Redchevyman
05-03-2007, 8:43 AM
If someone has intent on committing a sensational murder, he/she will stop at nothing to commit it. If it wasn't a gun in this case, he could have mowed people down with his car, made a bomb, who knows... This is so true. When you take away one tool (The Gun) they will just use a different tool ( like a car or can of gas & a match). We can not stop defective people from doing these things, its just a part of life.

Fate
05-03-2007, 9:07 AM
Once more, Greta's demonstrates why I'll never shop there again.

Glad to hear about Ft. Courage Armory's opening!

Biff...
05-03-2007, 12:38 PM
This is the guys email.

cbiller@ez2.net

James R.
05-03-2007, 3:32 PM
I think we might be riding the guy a little too hard.

He doesn't seem anti-CWP, he's not anti-gun, he claims he's not anti-AW or pro 1 gun a month or any of that stuff. It seems that he's ok with the 10 day waiting period and mental health restrictions etc. Well hell, lemme just share what he wrote back to me. For all I know it's a canned response but I'll share it here. Based on what he wrote I don't think I can really endorse boycotting the guy. He doesn't think guns would be good on campus. I don't agree, if campus police need to be armed that's a sure sign you're not at Disneyland. On the other hand chances are given how few people CWP, esp college age kids, chances are Cho would have never faced an armed student. If on campus CWP stepped in it would have been pure chance or thru a deterrent effect, i.e. Cho didn't do his thing for fear that he *could* be shot rather than actually having been shot.

Anyhow, Chris writes...

Hi Jim:

The totality of the article was supportive the ten day waiting period, and the back ground checks. I am not supportive of the restriction of the hi cap magazines. I am not supportive of the one gun month law. I am not supportive of the LAPD gun detail who have exceeded there authorities. No am I supportive of the bill which the politicians of California labeled the Safe gun bill which is an extortion of the gun industry.

I do support laws which restrict firearms from the possession of prohibited persons who have demonstrated mental disorders.

My motivation to write the article was an attempt to point out that if Virginia had these laws in effect, that massacre in Virginia would not have occurred.

I support the concept that responsible individuals should be able to carry cancelled firearms, but on the other hand allowing student to carry firearms on campus could be a disastrous affairs.I made it clear in the article that the possession of hi cap magazines had no play. He would accomplished this act with five or six ten round mags. I also pointed out the Santa Monica and Santa Barbara incident were motor vehicle were the weapon.

Sincerely
Chris Biller

Regards,

James R.

PS - Someone said he wrote worse stuff in other places. If you have that I'd like to see it as it might change my mind. Based on my limited conversation with him so far he doesn't seem like the next Zumbo by any means.

simonov
05-03-2007, 4:31 PM
My motivation to write the article was an attempt to point out that if Virginia had these laws in effect, that massacre in Virginia would not have occurred.

Ask him how the ten day wait would have prevented Cho from shooting up the school a month after he bought his gun.

James R.
05-03-2007, 4:51 PM
Ask him how the ten day wait would have prevented Cho from shooting up the school a month after he bought his gun.

Yeah I agree that wouldn't have stopped Cho either, but I think most people realize this anyhow. He used 10 days in combination with the mental checks, maybe it was just reflexive to add that the former to the latter.

I do believe the 10 day wait period probably does reduce the number of crimes of passion and things of that sort that would happen without it. In the same breath however it robs people of the ability to secure a weapon for their own defense in a timely manner. If someone feels that there is genuinely a threat to their safety they have to sit around waiting 10 days to get their gun, they very well may be killed in that time frame.

I'm a strong believer that once you have guns you should be able to get a permit of some sort which exempts you from the wait period. For instance, I have more guns than I have digits. Why the hell should I have to wait 10 days to get a new one? If I wanted to kill someone I'd walk over to my safe and select from the numerous firearms I already own. Making established gun owners wait is downright silly...even more so for long guns.

Regards,

James R.

jemaddux
05-03-2007, 5:24 PM
Don't always believe what you read.

He could well have been misquoted or the reporter used various remarks out of context.

Remember how the Capitol Weekly article on AB2728 turned out.

No Bill, this is how he is. I know Chris and that is why I am in business. He charges $150 for an out of state transfer plus the DROS and plus storage and transfer fees (transfer meaning from the counter to his safe). If you go in there and even mention OLL he will throw you out of his store and tell you in a very loud voice that you have no letter from DOJ and your a criminal that needs to be in jail. I can go on and on but I won't, I think you get the idea why I am in business there in Simi, more people that go in his store the more people I get coming to me.

bwiese
05-03-2007, 5:28 PM
No Bill, this is how he is. I know Chris and that is why I am in business. He charges $150 for an out of state transfer plus the DROS and plus storage and transfer fees (transfer meaning from the counter to his safe). If you go in there and even mention OLL he will throw you out of his store and tell you in a very loud voice that you have no letter from DOJ and your a criminal that needs to be in jail. I can go on and on but I won't, I think you get the idea why I am in business there in Simi, more people that go in his store the more people I get coming to me.

Yes, I agree.

I had written my comment above only seeing the news article, and not the later direct quote from him.

James R.
05-03-2007, 5:39 PM
No Bill, this is how he is. I know Chris and that is why I am in business. He charges $150 for an out of state transfer plus the DROS and plus storage and transfer fees (transfer meaning from the counter to his safe). If you go in there and even mention OLL he will throw you out of his store and tell you in a very loud voice that you have no letter from DOJ and your a criminal that needs to be in jail. I can go on and on but I won't, I think you get the idea why I am in business there in Simi, more people that go in his store the more people I get coming to me.

Oooof, well that sucks. He came off pretty level headed in his reply :-(

Regards,

James R.

whlgun
05-03-2007, 5:40 PM
Thank god for Fort Courage Armory Im so glad someone is going to be taking away all of Greta's business. Im so tired of there poor service and lack of knowledge in gun laws. Not to mention he called me a felon for buying a offlist lower and told me the DOJ was going to take away all my firearms.

Tzvia
05-03-2007, 5:46 PM
No Bill, this is how he is. I know Chris and that is why I am in business. He charges $150 for an out of state transfer plus the DROS and plus storage and transfer fees (transfer meaning from the counter to his safe). If you go in there and even mention OLL he will throw you out of his store and tell you in a very loud voice that you have no letter from DOJ and your a criminal that needs to be in jail. I can go on and on but I won't, I think you get the idea why I am in business there in Simi, more people that go in his store the more people I get coming to me.

I first met Chris before he opened his shop. Originally, he had a great selection of used guns, and I purchased a used Colt 45 GC from him just as he opened his shop. He runs his business through the eyes of being 'X-LEO' and there is that baggage there. For example, my brother went there early on in the 'get your lowers, they will be on the list in two weeks' period last year to see if Chris carried anything. Well, my brother basically said Chris quoted the riot act "they're all illegal assault weapons and I'm not going to carry or sell illegal guns...evil assault weapons..." bla bla bla. Oh well my brother and I spent our money elsewhere.

It's ok not to sell something to someone if you think it may be a straw purchase for example. It's ok not to sell something you don't like, or don't want to carry because you wish to attract a different kind of customer. It's not ok to let your gonads take control of reason, be misinformed about the laws and scare your customers with laws that don't exist.

HowardW56
05-03-2007, 6:06 PM
This guy owns Greta's Guns in Simi Valley.

He also is a regular advertiser in the CRPA's monthly newsletter.

Apparently, he is a fan of CA gun laws, and thinks that gun control laws would have prevented the VT massacre.

Note how he also is against CCW on campus - how much do you wanna bet *he* has a license to carry.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/may/02/system-failed-innocent-virginia-tech-students/



He also is quoted in another article that I'll post in a new thread.

This makes me so mad that I could just spit nails - with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Sawdust

You bet he has CCW; he is a retired LAPD detective.....

jemaddux
05-03-2007, 9:46 PM
Thank god for Fort Courage Armory Im so glad someone is going to be taking away all of Greta's business. Im so tired of there poor service and lack of knowledge in gun laws. Not to mention he called me a felon for buying a offlist lower and told me the DOJ was going to take away all my firearms.


Well with me here in Simi for over the last year and Fort Courage also here in Simi I will expect Gretas to be going away sooner then later. Many people have expressed they are tired of the high prices and the poor service of Gretas. My hope would be that Fort Courage does more firearm sales and I do more refinishing and gunsmithing work, works great for me:D .

Sawdust
05-03-2007, 9:57 PM
As the other gun store in Simi Valley, I catagorically reject Mr. Biller's position on current CA laws. The 10-day wait WOULD NOT have stopped Cho becasue he purchased at least one of his firearms more than 30 days before he went on his rampage. Secondly, Cho's medical files are specifically EXCLUDED from the state's background check when a firearm is registered. The only way he would have been caught here is if he had been commited by the court...which he wasn't. He volunteered to check himself in for observation. No one would have been allowed BY LAW to see that information. Mr. Biller's interpretation of the gun laws are incorrect.

This kind of editorial give all FFLs in CA a bad name.....

Thanks for checking in here and letting us know how you see things.

Now, have you found that Savage Predator 10 rifle that I was looking for a couple of days ago? :D

Sawdust

ViPER395
02-07-2008, 1:03 PM
oops :)

FlyingPen
02-07-2008, 1:42 PM
People should be checked for mental defectiveness before buying guns or cars for that matter.

I would happily support highly unrestrictive (AW, highcap mags, shall issue CCW) legislation with a catch that gun buyers have to submit to a reasonable mental evaluation at least once a year that is subject to appeal.

ViPER395
02-07-2008, 1:47 PM
I would happily support highly unrestrictive (AW, highcap mags, shall issue CCW) legislation with a catch that gun buyers have to submit to a reasonable mental evaluation at least once a year that is subject to appeal.

:eek: I can't believe I just read this.

Glock22Fan
02-07-2008, 1:51 PM
:eek: I can't believe I just read this.

+1000

<sarcasm> Maybe we should do monthly drugs tests on all citizens as well? Just in case? </sarcasm>

Hopi
02-07-2008, 2:13 PM
People should be checked for mental defectiveness before buying guns or cars for that matter.

I would happily support highly unrestrictive (AW, highcap mags, shall issue CCW) legislation with a catch that gun buyers have to submit to a reasonable mental evaluation at least once a year that is subject to appeal.

Where in the hell did this guy come from? This is a gun forum that has a lot of members dedicated to returning CA to a constitutional state. Did you get lost on your way to the DU or Brady Bunch forums?

Piper
02-07-2008, 2:21 PM
System failed innocent Virginia Tech students and faculty

By Chris Biller
Wednesday, May 2, 2007


As a retail gun-store owner and a retired Los Angeles detective/sergeant with 29 years' experience in law enforcement, I feel compelled to respond to the well-meaning Ventura County citizens who have written letters condemning the sale of firearms.

The letters were motivated by the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, resulting in the slaughter of 32 of America's brightest and best. This mass murder was committed by Cho Seung-Hui, a noncitizen who had been judged to be a danger to society and had obtained two pistols legally as per Virginia laws.

In California, Cho could not have obtained these firearms. The Department of Justice, Firearms Detail has access to all California agencies, such as Department of Motor Vehicles and Mental Health facilities. If a person has been committed for a psychiatric evaluation; has traffic warrants; a revoked or suspended driver's license; or failed to provide child support, he can't buy a firearm.

In short, California has done an excellent job trying to prevent the purchase of firearms by individuals who have demonstrated social irresponsibility or are mentally unstable. California has a 10-day waiting period.

I am in favor of these laws that are viewed by many gun owners as restrictive and unnecessary. Had these laws been in effect in Virginia 32 of our finest would be alive today.

I can certainly understand the anger the Virginian Tech massacre has generated. Such acts of barbarism are not foreign in our society.

Aug. 1, 1966, on the campus of the University of Texas in Austin, Charles Whitman climbed a university tower and shot 31 people, killing 16.

Jan. 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy shot 30 people in a Stockton schoolyard, killing five. Purdy used an assault rifle.

Feb. 23, 2001, David Edward Attias, a mentally disturbed student at UC Santa Barbara, ran down a group of students, killing four.

July 16, 2003, George Russell Weller, an 86-year-old retired salesman, ran down dozens of innocent shoppers at a weekly Santa Monica farmer's market, killing 10.

These are acts of mean, cruel and sick people who used any vehicle as a weapon to inflict death and destruction and, in most instances, firearms were used.

The political rhetoric that these horrific incidents generate are not new, and are very predictable. In our nation, we have the Constitution, and we are guaranteed the freedom of speech, our most sacred right. As is the freedom to bear arms. I respect those individuals who voice their objection to firearms and I understand their anxiety and apprehension. But this vitriol dialogue serves no purpose except alienation on both sides.

I do not seek to convince those of you who hate firearms to see my view, but respect my view as I respect yours. I am not seeking to change anybody's mind. I have read that many gun proponents suggest that an armed student could have engaged Cho, thus terminating the carnage. One armed student on the campus was enough. Those on the opposite side condemned high-capacity magazines. Cho had many magazines. What difference does the amount of bullets make when the end result is the same?

The Virginia Tech massacre occurred because a mentally ill, noncitizen was allowed to purchase firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law that prevented noncitizens from purchasing firearms. Loopholes in Virginia's laws, which that state's governor has since closed, also allowed Cho to buy these firearms. I firmly believe that the Supreme Court should review its ruling.

The bottom line, 32 innocent young people were murdered because the system failed, and, as is the case in the above horrific shootings. Many of them have been forgotten. I have not forgotten.

Chris Biller lives in Simi Valley.

The highlighted area should have been the tip off for everyone.

Soldier415
02-07-2008, 2:22 PM
People should be checked for mental defectiveness before posting on a gun board advocating forced mental evaluations to exercise a constitutional right and other assorted jack-booted thug tactics for that matter.




There, fixed it for you ;)

FlyingPen
02-07-2008, 2:47 PM
No, what I'm saying is, let us have TX or other gun friendly style laws in CA if you optionally subject yourself to mental evaluations by qualified psychologists. If you don't want to subject yourself to such tests, you can have the current laws apply to you (low cap mags, 10 day waits, no AW style weapons). I don't think you can legally get guns anyway if you have been deemed mentally unfit or a danger to others in CA.

I love guns and it's stupid that they have to be restrictive and we have to do the hula dance to figure out what's legal and what's not along with an unfriendly and intentionally vague DOJ. If submitting myself to a mental evaluation will get me all the guns I want however I want them, perfect especially if it can include full autos.

I really don't see a problem of keeping guns away from clinically unstable people but I feel the same qualifications should be applied to buying cars as well. Some people are not fit to operate cars either.

Let's be intellectually honest here, the country is NOT going to move back towards the free for all gun days of the last century. The Republican party is too divided and none of the frontrunners (not including Huck here) are pro actively about repealing gun legislation. Gun rights will only slowly erode and unfortunately, there's no stopping it short of a SHTF situation. I'd rather be able to exercise my gun hobby freely and legally without artificial limitations set by legislation who are really just trying to control crazy people. The only way that's going to happen in California is with some sort of licensing.

Hopi
02-07-2008, 3:06 PM
Let's be intellectually honest here,
I think my head is going to explode.


Honestly.....
submitting myself to a mental evaluation
GREAT IDEA, knock yourself out! Some people need one, most of the rest of us don't. However, this type of 'evaluation' is not required when exercising rights, only priveldges....

-hanko
02-07-2008, 3:06 PM
No, what I'm saying is, let us have TX or other gun friendly style laws in CA if you optionally subject yourself to mental evaluations by qualified psychologists. If you don't want to subject yourself to such tests, you can have the current laws apply to you (low cap mags, 10 day waits, no AW style weapons). I don't think you can legally get guns anyway if you have been deemed mentally unfit or a danger to others in CA.

I love guns and it's stupid that they have to be restrictive and we have to do the hula dance to figure out what's legal and what's not along with an unfriendly and intentionally vague DOJ. If submitting myself to a mental evaluation will get me all the guns I want however I want them, perfect especially if it can include full autos.

I really don't see a problem of keeping guns away from clinically unstable people but I feel the same qualifications should be applied to buying cars as well. Some people are not fit to operate cars either.

Let's be intellectually honest here, the country is NOT going to move back towards the free for all gun days of the last century. The Republican party is too divided and none of the frontrunners (not including Huck here) are pro actively about repealing gun legislation. Gun rights will only slowly erode and unfortunately, there's no stopping it short of a SHTF situation. I'd rather be able to exercise my gun hobby freely and legally without artificial limitations set by legislation who are really just trying to control crazy people. The only way that's going to happen in California is with some sort of licensing.
El Brilliante':rolleyes:, Texas does not have gun friendly laws, it simply has far fewer prohibitions than CA. That opinion is based on living in TX for just under 20 years. Try reading the TX penal code as it relates to weapons, you can find it w/ Google.

Given your post, I'd expect less than perfect results during a mental evaluation.

Driving a car is a little different than owning a gun...the US Constitution protects the rights of an individual to keep and bear arms; i.e., it does not grant the rights, it affirms that they're automatic. ("...endowed by the Creator..." etc.). Driving a car is a privliege, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Future erosion of gun rights is pretty much guaranteed if you think that a mental evaluation will help benefit gun owners.

A suggestion may be to see how you can help get back the rights that have been taken from CA shooters, v. adding more hurdles for gun owners to jump.

Sorry for the rant, but your post is one of the most nonsensical I've seen on Calguns, and I've been here since this forum began;)

-hanko

Piper
02-07-2008, 3:08 PM
No, what I'm saying is, let us have TX or other gun friendly style laws in CA if you optionally subject yourself to mental evaluations by qualified psychologists.

I have no problem with less restrictive laws like Vermont and Alaska which are the only two states with true 2A freedom.

If you don't want to subject yourself to such tests, you can have the current laws apply to you (low cap mags, 10 day waits, no AW style weapons). I don't think you can legally get guns anyway if you have been deemed mentally unfit or a danger to others in CA.

Why should we have to take a psych test from someone that could possibly be anti 2A. And why should we have our 2A rights restricted. My suggestion is get rid of the anti-2A politicians and draconian laws and to hell with a psych test to prove my worthyness to excercise my constitutional right.

I love guns and it's stupid that they have to be restrictive and we have to do the hula dance to figure out what's legal and what's not along with an unfriendly and intentionally vague DOJ. If submitting myself to a mental evaluation will get me all the guns I want however I want them, perfect especially if it can include full autos.

Again how about less restrictive and more constitutional 2A freedoms without some shrink giving his blessing.

I really don't see a problem of keeping guns away from clinically unstable people but I feel the same qualifications should be applied to buying cars as well. Some people are not fit to operate cars either.

Agreed, and when a person is determined under 5150 WIC to be a danger to themselves or others, then that person can be restricted. Until then, that person has the same rights as anyone else.

Let's be intellectually honest here, the country is NOT going to move back towards the free for all gun days of the last century. Gun rights will only slowly erode and unfortunately, there's no stopping it short of a SHTF situation. I'd rather be able to exercise my gun hobby freely and legally without artificial limitations set by legislation trying to control crazy people. The only way that's going to happen in California is with some sort of licensing.

I hope you are correct in saying that we won't have the "gun days" of the 20th century. The only free for all we had then was when politicians created the thousands of gun laws that thatwe are trying to repeal or undo now.

FlyingPen
02-07-2008, 3:20 PM
To personal attacks, Ad homs without substantive arguements is the first sign of a baseless position.


Future erosion of gun rights is pretty much guaranteed if you think that a mental evaluation will help benefit gun owners.

A suggestion may be to see how you can help get back the rights that have been taken from CA shooters, v. adding more hurdles for gun owners to jump.

-hanko

It's pretty much guaranteed no matter what I think. If you think this isn't the case, I think you're deluding yourself.

What I'm saying is, let there be special exceptions to let people who can optionally take at least yearly evaluations be able to get whatever firearms they want without any restrictions as long as they're mentally fit and have been responsible in the ownership of their weapons.

If you don't want to, fine but then you get artificially disabled and legislated weapons like we have now.

Why should we have to take a psych test from someone that could possibly be anti 2A. And why should we have our 2A rights restricted. My suggestion is get rid of the anti-2A politicians and draconian laws and to hell with a psych test to prove my worthyness to excercise my constitutional right.

Failing the psych test won't necessarily mean you can't have a gun. Obviously if you state your goal is to kill people with it immediately, yeah, you should be rejected. The psych evaluation is there to let you get more. You can still buy within current limitations if you choose not to take the evaluation.


I hope you are correct in saying that we won't have the "gun days" of the 20th century. The only free for all we had then was when politicians created the thousands of gun laws that thatwe are trying to repeal or undo now.

I meant a time before the AWB and banning of fully automatic weapons. I also meant FREE for ALL in the best possible way. It's unrealistic to expect that the country will move back to those days. At least in the next 50 years, there isn't enough will or money to move back cultural attitudes on gun control.

Hopi
02-07-2008, 3:54 PM
To personal attacks, Ad homs without substantive arguements is the first sign of a baseless position.



Please. :rolleyes:


Did you need a pysch. evaluation before you were 'allowed' to exercise your 1st am. protections and post your nonsense here? No.

ldivinag
02-07-2008, 3:55 PM
was patrick purdy's AK a full auto one?

Rhys898
02-07-2008, 4:00 PM
Let's be intellectually honest, most people providing psych evals probably think most of us are nuts just for wanting to own firearms. What makes you think they wont just say you're "a danger to yourself and others". Once that happens, not only do you not get the relaxed laws you wanted, but they take away your rights all together.

Jer

jarios
02-07-2008, 4:28 PM
Make sure the psychologists give you a prostate exam while they're at it (after all mental health is often a reflection of physical health). Don't be scared is they have both hands on your shoulders while they "investigate" your mental state.

Anyways, criminals are criminals regardless of their mental state. Requiring mental evaluations just opens the door to other invasive "exams" all to allow a law abiding citizen with a clean record to purchase a piece of metal that goes bang. I can't believe people still support these crazy ideas, all to stifle a constitutional right because of their fear of weapons. This reminds me of the poll taxes and exams that citizens had to pass in order to be allowed to vote. We know what happened to those laws/policies.

-hanko
02-07-2008, 4:37 PM
To personal attacks, Ad homs without substantive arguements is the first sign of a baseless position.
It's "ad hominem"; ad hominem replies attack the person, with or without substantive arguments.

I did not attack you, I offered my opinion about your post. Adding more laws will NOT get back rights guaranteed by the Founding Fathers. If that's difficult to understand, hang around calguns for a while.

I didn't need a psych test to carry concealed in CA, ID, or TX. Nor did I need mental testing to purchase a few NFA items in the latter 2 states. Strive to help other CA folks change CA ccl regulations to "shall issue"; don't throw another layer of crap onto the largest collection of weapons statutes in the 50 states. How does a mental test help someone who can't afford the testing fee?? Are you saying people who can't pay the test fee don't deserve the right to have the same weapons as you?? I smell a baseless argument:D

Realize, if possible, that more laws do not stop criminals from getting guns; they prevent normal folks like you and I from doing so.;)

-hanko

M. Sage
02-07-2008, 5:56 PM
Seriously, check the post dates... (Viper395, I'm looking at you. :chris: )

A yearly mental evaluation to own guns? On whose dime, mine!? Something tells me I'd put up a little resistance... :rolleyes:

Original subject is old, new subject is (beyond) silly. I think this is what the phrase IBTL is for.