Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:37 PM
nrvnqsrxk's Avatar
nrvnqsrxk nrvnqsrxk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 985
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just stopped by to say how stupid this topic is.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:38 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Right Hand View Post
I see a lot of people pointing out that there are many ways .gov would be able to know you own guns. DROS, bank statements, etc... But that's no reason to just not give a crap about registration.
Actually, it is. Just not in the aspect the OP is advocating. We live in the digital age, and if the government rully rully wanted to they've got ways to determine you're a gun owner without visiting one FFL.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Right Hand View Post
Big government agencies usually go after low hanging fruit. In the event of a confiscation, law enforcement would likely first look in the registration database, not bank statements or DROSes! That's not to say they couldn't eventually get around to going to FFLs and sniffing through all the DROS paperwork or rifle through your bank records, but it certainly wouldn't be the first place they'd check.
As another member said, the future is an unwritten book. Today, its low level stuff like confiscating guns from wife beaters. Tomorrow, our financial system could implode causing all kinds of chaos. When -not IF-that happens, Obama will have a blank check to pass whatever laws he wants to in the name of financial security; including government permission to inspect bank records.

Once that happens, all an ATF agent needs is a username and password to see what your last MidwayUSA purchase was. They take the bank statement to the court, the court grants the Search Warrant, and then you get to see Deputy Gungrabber.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Right Hand View Post
I really have a hard time believing all of these "resistance is futile" sentiments. If privacy truly is a lost cause and the all-seeing-eye is watching our every move, how come these proposed Universal Background Checks are so vehemently opposed by most of the gun community?
Universal Background checks are an expansion of a feel good program which is a historically proven failure at safeguarding anything but the employment of yet another layer of useless Federal and State bureaucracy.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:41 PM
GodChild GodChild is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA County
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz265 View Post
Not permanently confiscated. Read the law
10 years till you can petition but I guess thats ok with you.

Honestly, had I read your first post in this thread before responding to you I wouldn't have even bothered. People who comment "who cares" and "stop whining" when it comes to gun registration and our 2nd amendment shouldn't be taken seriously on a pro-gun forum.
__________________
"Civilize The Mind But Make Savage The Body." -- Chairman Mao
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:45 PM
toby toby is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Soon to be in Texas.
Posts: 10,597
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:48 PM
Zedrek's Avatar
Zedrek Zedrek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
10 years till you can petition but I guess thats ok with you.

Honestly, had I read your first post in this thread before responding to you I wouldn't have even bothered. People who comment "who cares" and "stop whining" when it comes to gun registration and our 2nd amendment shouldn't be taken seriously on a pro-gun forum.
OK but you are advocating for someone who commits battery upon someone else to own a firearm. I question your integrity and whether you are responsible enough to own a firearm in the first place.
__________________
My Zombie Apocalypse Collection
Bersa Thunder, Browning Buckmark Camper, Charles Daly 1911, Charter Arms Buldog Pug, Chinese SKS, Colt Double Eagle MK II Series 90 10mm, Egyptian Hakim 8mm, Heckler & Koch P2000SK, Kimber Eclipse Ultra II, Mossberg 500A Cruiser, Mossberg New Haven 600AT, Romanian M69 Trainer, Rossi Ranch Hand .44 Mag, Savage Arms Model 73, Smith & Wesson 1006 10mm, Smith & Wesson Sigma .40, Springfield Armory XD-40, Walther P1, Wyoming Arms Parker 10mm, Yugoslavian K98
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:50 PM
Fritz265 Fritz265 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,522
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Godchild: I'm very pro-gun and as a former Marine Corps officer who carried a YW clearance, there's not much that government doesn't know about me. This is a ridiculously stupid topic. Only felons, wife beaters and the mentally unstable should be concerned about confiscation so it begs the question....
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:52 PM
GodChild GodChild is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA County
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a bit disheartening. I understand and support those who say **** it I'm buying what I want and if it has to be registered by the state so be it. I also respect and understand the concerns of those who wont buy new handguns to avoid registration. But I don't understand those who think registration and confiscation as enacted by California is nothing to worry about. I have to be frank and say I don't consider the latter folk real supporters of the 2nd amendment.

Just my opinion of course.
__________________
"Civilize The Mind But Make Savage The Body." -- Chairman Mao
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-30-2013, 7:57 PM
GodChild GodChild is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA County
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedrek View Post
OK but you are advocating for someone who commits battery upon someone else to own a firearm.
Misdemeanor battery is petty stuff. A poke or a push, a he said she said situation.

Quote:
I question your integrity and whether you are responsible enough to own a firearm in the first place.
I've given you no reason to do so. I've never been arrested or charged with any offense - misdemeanor or felony - in my life. Please don't do that to people who simply want to engage in discussions.
__________________
"Civilize The Mind But Make Savage The Body." -- Chairman Mao

Last edited by GodChild; 03-30-2013 at 8:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-30-2013, 8:08 PM
shooter556's Avatar
shooter556 shooter556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 683
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
OP, its the year 2013. If the government wants to know if you own handguns, they won't check the gun store. They'll demand your local bank fax over a copy of your account statement, and pop goes the weasel.

Unless you buy all of your ammo, reloading components, magazines, and holsters with cash-from day 1- you're done.
Yes but they face the possibility of uncertainty because that person may have sold their weapon. Unlike a registration list where it shows the list of all current gun owners and what they own exactly. Jus because someone buys some 7.62x39 ammo doesn't mean they own an AK. They may have bought it for cheap to sell for more at a later time. Or they could have bought it to go shoot their friends AK. There is no doubt with a registration list though.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-30-2013, 8:15 PM
Red Right Hand's Avatar
Red Right Hand Red Right Hand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Actually, it is. Just not in the aspect the OP is advocating. We live in the digital age, and if the government rully rully wanted to they've got ways to determine you're a gun owner without visiting one FFL.

As another member said, the future is an unwritten book. Today, its low level stuff like confiscating guns from wife beaters. Tomorrow, our financial system could implode causing all kinds of chaos. When -not IF-that happens, Obama will have a blank check to pass whatever laws he wants to in the name of financial security; including government permission to inspect bank records.

Once that happens, all an ATF agent needs is a username and password to see what your last MidwayUSA purchase was. They take the bank statement to the court, the court grants the Search Warrant, and then you get to see Deputy Gungrabber.

Universal Background checks are an expansion of a feel good program which is a historically proven failure at safeguarding anything but the employment of yet another layer of useless Federal and State bureaucracy.

Yes, the future's an unwritten book. Yes, If the government rully rully wanted to see if you were a gun owner they probably could. And of course I agree with you on the Universal Background checks being feel-good legislation, but I also believe the majority of people opposed have privacy concerns as well.

We live in a digital age, but even if they can tell who a gun owner may be, there's still no way to tell what guns that person owns for certain.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-30-2013, 8:24 PM
G-Man WC's Avatar
G-Man WC G-Man WC is online now
Prawn Lives Matter
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Bay
Posts: 8,764
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

At this point I don't care if they know what I have.
I'm cached in several locations. F**k'um -g
__________________
The American Dream Is Not A Handout

Anyone who wants to 'fundamentally change' the USA is not a patriot.

**WTB stock **(M1917\Enfield P-17)**
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-30-2013, 8:48 PM
Agent 0range's Avatar
Agent 0range Agent 0range is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Back in the Midwest
Posts: 1,014
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
What I don't understand is how people here could joke of tin foil when we know for a fact that non-violent law abiding citizens have had their guns confiscated under this legislation.

It's really annoying but speaks volumes of the intellect and maturity of certain members. I guess this is why California is the way it is with regards to the 2nd amendment when even the supposed pro-gunners have these views.
Since when are felons or thugs who beat up their girlfriends/wives law abiding citizens? In light of recent events (Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc) everyone, including the NRA, has agreed we need to do something to improve mental health issues in the US and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Leave it to the PRK to initiate the charge and take it to the extreme.

From your article:

"California is the only state that takes legally obtained weapons away from citizens who are no longer supposed to have them."

Anyone with a 5150 or felony coviction can fail a background check and be denied the ability to purchase a firearm. It then stands to reason that if they obtain one of these marks on their record, their rights are revoked retro-actively. Not only can they no longer purchase new guns, but they give up the ones they currently have.

The way I see it, there are two schools of thought here;
1. The more guns we taken out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, the less chances we see another mass shooting which is good for gun owners everywhere.
2. This is a back door attempt at confiscation which could lead to confiscation on a greater level.

Personally, I have no problems with taking guns from criminals. The real issue here IMO, is where is the line one has to cross to be considered mentally incapable of owning a firearm. If we need to be worried about anything, it's the libs in Sacramento pushing that line to include anyone who has ever had a bad day.
Another problem is that gun owners are paying the bill to make everyone safer by having DROS fees cover the confiscations. Since everyone is "benefiting", taxpayer money should be covering the funding.
I'm not a criminal, so I'm not worried about anyone knocking on my door for my guns. If they do, I'll deal with it then. Like I said, I'm out of here in less than 6 months anyways, and all this BS makes me more than happy to leave. I do, however, recognize that the PRK sets the standard for the rest of the country, so I'll never stop fighting for CA gun owner's rights.
You asked a simple question and received simple answers. Most of us are not paranoid enough to let the gov't keep us from excercising our 2A right.
__________________
In 1988, America was strong. We had Ronald Reagan, Steve Jobs, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope. Today, we have Obama, no Jobs, no Cash, and no Hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezcalfud View Post
Because a Glock looks great in the case and then when you take it home it feels like you're holding a Costco pack of Kielbasa.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-30-2013, 10:58 PM
Zedrek's Avatar
Zedrek Zedrek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
Misdemeanor battery is petty stuff. A poke or a push, a he said she said situation.



I've given you no reason to do so. I've never been arrested or charged with any offense - misdemeanor or felony - in my life. Please don't do that to people who simply want to engage in discussions.
No, you're wrong. A misdemeanor charge of battery is not "petty stuff". It's more than he said she said. For someone to advocate that violence is OK, speaks volumes of their character.
__________________
My Zombie Apocalypse Collection
Bersa Thunder, Browning Buckmark Camper, Charles Daly 1911, Charter Arms Buldog Pug, Chinese SKS, Colt Double Eagle MK II Series 90 10mm, Egyptian Hakim 8mm, Heckler & Koch P2000SK, Kimber Eclipse Ultra II, Mossberg 500A Cruiser, Mossberg New Haven 600AT, Romanian M69 Trainer, Rossi Ranch Hand .44 Mag, Savage Arms Model 73, Smith & Wesson 1006 10mm, Smith & Wesson Sigma .40, Springfield Armory XD-40, Walther P1, Wyoming Arms Parker 10mm, Yugoslavian K98
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-31-2013, 1:34 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Right Hand View Post

We live in a digital age, but even if they can tell who a gun owner may be, there's still no way to tell what guns that person owns for certain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter556 View Post
Unlike a registration list where it shows the list of all current gun owners and what they own exactly. Jus because someone buys some 7.62x39 ammo doesn't mean they own an AK. They may have bought it for cheap to sell for more at a later time. Or they could have bought it to go shoot their friends AK. There is no doubt with a registration list though.
The factor which stops the advancement of Civil Disarmament in the US is the Theirt Amendment, which forbids an open Federal database of gun owners. Without such a database being able to enforce an outright ban or laws aiming to accomplish the same is impossible.

Hence, the digital workaround. If the Feds can prove you buy 100 rounds per month of 7.62 x 39mm ammo from bank records, they know from basic reasoning that you either A) are stockpiling ammo for someone or B) own a gun you're shooting the stuff through. Either way, you're a "person of interest" worthy of a warrant and further investigation if firearms which shoot 7.62x39 ammo are banned.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-31-2013, 3:13 AM
MQUnlimited's Avatar
MQUnlimited MQUnlimited is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 274
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Nope, going to buy atleast a couple more during the summer and submit for my CCW. Mine are registered now, why would it change then.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-31-2013, 5:20 AM
TeddyBallgame's Avatar
TeddyBallgame TeddyBallgame is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Under the Dome
Posts: 5,489
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't care if they know how many handguns I have...I honestly doubt in my lifetime there will be some successful attempt to take our handguns, and, if it does reach THAT stage, I guarantee it won't be easy for them to do

As it stands right now, our government is tethering right on the brink of being tyrannical in my opinion already...I WANT them to know I have multiple firearms, everyone should...maybe seeing the masses of gun owners who aren't afraid to hide what they have will keep them at bay...very few attempt to do something that they don't think they can get away with...trying to remove handguns from our society would be a huge mistake, even with the general feeling toward firearms today...I stopped caring a long time ago about what the government knows about my firearms
__________________

I remember when we used to laugh at comedians and listen to politicians...now we laugh at politicians and listen to comedians
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-31-2013, 7:28 AM
parksmart's Avatar
parksmart parksmart is offline
Tactical Mall Ninja
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 841
iTrader: 154 / 99%
Default

The OP's premise is basically like saying "don't have enjoyable and repeated sex with as many hot women (or men, if thats how you roll) as possible now because something in the future might take away your opportunity to continue having sex with those multiple partners".

Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-31-2013, 8:45 AM
shooter556's Avatar
shooter556 shooter556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 683
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
The factor which stops the advancement of Civil Disarmament in the US is the Theirt Amendment, which forbids an open Federal database of gun owners. Without such a database being able to enforce an outright ban or laws aiming to accomplish the same is impossible.

Hence, the digital workaround. If the Feds can prove you buy 100 rounds per month of 7.62 x 39mm ammo from bank records, they know from basic reasoning that you either A) are stockpiling ammo for someone or B) own a gun you're shooting the stuff through. Either way, you're a "person of interest" worthy of a warrant and further investigation if firearms which shoot 7.62x39 ammo are banned.
Yes you might be a person of interest but remember they take what they see. If your on a registration list there is no taking what they see because they automatically know what you own. And how many records would they have to search just to find people who have bought ammo? I just think its more of a hassle.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-31-2013, 9:43 AM
emsalex's Avatar
emsalex emsalex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 550
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If I'm understanding this, you're not sure if you should buy a new pistol because you beat you'r wife now? or because you're not sure if you're going to be beating her in the future?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickey65 View Post
No money is fine but perhaps he may learn how fast he will forget not to engage in fraudulent activities with good people.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:20 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
I think some of you are being gullible in thinking these fears are irrational and unfounded.

This is a fact: The state recently approved 24 Million to fund their confiscation program.

No. All points and concerns are valid, a good percentage as to why Calguns.net exists at all.

It's simply that, by impressing upon you the fear of registration by way of DROS, you don't buy a handgun in CA at all. Preemptive confiscation. They've done their job; they have blocked a handgun sale. They have banned you from buying handguns by using your own fears against you.

If you already owned handguns in CA prior to the DROS system, fair enough; no log, no form of registration. OK. And there are other means. I would rather have a handgun(s) in my hands and have them attempt to take it, rather than them having blocked me from ever owning one in the first place.

(In any case, the DROS system is not meant to be actual registration, but it's not totally log-free either).
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:23 AM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 39,339
iTrader: 124 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
No. All points and concerns are valid, a good percentage as to why Calguns.net exists at all.

It's simply that, by impressing upon you the fear of registration by way of DROS, you don't buy a handgun in CA at all. Preemptive confiscation. They've done their job; they have blocked a handgun sale. They have banned you from buying handguns by using your own fears against you.

If you already owned handguns in CA prior to the DROS system, fair enough; no log, no form of registration. OK. And there are other means. I would rather have a handgun(s) in my hands and have them attempt to take it, rather than them having blocked me from ever owning one in the first place.

(In any case, the DROS system is not meant to be actual registration, but it's not totally log-free either).
Ca has had a DROS system in place since 1924.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller
Ventura County approved CCW Instructor


Offering low cost private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:31 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
Misdemeanor battery is petty stuff. A poke or a push, a he said she said situation.
Nope; petty to you maybe, not to authorities. Police showing up to a home where the woman OR the man, has a minor scratch or complains of pain due to being pushed or poked, if within the past 24 hours, will without fail, due to the evidence of injury, take the aggressor to jail.

That scratch can be as minor as the white line left from scratching the top skin layer of dead skin cells or the slightest bruise; and some people bruise very easily due to iron deficiencies; and who has a heightened potential for iron deficiencies especially during their crazy time of the month? Women.

$50,000 bail and a misdemeanor DV charge later, likely wherein the Police have already advised the victim to obtain a TRO, you are suffering great potential for having to give up your guns until it is sorted out in court. And of the police are already this indebted to the matter, they may take it upon themselves to see that you do.

How did they find out about your NON-REGISTERED guns? Through the victim of Domestic Violence - by verbal statement and on the TRO form she filled out.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:41 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
Ca has had a DROS system in place since 1924.
Correct; I was thinking of the current form as we know it; which started in 1998. I do know all this; see below from elsewhere as well as to the background on DROS:
  • CA FFL dealers submitted the DROS info from 1924-1997 by mail and from 1998-present by electronic means (internet).
  • CA FFL dealers must retain DROS information for three years.

Since handgun DROS records the buyer's info, seller's info, and handgun's info; the handgun becomes "registered" to the buyer and the seller is "registered" as the previous owner.

CA firearm registration info in accessible on AFS via CLETS. (It is likely that paper DROS records prior to 01-01-1980 have never been entered into AFS due to lack of resources.)

(CLETS - California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System - is a system that works directly with DV situations to notify and keep victims posted as updates/changes in the aggressor's release from jail).

"DROS Handgun registration" time line...
  • 08-07-1924. DROS went into effect for handgun sales.
  • 01-01-1991. All firearm transfers must be done through a CA FFL dealer.
  • 01-01-1994. Intra-familial tranfers of handguns must be registered.
  • 01-01-1998. All new residents to CA must register all handguns they bring with them to CA.
  • 01-01-1998. All DROS info submitted electronically to CA DOJ BOF.

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:43 AM
Vacaville's Avatar
Vacaville Vacaville is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Auburn
Posts: 4,196
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Funny how everyone is talking about domestic violence and felonies here. If SB 755 passes a whole slew of non-violent misdemeanors will create tens of thousands of new prohibited people in our state. NRA-ILA and CGSSA are currently not opposing this bill. It's being heard on April 16th just like most of the rest.

Domestic violence is the present, any misdemeanor criminal record will end up being prohibiting in the future. Divide and conquer.

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-is...13-2014/sb755/
__________________
“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson

"We are number one, all others are number two or lower." - The Sphinx

"Why does every discussion of culture always degrade into a discussion of burritos?" - GoZoner
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:52 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacaville View Post
Funny how everyone is talking about domestic violence and felonies here. If SB 755 passes a whole slew of non-violent misdemeanors will create tens of thousands of new prohibited people in our state. NRA-ILA and CGSSA are currently not opposing this bill. It's being heard on April 16th just like most of the rest.

Domestic violence is the present, any misdemeanor criminal record will end up being prohibiting in the future. Divide and conquer.

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-is...13-2014/sb755/
Yep; that is some bad stuff there. As it reads, some might think - "hey, that's not too bad, I agree with that". But then the broad application to ambiguous aspects that could arise out of some of those contemplated situations, will surely be determined in black-and-white situations that error on the side of "fear" and have anti-2nd Amendment leanings, so the decisions will more than likely be AGAINST a gun owner even in the absence of a real threat or true mental disorder.

As it is, most any divorce lawyer tacks on a restraining order as a CYA liability tactic for themselves, even if the divorce is amicable.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-31-2013, 3:03 PM
Red Right Hand's Avatar
Red Right Hand Red Right Hand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter556 View Post
Yes you might be a person of interest but remember they take what they see. If your on a registration list there is no taking what they see because they automatically know what you own. And how many records would they have to search just to find people who have bought ammo? I just think its more of a hassle.
Yup. Besides, I'd rather be a "person of interest" than a known offender.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-31-2013, 3:09 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter556 View Post
Yes you might be a person of interest but remember they take what they see. If your on a registration list there is no taking what they see because they automatically know what you own. And how many records would they have to search just to find people who have bought ammo? I just think its more of a hassle.
Not if the public will's there.

In some states, being a gun owner is as culturally despised as being a child molester. In such areas the public will is there to go full retard regarding gun possession and use.

Today, the government doesn't care enough to search purchase records. If another Newtown happens soon, that'll change in a hurry.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-01-2013, 4:26 AM
dwtt dwtt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,061
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz265 View Post
Your becoming a convicted felon or diagnosed a nutjob is good cause. Sorry pal.
After reading the OP's posts, I think the OP falls into the second category. If he doesn't want to buy a handgun because he's paranoid it'll be confiscated just because it's registered, then don't buy one. He comes onto this forum to spread FUD, making me suspect he's really one of the Brady Bunch trying to prey on the ignorance of some of the crowd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrvnqsrxk View Post
Just stopped by to say how stupid this topic is.
Right on target! This thread is stupid and the OP is failing with his FUD.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-01-2013, 7:01 AM
TahoeTim TahoeTim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lake Tahoe
Posts: 274
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Since I live on the banks of a 1600ft deep lake, my guns could easily fall into the lake. I'm a good shooter, not a good boater. Heck, they could even fall out of my plane over the desert.

You guys that have convinced your wives that you need to buy more guns this year are amateurs. I have my wife convinced that I need to hoard ammo and shoot it up so I can have reloading brass. Now that's a whopper of a story!
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-01-2013, 3:37 PM
GodChild GodChild is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA County
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedrek View Post
No, you're wrong. A misdemeanor charge of battery is not "petty stuff".
Thats your opinion and its fine to have one. However, I suggest you actually look up California Penal Code 242 before you state your opinion. If I were to flick a tooth pick at your shoe that would be a misdemeanor battery under California law. I consider that petty stuff, but you may disagree and thats fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedrek View Post
For someone to advocate that violence is OK, speaks volumes of their character.
For someone to be so illiterate as to think that I ever said that "violence is OK" in this thread or any other.... well, it speaks volumes of their character. It also speaks volumes of someone's character when they make judgement calls on someone else's character based on something they didn't do or say.

So, I challenge you to quote me where exactly I said that "violence is OK". Now if you don't possess the elementary level reading comprehension skills necessary to have a discussion here then not only should you abstain from passing judgement on others, but also maybe reevaluate your intellectual capacity to safely keep arms.
__________________
"Civilize The Mind But Make Savage The Body." -- Chairman Mao

Last edited by GodChild; 04-01-2013 at 4:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-01-2013, 4:34 PM
Red Right Hand's Avatar
Red Right Hand Red Right Hand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwtt View Post
After reading the OP's posts, I think the OP falls into the second category. If he doesn't want to buy a handgun because he's paranoid it'll be confiscated just because it's registered, then don't buy one. He comes onto this forum to spread FUD, making me suspect he's really one of the Brady Bunch trying to prey on the ignorance of some of the crowd.

Right on target! This thread is stupid and the OP is failing with his FUD.
Sounding a little insecure here. If you don't have a problem registering your handguns now or registering your long guns in 2014 that's your opinion, but it's a valid concern for many people here. No need to insult someone because they feel differently about registration than you do.

According to this poll 88 out of 201 people (44%) will not be buying long guns after 2014 for fear of registration: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=718850

And many in that poll answered "yes" simply because they'd be moving to a free state before CA registration kicks in.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-01-2013, 7:34 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz265 View Post
Godchild: I'm very pro-gun and as a former Marine Corps officer who carried a YW clearance, there's not much that government doesn't know about me. This is a ridiculously stupid topic. Only felons, wife beaters and the mentally unstable should be concerned about confiscation so it begs the question....
The devil is in the details. Sure no one wants true mental cases to own guns but who's to say what constitutes "mental instability". In Russia ANYONE that disagreed with the State was considered to be mentally ill and was locked up.

You can already see the signs of that here when millions of us honorably discharged veterans are classified as "potential domestic terrorists" by our own government.

Also in how they try to marginalize those that want to be self sufficient (preppers if you will) and not have to depend on govt handouts.

As a married man I can understand how a situation might occur where spouses could end up in a mutual combat type situation. These are pretty common and didn't even used to warrant any action if officers responded. Were the spouses gonna kill each other....no just working out some differences. Heck I have known couples to which it was simply a kind of foreplay. Even worse, we as a society laugh our butts off when it is depicted in movies and sitcoms. Think of those scenes where the wife/girlfriend is throwing things at her husband/boyfriend and one of the items hits him...domestic abuse.

But if it happens at home and some how the cops show up, they arrest both parties, both parties end up loosing 2A rights. Are they somehow a danger to society now?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-01-2013, 7:44 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter556 View Post
Yes you might be a person of interest but remember they take what they see. If your on a registration list there is no taking what they see because they automatically know what you own. And how many records would they have to search just to find people who have bought ammo? I just think its more of a hassle.
If the license to buy ammo bill passes it won't be hard at all. Say you have a non-registered .45 that the Cops don't know about but you buy .45 ammo every couple of months. Any guesses about whether or not they will be asking about that .45 when they come a knocking?

My buddy is from Chicago and there if you don't list a gun of the same caliber on the Firearms Owners ID card (REQUIRED to buy any weapon) then you CAN'T buy ammo in that caliber.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:44 AM
Zedrek's Avatar
Zedrek Zedrek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
Thats your opinion and its fine to have one. However, I suggest you actually look up California Penal Code 242 before you state your opinion. If I were to flick a tooth pick at your shoe that would be a misdemeanor battery under California law. I consider that petty stuff, but you may disagree and thats fine.



For someone to be so illiterate as to think that I ever said that "violence is OK" in this thread or any other.... well, it speaks volumes of their character. It also speaks volumes of someone's character when they make judgement calls on someone else's character based on something they didn't do or say.

So, I challenge you to quote me where exactly I said that "violence is OK". Now if you don't possess the elementary level reading comprehension skills necessary to have a discussion here then not only should you abstain from passing judgement on others, but also maybe reevaluate your intellectual capacity to safely keep arms.
Umm, this looks pretty clear from your first post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
I know the law will change come 2013 for long guns too but I'm just curious if anyone here has avoided buying handguns thus far specifically because you would have to register it and be on file with the government.

With recent calls for more funding into gun confiscation for the prohibited(mental and domestic issues) it makes me wary of buying a handgun. (I'm new to guns btw) It just doesn't sit right with me for them to take my guns simply for something as simple as domestic violence. I know too many guys with crazy girlfriends who lie and have pressed charges against them when in fact they the women were the abusers. I also think many PDs have a policy of always arresting someone when they receive a domestic violence call.
__________________
My Zombie Apocalypse Collection
Bersa Thunder, Browning Buckmark Camper, Charles Daly 1911, Charter Arms Buldog Pug, Chinese SKS, Colt Double Eagle MK II Series 90 10mm, Egyptian Hakim 8mm, Heckler & Koch P2000SK, Kimber Eclipse Ultra II, Mossberg 500A Cruiser, Mossberg New Haven 600AT, Romanian M69 Trainer, Rossi Ranch Hand .44 Mag, Savage Arms Model 73, Smith & Wesson 1006 10mm, Smith & Wesson Sigma .40, Springfield Armory XD-40, Walther P1, Wyoming Arms Parker 10mm, Yugoslavian K98
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-02-2013, 2:04 PM
Dr Pete Dr Pete is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 421
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Just too much to say about the OP here. Maybe just needed to rant?

All negative IMHO so I'll just comment.

Did anyone notice the looks in the LA times article picture?
Those politicians (not men) looked like the rifles were going to jump off the rack and shoot them
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-03-2013, 6:01 AM
dwtt dwtt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,061
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Right Hand View Post
If you don't have a problem registering your handguns now or registering your long guns in 2014 that's your opinion, but it's a valid concern for many people here. No need to insult someone because they.
It isn't just a difference of opinion. The OP is alluding to registration will lead to confiscation, which millions of CA gun owners know isn't true because it hasn't happened to them. The OP cites a news article describing a CA DOJ program to find felons and crazies, people prohibited from legally owning firearms, and implies general gun confiscations will result from registering pistols. It's a fact that millions of legal CA gun owners didn't have their guns confiscated, not a matter of opinion. Back in 1989 there were many people like the OP who said registering their HK93's or AR-15's or Galils will lead to them being confiscated and they sold their guns in Nevada. Let's count the number of legally owned CA registered AW from the Roos-Roberti bill that have been confiscated just because the owners registered them. How many?

Like I wrote earlier, this thread is stupid and the OP is failing in his attempt to spread FUD. He's a good ally of the Brady Bunch, however, if his FUD convinces even one gun owner to avoid buying a gun because of this farfetched idea of confiscation resulting directly from registration. So, in my attempt to further support the 2nd Amendment, I will buy one new handgun, one new rifle, and one new shotgun when I return to the US after my current job is over. I urge every Calguns members who truly believe in the 2nd to go and buy more guns. Don't let the gun banner win.

Oh yes, for those of you who have never lived overseas, you don't know how good you have it, with the 2nd A. keeping you safe. In many countries, people don't have a right to own firearms, and they are at the mercy of criminals and the police. Appreciate your constitutional rights and exercise them, ignore the FUD and the gun grabbers. Ignore the OP.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-03-2013, 9:42 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwtt View Post
Like I wrote earlier, this thread is stupid and the OP is failing in his attempt to spread FUD. He's a good ally of the Brady Bunch, however, if his FUD convinces even one gun owner to avoid buying a gun because of this farfetched idea of confiscation resulting directly from registration./

Ignore the OP.
And reading through his posts, I suspected the same. I am about as skeptical and as least tin-foil a person as there can be, but the OP sounds like a paid shill for the same reasons you cited above; imply confiscation is likley, to deter firearm purchases.

Doesn't work; if anything, such a shill wouldn't realize that by inciting the potential of confiscation, that only INCREASES firearm purchases, DROS or not. It's the Gray Davis / Schumer / Cuomo / Feinstein / Obama factor - best guns salesMEN ever.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-03-2013, 7:23 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwtt View Post
It isn't just a difference of opinion. The OP is alluding to registration will lead to confiscation, which millions of CA gun owners know isn't true because it hasn't happened to them.....
Using the fact that something hasn't happened YET as proof that it won't happen in the FUTURE is a logical fallacy.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-03-2013, 9:17 PM
Red Right Hand's Avatar
Red Right Hand Red Right Hand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwtt View Post
It isn't just a difference of opinion. The OP is alluding to registration will lead to confiscation, which millions of CA gun owners know isn't true because it hasn't happened to them.
You don't have to experience something in order to know it as a possibility. I've already given you a few examples of registration leading to confiscation earlier in the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwtt View Post
The OP cites a news article describing a CA DOJ program to find felons and crazies, people prohibited from legally owning firearms, and implies general gun confiscations will result from registering pistols.
I believe the OPs concern here was with the programs potential to confiscate guns from non-violent "prohibited persons", not bona fide crazies or violent offenders. It's definitely something that deserves scrutiny, especially with SB 755 on the table. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ghlight=sb+755

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwtt View Post
It's a fact that millions of legal CA gun owners didn't have their guns confiscated, not a matter of opinion. Back in 1989 there were many people like the OP who said registering their HK93's or AR-15's or Galils will lead to them being confiscated and they sold their guns in Nevada. Let's count the number of legally owned CA registered AW from the Roos-Roberti bill that have been confiscated just because the owners registered them. How many?
I'm not sure how many registered SKSs were confiscated. Millions? Probably not. If it takes millions of rifles being confiscated before you'd concede registration matters, so be it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwtt View Post
Like I wrote earlier, this thread is stupid and the OP is failing in his attempt to spread FUD. He's a good ally of the Brady Bunch, however, if his FUD convinces even one gun owner to avoid buying a gun because of this farfetched idea of confiscation resulting directly from registration. So, in my attempt to further support the 2nd Amendment, I will buy one new handgun, one new rifle, and one new shotgun when I return to the US after my current job is over. I urge every Calguns members who truly believe in the 2nd to go and buy more guns. Don't let the gun banner win.
Looks like Gene Hoffman Agrees with the OP and I...

54:48 - "Registration generally leads to confiscation, as it has here in California." http://new.livestream.com/tioh/GunsPanel

Then again, maybe he's just attempting to spread FUD.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-04-2013, 8:41 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,832
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodChild View Post
However, I suggest you actually look up California Penal Code 242 before you state your opinion. If I were to flick a tooth pick at your shoe that would be a misdemeanor battery under California law. I consider that petty stuff, but you may disagree and thats fine.
(QFT, just to make sure we have your position indelibly scribed.)

Great, let's do that. Here's PC 242:

"242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another."

"Flick a toothpick at..." does not reach the the definition of "use of force or violence UPON the person of another."

Perhaps you have this confused with simple assault? In order to charge battery, there must first be an assault. That's PC 240:

"240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."

So you would attempt, by flicking a tooth pick at my shoe, to commit a violent injury upon me? Either that is one BIG f'ing toothpick or you are the biggest mother-flicker on the planet.

No.
Now that I have looked up PC 242, I shall state my opinion.

My opinion is that you haven't a clue about anything you have espoused on this thread. Your own words clearly show you don't understand the basic definitions of the statutes you cite to prove your points.

Go away.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:49 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.