Cali confiscation read

[Irv]

Interesting where their money comes from.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

[dieselpower]

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him

so both lose the right to self defense when one person is labeled "prohibited" by the State.... I think the antis just figured a way around the 2nd A.

[Manolito]

The thing that worries me if an untrained officer decides a person is crazy they can put a 24 hour hold under 5150 and the persons right to have a gun is gone. Mental illnes is so subjective an untrained officer shouldn't have that power in my opinion.

[dieselpower]

The no-gun list is compiled by cross-referencing files on almost 1 million handgun and assault-weapon owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental-health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, according to the attorney general’s office.
Probable Cause
Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.

good to know...

[JDay]

good to know...

Yep, if they come knocking tell them that they can't come in.

And then there's this.

The state Senate agreed March 7 to expand the seizure program using $24 million in surplus funds from fees that gun dealers charge buyers for background checks.

Nice to see that they're overcharging for the DROS system and instead of hiring more agents to handle the DROS backlog (tons of delays right now) they're using the money for confiscation.

[Steve_In_29]

Yep, if they come knocking tell them that they can't come in.....

And DON'T step out of your house. Once you are outside you are now in a public place (even though it's your yard) and they can ball you up on a lot less cause.

For example if they show up and you have been drinking....well it's not against the law to be drunk in your own house but step one foot outside and it's now "public drunkenness" and off to jail you go. They tried this at a friend of my wife's house. Kept asking him "Sir could you please step outside so we can talk about this"...he just stayed inside behind his security door.

[sunaj]

And DON'T step out of your house. Once you are outside you are now in a public place (even though it's your yard) and they can ball you up on a lot less cause.

For example if they show up and you have been drinking....well it's not against the law to be drunk in your own house but step one foot outside and it's now "public drunkenness" and off to jail you go. They tried this at a friend of my wife's house. Kept asking him "Sir could you please step outside so we can talk about this"...he just stayed inside behind his security door.

Surely you must be wrong, private property does not end at the door, it ends at the property line, looking for some other opinions on this

[Steve_In_29]

Surely you must be wrong, private property does not end at the door, it ends at the property line, looking for some other opinions on this

Nope... just like you can get a DUI if you are parked in your own driveway.

Being on private property doesn't mean you are not in public. Just like the Code Enforcement guys can cite you for what your yard looks like but not for what the inside of your house is like.

[blazeaglory]

Nope... just like you can get a DUI if you are parked in your own driveway.

Being on private property doesn't mean you are not in public. Just like the Code Enforcement guys can cite you for what your yard looks like but not for what the inside of your house is like.

Your half right...

Being drunk in a car on private property has nothing to do with being on private property or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you could possibly take control of a vehicle while being drunk. Two different things.

Being drunk on private property, in public sight, is a city ordinance. Not a state thing. It varies city by city. I can be as drunk as I want here in Westminster up to my property line but 4 miles down the street, in Huntington Beach, if your drunk or have an open container in your front yard in plain sight, you can be arrested for public intoxication UNLESS your front yard is fenced in Unless HB has changed, it was like that a few years ago. Made 4th of July really lame

Check city ordinances.

[California44]

Your half right...

Being drunk in a car on private property has nothing to do with being on private property or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you could possibly take control of a vehicle while being drunk. Two different things.

Being drunk on private property, in public sight, is a city ordinance. Not a state thing. It varies city by city. I can be as drunk as I want here in Westminster up to my property line but 4 miles down the street, in Huntington Beach, if your drunk or have an open container in your front yard in plain sight, you can be arrested for public intoxication UNLESS your front yard is fenced in

Check city ordinances.

Sorry but I find it funny that something that is 'possible' is a 'fact', and should be dealt with by the public.

[blazeaglory]

Sorry but I find it funny that something that is 'possible' is a 'fact', and should be dealt with by the public.

Yeah I know right? lol I guess if they dont make laws with words like "possibly" then officers might not "possibly" be able to use their discretion to arrest people?

I got pulled over one time for making an illegal u turn at 2 in the morning on a green light and when I told the officer that no one was around and I made the turn perfect he told me " Well what if this was a bridge that was out and you disobeyed the bridge out sign and what if you crashed into the ocean?"

I said thats alot of "what ifs"...lol Comparing a no u-turn sign to a bridge out sign and sheer death blows my mind

[Steve_In_29]

Being drunk in a car on private property has nothing to do with being on private property or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you could possibly take control of a vehicle while being drunk. Two different things.

So by your statement a person can be arrested for something they "MIGHT" do? Sounds very Minority Reportish to me.

[Librarian]

Dupe - in 2A.

This story is an example of what SB140 - Leno wants to do with part of the DROS funds.