Tag Archives: gun laws

New confiscatory CA gun law as of 2016

Posted on by

California State FlagThe DailyCaller.com seems to think so.  As does the WashingtonTimes.com.

I have some very salient comments to add after these pull quotes.

California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1

by Andrew Blake

Gun control legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there is potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

 

DailyCaller.com wrote:

AB1014 was passed last year in the wake of 2014’s Isla Vista shooting, where teenager Elliot Rodger went on a rampage near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, killing six people along with himself.

Further:

The new law is intended to stop such a situation from re-occurring. Under the law, a judge has the power to grant a restraining order telling police to seize a person’s guns, based solely on accounts from family members or police that the person is poses an imminent danger to others. The restraining order can be granted without the affected person knowing it exists or being allowed time to contest it.

Once granted, police can use the restraining order to confiscate all of a person’s guns and ammunition, and the person is also barred from buying or possessing guns and ammo for the duration of the order. A full court hearing must then be heard within three weeks. At that hearing, a judge will be able to extend the restraining order for an entire year.

My interjection:

That is not unprecedented in Fornicalia.  As a peace officer, if I made a detention under 5150 W&I and determined that someone fell under those parameters, I could legally confiscate their guns on that call.

5150(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service.

When I made a commitment under 5150 W&I, I was legally bound to inquire about firearms in the affected household and then book them for safekeeping when they were brought to my attention.  My failure to do that would have resulted in my receipt of discipline, at minimum.  Once the commitment was accepted, should that occur, the firearms per Cal DOJ were not to be returned for a period of five years.  One can petition the local court in which the guns or deadly weapons were confiscated.  California section 5250 W&I (Welfare & Institutions code) deals with firearms following a 5150 W&I hold being placed.  I was very careful when placing said holds and sometimes refused to make them against the wishes of family members — who could have an agenda.

In the new instance, however, under AB 1014, weapons can be confiscated in lieu of a 5150 hold and the injection of law enforcement in an emergency situation.  I only found myself involved, as a law enforcement officer, in an emergency call.  Here is the very important caveat:

Practically, this means once you are his with the restraining order you will never own a firearm again for the rest of your life and the ones the police take from you will never be returned. Is any California judge going to lift the restraining order and take the risk that at some later point you may be involved in a shooting of some kind? No.

So, do you, the subject of such an action have the right to be notified that such an allegation has been made against you? Do you have to right to contest their application? Can you contest the ability of the state, without anything approaching probably cause, to have you hauled in for “mental evaluation?” (Why is it that totalitarian regimes invariably use the mental health system to deal with dissidents and non-conformists?) Nope.

How will you find out? When a SWAT team shows up at your door to take your weapons and cart you off for a mental health evaluation.

Beware.  It is, after all, Fornicalia.  And there is a reason I call it that.

More is coming, America.

In 2016.

Obama will issue his imperial executive gun orders in just a few more days.

BZ

Obama Gun ConfiscationP.S.

After I installed Ad-Blocker software on my confuser, Life got so much better for me when I went to various sites.  My computer would scream in pain as it found itself stymied by advertisements on various sites.  The Daily Caller site was one of the worst.  Now I can actually link DailyCaller without crashing my confuser.

 Share

Feds want to kill MORE free speech in re GUNS

Posted on by

SLAVES ARE DISARMEDThe federal government wants to regulate, essentially, anything and everything involving humans within its borders.

The Obama Administration now wants to regulate speech about firearms.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

by Paul Bedard

Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

What?  Is the federal government insane?  That would essentially outlaw gun blogs, gun magazines or any discussions about firearms.

Which, of course, would help the Obama Leftist Socialist Organization help to rid Americans of firearms — only so that the Proles, the Groundlings, the Serfs would be disarmed and more easily controlled.

Who would possibly put up with this?  The push is a governmental assault on the First Amendment itself — again, by the Obama Administration.

According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting.

Again, all perfectly in keeping with the Obama Administration’s wish to completely disarm the citizens of this nation, a true goal of Leftists globally.

I have always said that when you lose the Second Amendment, you will lose the First Amendment.

In this instance, here is Mr Obama and his Leftists attempting to hobble and denigrate both amendments simultaneously.  I couldn’t possibly have conjured that possible.  Except that, now, I certainly can.  This is certainly nothing if not innovative on behalf of the Obama Left.  With this addition: the prohibition also focuses on the internet as well, and seeks to clamp down on the internet.  Almost a Perfect Trifecta of prohibitive Leftism.

The NRA agrees.

 “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.

What could possibly be the reason for eliminating speech about firearms?

At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.

Please read the rest of the article for the details, because I don’t wish to take Bedard’s writing credit from him.

Never in my 60+ years on this planet have I seen my country’s freedoms so hideously and naked assaulted by my federal government.  I can only conclude one thing: this federal governments ultimately seeks total control and authority over each and every persons within its borders to the point where there can be no pushback, no dissension, no verbal or written disagreement on any level in any venue whatsoever.

For what other purpose would rules and regulations such as this exist?

BZ

P.S.

Vince Vaughn supports the Second Amendment.

 

 Share

Drudge, BZ, your blog threatened

Posted on by

Free Speech EliminatedThe federal government is about nothing if not control.

Control of every aspect of your life, control, monitoring, regulation.

From CNSNews.com:

FCC Commissioner: Feds may come for Drudge

by Rudy Takala

(CNSNews.com) – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He also revealed that his opposition to “net neutrality” regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family.

However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”

Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”

We’ve seen this already from the federal government, in terms of the IRS terrorizing Conservative groups with threats and actions not directed to any other political community.

Tolerant LeftistsWe’ve seen Holder’s DOJ prosecuting cases based solely on race, at Obama’s direction.  Mr Obama and Mr Holder are two of DC’s Racists In Chief.  We’ll see how AG Lynch does.

“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News… is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai said.

“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” he concluded.

Those persons who are ignorant of the world surrounding them would be the first to say “that’s ridiculous, you’re paranoid.  Nothing like that could ever happen in the US.”

In response I’d say: “it’s already happened.  Where were you?”

Leftist Thinking In DreadsThe First Amendment and the Second Amendment are interlinked.

Why do you think there is such a push to eliminate the Second Amendment by the federal government, to onerously regulate firearms and ammunition?

Because without the ability to defend ourselves on a civilian level, the federal government, any government, can lay rules and regulations on a population that has no ability to fight back in any manner.

Let me provide further clarity: the Second Amendment, as some think, doesn’t exist solely to enable people to go hunting if they wish.  It exists to keep the populace safe from an overbearing government.

The Obama Regime is leaving in a few years, thank the Lord.  But if another Demorat steps in, you’ll find your fundamental rights challenged once more.  If that occurs, this nation could very well erupt in a fashion no one wants to see or consider.

Voltaire QuoteEnjoy reading my blog whilst you can.

BZ

P.S.

1. How to end free speech.
2. Obama eliminating free speech.
3. Muslims eliminating free speech.
4. Soft money goes, then so does free speech.
5. Chuck Schumer wants to kill free speech.

These things are occurring right here, right now, in the United States of America, ladies and gentlemen.

Pass the word.

Leftist Free SpeechHere is what Leftists think of Free Speech.  And who defines “hate speech”?  Why, Leftists do, of course.  “Hate speech,” such as support of US foundational documents.

 

 Share

Oregon Sheriff: Gun Control Push ‘Borderline Treasonous,’ Will Not Enforce

Posted on by

MOLON LABEFrom Breitbart.com:

by AWR Hawkins

While Oregon Democrats stood with Gabby Giffords and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to push expanded background checks on April 1, Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer stood for the law-abiding citizens whom the checks will target by describing the gun control push as “borderline treasonous.”

Palmer also made clear that if the Democrats pass the measure there is zero chance of his office enforcing it.

County Sheriffs with balls.

Someone has to have them, in law enforcement.

Because Chiefs of Police certainly don’t have them.

BZ

 

 Share