Gun Control

Yes, They Are Coming For People's Guns in California

|

In a state facing over $34 billion in debt, Gov. Jerry Brown signs a bill spending $24 million on literally going after guns bought legally by people who later entered a status that the government thinks should bar them from a key tool for the basic human right of self-defense.

Comrades! Turn in your Weapons!
Photo credit: Templar1307 / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The state will send dozens of new agents into California neighborhoods this summer to confiscate nearly 40,000 handguns and assault rifles from people barred by law from owning firearms, officials said Wednesday.

The plan received the green light Wednesday, when Gov.Jerry Brown signed legislation providing $24 million to clear the backlog of weapons known to be in the hands of about 20,000 people who acquired them legally. They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness…..

"This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

"Potentially dangerous." We are now confiscating property and denying core constitutional rights based on potential.

And why is it that gun owners shouldn't care about gun registries, again?

California is the only state in the nation to operate a database that cross-references gun owners with those who are subsequently disqualified from owning firearms. But budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the list, which grows by 15 to 20 names every day, officials said.

The new funds will allow the department to hire 36 additional special agents and support staff, with the first officers expected to hit the streets in July….

The new agents will work primarily in cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Riverside, which have requested additional help, Gledhill said. The effort is expected to take three years.

"Our reinvestment in this tracking program gives us the opportunity to confiscate" guns from those who should not have them, said state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), author of the legislation.

Never let the "opportunity to confiscate" fade, Senator! Already existing programs for this purpose "investigated nearly 4,000 people and seized about that same number of weapons, including 300 assault weapons, during the last two years, officials said."

It needs to be said often: even these "common sense" measures overwhelmingly violate the rights of those who would never, ever use their weapons to harm anyone far more than they contribute to public safety.

NEXT: China Reports 25th New Bird Flu Death

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It needs to be said often: even these “common sense” measures overwhelmingly violate the rights of those who would never, ever use their weapons to harm anyone far more than they contribute to public safety.

    Fucking racist.

  2. Moral and liberty concerns aside, California is going fucking bankrupt and the next thing they do is spend the time and resources to fuck over a bunch of people?

    I’m so glad I don’t live there.

    1. We’re all glad you don’t live here, Epi.

      1. I would like to clone Epi and put one in every city, as a Libertarian rat in the maze sort of experiment.

        1. I can give you a DNA sample if you want to get started.

          (starts pulling down pants)

          1. Quick! He’s vulnerable – release the Warty!

            1. Epi is safe. I sewed him shut. There’s nothing for Warty to do him down in The Southerlands.

              1. I feel like you’re underestimating Warty’s ability to tear him a new one in a more literal sense.

                1. Yeah, this sounds to me more like just the first step in the cloaca creation process.

                  1. See, as soon as you say cloaca I’m immediately reminded of the video HM linked regarding some kid in Nicaragua fucking chickens.

                  2. “cloaca creation process”

                    Weren’t they an industrial noise and dance group from the early 1990s?

        2. That is actually an intriguing idea. Because like a rat, Epi is covered in a fine coat of wet, matted fur, and he’s incontinent.

    2. But didn’t you read the article?

      The money comes from a surplus in fees paid for background checks by people purchasing guns.

      See, it’s a surplus! They must not need the money for anything else….

  3. “Potentially dangerous.” We are now confiscating property and denying core constitutional rights based on potential.

    “We are arresting you for crimes you might commit.”

    1. They are going after soft targets, average people who most likely won’t start a gunfight over it.

      Because going after the hard targets – gangs and other violent criminals with guns – is way more difficult and dangerous.

  4. We are now confiscating property and denying core constitutional rights based on potential. And why is it that gun owners shouldn’t care about gun registries, again?

    This should be shoved in Pat Toomey’s face from now until he enters the lobbyist portion of his professional career.

    Is the state reimbursing people for the personal property it’s taking?

    1. “Is the state reimbursing people for the personal property it’s taking?”

      HAHAHAHAHA! Good one, Fist!

    2. Your safety is your reimbursement.

      /gun grabbing statist

    3. Is the state reimbursing people for the personal property it’s taking?

      You mean the guns, or the destroyed doors, trashed houses, and dead dogs that lead to the guns?

      1. You don’t know any of those things will happen nicole, I’m sure by agents they just mean calligraphers and by enforcement they mean sending a politely worded letter to gun owners asking them pretty please to hand their guns in at the nearest police station.

        On a serious note, what happens when they go in, take someone’s gun and destroy it but the paperwork gets lost or is improperly filed. This seems like it could get very Brazil very fast.

        1. Does that mean we get to ask the nice agents if they have their form 27B-6?

          1. I tend to ask for the ID-10(t), it takes them a few days to figure it out.

        2. Please confess quickly. We don’t want your credit rating to be damaged.

  5. How can you possibly complain about this?

    Do you really want guns in the hands of serial killers, child rapists, and wife beaters?

    How many murderous killing sprees by mentally ill sociopathic killing killers will it take for libertarians to realize that this is perfectly ok?

    /Tulpa

    1. I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T! I mean, S-M-A-R-T!

      /Tulpa

    2. Pretty sure serial killers wouldn’t be free to purchase these weapons in the first place. Violent crime has been going down, not up. This despite more guns in circulation and more states relaxing their gun laws.

      1. Oh, their perfectly free to purchase weapons. Just not through legal channels.

        There isn’t a single gun control law that has seriously blocked a determined person’s access to weapons.

        1. That’s a pretty unfalsifiable statement….

    3. Took you 23 minutes for your call to be confirmed, see below.

      1. Damn that Tulpa guy for having consistent positions.

  6. See, this is what I have been fucking talking about that no one seems to get – except now. Piers Morgan gave the game away for all liberal statists when he said in response to the standard boilerplate that more gun laws only hamper law-abiding citizens : “Adam Lanza was a law-abiding citizen until the day he murdered 26 people”. (Or words exactly to that effect). Now, see, I was LISTENING to exactly what he said (and the libtards usually are not so honest in their arguments) and I believe he believes it, and he is emblematic of most liberal statist utopianist fucks. We are ALL potential Adam Lanzas. We cannot be trusted with these rights. We are all potentially murderous. Now, an optimistic man might say we are all potential Thomas Jeffersons or Audie Murphys, but not the statists who are DOING THIS FOR OUR OWN GOOD. And that means they will never -EVER – rest…

    1. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” CS Lewis

      1. BP, that is precisely what i was frothing at the mouth about. At least SOMEONE got my spittle-flecked rant!!!

  7. I anticipate a lot of guns hitting the market, IF the owners actually know they will be targeted.

    I suspect the overwhelming majority will be completely taken by surprise. And, if they say, truthfully or not, “Oh, that? I sold it,” the cops will undoubtedly just take their word for it and go away.

    1. the cops will undoubtedly just take their word for it and go away.

      Selling a gun without going through a dealer is a crime in California.

      http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#14

      So the cops will undoubtedly demand the paperwork, and if it cannot be produced it’s time to go to jail. That’s after they destroy the house executing a search warrant for the weapon.

      1. “I lost it.”

        1. I’m pretty sure that losing a gun and not reporting it is also a crime.

          1. That makes it all the easier. Put it in a safety deposit box and plead the fifth.

          2. Man, that’s frustrating.

            Glad I don’t lived there.

            I’m sure they’re glad not to have me and all my 48-state, non-CARB-compliant vehicles, too.

          3. I didn’t know I had lost it until you asked me to produce it.

  8. On the plus side, this completely blows away the liberal argument that gun registries would never ever be used to confiscate people’s guns. That just became a dead-end argument nationally.

    1. Not at all. You see, they Support the 2nd Amendment, and would never violate the rights of law abiding citizens. However, this is just common sense regulation. The idea that they want to take your guns away is just wing nut conspiracy talk.

    2. this completely blows away the liberal argument that gun registries would never ever be used to confiscate people’s guns

      Liberals lie. Period. They know full and well that registries will be used for confiscation. That’s why they want them so badly. They’re just lying when they say that’s not their purpose.

    3. No, you see, they’re not taking everyone’s guns, just the “potentially dangerous individuals” guns. If you’re not “potentially dangerous” then you have nothing to worry about. Of course the definition of “potentially dangerous individual” can always be expanded later to include more and more people, but hey, look over there! What could that be! /prog-tard shithead

    4. DO they ever actually make that argument, or just avoid the question entirely and asking why you hate children?

  9. I give them 2 weeks before raiding a house and killing somebody because a previous resident owned a gun.

    1. I do not predict that level of zealousness. I give it 4 weeks. Meet me back here on a thread in a month and we will settle up…

  10. “Man, am I bummed. I was gonna pistol whip my wife after work but the cops took my guns away, so I guess I’ll have to take her to a movie, instead.”

    1. See! The system works!

  11. this completely blows away the liberal argument that gun registries would never ever be used to confiscate people’s guns.

    Aww, that’s so cute.

    1. Exactly. It COMPLETELY presumes liberals are a) intellectually honest in the policy arguments they make and b)susceptible to history, logic and precedent.
      FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!

      1. I never said they were honest. They’ll still say “we won’t use this registry to take your guns.” The difference, now, will be that people who might have believed them no longer will.

  12. 4,000 guns were already confiscated. How many shootouts, etc?
    Those wanting to sign up as gun-grabbers may wish to know.

    1. I would bet an awful lot of those were found as part of an arrest. So someone gets picked up on a warrant because they skipped court for a DUI charge… and they had their pistol with them – hurrah, one dangerous semiautomatic machine of death out of the hands of criminalz!1!1!

      1. From the Bloomberg article a month ago, CA DOJ was seizing weapons not only from CA-prohibited persons, but people they cohabit with. The example in the article was DOJ collecting a registered gun or two from a women who’d been, IIRC, involuntarily committed at some point, and also taking the husband’s registered pistol.

        Which leads to the question of, if you’ve a roomie that’s qualifies under CA’s no doubt expansive definition of prohibited person, does the DOJ get to take your stuff too? What if the roomie isn’t a registered gun owner, yet lives in the same house as you? (Not at all uncommon in the Bay Area, given the still absolutely ridiculous home prices.)

        There was no mention of compensation in the article, and as I recall, most of you here laughed your ass off along with me when I wondered if any were forthcoming. Does the DOJ give you your stuff back when and if your prohibited status lapses, like when the TRO filed in your divorce expires?

        FFS, just start enforcing felon in possession laws and we can get rid of a lot of the problem of bad guys with guns. SLD applies that way too much conduct is felonious in this day and age.

  13. First they came for the Californian guns, and I didn’t speak up because I’m not a Californian, and I had already told gun grabbers to go fuck themselves.

    Then they came for the Reason alt-text, and I spoke up because I want my damn alt-text.

    1. First, I said “fuck off, slavers”… then I said “Doherty, let my alt-text go!”

    2. “Fuck you, more alt-text.”

  14. We are now confiscating property and denying core constitutional rights based on potential.

    A felony conviction isn’t “potential”.

    And good luck with that “libertarian moment” if you’re going to continue to champion paranoid schizophrenics’ right to walk the streets with ARs. I assume you’re also against forcing them to take anti-delusion medication, correct me if I’m wrong?

    I do agree that the registry in CA is begging to be abused when the statists want a general confiscation, though.

    1. “I do agree that the registry in CA is begging to be abused when the statists want a general confiscation, though.”

      They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness…..

      Your wife said you hit her – all your guns, right. now.

      1. The judge insisted you try marriage counseling before granting your wife a divorce, and now the marriage counselor says you’re clinically depressed.

      2. I agree that the DV misdemeanor prohibition is stupid and possibly unconstitutional.

        But that means we should attack (some of) the prohibitions, not the enforcement thereof.

    2. A felony conviction isn’t “potential”.

      Depends on the felony, no? It is one thing to deny the right to own guns to someone convicted of assault, or murder or something like that. But there are loads of things that are felonies (even some that should actually be crimes) that don’t show that a person has any more potential to be violent than any other person. And I think that the potential to violence is all that is relevant here.

      1. Which is a reason for tinkering with the prohibition categories. Not a reason to denounce all prohibitions as Doherty and Sullum have done.

        1. Why not a reason to do both?

          And won’t you supposed to leave us for a month or so to wallow in our misery without you? Why do you still inflict on us your “consistent” positions?

    3. Fuck you.

      I served my time in the correctional facility where I was released once they thought me rehabilitated. Why the fuck should my rights be denied then?*

      Oh because you’re a dick.

      *I’ve never actually been to jail, but if we believe that people can be put there and rehabilitated of their desire to commit crimes and release them, they should all say the same thing to people like you.

  15. “And why is it that gun owners shouldn’t care about gun registries, again?”

    Because Obama doesn’t want you to pay the price for gun owners’ sins.

    Obama loves you, Brian. And he wants you to love him, too. But you have to let Obama into your heart.

    Now get down on your knees and ask him for forgiveness.

    1. Now get down on your knees and ask him for forgiveness.

      And don’t forget to cradle his balls. And don’t you dare spit after he shoots his wad in your mouth.

  16. But it Toomey and Manchin said they were going to throw anybody who tries to create a registry in jail. So that will totally stop the BATF in their tracks, because they know if they try anything funny, the Justice Department will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

    1. Sort of like when the governor of Missouri signed a law that made it unlawful to share gun ownership information with the feds only to later “accidentally” do just that and get a personal thank you not for Sec DHS for doing so.

      These people would NEVER ignore the law or break a promise. NEVER.

    2. Which is why I supported having a special gun-rights prosecutor and/or allowing states to prosecute BATFE miscreants who keep records of their residents’ gun purchases.

      1. Which is why I supported having a special gun-rights prosecutor and/or allowing states to prosecute BATFE miscreants who keep records of their residents’ gun purchases.

        Honey I am sure you do. But you and I both know that is never going to happen and even if it did no one would ever be prosecuted. So could you do us all a favor and be honest for once just admit you don’t support gun rights or stop enabling those who don’t by supporting such stupid policies?

      2. Yeah, or we could just, you know, not keep records so that some “special gun-rights prosecutor” can’t misuse his office for personal gain.

      3. That is chock full of retard there Tulpa.

  17. Oh, look! Tulpa’s here.

    How’s the weather up there on your lofty perch?

  18. “Potentially dangerous.” We are now confiscating property and denying core constitutional rights based on potential.

    Technically anyone could be “potentially dangerous.” Their plan is obviously to gradually expand the definition of “potentially dangerous individuals.” Right now it’s “criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness.” Eventually it will be anyone who’s ever gotten a speeding ticket. The “logic” will most likely go something like this:
    A leading cause of speeding is anger, so if you’re pulled over for speeding it can be “reasonably” inferred that you were angry.
    If you were angry, you may someday commit an act of road rage.
    If you have your gun your in car when you commit an act of road rage, you may shoot someone.
    Therefore, if you’ve gotten a speeding ticket you’re a “potentially dangerous individual.”

    The new funds will allow the department to hire 36 additional special agents and support staff

    $24 million for 36 employees? So an average cost of $666,666.67 per employee? What the fuck?

    1. $24 million for 36 employees? So an average cost of $666,666.67 per employee? What the fuck?

      They expect they’re gonna need a lot of hazard pay?

    2. “36…and support staff”

      “$24 million for 36 employees? So an average cost of $666,666.67 per employee? What the fuck?”

      1. Must be a fuckload of “support staff.” I originally read it as a total of 36 agents and support staff, but I suppose it could be “36 agents, and support staff.”

      2. Assuming a base pay of $100,000 per employee (which is still a fucking lot), that’s 240 employees. That’s a shitload of support staff. It goes even higher if you assume a more reasonable pay rate.

      3. What, the esitmate is only roughly 3 times what our goverment spends on creating “green jobs”.

    3. Technically everyone is potentially dangerous. There is no law of nature that says I couldn’t just steer my car into oncoming traffic this afternoon when I go home, or step out of my office right now and punch a coworker in the nose. Everyone has the potential to be or do a lot of things that they are almost certain not to.

      1. Some people are more dangerous than others.

        1. Then perhaps those people should be cooling their heals in prison.

          A person who is too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to own a knife, matches, gasoline, a car, a baseball bat, or any other of the thousands of everyday objects that are potential weapons in the hands of a killer.

          1. Oh, and that’s assuming giving them the scarlet F actually prevents them from getting guns. The fact is, the black market is more than willing to provide guns to felons, and they are no more harder to obtain in this manner than illegal narcotics.

            1. Pushing something onto the black market makes it harder to get.

              How do those guns get on the black market in the first place? Are there underground manufacturers or something? Maybe we need a blogwide conversation about measures to keep guns from entering the black market in the first place. Well, we already did, but it only led to a bunch of glibsters calling me a retard.

              1. No, it really doesn’t. A 17 year old can get weed easier than he can get cigerettes. If you know the right people, and usually felons do (they have plenty of time to network in prison if they didn’t already know people before they got sent to prison), it’s as easy as handing a bunch of cash to the right guy.

                As for how they got on the black market, they are either stolen or imported from out of country. There is no manufacturing base, but only because they are easily available from other sources. Take away the other sources, and a manufacturing base will kick into effect, just as it has in Europe. And guns are NOT hard to make.

                1. If you know the right people

                  Which isn’t a requirement if you can buy legally…. and the price will be lower… and you don’t have to worry about someone in the transaction being police-related….

                  1. Knowing the right people isn’t hard. And most criminals don’t overly worry about being caught, which they really shouldn’t, because police do a fucking miserable job of policing the black market.

              2. Well, we already did, but it only led to a bunch of glibsters calling me a retard.

                Well, when you come up with an idea that’s not retarded, we won’t call you a retard.

                Nah, just kidding, we’ll still know you’re retarded and call you that.

                1. Shorter Tulpa: “statism, statism and a little more statism ought to do it…”
                  Christ, you are like Krugman with government spending…
                  One more LAW will solve it ALL!!!

              3. Pushing something onto the black market makes it harder to get.

                Citation needed.

                Maybe we need a blogwide conversation about measures to keep guns from entering the black market in the first place.

                Maybe we should leave people the fuck alone to make their own secure-storage decisions, without a pack of statists and their douchebag enablers pronouncing that this is a Serious Problem(tm) such that There Oughtta Be A Law(tm).

                Well, we already did, but it only led to a bunch of glibsters calling me a retard.

                Protip: if you don’t like being called a retard, then stop acting like one.

                1. Protip: if you don’t like being called a retard, then stop acting like one.

                  It’s cute that you think he’s acting.

                  1. I meant acting as in behaving, not acting as in pretending. 🙂

              4. BECAUSE YOU ARE A RETARD!

          2. You libertarians sure have a hard-on for putting people in prison…

            1. Except for maybe the anarchists, no libertarian has a problem with locking up people who are actually a fucking danger to society. We have a problem with locking up innocents and people who committed victimless crimes. Perhaps if you weren’t a dipshit, you’d understand that.

              1. But your rule would result in more people being in prison.

                There are schizoids who are walking the streets now, whose danger to public safety is minimal because they are forcibly medicated and disarmed. If they suddenly go off and start pushing and hitting people on a street corner, the damage will be minimal before they’re subdued. As a society we’ve decided that it’s better to take that risk than to keep such people locked up forever.

                Give that same schizoid an AR-15 to carry and the damage will be greater and the societal cost-benefit skyrockets. So we’d lock them up.

                1. That schizoid already has the ability to carry around an AR-15 if he really wants it. And quite frankly, most schizoids aren’t a threat to society. An incredibly small number of people with mental disorders are ever an danger. Taking away rights from all of them just because a few of them snap is idiotic, and results in fewer people seeking treatment because they are afraid of their rights being stripped.

                  As for “more people in prison”, that would only be true for the most violent repeat offenders. Taken with other libertarian positions, there would still be a lot fewer people in prison because people would no longer be sent to jail for committing victimless crimes…like owning a gun because you once went for a joyride as a teenager.

          3. I think you mean “coaling his heals” or something like that.

  19. Incidentally, Jello Biafra saw this coming from more than 30 years away:

    Now it’s 1984
    Knock, knock on your front door
    It’s the suede-denim secret police
    They’ve come for your uncool niece [way cool piece].

    Mellow out or you will pay!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quLqEu4mUOU

  20. So an average cost of $666,666.67 per employee? What the fuck?

    I understand Satan is involved somehow.

    1. Satan is a Californian?

      Hmmm. Things begin to make sense.

    2. Actually, it’s Ronald Reagan. Three times, if you go down to thousandths of a cent.

  21. They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness…..

    Because restraining orders are so difficult to get and “serious mental illness” is such an objective term.

    1. You’re not a liberal Democrat? Well, that’s a serious mental illness!

      1. You just want AR 15s in the hands of dangerous mental patients.

        1. Apparently that’s Reason’s actual flerking position. It’s not a strawman.

          “I don’t WANT them to have guns, I just think they have the right to have guns” is just as fallacious as the gun grabbers’ “I don’t WANT the government to confiscate everyone’s guns, I just want them to have the ability to do so.”

          1. It is a complete strawman. The state has no intention of just confiscating the guns of “dangerous mental patients” because it can’t even figure out who those are. If a person is proven to be dangerous, they are involuntarily confined. So by definition anyone who is on the streets is not “dangerous” in any legal sense.

            So what they are doing here is taking the weapons of anyone who ever has so much gotten a prescription for zanex or told their shrink they would like to punch out their boss.

            So please stop arguing from the assumption they are even attempting to keep weapons out of dangerous people’s hands.

          2. If it were just for known dangerous mental patients who have actually harmed someone, that would be one thing. But when the standard is “serious mental illness”, I do have a problem. Causing harm to another person is an objective event that everyone can agree on. What exactly constitutes serious mental illness is not and it is a category that can easily be expanded and influenced by political forces.

            1. What exactly constitutes serious mental illness is not and it is a category that can easily be expanded and influenced by political forces.

              That’s the whole idea.

              Muahahahahahaha!

            2. That is just it zeb. If they are known to be dangerous, they are confined. Even in California, if you are found by a court to be mentally ill and a danger to yourself and others, you are involuntarily committed.

              So there are by definition not any dangerous mental patients out there with guns. They are in mental hospitals.

              1. People are more dangerous when armed than when unarmed. You know, the whole point of having arms in the first place!

                So, do you support allowing 12 year olds to carry loaded AR-15s around town after school? If not, you must support locking them up in prison, right?

                1. Straw man has been slain. Goal posts have been moved. Thread has been Tulpafied.

                  1. It is not even a strawman. Should a 12 year old be allowed to walk around with an AR 15? If it is okay with their parents, sure. Why not?

                    Tulpa thinks he is arguing with liberals or something and we would all react with self evident horror over the thought of a child with a firearm. Ah, not exactly.

                    1. Hell, many of us went hunting at 12 with a rifle. I did, and with something carrying a lot more energy than a .223. Usually with an adult around, but not always. I was given my rifle when I turned 12, with the usual Voice of Doom warnings of what would happen if I fucked up in any way.

                      This was still a lot more restrictive than when Pops was a kid, where he and his cousin would go off camping for days at a time (and probably bringing in desperately-needed meat for the table, though that wasn’t explicitly told to me) with ’06s.

                      Along with John, if the dangerous loon is so dangerous to himself or others, why isn’t he locked up? He’s dangerous enough that we can’t let him keep the weapons he owns, but not so dangerous that we’ll take away his drivers’ license, cooking knives, etc…?

                2. So, do you support allowing 12 year olds to carry loaded AR-15s around town after school?

                  Why not? Kids carried guns in public for hundreds of years before society went insane. Why do you think a 12 year old child is dangerous or more dangerous than an adult. What possible reason could you have to objecting to such beyond emotion?

                  And once again, explain to me what a “dangerous mental patient” is. If they are found to be such they are involuntarily confined until they are found to no longer be. So who exactly are these dangerous mental patients you speak of? Or are you just assuming anyone with any history of any sort of mental condition is automatically dangerous?

                  1. When my father was 12 he would take his shotgun to school, lean it up against his locker, then use it to shoot squirrels for dinner on the walk home.

                    Now you can’t legally shoot squirrels on your own property without a hunting license.

                    Fuck.

                    1. Now you can’t legally shoot squirrels on your own property without a hunting license.

                      You can if they are agricultural pests. At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

                  2. Why do you think a 12 year old child is dangerous or more dangerous than an adult.

                    Children don’t have the impulse control and risk awareness that adults do. The same reason we have age restrictions on a gazillion other dangerous activities.

                    Do you not understand why parents of minor children lock their guns up in a safe inaccessible to the kids?

                    1. Children don’t have the impulse control and risk awareness that adults do.

                      You mean children are liberals?

                    2. I think what children can and cannot do is up to their parents Tulpa not you. So go fuck yourself and raise your own kids and stay out of how other people raise theirs.

                    3. Dear John,

                      I’m pretty sure that kids belong to the community and not their parents.

                      Love,

                      Melissa Harris-Perry

                    4. A properly trained 12 year old is a danger to nobody. That’s the age my state starts requiring a hunting license, and minors with a hunting license were legally allowed to carry a gun and hunt without parental supervision.

                      Safes are more for toddlers and the under 6 or 7 set, and even then if they are properly trained they aren’t a danger. Hell, I could get into my dad’s gun cabinet by the time I was 4 or 5, but I knew well enough not to screw with his guns.

                3. What the fuck are you even talking about?

                  1. He can’t answer my point about dangerous mental patients, so Tulpa is now changing the subject so he can talk about minors with weapons, which of course has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

                    But it does allow him to ignore the fact that he lost the other argument.

                    1. Tulpa never loses an argument. He just keeps moving the goalposts until you give up. Then he wins by default.

                    2. He can’t answer my point about dangerous mental patients

                      I did answer it, but you persisted in your opinion that anyone who is dangerous with a gun in their hands should be locked up in jail/institutionalized. If that’s your principle, I can’t argue against it because it’s your principle.

                      Talking about minors illustrates that that dichotomy is not feasible. It’s better to have multiple tiers. Very dangerous people are locked up, less dangerous people are not locked up but are kept away from danger-enhancing items and situations, and minimally dangerous people are free to g**bol about plain and forest with no restrictions.

                  2. My dad gave me a rifle for Christmas when I was 10. He taught me “the rules”, which I remember to this day, and have not violated. I was shooting animals when I was 12.

                    I have never, ever shot a human being, and have no intention of doing so.

                    Lock me up, Tulip, cause clearly it’s just luck that I didn’t kill someone when I was 10 and parading around with my awesome Remington .22 bolt action killing machine (14 capacity, as I recall – ASSAULT WEAPON!!!).

                    the gun’s in the basement (locked up) right now, so the cops can take that, too.

                    Hope you feel better!

                4. I’m not exactly sure on all the open carry rules, but I think that 12 year olds are currently allowed to carry loaded AR15s around at the moment in some places.

                  1. Yep. I looked it up and where I live (NH) and in the couple of other open carry states I looked up, there is no legally defined minimum age for open carry. So a 12 year old can do that now. And I really don’t have a problem with it as long as it is not being brandished or used to threaten people.

            3. Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a real thing *in America*.

              Used to be we made fun of/pitied soviets because of they made into “psychiatric disorders” opposition to the state.

      2. You live in California? On purpose? That’s a serious mental illness.

        1. Not everyone is aware just how close to total Armageddon California is. There are still pretty girls and fast cars.

  22. I’d be nice if they confiscated guns from criminals, instead.

    1. Seriously. Nothing is more irritating than being around the jail at release time and seeing the guards give everybody back their pieces.

  23. Nitpick:

    The poster reads “Citizens” (grazhdane), not “Comrades” (tovarishchi). If it weren’t for the fucking Unicode ban, I’d include the two Russian words in the proper Cyrillic.

  24. Apparently the right to keep and bear arms is another right that we need to vote on every few months and get approval from the mob to exercise. The current reading of “shall not be infringed” means “fuck you, that’s why!”

  25. So an average cost of $666,666.67 per employee?

    You’re not going to send them into battle with just a pea shooter and a clipboard, are you?

    1. Well, with the demand for AR’s so far exceeding supply these days, I’m sure they need to factor that in to the “equipment” costs for the new agents.

      I’d say…..$200,000 per AR is about right in the current economic environment, yeah?

      /bureautard

  26. A felony conviction isn’t “potential”.

    Embezzlement today, mass shooting spree tomorrow.

    QED

    1. The blanket ban on possession (or purchase) by felons is stupid and immoral, but this seems to be just enforcing the existing laws. Dumb use of resources. The only silver lining is they aren’t prosecuting these people or turning their names over to the DOJ (yet).

      1. They’re grabbing them from more people than just felons or those accused of DV. See the article I mentioned above.

        FTA:

        [The CA DOJ agents] 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.
        “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

  27. Tulpa, face it: statists are intellectually inferior to libertarians.

    1. Then intellect is irrelevant, because they’re running the show. And every tactless pronouncement the absolutist libertarians make cements their power a little bit more.

      1. Tulpa imagines that politely and docilely submitting to the auto-da-f? might result in you not getting burned at the stake.

        Related: Tulpa is a stupid fucking asshat.

  28. Actually Doherty missed the most outrageous part of this.

    So, California has long outlawed private-party sales, and has de facto gun registration. Every transfer has to go through an FFL, who is required to submit a dealer’s record of sale (DROS) as well as a processing fee (ranging from $19 to $35, depending on the particulars of the transfer) to the state Department of Justice. That money is specifically allotted to pay for the background check and for maintaining the transfer registry; it’s not supposed to be used for any other purpose.

    Well, owing to the gigantic spike in gun sales, the DROS fees have been generating historic surpluses, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

    So where do you think the $24 million came from? Yup — they’re raiding the DROS fee surpluses. In essence, we’re being forced to pay the state to confiscate our own guns.

    1. That’s kind of fucking awesome… WHOLE NEW WAYS TO BE ANALLY EXCAVATED BY THE STATE!!!
      HAIL THE STATE!

    2. In essence, we’re being forced to pay the state to confiscate our own guns.

      The people (legally) buying guns right now aren’t prohibited persons, and thus won’t have their guns confiscated.

      1. You dumb fuck, did you even read the fucking article?

        The people that are having their guns confiscated BOUGHT THEM LEGALLY! Meaning that they were at one point, deemed ok to have guns, but then they moved the goalposts (we know you’re a big fan of this) and are now not allowed to have guns. People that are paying those fees right now could eventually end up being one of the prohibited people when they move the goalposts next.

        God, you are fucking retarded.

        1. They bought them legally some time in the past… not now.

          1. YES! That’s exactly the point, numbskull.

            They bought them legally in the past… As in, back then, it wasn’t illegal for them to posses a gun, now it is. Moving the goalposts to change who is and isn’t eligible to own a gun is the plan. They can’t outright ban all guns, so they keep adding more and more categories to the prohibited people list.

          2. “They bought them legally some time in the past… not now.”

            “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.”
            “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
            “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master? that’s all.”

            Tulpa, you are what would happen if Orwell fucked Lewis Carroll and they shit out a little statist baby (that was clearly unwanted but -mysteriously- wasn’t “snipped” or “post-birth aborted”). But you are no Humpty Dumpty… I will call you the MAD ASSHATTER!

      2. Today’s legal gun buyer is tomorrow’s prohibited person when the goalposts inevitably move.

        So yes, we are paying the state to confiscate our own guns, you blithering fucktard.

  29. I foresee an epidemic of boating accidents.

    1. Until they get the mandatory lost and stolen reporting requirements passed, anyway.

      People like Tulpa who continue to insist that this is about safety, and keeping guns out of the wrong hands, are just fools.

      1. There is a legitimate safety concern; it’s up to liberty lovers to make sure that concern is not used as cover for something more nefarious on the part of the statists.

        Taking yourself out of the conversation by insisting that murderers and schizophrenics have access to AR-15s is doing the statists a favor. Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi would love to have the NRA and the rest of the visible gun rights movement adopting the Doherty/Sullum position here.

        1. No, there isn’t a legitimate safety concern. Go fuck yourself.

        2. Schizophrenics, counter to the narrative you’ve grown up with, aren’t violent individuals.

      2. So you report your boating accident.

        1. And then they convict you of perjury when some Tory cuntpickle like Tulpa reports you to the gendarmerie for going to the shooting range with guns you said fell over the side of your canoe. And they take away your guns.

          1. When the law breaks in, how you gonna come?

            With your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun?

  30. Guns, what guns? I lost ’em. Fuck off

  31. “This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

    “You have been deemed dangerous by the State! Take his guns! Next!”

    “You have been deemed dangerous by the State! Take his guns! Next!”

    “You have been deemed dangerous by the State! Take his guns! Next!”

    “You have been deemed dangerous by the …”

  32. Land of the free and home of the brave?

    What a freak’n joke line. Why in the Hell would anybody stand up for the national anthem anymore?

    Does anyone actually fly the flag? Why? For what possible reason?

    Join the military? To defend what? I don’t see anything worth defending anymore.

    If Islamics wish to bomb Los Angeles, NYC or Seattle, why should I give a rat’s ass?

  33. It is the nature of all government to grow, and increase in power. The possibility, even probability, of abuse always exists. Our Nation’s founders were well aware of this and attempted to guard us against it.

    At this moment we are faced with a government no longer content to stay within it’s constitutional boundaries. The threat of tyranny becomes more obvious with each day.

    Only fools, and aspiring tyrants, would not fear and fight against this.

    Two quotes to remember, the difference between night and day.

    “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”

    Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    “The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

    Judge Alex Kozinski

  34. What do they do if the homeowner says he no longer has the gun? Do they tear the home apart looking for it? (I believe private sales are still legal, so he could very well be telling the truth.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.