Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I own guns and support gun ownership but where does the paranoia of confiscation become unreasonable also?
If I understand this law correctly your weapons can be confiscated merely by anyone calling the police. That is wide open for abuse.
Quote:
If we can take small steps in being proactive we can also be part of the solution.
In the 90's they passed background checks here in PA. The check itself is done at the gun store and takes minutes, there is a small fee. Really no big deal and sounds reasonable right?
Not so, despite specific language in that legislation forbidding that information from being used to build gun registry that is exactly what the State Police did successfully arguing in court since it didn't include all weapons it wasn't a registry.
I supported it initially because it was reasonable at face value, never again.
This is going to get some people upset, but as a Conservative I believe this is long overdue.
Instead of restrictive measures for law abiding gun owners in California you also have the following that can no longer legally possess weapons:
1. Former Law enforcement with convictions
2.Mentally unstable
3.People who used to be able to have guns that are no longer able to.
They have several of these individuals in databases and they know their status, these people should have to give up their arms as they are not legally entitled to own them anymore.
I can see where it might be an issue when these people live with others that keep guns they might have access to.
.
If I understand this law correctly your weapons can be confiscated merely by anyone calling the police. That is wide open for abuse.
In the 90's they passed background checks here in PA. The check itself is done at the gun store and takes minutes, there is a small fee. Really no big deal and sounds reasonable right?
Not so, despite specific language in that legislation forbidding that information from being used to build gun registry that is exactly what the State Police did successfully arguing in court since it didn't include all weapons it wasn't a registry.
I supported it initially because it was reasonable at face value, never again.
That's the idea, chip away chip away. That's why I don't support expanded restrictions on "mentally ill." They will say it's just for people who are very ill and dangerous and once it's passed they will stretch it to the limit. A lot of people want to see a gun free America and will stretch any law to achieve that goal.
Nj is trying to pass a law that allows police to come into your home, without a warrant, and take all your guns if a third party calls them and says they think you are mentally ill.
That sounds extreme and is certainly a recipe for disaster.
• One, it would help ensure that families and others can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.
• Two, it would help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.
• Three, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.
This is going to get some people upset, but as a Conservative I believe this is long overdue.
Instead of restrictive measures for law abiding gun owners in California you also have the following that can no longer legally possess weapons:
1. Former Law enforcement with convictions
2.Mentally unstable
3.People who used to be able to have guns that are no longer able to.
They have several of these individuals in databases and they know their status, these people should have to give up their arms as they are not legally entitled to own them anymore.
I can see where it might be an issue when these people live with others that keep guns they might have access to.
.
But this is sorely needed and lawful.
Any thoughts?
It looks good on the surface, but this could good bad for those of us who legal own weapons. California is one of the most restrictive and high tax states in the Union.
That's the idea, chip away chip away. That's why I don't support expanded restrictions on "mentally ill." They will say it's just for people who are very ill and dangerous and once it's passed they will stretch it to the limit. A lot of people want to see a gun free America and will stretch any law to achieve that goal.
My post exactly, but you did a better job expressing this "New Restrictions". Now if the reduced restrictions for law abiding Citizens and loses up on issues like AR-15 and Mag loads. This would of been a good compromise.
I do know why people have problem with legal gun owners. Its the criminals we have to be mindful of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't Know?
