Look out guys in Callifornia....

Ed L.

Ed L.

Well-known member
Supporter
It's started...Who will be next?

http://www.bloomberg.com/...arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

What's NOT in this report was the woman was having problems with an anxiety medication. It was a weekend and her doctors office was closed. She went to her local hospital on the advice of a doctors office call operator. When she got to the hospital a nurse wrote on an admissions form "may be suicidal" They admitted her while the hospital adjusted the medication. The woman had no idea this had been written on the form and was NOT suicidal. Her medication was causing her to cry uncontrollably and with company coming for dinner in a few days was trying to get her dosage adjusted. Police came and confiscated 3 guns registered to her husband.
 
Last edited:
Ed -

This is just not happening in California. As I wrote earlier, the time is now to get involved in any new gun laws being debated or introduced in any State. Get off your butts and do something. The time is now, not after these new "reasonable" laws have been passed.

There is now a "compromise" bill being introduced in MN. It even has conservative co-sponsors and supposedly the NRA's blessing. Specific language I'm searching for but it basicall says that once declared unable to own a gun for whatever reason, "access" to guns for that person must be taken away. What the hell does access mean? I'm a relative and have guns in my house - are they going to take mine away? How about the neighbor who has guns? think it's funny and never going to happen - look no further than the story Ed just wrote about.

Please be a voice on this issue. Object to any new lawas being proposed especially if they include clauses about mentally ill, or unfit. Get a speeding ticket - you are a lawbreaker who is now unfit to own firearms. How about going through one of those red light cameras - same outcome. It can and is happening. Get involved.

Mark W
 
I am surprised how long this thread has sat here with no one making a comment. We all love our sport and I'm sure many of you are like me and hold onto our traditional values and beliefs in the US Constutition and Bill of Rights.

Your rights are being violated weather you realize it or not. This is just a starting point. It may not be in your back yard now but it is coming!

If we do not stand up for our rights now we will not be able to later. If you don't do it for yourself do it for you neighbor, uncle, brother, father or grandfather and anyone else that has given there life for our freedom.

I must agree the time for action is NOW!

Unless each one of us speaks up for our rights WE WILL LOOSE THEM!
If you are not a member of the NRA, Please sign up now.

I have not always agreed with the NRA on some views but we must stand together and fight for our common cause.
Please take action, call your assemblymen and other representatives and let them know how you feel. Ask them point blank "Where do you stand on this assault on our rights"

Then take action!!!
 
This is the key question to ask your Representatives - "Do you fully understand and support the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution" Watch the waffling begin. I attended our Congresswomans Betty McCallum's town hall meeting this last week. Also in attendance was our local representatives. They were all asked this simple question and only our local Republican answered straight up "yes" Everyone else had reasons as to why we needed new laws, new ownership standards, mentally ill, unstable, no big clips, no assoult weapons and so on and so on. When remined that the 2nd amendment is the only one that says "shall not be infringed" and then asked what they thought that language meant, we were basically scolded.

It is happening all across this country today. Get involved. remember, registration is the first step towards confiscation.

Mark W
 
Mark and John,

I agree. I hadn't been a member of the NRA for probably 10-15 years. I still don't agree with many aspects of the NRA but I and my entire family joined the racks a couple of months ago because the NRA is the only organization with the funding and voice to be heard and listened to.

Every one of the states has bills aimed at tearing apart the constitution. For instance the story not only took the gentlemans 2nd amendment rights away for those that believe the 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizuressiezer of property wasn't protected in this instance either. I wouldn't be a bit surprized if his 1st amendment rights weren't threatened when he protested the police action.

This is the legislation we have to watch just here in Illinois. I probably can't even find all the federal bills and amendments.

http://www.isra.org/legislation/

Quirey your state and call, write OR email your state legislators and let them know your against the attack on the constitution. And like John said, he doesn't agree with everything NRA either. Another freedom we have, the freedom to agree to disagree! BUT THIS IS ONE FIGHT THATS NEED TO BE FOUGHT TOGETHER!
 
Mark,

I am shocked at how many people do not realize this is a nation wide problem.
If history repeats itself , we are doomed.

I was at my brother's in-laws house for my niece's birthday party and got into a heated discussion with his father-in-law. It got to the point that every adult in the house was getting involved in a loud heated argument. Thankfully most were with me and few against.

Some people just don't get it and never will. This is one of the problems with the "sheep" in the country. They believe what they are told and look no further. I guess I was wrong to him to run and hide with the rest of the flock instead of standing up for himself.
 
I'm going to start a new thread
"Are you an NRA member, why not, it's time you take action!"
lets see where it goes
 
NRA member. The way you vote matters. Seems like one side wants to control all aspects of life. This is no suprize, all the gun manufactures warned everyone to vote a certain way. Maybe the gunmakers will move to Ohio. We could use the unfilled promise of jobs. Support the NRA. Like my sister told my mother I want what the criminal has and maybe more. This has more to it than being able to hunt! John
 
It is really amazing how un-informed and nieve people are. You have the anti-gun people (like your father-in-law John) who really think new gun laws will stop gun violence? All you have to ask them is did it help in Chicago? Then respite the numbers for them, because they will not know. And add in Texas where it is the complete opposite.
Then the assault rifle ban... Where assault rifle deaths account for a fraction of gun murders. It's scary how Democrats & the media are pushing this issue hard. And I too believe registration is the first step towards confiscation. I've written my Representatives as well. But you generally get the same answer.
I'm a NRA member and joining Gun Owners of America as well.
 
What is amazing is I heard Gabby Giffords hubby bought an ar with high capacity clips. When he was caught he said he was having getting it. Off the market. I get it, guns for some others none. Just remember fire two shots in the air and you will be safe. It works with ducks. John
 
Barrett refused to sell 50 cals to california swat teams. They called and said they really needed them. He refused and told them they are illegal in california and call THEIR governor. Hope other manufacturers follow suit with law enforcement. Six guns may be issued again.
Join the NRA, call your Reps. Tell them they work for you, you vote...
 
Hi Ed -

Sorry to be slow on the uptake, but I don't get it.

If (a big 'if', perhaps), but if one looks past the slippery-slope argument of if-they-take-any-gun-they-will-take-all-guns, isn't this precisely the action that one might want law enforcement to take?

Here's what I am thinking. Often in this gun control debate, the logical point is made that banning certain weapons or accessories risks penalizing and potentially criminalizing the vast majority of gun owners who are perfectly law-abiding. Prohibitions generally and historically do not work (see the 18th and 21st Amendments), which is probably why tobacco and alcohol are 'controlled' but not 'banned'.

As an aside, I do find it ironic when people insist that the US Constitution is flawless and irrevocable, nay, "God given" when it has been amended 27 times over 200+ years and there is even an amendment to undo a previous amendment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution) But I digress....

Elsewhere, it is often argued that guns or 30-round clips are not culpable but rather individuals and, especially, crazy individuals are the danger. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, it has been argued that the hyper-efficient and powerful weaponry was not the issue but rather the problem is that this weapon ended up in the wrong hands.

So, if one chooses to not ban all people from owning all guns (or guns of a certain efficiency and power), then isn't it logical to proactively identify those that are of potential danger to themselves or others and impound their guns until such time as that danger is past? On a personal level and touching wood, if my father became senile or my brother-in-law became deeply depressed, you bet my next visit would end with me 'borrowing' ('confiscating'?) their hunting pieces. Wouldn't you?

So going back to the article above, isn't selective confiscation of guns from individuals who are "convicted felons, under a domestic violence restraining order, or deemed mentally unstable" an approach that at least begins to address the problem. Aren't these the proverbial 'bad guys with a gun'? From my perspective, this is different from the usual ban-all-guns nonsense that is spewed by one extreme side of this debate. And, yes, like any law enforcement action, this selective confiscation is subject to error, mis-use, and unfairness. This is why, unfortunately, courts exist.

My own opinion is that there is no sweeping solution to the 'gun problem' but ground will be gained or lost only in increments. I do not subscribe to the everything is okay so nothing needs to change concept that comes from the other extreme.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Respectfully and,
All the best.
Dan
 
DW,I read your post with interest.I'd like to know your definition of hyper-efficient,powerful weaponry.
 
Dan,
I agree with your premise and your post is very well put. I think that we as a country need to be able to talk about all options to stop the atrocities like the ones that you mentioned. I am a gun owning US citizen but I don't believe that all guns need to be available. I know my opinion may not be a popular one. I can see both sides of the coin and I feel I am pulled by both sides of the argument, BUT, I would much rather lean on the side of safety than to see another Sandy Hook.
 
Hi Chris -

Thanks for the reply.

Not to duck the question, but I really wasn't trying to draw a box around specific weapons when I used that phrase. I would say that, ex post, weapons that enabled the shooters in the two cases referenced to kill so many and so quickly were both 'efficient and powerful'. Those combinations of deranged individuals and modern firepower were tragic. My question to Ed was along the lines of why be concerned by California's attempt to separate the deranged (and domestically violent and criminal) from their firepower? It seems to me that is a good trade-off as opposed to ineffectual bans. From what I've seen, a lot of the knee-jerk 'gun control' measures have leaped to 'ban assault weapons' or 'ban semi-automatics' or what-have-you with the proponents not providing enough specifics for their proposed laws to be meaningful, implementable, or without unintended consequences (hey - you're not going to ban my favourite semi-auto duck gun, are you?!?).

Okay, I'll stop ducking. Personally - one man's opinion, no offence offered, etc. - I don't think that the recreational benefits of high-velocity, rapid fire, 'black guns', with high capacity mags outweigh the negatives when they are used in crime or to assault innocents. But I am also very cognizant that that sentence is highly qualitative, non-specific, and far, far from a definition that could be the basis for a law. I don't know the answer or even if there is an answer, but I do fear that the intractable extremes of the debate - 'Guns for all!' 'Ban all guns!' - will mean that there is no incremental improvement...

Take care,
Dan
 
Hi Dan,

I was born in Canada. St. Johns Newfoundland as a matter of fact. When I was 18 I had to sign up for selective service so I had to declare a citizenship which of course as a US citizen. My folks were American service people so I was raised in the US and consequently I didn't study Canada's history. Had no say in it so it wasn't something I needed knowledge of. I'm not an academic, physician nor lawyer so I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate. Out of respect I'll provide an answer based on my personal belief to your question. You have been very active on this subject so I'll assume you have studied the US Constitution. If so, besides the 2nd amendment you know there is the 4th amendment which provides protection from unlawful searches and seizures without compensation. With that in mind California's law is unconstitutional as I see it because the authorities entered his home and confiscated his firearms. We have a federal law called HIPPA. In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or the HIPAA was endorsed by the U.S. Congress. Now there are many physicians and healthcare professionals on this site that understand this far better than me but since my wife has been involved with managing SNP Medicare programs for health coverage companies and her job entails making sure her employers are following the federal guidelines I guess I can speak. HIPPA provides protection of a patients medical information from the public. The only time this information can be shared is when a physician deems a patient is a threat to themselves or others. As in the Colorado case the analyst reported that she felt there was a need for concern but her superiors failed to act. In the California case the nurse reportedly wrote on a form, patient may be suicidal. Now after some searching I have found no evidence the nurse had formal training that would prove she was educated to make this diagnosis. That doesn't mean she wasn't I just didn't find anymore on the issue. If she was admitted to the hospital while her medication was being adjusted the hospital would not have released her until a physician made a determination that she was not a threat to herself or others and there would be documentation to that order. What bothers me is the law does not offer the woman's husband the opportunity to remove HIS REGISTERD TO HIM firearms from her presents. If they were HER firearms and she was deemed to be in a state that she could harm herself or others then I would agree the firearms should be removed but by a competent family member if available not just confiscated my the local police with no provision for return. The major hole in the issue was when she was deemed stable there appears that he was not offered the opportunity to receive his guns back. You answered the question yourself. If you father was deemed incompetent to have firearms in the home you would remove them from the home just as if he were not competent to drive any longer you would take his keys. Wouldn't you be angry if the local constable came to your fathers home and confiscated the firearms with no provisions to return them to either him at such a time he was competent or at least to a family member? I'm sorry you are limited to 10 round clips. Myself, I don't have a need for a gun like that but I'll support the guy that likes those guns. There are a lot of things invented that are never offered to the public. Since it wasn't outlawed at inception it shouldn't be outlawed because all of a sudden someone decides it looks scary!
 
Hi Ed -

Sorry to be slow on the uptake, but I don't get it.

If (a big 'if', perhaps), but if one looks past the slippery-slope argument of if-they-take-any-gun-they-will-take-all-guns, isn't this precisely the action that one might want law enforcement to take?

Here's what I am thinking. Often in this gun control debate, the logical point is made that banning certain weapons or accessories risks penalizing and potentially criminalizing the vast majority of gun owners who are perfectly law-abiding. Prohibitions generally and historically do not work (see the 18th and 21st Amendments), which is probably why tobacco and alcohol are 'controlled' but not 'banned'.

As an aside, I do find it ironic when people insist that the US Constitution is flawless and irrevocable, nay, "God given" when it has been amended 27 times over 200+ years and there is even an amendment to undo a previous amendment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution) But I digress....

Elsewhere, it is often argued that guns or 30-round clips are not culpable but rather individuals and, especially, crazy individuals are the danger. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, it has been argued that the hyper-efficient and powerful weaponry was not the issue but rather the problem is that this weapon ended up in the wrong hands.

So, if one chooses to not ban all people from owning all guns (or guns of a certain efficiency and power), then isn't it logical to proactively identify those that are of potential danger to themselves or others and impound their guns until such time as that danger is past? On a personal level and touching wood, if my father became senile or my brother-in-law became deeply depressed, you bet my next visit would end with me 'borrowing' ('confiscating'?) their hunting pieces. Wouldn't you?

So going back to the article above, isn't selective confiscation of guns from individuals who are "convicted felons, under a domestic violence restraining order, or deemed mentally unstable" an approach that at least begins to address the problem. Aren't these the proverbial 'bad guys with a gun'? From my perspective, this is different from the usual ban-all-guns nonsense that is spewed by one extreme side of this debate. And, yes, like any law enforcement action, this selective confiscation is subject to error, mis-use, and unfairness. This is why, unfortunately, courts exist.

My own opinion is that there is no sweeping solution to the 'gun problem' but ground will be gained or lost only in increments. I do not subscribe to the everything is okay so nothing needs to change concept that comes from the other extreme.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Respectfully and,
All the best.
Dan
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. Yes the constitution has been amended. To do so requires a vote and a majority of the States to pass it. Doing it in congress is not the way this country works. What part about :shall not be infringed: is not clear. It is the only one on the original amendments that specifically says this. What do you suppose this means.

If they want to amend the constitution, do it and do it the constitutional way. Don't pass the stupid silly laws in congress that are infringing my rights.

My last question - please explain to me how any of these laws would have prevented Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theater and so on.

Mark W
 
Just to be clear gun being available to the citizens of the USA has absolutely nothing to do with recreation. Lets stop even bringing that up. Hunting, and shooting sports for that matter, could be banned tomorrow and we still have a use for and guaranteed right to them.

I know, I know, we are a modern world and our government will never turn on us, it's just not possible anymore. Every point in history has seen itself as the pinnacle of modern society. There are few governments that have survived as long as ours has... and pretty much no true democracies.
Am I hoarding, looking behind every bush thinking that big brother is coming? NOPE! I ain't going to war, I VOTE! I think most people buying now are caught up in hysteria. Just heard that the bans Obama wants are dead in the Senate and never had a chance in hell of getting brought up in the House. Did anyone buying ever look at the make up of the House?

Now there are a half dozen states that are enacting or seriously thinking about bans. That is where the fight is. I don't see NY or CA getting any better and I can not see why any of the jobs created by gun makers are still in some of those places.

btw When some kid whose been sitting in front of a TV playing war walks into someplace with a Benelli, a couple speed loaders and buckshot let's see how everyone suddenly protects their own hunting arm of choice. If you don't think cylinder choke and 00 buck won't wound and kill dozens you are kidding yourself. Benelli's autos were originally for and are still sold to militaries and law enforcement.
Armed people are a free people.

Mine and nearly all the founding fathers $.02,
Tim
 
My last question - please explain to me how any of these laws would have prevented Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theater and so on.
Click to expand...


They would not have. All of these nut-jobs would have found other weapons to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top