Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/25/2002 7:10:50 PM EDT
By Gary Delsohn -- Bee Capitol Bureau [url=http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/5697710p-6670909c.html]Sacramento Bee[/url] Published 2:15 a.m. PST Tuesday, December 24, 2002 SAN FRANCISCO -- Dressed in riot gear, six special agents from the California Department of Justice met in a Fisherman's Wharf office here the other day -- it's three floors above tourists and Christmas shoppers -- to plot their latest gun raid. Ignatius Chinn, supervisor for the Sunday-before-Christmas mission, told his men to go easy. They were after firearms they believed a 42-year-old man with a history of violence was keeping illegally. But they wanted to do it without a fuss. Keep your guns down, he told the agents. Try not to excite anyone. He's got five daughters living inside there. Knock on his door and let's hope he cooperates. "If not," Chinn added, "we'll knock it down and we're going in anyway." It was all part of a new California program -- the nation's first -- wherein state agents try to identify some of the estimated 170,000 firearms registered to owners who later run afoul of the law and are no longer allowed to possess weapons. Even the National Rifle Association supported the bill when it was debated in the Legislature last year, but a lawyer for the organization now questions whether the law is being enforced too broadly. Among his concerns: Gun owners can lose their weapons if they have temporary restraining orders imposed on them by the courts in domestic violence cases -- even if they're not convicted. "The biggest problem with these raids," said Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, "is that they net as many dogs as they do wolves. You have to make a distinction between the felon and someone involved in a domestic violence dispute who may not even be convicted." Agents and other Justice Department officials say the program targets only those with bonafide violent pasts and that no law-abiding citizens are losing their guns if they are legal and registered properly.
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:11:39 PM EDT
When gun owners who show up on the so-called "armed and prohibited" list don't hand over their firearms voluntarily, agents get search warrants, seize the weapons anyway and often get local prosecutors to file charges. On more than one occasion, they've knocked down doors, stormed through houses, confiscated dozens of guns and rifles and made multiple arrests. The target of this San Francisco raid, a 42-year-old car dealer who'd been accused of beating his wife but found not guilty when she recanted her complaint, wasn't in his tidy green bungalow near Balboa Park when agents showed up with their own shotguns and battering ram. After talks with his wife and a subsequent call to the man at his job, where the agents showed up unannounced, he agreed to give up at least three assault-style weapons. Ten days earlier, during a similar encounter in Sacramento, agents confronted a 32-year-old man on probation for a past felony weapons conviction and struck gold. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer said agents confiscated two sawed-off shotguns, three unregistered assault pistols, three unregistered assault rifles, 18 other firearms, more than 460 electric matches, large amounts of ammunition, a 37 mm grenade launcher and shells, 20 mm shells and two multiburst trigger devices designed to fire multiple rounds with every trigger pull. The Sacramento Police Department's bomb squad was called in when agents also found an explosive device among the suspect's weapons cache. Hallye Jordan, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the man is facing at least 29 weapons-related charges. "The individuals we're going after have a violent past or they been held for mental problems that make them a threat to themselves or others," said Randy Rossi, head of the Justice Department's firearms division. "The vast majority of people we're going after have multiple violations that make it illegal for them to possess firearms. We've had some who've been committed against their will for mental health problems as many as eight times." So far, since starting the new program in July, agents have arrested 24 so-called "armed and prohibited" persons and seized 259 firearms. Those numbers would likely skyrocket once the Justice Department can find $4 million to fund its new firearms database called for in legislation sponsored last year by Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga and signed into law in October 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis. The bill passed both houses of the Legislature without a single dissenting vote. Once the law is made fully operational, the program would work like this: A new database would include names of all registered handgun owners who subsequently were convicted of a felony or misdemeanor spousal abuse. If a restraining order is filed and not removed, a gun owner could also land on the prohibited list. The list also would include people who sought to purchase new guns from registered dealers and were turned down because of something in their criminal background. Those people would be contacted and told they now were banned from possessing weapons. If the guns were otherwise legal and they cooperated, no charges would be filed and the weapons would be turned over to Justice Department agents and, in most cases, eventually destroyed. Those who didn't cooperate or had illegal guns, such as assault weapons, would be searched and charged if firearms were found.
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:12:09 PM EDT
Police and other law enforcement officers could also tap into the database and know within seconds if someone were both a registered owner and legally prohibited from having a firearm. Because the Legislature didn't add funding when the bill was passed, Justice Department has yet to set up the database. It has been relying primarily on calls from gun shops that deny a sale due to something criminal in a customer's background against a check of permanent state records of all registered owners of handguns. "Right now we're identifying the worst of the worst," said Jordan, the Justice Department spokeswoman. "We have limited resources. Until we get some money, we're going at this at the best pace we can." In July 2001, when the Legislature was considering the issue, the NRA included its signature on letters of support that were also signed by California prosecutors, police and sheriff's groups and handgun control advocates. "Without this critical information," the letters said, "public and officer safety will be jeopardized by allowing these armed and prohibited individuals to possess these handguns." But in an interview Monday, Michel, the NRA and gun-rights activist, took strong exception to the program. "What Lockyer's doing is painting it and spinning it as if these are all bad guys they're going after but that's not always the case," said Michel. For instance, someone who has a temporary restraining order filed against him in a spousal dispute may not be someone who should lose his otherwise legally registered weapon, Michel said. In the San Francisco case, the target's wife obtained a temporary restraining order after she alleged that he physically abused her, and it was never canceled, agents said, despite the fact the man and woman have reconciled and are living together. "The first move of every woman in a divorce is to get a TRO," Michel said. "It's a strategic advantage in a divorce proceeding." Michel said convicted felons should be made to give up their weapons, as state law requires, but non-felons need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Rossi, the Justice Department firearms chief, called Michel's statement "one of ignorance." For one thing, according to the agents involved in the San Francisco raid, their target had "a violent past but no convictions." Plus, he allegedly possessed illegal assault weapons. "This is a program the NRA supported," Rossi said. "It's their mantra that we should enforce existing gun laws and that's what this program does. How they can say that without having an idea of who we're going after is really too much for me."
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:18:08 PM EDT
Yep, gun registration is the way to go! Gotta make sure all those evil people who have NEVER BEEN CONVICTED are rounded up! The NRA is our friend!
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:20:22 PM EDT
Guilty till proven innocent.. what a bunch of bullsh*t!!! if I was in their shoes I would just give my weapons to a family member till I got things cleared up. FREE
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:26:29 PM EDT
Sheesh...what a stinking crock of sh!t! I personally don't agree with the law that deprives you of firearms ownership for anything short of a felony CONVICTION. Certainly it's not right to deprive that right over a RESTRAINING ORDER. But...supposing you were to have such a restraining order placed on you, would you be legally OK if you were to turn over your firearms to a third party for safe keeping, like your attorney or a licensed firearms dealer, or for that matter, somebody else? Even the local police, on the condition that they are returned immediately and without hassle when and if the restraining order is cancelled? CJ
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:43:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:46:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:55:29 PM EDT
Ever read Unintended Consequences?
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 8:41:32 PM EDT
Gotta love this state.
So far, since starting the new program in July, agents have arrested 24 so-called "armed and prohibited" persons and seized 259 firearms. Those numbers would likely skyrocket once the Justice Department can find $4 million to fund its new firearms database called for in legislation sponsored last year by Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga and signed into law in October 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis. The bill passed both houses of the Legislature without a single dissenting vote.
View Quote
And things are only looking up. [:D] Good thing our state has a lot of extra money to fund this stuff.
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 8:50:24 PM EDT
this is depressing
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 9:00:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 2:07:31 AM EDT
WTF is an "assault pistol"?
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 2:51:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 2:54:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 2:57:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: Sheesh...what a stinking crock of sh!t! I personally don't agree with the law that deprives you of firearms ownership for anything short of a felony CONVICTION. Certainly it's not right to deprive that right over a RESTRAINING ORDER. But...supposing you were to have such a restraining order placed on you, would you be legally OK if you were to turn over your firearms to a third party for safe keeping, like your attorney or a licensed firearms dealer, or for that matter, somebody else? Even the local police, on the condition that they are returned immediately and without hassle when and if the restraining order is cancelled? CJ
View Quote
Generally, yes. Regardless of state laws, federal law (Lautenberg) bars possession of firearms by persons subject to "Domestic Violence" restraining orders. There is due process in this requirement; you have to be allowed hearing before anything beyond a "temporary" order is granted, and you can appeal the decision. Firearms can be transferred to another party. Probabaly best to go through a lawyer. I would not turn them in to a local PD because the local PD could confiscate them if the whole affair ends with a DV conviction, and if you transferred them to your lawyer or another person, they could at least sell them for you. ATF's position (and our local prosecutor's one) is that if a person prohibited for DV convictions wants their otherwise legal weapons transferred to a legal third party, that is generally permissible. This law effects everyone, including cops, and many LEOs have gotten stuck on a desk for extended periods of time because they got caught in a nasty divorce with a liberal judge who sides with the wife.
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 3:12:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 3:57:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wetidlerjr: WTF is an "assault pistol"?
View Quote
TEC9 I guess, and the HK Mark 23 because of the threaded barrel.
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:01:29 AM EDT
Ignatius Chinn, supervisor for the Sunday-before-Christmas mission, told his men to go easy. They were after firearms they believed a 42-year-old man with a history of violence was keeping illegally.
View Quote
NO convictions......
Even the National Rifle Association supported the bill when it was debated in the Legislature last year, but a lawyer for the organization now questions whether the law is being enforced too broadly. Among his concerns: Gun owners can lose their weapons if they have temporary restraining orders imposed on them by the courts in domestic violence cases -- even if they're not convicted.
View Quote
First they support the bill, then they're against it. When are some of you going to take off the blinders?? NRA supports and in many case's helps WRITE anti-freedom legislation, then will turn around and use's it for fund- raising..... Can you say "Liberty Whore"??
"The biggest problem with these raids," said Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, "is that they net as many dogs as they do wolves. You have to make a distinction between the felon and someone involved in a domestic violence dispute who may not even be convicted."
View Quote
They're all surprised?? They supported the freakin' bill!!!
Agents and other Justice Department officials say the program targets only those with bonafide violent pasts and that no law-abiding citizens are losing their guns if they are legal and registered properly.
View Quote
WITH NO CONVICTIONS!!
When gun owners who show up on the so-called "armed and prohibited" list don't hand over their firearms voluntarily, agents get search warrants, seize the weapons anyway and often get local prosecutors to file charges.
View Quote
Resist, and you will die......
The target of this San Francisco raid, a 42-year-old car dealer [red]who'd been accused of beating his wife but found not guilty when she recanted her complaint[/red], wasn't in his tidy green bungalow near Balboa Park [red]when agents showed up with their own shotguns and battering ram.[/red]
View Quote
Ten days earlier, during a similar encounter in Sacramento, agents confronted a 32-year-old man on probation for a past felony weapons conviction and struck gold.
View Quote
In Oregon, if you are caught driving suspended while on probation for another driving offense, you are charged with a felony.
"The individuals we're going after have a violent past or they been held for mental problems that make them a threat to themselves or others," said Randy Rossi, head of the Justice Department's firearms division."
View Quote
Oh, like the car dealer with no convictions..
In July 2001, when the Legislature was considering the issue, the NRA included its signature on letters of support that were also signed by California prosecutors, police and sheriff's groups and handgun control advocates. "Without this critical information," the letters said, "public and officer safety will be jeopardized by allowing these armed and prohibited individuals to possess these handguns." But in an interview Monday, Michel, the NRA and gun-rights activist, took strong exception to the program. "What Lockyer's doing is painting it and spinning it as if these are all bad guys they're going after but that's not always the case," said Michel.
View Quote
And when you supported the bill, you didn't see it coming, right?? [rolleyes]
Rossi, the Justice Department firearms chief, called Michel's statement "one of ignorance."
View Quote
Ignorance?? I don't think so, NRA knows EXACTLY what they are doing....
"This is a program the NRA supported," Rossi said. "It's their mantra that we should enforce existing gun laws and that's what this program does. How they can say that without having an idea of who we're going after is really too much for me."
View Quote
NRA members, brace yourselves for the fund-raising letters. This story illustrates what I've been maintaining all along. NRA cares not for the 2nd Amendment. They help pass the laws, then use 'em for fund-raising. [b]NRA NEEDS GUN CONTROL TO EXIST!![/b] Keep making excuses for them, and keep sending them your $$, and keep wondering when the knock, (or knock down), will come to your door. Liberty Whores!!!!!!! [url]http://www.nrawol.org/[/url]
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:05:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:08:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2002 4:13:35 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
the National Rifle Association supported the bill when it was debated in the Legislature last year
View Quote
So what does my $35 a year buy me?
View Quote
So, I can hold [b]you[/b] accountable for whatever The Bush administration does since you voted for him, right? [red]If you read further, it plainly shows that this is [b]not[/b] what the [b]NRA[/b] signed on for. The NRA supports legislation that [b]prevents[/b] firearm ownership among [b]VIOLENT CRIMINALS.[/b][/red] Do [b]you[/b] find something [b]wrong[/b] with preventing violent criminals from the RKBA?
View Quote
Check again 82nd....
[red]Michel said convicted felons should be made to give up their weapons, as state law requires, but non-felons need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.[/red]
View Quote
NRA does NOT say "violent" felons, they say "CONVICTED' felons, AND non-felons! Check your state, and see all the felonies that have NOTHING to do with violence...
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:30:26 AM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO -- Dressed in riot gear, six special agents from the California Department of Justice met in a Fisherman's Wharf office here the other day -- it's three floors above tourists and Christmas shoppers -- to plot their latest gun raid. Ignatius Chinn, supervisor for the Sunday-before-Christmas mission, told his men to go easy. They were after firearms they believed a 42-year-old man with a history of violence was keeping illegally. But they wanted to do it without a fuss. Keep your guns down, he told the agents. Try not to excite anyone. He's got five daughters living inside there. Knock on his door and let's hope he cooperates. "If not," Chinn added, "we'll knock it down and we're going in anyway."
View Quote
Am I wrong in reading that a little differently. "We know he has kids inside, but if he doesn't act like a sheep and roll over, f*ck the girls, he brought on himself."
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:42:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:45:36 AM EDT
So where is the "You've got nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong" crowd? Never Register. Never. So where is the line in the sand?
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:48:18 AM EDT
It's whatever gun they want to ban this week.
Originally Posted By wetidlerjr: WTF is an "assault pistol"?
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:49:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: So where is the "You've got nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong" crowd? Never Register. Never. So where is the line in the sand?
View Quote
Hey! [b] If you've done nothing wrong you've got nuttin to worry about![/b] ...But...but...but in this case you do because they get yo' shit without a conviction!
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:51:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist: It's whatever gun they want to ban this week.
Originally Posted By wetidlerjr: WTF is an "assault pistol"?
View Quote
View Quote
Well since they already have "assault shotguns" they very well can't leave out the pistol.
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 5:42:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 5:48:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 6:24:34 AM EDT
The target of this San Francisco raid, a 42-year-old car dealer who'd been accused of beating his wife but found not guilty when she recanted her complaint, wasn't in his tidy green bungalow near Balboa Park when agents showed up with their own shotguns and battering ram. After talks with his wife and a subsequent call to the man at his job, where the agents showed up unannounced, he agreed to give up at least three assault-style weapons.
View Quote
So, let's get this straight. He's found "not guilty" because the "ho" recants her complaint, but he still "agreed" to give up three of his weapons. With how many guns to his head???? This is spooky shit, and it's only gonna get worse. Take a look at the "Patriot" act (gag me, talk about Orwellian double-speak) which was written long before 9-11 provided an excuse to ram it through with nobody except Ron Paul actually reading it, but almost all of them voting for it like the good little legislative sheeple they are. We're fucked...
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 6:47:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan: Vote with your feet. I wouldn't take a job in CA no matter how much they pay. Great location, I am 4th generation btw. But I won't live there. If CA wants to ban gun-ownership than gun owners shouldn't live there. The rising crime rate, riots, further erosion of constitutional rights, it is only a question of time before the state property tax is jacked up 300%. The state is decaying and will die. Business taxes are going to be jacked up. They will drive all industry and jobs out. Who do you think they will make up the difference with? Illegal immigrants? Nope, everyone with a job. California is going to be the most screwed up state in 10 years. Defense dollars will be gone, hi tech will be gone, water for agriculture will be gone (probably to water the freeways in LA) [red]Live free or die![/red]
View Quote
Need to change that to "live free or move!"
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 7:35:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Skibane: "If not," Chinn added, "we'll knock it down and we're going in anyway."
View Quote
LOL! I have a surprise for mr. chinn.
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 7:50:04 AM EDT
Keep your guns down, he told the agents. Try not to excite anyone. He's got five daughters living inside there. Knock on his door and let's hope he cooperates. "If not," Chinn added, "we'll knock it down and we're going in anyway."
View Quote
I'm usually a quiet and reserved person, but when I read something like this it makes my blood boil. How can they blatantly put 5 young girls in danger to confiscate guns? It goes to show these people have no conscience.I guess they can't wait until the girls are in school.If the girls get killed and the their objective is made it's all ok as long as the evil guns are confiscated. This is a dangerous time in our country and it will only get worse....
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 9:42:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:
Keep your guns down, he told the agents. Try not to excite anyone. He's got five daughters living inside there. Knock on his door and let's hope he cooperates. "If not," Chinn added, "we'll knock it down and we're going in anyway."
View Quote
I'm usually a quiet and reserved person, but when I read something like this it makes my blood boil. How can they blatantly put 5 young girls in danger to confiscate guns? It goes to show these people have no conscience.I guess they can't wait until the girls are in school.If the girls get killed and the their objective is made it's all ok as long as the evil guns are confiscated. This is a dangerous time in our country and it will only get worse....
View Quote
It looks better for the cameras to have young children cring in the after math.. a. See we are doing it for the children ---- NOw increase our budget!!! or if the kids are hurt.. b. See what this man was willing to put his chhildren thru? < geez...bastard must of taught he was a free man or something..> We can only prevent things like this < as kids dirty crieing faces are on the screen > with a bigger budget.. its a win -- win
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 9:49:16 AM EDT
If you haven't, read [url=www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe155-20020107-03.html]"I Just Don't Want to Die Alone"[/url] Excerpt:
"Why do you do that? What would you USE it for?" My fellow cubicle-dweller is an interesting fellow. Former Special Forces grunt, son of a semi-famous actor. He burned out after being seriously injured in the army, and bummed around Asia doing god-knows-what before coming back to America. Then he bootstrapped his way to a fairly good tech writing job at the Silicon Valley branch of a Japanese robotics company. I feel a certain kinship with him. We've both made some serious mistakes for which we're paying some very serious prices. He's single; I'm divorced. He's cynical as hell and so am I. Neither of us has many friends outside work. I like him. And that's why I told him how I spend most of my weekends. And that's why, when he asked his question, I gave an honest answer. An answer he found disturbing and offensive. I should have just shut up, or lied.
View Quote
I tend to agree with his outlook.
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 9:53:13 AM EDT
I was wondering that same thing...
Originally Posted By wetidlerjr: WTF is an "assault pistol"?
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 10:26:17 AM EDT
More info here... [url]http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/sb950frm.pdf[/url]
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 10:36:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Skibane: Even the National Rifle Association supported the bill when it was debated in the Legislature last year, but a lawyer for the organization now questions whether the law is being enforced too broadly. Among his concerns: Gun owners can lose their weapons if they have temporary restraining orders imposed on them by the courts in domestic violence cases -- even if they're not convicted. "The biggest problem with these raids," said Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, "is that they net as many dogs as they do wolves. You have to make a distinction between the felon and someone involved in a domestic violence dispute who may not even be convicted." Agents and other Justice Department officials say the program targets only those with bonafide violent pasts and that no law-abiding citizens are losing their guns if they are legal and registered properly. . . . Michel said convicted felons should be made to give up their weapons, as state law requires, but non-felons need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Rossi, the Justice Department firearms chief, called Michel's statement "one of ignorance." For one thing, according to the agents involved in the San Francisco raid, their target had "a violent past but no convictions." Plus, he allegedly possessed illegal assault weapons. [red]"This is a program the NRA supported," Rossi said. "It's their mantra that we should enforce existing gun laws and that's what this program does.[/red] How they can say that without having an idea of who we're going after is really too much for me."
View Quote
[b]EVERYONE'S guns have already been banned, they're just taking their time rounding them up.[/b] Eventually you'll break one of their Draconian laws and the Feds will no-knock on your door and cart off your guns because you got in a bar fight 30yrs ago because you got a DUI 20yrs ago or because you signed your "standard" divorce papers or because you called a mugger a "ni@@er" once or simply because "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." [b]Incremental gun confiscation is already underway. House-by-house, slowly but surely, one gun-owner at at time.[/b] [b]And can I get another [red]"FUCK THE NRA AMEN?[/red][/b][pissed]
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 1:30:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2002 1:31:39 PM EDT by fizassist]
When they get to my house, the going will be neither slow nor sure. [b] [red]Cold[/red] Dead [blue]Hands[/blue]. [/b]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]Incremental gun confiscation is already underway. House-by-house, slowly but surely, one gun-owner at at time.[/b] [b]And can I get another [red]"FUCK THE NRA AMEN?[/red][/b][pissed]
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 2:21:40 PM EDT
What is a 37mm grenade launcher? I thought those things could not accept explosive ordance, Thats why you can order them. They are Flare launchers. Why would the Police lie? Since when were Hellfire's and Tac-triggers illegal? Is it some sort of obscure cA law? I cant imagine losing my RKBA over a little POS like a Hellfire trigger. CA=Police State America is already lossed
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 2:39:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2002 3:55:42 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]Incremental gun confiscation is already underway. House-by-house, slowly but surely, one gun-owner at at time.[/b] [b]And can I get another [red]"FUCK THE NRA AMEN?[/red][/b][pissed]
View Quote
Oh, yes indeedy!! Amen, AND amen..Preach it brother!!
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:19:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 11:47:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2002 11:49:25 PM EDT by Papertargets]
the program targets only those with bonafide violent pasts and that no law-abiding citizens are losing their guns if they are legal and registered properly. When gun owners who show up on the so-called "armed and prohibited" list [b]don't hand over their firearms voluntarily[/b], agents get search warrants...
View Quote
People here have been discussing many issues: Issue 1. The law. Issue 2. Enforcement of the law after information that a law is broken. Issue 3. The "hype" in the article. Regarding the law. If you don't agree with it, please just lobby to change it. Regarding enforcement. Some of our countrymen have the tough job of enforcing the law against an armed lawbreaker. In hindsight, the approach in the article now seems questionable. But please remember:
When gun owners who show up on the so-called "armed and prohibited" list [b]don't hand over their firearms voluntarily[/b], agents get search warrants...
View Quote
In foresight, how would you approach the task if it were your job? Tactical said:
I guess they can't wait until the girls are in school
View Quote
. I couldn't agree more. For those who say things that sound, even vaguely, like advocating breaking a law, I disagree. Furthermore, I am disappointed whenever I see someone here say such things. edited to make board codes work
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 12:47:59 AM EDT
So, sylvan and all the other live free or die folks, you are doing that right? Did you get an M16 yet? I'm sure you wouldn't register it, cuz that wouldn't be living free, of course. Ok, if not that, any post-ban guns? With all the preban features you want right? No? Got a drivers license? Why? As to the "Don't register" crowd...yeah right. Here when you buy a gun, they have your name, address, etc if needed. All pistols are registered automatically. So unless you haven't bought a gun, you are already registered.
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 3:17:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2002 3:18:48 AM EDT by LocknLoaded]
problem is this may not only be in Kalifornia. think about who gets voted in 2004.
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 3:58:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn: Horse shit. I'm upgrading my NRA membership in the coming year - I'm already a Life Member. If you believe that the NRA is all for taking weapons out of the hands of non-convicted persons, then you should familiarize yourself with the Art Bell radio program.
View Quote
View Quote
As was pointed out in the article, the bill nra endorsed is doing just that. Nice way for nra to raise funds from suckers........
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 4:18:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist: It's whatever gun they want to ban this week.
Originally Posted By wetidlerjr: WTF is an "assault pistol"?
View Quote
View Quote
That's what I thought it would be.
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 4:27:55 AM EDT
[zombie-like state mode on]WE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW...WE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW...WE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW...THE GOVERNMENT IS OUR FRIEND...THE GOVERNMENT IS OUR FRIEND...THE GOVERNMENT IS OUR FRIEND...EVERY LAW IS A GOOD LAW...EVERY LAW IS A GOOD LAW... EVERY LAW IS A GOOD LAW...THE GOVERNMENT IS DISARMING CRIMINALS, NOT US...THE GOVERNMENT IS DISARMING CRIMINALS, NOT US...THE GOVERNMENT IS DISARMING CRIMINALS, NOT US[zombie-like state mode off]
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 4:52:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 6:18:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
the National Rifle Association supported the bill when it was debated in the Legislature last year
View Quote
So what does my $35 a year buy me?
View Quote
So, I can hold [b]you[/b] accountable for whatever The Bush administration does since you voted for him, right? If you read further, it plainly shows that this is [b]not[/b] what the [b]NRA[/b] signed on for. The NRA supports legislation that [b]prevents[/b] firearm ownership among [b]VIOLENT CRIMINALS.[/b] Do [b]you[/b] find something [b]wrong[/b] with preventing violent criminals from the RKBA?
View Quote
In reading your last line, I would guess that you would have supported GCA 68.
Top Top