Laugh Out Loud Laugh Out Loud:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: NRA and Trump support California style confiscation.

  1. #16
    Senior Member jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    182 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But so long as it's the warrants process, so long as that's backed up by sworn oath or affirmation, and so long as that's part of the public courts process, it ought to pass constitutional muster.
    I am no legal expert, but as I said, I read the whole CA law on this. There is no requirement to swear an oath or affirmation and it's not a warrant. It is a type of restraining order. Basically the cops show up and serve you papers ordering you to turn over all your guns. If you refuse, they could then get a warrant to search your house and if they find any guns, you would be guilty of a felony for violating the court order to turn the guns over when they served the papers on you. Keep in mind, up to this point, you have had no due process and no proof or probably cause you have done anything wrong.

    BTW, courts have ruled that this kind of seizure of property does not violate 5A, because they are not "taking the property for public use without just compensation." It seems to be what is known as a regulatory seizure. They are not saying it is no longer your property. They are using a court order to deprive you of the use of it, with the idea that it will be eventually returned to you.

    I think where it crosses a line of unconstitutionality that has not been crossed before is that the protection order is all about what you might do, not what you've done. In current protection orders, you have to have done something, made threats, have a history, etc. This law specifically states that a criteria can me nothing more than you have bought guns or ammunition in the last six months. It says that in black and white.

    So let me ask you: Have you bought guns or ammo in the last six months? If you have, this were law in your jurisdiction and you have a close relative who wants to mess with you, you would be vulnerable.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  2. #17
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,800
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1030 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I read the whole CA law on this. There is no requirement to swear an oath or affirmation and it's not a warrant. It is a type of restraining order. Basically the cops show up and serve you papers ordering you to turn over all your guns. If you refuse, they could then get a warrant to search your house ...
    My point was about the initiation of such "protective orders" in the first place. They're based on something. So long as that something is sworn testimony or affirmation, and so long as the accused has been afforded an opportunity to face those accusers and put up a defense against such accusations before such a warrant (order) to seize the effects or persons, then it's effectively due process that we're familiar with. If not, then it wouldn't be.

    I'm uncertain what explicit forms of proof exist in, say, the particular law that California has implemented, where it allows for the accusers to show their evidence and whether it affords the accused any legitimate opportunity to challenge such accusations. Or whether it's all held in secret and is in fact a "kangaroo kourt" type deal.

    Uncertain whether any proposed "California-style order" process would be any different. Though, I suspect it wouldn't be. As folks have said previously, the devil's in the details.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  3. #18
    Senior Member chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Fl.
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    408 Post(s)
    ccw9mm if the FBI and DOJ lied to a judge to get Trump, I doubt the local authorities would hesitate to lie to swear out a warrant on you or I. Then where do you get the money fight them in court. Doesn't make sense spend thousands of dollars to fight an arrest and loss of a 4 or $500 gun.
    http://conservativeintel.com/2018/02...aign-official/
    Top leaders at the FBI and Department of Justice lied to a FISA court judge to obtain a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign official in October ..
    U.S. Army (Ret) 1953-1977 ‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’
    — Patrick Henry

  4. #19
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,800
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1030 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ccw9mm if the FBI and DOJ lied to a judge to get Trump, I doubt the local authorities would hesitate to lie to swear out a warrant on you or I. Then where do you get the money fight them in court. Doesn't make sense ...
    Yup. If folks are willing to lie up and down to get something pushed in court. (Which happens, of course.)

    But, that's the adversarial system we've got, with inherent checks and balances. If there's a better system of making accusations and defending against them, I'm sure folks would have tried it out by now.


    Again, IF the process that's followed pretty much mirrors the court/warrants process elsewhere, it's hard to call it a farce and unconstitutional. Again, too, I've no idea if the details of what's being roughly proposed would even look like the court/warrants process, but it damned well better since anything else is a circumvention of due process and the right to a trial with defense and facing one's accusers.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  5. #20
    Senior Member RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,994
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    397 Post(s)
    The problem with warrants, probable cause etc; is that they are being abused right and left of late with almost no recourse to the accused!

    The possibility of corruption in such a law is far to high.
    The government has demonstrated its unswerving ability to use the law or lack of to justify it's ends.

    In essence; the people don't trust the fed!

    How about; if they are going to write such a law..include a proviso.

    If the accused is found to be free of any guilt; the state will pay 10 million dollars!

    As someone well pointed out; being accused will force one to be at the mercy of the system if they are w/o financial power.
    If they do have some finanial where with all; it will probably break them defending against it.

    No sir; it will be a bad law if it comes to pass and will cause far more harm than good.
    "A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void"...Thomas Hobbes

  6. #21
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,800
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1030 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RightsEroding View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The problem with warrants, probable cause etc; is that they are being abused right and left of late with almost no recourse to the accused!

    The possibility of corruption in such a law is far to high.
    Yup.

    Which is why about the only support I'd give for any such thing is: a Grand Jury convened to indict a person for clear, manifest, dire threat to the community, based on evidence and sworn testimony, charged and defended in open court, via a jury trial, same as with any other indictment/charging/trial process, affording a person his/her most-vigorous defense, all costs to be paid for by the State making the charges, held to the highest possible standard given that it's the swiping of protected liberties that are being considered.

    If a person is convicted for, say, robbery or murder, that person is temporarily incarcerated and that black mark is placed upon the person's record. If the person has such a list of egregious threatening behaviors that, together, they amount to a clear and present danger of violence toward others that cannot be ignored, then it should go through the same essential process to prove it, with all the standard guards and protections and full-on defense. With the presumption of innocence, with full costs of proving it borne by the State.

    Could it be abused? Sure. But if done in that manner, it wouldn't be at any greater risk of abuse than exists now with the adversarial courts system.

    What I despise and fear is this secretive, he-said / she-said system of dung we have whereby someone can plead a case based on medical or financial or related bases and get a judge to agree ... at which point an entry gets made into a system and a person is stripped. All without an opportunity to face the accusers or the charges, all without much recourse except for begging via the rigged process concocted to make it as difficult as possible to get off such lists. So long as any such proposal is this sort of thing, it's an abomination and should be resisted by all. Sued out of existence, if any such thing does get passed. The NRA jumped on this FLA state thing, this past week, once it hit the books; likewise, the moment any such thing makes it to code/regulations/statutes, the GOA, SAF, NRA and everyone else ought to jump on it to crush it. That is, if our howling and logic can't sway our elected weenies' minds.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  7. #22
    G19 Slice11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    409
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    55 Post(s)
    Trump wrote The Art of The Deal where he said to make a successful negotiation, you have to learn what the other side REALLY wants.
    He also said the negotiation is not over until the final agreement is signed.

    Look at what he did with DACA. He met with the dimms on TV. Dianne Feinstein said "We want a clean DACA bill." Trump said "OK, we can do that". Other dimms added their wish list and Trumps said "Sure, add that to the bill." If you remember, DF hopped in her chair like a little girl finding out she was getting a pony for her birthday. All the media pundits messed their pants over what Trump had "agreed" to.

    And then, after they had changed their diapers, Trump said "in exchange, I want a fully funded border wall, an end to sanctuary cities and the deportation of all other illegal immigrants".
    The dimms exited the discussion.
    Trump exposed them as wanting amnesty without controls. He also gained the position that "they don't want DACA, I offered everything they wanted and they turned it down." Now progs are demonstrating outside dimms offices saying they sold them out.

    Same thing here.
    One condition Trump has floated is nationwide reciprocity for CW and an end to GFZ. He is drawing them out again and they keep falling for it.

    The negotiation is NOT over....
    Last edited by Slice11; March 13th, 2018 at 06:53 PM.
    "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of
    tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien Robespierre

  8. #23
    Senior Member RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,994
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    397 Post(s)
    [QUOTE=ccw9mm;252633]Yup.

    Which is why about the only support I'd give for any such thing is: a Grand Jury convened to indict a person for clear, manifest, dire threat to the community, based on evidence and sworn testimony, charged and defended in open court, via a jury trial, same as with any other indictment/charging/trial process, affording a person his/her most-vigorous defense, all costs to be paid for by the State making the charges, held to the highest possible standard given that it's the swiping of protected liberties that are being considered.

    /QUOTE]

    Yup. And that is not what is being proposed.
    "A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void"...Thomas Hobbes

  9. #24
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,943
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    265 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yup.

    Which is why about the only support I'd give for any such thing is: a Grand Jury convened to indict a person for clear, manifest, dire threat to the community, based on evidence and sworn testimony, charged and defended in open court, via a jury trial, same as with any other indictment/charging/trial process, affording a person his/her most-vigorous defense, all costs to be paid for by the State making the charges, held to the highest possible standard given that it's the swiping of protected liberties that are being considered.

    If a person is convicted for, say, robbery or murder, that person is temporarily incarcerated and that black mark is placed upon the person's record. If the person has such a list of egregious threatening behaviors that, together, they amount to a clear and present danger of violence toward others that cannot be ignored, then it should go through the same essential process to prove it, with all the standard guards and protections and full-on defense. With the presumption of innocence, with full costs of proving it borne by the State.

    Could it be abused? Sure. But if done in that manner, it wouldn't be at any greater risk of abuse than exists now with the adversarial courts system.

    What I despise and fear is this secretive, he-said / she-said system of dung we have whereby someone can plead a case based on medical or financial or related bases and get a judge to agree ... at which point an entry gets made into a system and a person is stripped. All without an opportunity to face the accusers or the charges, all without much recourse except for begging via the rigged process concocted to make it as difficult as possible to get off such lists. So long as any such proposal is this sort of thing, it's an abomination and should be resisted by all. Sued out of existence, if any such thing does get passed. The NRA jumped on this FLA state thing, this past week, once it hit the books; likewise, the moment any such thing makes it to code/regulations/statutes, the GOA, SAF, NRA and everyone else ought to jump on it to crush it. That is, if our howling and logic can't sway our elected weenies' minds.
    If LE and the judicial system could be trusted your lay out would be perfect my friend.

    But LE and the judiciary have proven regularly in the past and continue to prove they are readily corruptible and cannot be trusted.


    And the mental health field is nothing but slot of unproven and cannot be proven theory.

    Personally I can't, and won't support any law or any politician that gives le authority to disarm a person based on a guess of what they might do.

    Nor am I naive enough to think for one second 's law like that will not be corrupted and abused.

    Be very careful with this deeming someone a threat and disarming them before they have actually done something to lock them up for.

    Free to move about free to be armed.

    Supporting anything else is simply giving gov permission to come take your guns.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  10. #25
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,800
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1030 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RightsEroding View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yup.

    Which is why about the only support I'd give for any such thing is: a Grand Jury convened to indict a person for clear, manifest, dire threat to the community, based on evidence and sworn testimony, charged and defended in open court, via a jury trial, same as with any other indictment/charging/trial process, affording a person his/her most-vigorous defense, all costs to be paid for by the State making the charges, held to the highest possible standard given that it's the swiping of protected liberties that are being considered.
    Yup. And that is not what is being proposed.
    I've seen no details published, as of yet. Though, I suspect you're right. The anti's wouldn't miss a trick with this one. At minimum, they'd howl the "courts/convictions" method would be too slow. As though liberty's death is a small (or irrelevant) price to pay.

    Anyone got formal details, or "the" bill that exists that folks are going to be debating and voting on? (Haven't seen one, so far.)
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  11. #26
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,943
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    265 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slice11 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Trump wrote The Art of The Deal where he said to make a successful negotiation, you have to learn what the other side REALLY wants.
    He also said the negotiation is not over until the final agreement is signed.

    Look at what he did with DACA. He met with the dimms on TV. Dianne Feinstein said "We want a clean DACA bill." Trump said "OK, we can do that". Other dimms added their wish list and Trumps said "Sure, add that to the bill." If you remember, DF hopped in her chair like a little girl finding out she was getting a pony for her birthday. All the media pundits messed their pants over what Trump had "agreed" to.

    And then, after they had changed their diapers, Trump said "in exchange, I want a fully funded border wall, an end to sanctuary cities and the deportation of all other illegal immigrants".
    The dimms exited the discussion.
    Trump exposed them as wanting amnesty without controls. He also gained the position that "they don't want DACA, I offered everything they wanted and they turned it down." Now progs are demonstrating outside dimms offices saying they sold them out.

    Same thing here.
    One condition Trump has floated is nationwide reciprocity for CW and an end to GFZ. He is drawing them out again and they keep falling for it.

    The negotiation is NOT over....
    He has no authority to negotiate a right.

    All due respect I get very tired of excusing Trump for things he repeatedly calls for by claiming that's not what he wants.

    He wants all the gun control Congress will give him.
    He only will back off to the level they refuse to give him because they don't want to follow him out the door at election time.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  12. #27
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,800
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1030 Post(s)

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If LE and the judicial system could be trusted your lay out would be perfect my friend.

    But LE and the judiciary have proven regularly in the past and continue to prove they are readily corruptible and cannot be trusted.
    Anything gets abused, here and there, sure. No way to avoid it. All that can be done is to minimize that risk, within the obvious constraints available to a people in the formation of the "system" to go after justice.

    Okay, so what alternative method of justice (as a system) would make more sense, as compared to the adversarial system and separate judiciary we have now?

    If there's a more-certain way of guarding liberties and justice while maximizing the justice we do get, I've yet to hear of it.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  13. #28
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,943
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    265 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Anything gets abused, here and there, sure. No way to avoid it. All that can be done is to minimize that risk, within the obvious constraints available to a people in the formation of the "system" to go after justice.

    Okay, so what alternative method of justice (as a system) would make more sense, as compared to the adversarial system and separate judiciary we have now?

    If there's a more-certain way of guarding liberties and justice while maximizing the justice we do get, I've yet to hear of it.
    There is no peaceful way to change what happens with LE and the judiciary being for the most part overreaching lying covering up and corrupt.

    Which is why we mustn't allow any new law that further empowers either as both are far beyond any constitutional limit set for them.

    The only answer is to vote and constantly demand our reps strip powers away from them. Not add even more authority to what both already illegitimatly wield.
    Last edited by Ghost1958; March 13th, 2018 at 07:55 PM.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  14. #29
    G19 Slice11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    409
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    55 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He has no authority to negotiate a right.

    All due respect I get very tired of excusing Trump for things he repeatedly calls for by claiming that's not what he wants.

    He wants all the gun control Congress will give him.
    He only will back off to the level they refuse to give him because they don't want to follow him out the door at election time.
    I did an awful job of communicating, my apologizes. I do not believe for a moment that Trump has any intention of negotiating away any constitutional right.
    My DACA example was one where conservatives got their panties twisted over "betrayal" when Trump was only using a tactic to expose the opposition.

    Would you have believed 2 years ago that there would actually be a conversation about teachers having the option to carry in class?
    Or making GFZ obsolete? Lets let this play out.
    "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of
    tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien Robespierre

  15. #30
    Senior Member jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    182 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slice11 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I did an awful job of communicating, my apologizes. I do not believe for a moment that Trump has any intention of negotiating away any constitutional right.
    My DACA example was one where conservatives got their panties twisted over "betrayal" when Trump was only using a tactic to expose the opposition.

    Would you have believed 2 years ago that there would actually be a conversation about teachers having the option to carry in class?
    Or making GFZ obsolete? Lets let this play out.
    I agree. Trump "plays" the media and opposition all the time. At this point, he has not done a single thing against gun rights. It has all been talk and I think that talk is part of his game. I don't think you can evaluate what he says like you could evaluate what professional politicians generally say. He is thinking several moves ahead of the opposition.

    The Dems will put all his talk about an assault weapon ban, fixing NICs, bump stocks, etc. into a bill and then the Republicans will load it up with gun freedom expansions they want, like eliminating GFZs, national reciprocity, etc. and then it will be "the art of the deal." For Dems to get anything they want, they will have to compromise.

    And while I agree in principle with people who say there should never be any compromise on 2A, the reality is 2A is already way compromised. Even Hillary said she did not see 2A as an obstacle to gun control. What we need now is someone who can make deals for what we want without giving up too much.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •