california

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
SpartanEpoxies
House Repair Talk

Help Support House Repair Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
frodo

frodo

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
3,067
Reaction score
1,204
what part of the 2 words due process does the gov of california not understand?

you can not take someones property with out due process. land, cars, money, houses. non of it

a thing called the 4th amendment mentions it


th8Y0HLZH0.jpg
 
Last edited:
California considers The Constitution just some vague obsolete ramblings of a bunch of colonial right wingers.
 
what they need, is for them to take someones property. then have the CRAP sued out of them for a few BILLION dollars

then thrown n jail for theft
 
I'm gonna tell then I think you are unstable so they come take your guns to jail.
 
The law also says the weapons must be returned after 21 days, but what about non-registered guns? What about guns registered to someone else?
 
21 days ? the 4th amendment does not say anything about you "loosing" your rights for 21 days.

matter of fact it uses the words "SHALL NOT be violated" "NO warrent issued without probable cause"

If you believe they will be returned, I have a bridge I want to talk to you about. ;)

most of the time, they try to just give you the value THEY put on the firearm.


I am not only upset about firearms, BUT, this can and will bleed over to your car, house, money,
this must be stopped and stopped now

this BS is a very slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
They say for 21 days but I'd bet that 21 days will quickly turn to 60 days then to the discretion of the police. I wonder if they just expect someone to turn over their guns or will the government use search warrants and swat teams.
 
Honestly, this law you are referring to has been on the books for several years, and is in many more states than just California. It has to do with domestic violence, which trumps the 4th Amendment. It is considered exigent circumstances, which is one of the few allowable exemptions of the amendment.
 
havasu said:
Honestly, this law you are referring to has been on the books for several years, and is in many more states than just California. It has to do with domestic violence, which trumps the 4th Amendment. It is considered exigent circumstances, which is one of the few allowable exemptions of the amendment.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with taking guns from felons,

I have a problem "BIG" "HUGE" problem with some pissed off girlfriend
walking into the police station saying Havasu is a danger to her and others, because you BOINGED her best friend

DUE PROCESS..prove I am unstable, NOT I prove I am not
 
From what I read, it was just signed into law effective this new year.
 
frodo said:
I have no problem with taking guns from felons,

I have a problem "BIG" "HUGE" problem with some pissed off girlfriend
walking into the police station saying Havasu is a danger to her and others, because you BOINGED her best friend

DUE PROCESS..prove I am unstable, NOT I prove I am not
Click to expand...

With your scenario, the burden of proof is removed from law enforcement and squarely rests on the pissed off girlfriend. If she is found to have lied, then she is the one you sue, not law enforcement.

The bottom line is that law enforcement still has to have some reasonable cause to believe that what was said was or possible could have happened. (that part is still clear as mud to many folks)
 
beachguy005 said:
From what I read, it was just signed into law effective this new year.
Click to expand...

Beach, you are correct. This specific law was just signed into law, however there are many similar laws in the books nearly as stringent.
 
havasu said:
Beach, you are correct. This specific law was just signed into law, however there are many similar laws in the books nearly as stringent.
Click to expand...

due process, this is the first time they are trying and go around due process.


here is how I see it unfolding.

girlfriend gets pissed, signs a bogus complaint.

the police investigate complaint, talk to you, see where your head is at. then, if you are a wacko,,
exogent circumstance comes into play.

not, girl friend gets pissed off, signs papers, swat team kicks in your door shoots dog,


all on the word of a pissed off girlfriend, or weird *** neighbor

because you parked in his spot
 
Last edited:
I retired six years ago, but I remember laws in the books that forced us to remove any and all weapons from the house if the spouse, common law, or cohabitating adult had a fear of the other person using the weapons against them. We needed to book the weapons into temporary custody for 5 days. See, this isn't really a new law.
 
havasu said:
http://www.purpleberets.org/violence_new_law.html

Look at SB218, which has been in effect since the year 2000.
Click to expand...

The new law isn't that law. The new law allows for the police to execute a search warrant for guns and ammo on your property just because someone thinks you might hurt yourself. Any family member that doesn't like you owning a weapon could simply call the police and say they heard you comment that you might hurt yourself. True or not, then you as the gun owner need to prove you're ok. While there are other laws on the books, they usually go into effect after an event. This law is like giving you a speeding ticket before you even get in your car just because someone heard you were in a hurry.
 
beachguy005 said:
The new law isn't that law. The new law allows for the police to execute a search warrant for guns and ammo on your property just because someone thinks you might hurt yourself. Any family member that doesn't like you owning a weapon could simply call the police and say they heard you comment that you might hurt yourself. True or not, then you as the gun owner need to prove you're ok. While there are other laws on the books, they usually go into effect after an event. This law is like giving you a speeding ticket before you even get in your car just because someone heard you were in a hurry.
Click to expand...


exactly the point i am trying to make

What Officer Havasu is saying, is after he was called to a domestic dispute.

he determined one of the individuals was a threat to others.

HE, the officer, determined that it would be safer to remove any weapons.



this law, some crack headed pissed off ex girlfriend can just make a call.
and the swat team kicks in your door shoots your dog, steals your stuff

I just wish the cops would say, we will not enforce a law against the constitution.
someone is going to be shot, citizen is protecting his rights, cop is doing his job,
recipe for disaster
 
These idiots are all talk and no action. Once they realize they will lose all federal funding with trying to remove themselves from the union, it will go away rather quickly.

Oh, more breaking news from the great State of California....

TARZANA — Rapper Chief Keef was in custody today after being detained in Tarzana in connection with a home invasion robbery that happened last week.

Chief Keef, whose real name is Keith Cozart, was accused by his former music producer, Ramsay Tha Great, of entering his home with several others while armed and snatching valuables.

WTF is this all about. Is this code talk? Is Chief Keef really gunna hurt Ramsay the Great? Who really gives a crap? Gawd Damn, I'm too old to read this crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top