California Starts No Notice Gun Confiscation On January 1

california_uber_alles

Not good.

Not good at all.

24 responses to “California Starts No Notice Gun Confiscation On January 1

  1. Guess I better stay on the old woman’s good side, huh?

  2. This is why you hide some weapons offsite.

    • I think, if you are not willing to shoot the uniformed representatives of the State when they first come to disarm you, then you will never shoot at all. These “hidden weapons”, as someone else here noted recently, will be puzzled over by future archeologists

      • Do you thin they will notify you that they intend to confiscate your weapons? Will you shoot the first patrol officer that comes to your door? When the SWAT team has surrounded your house, you don’t control the situation. You will die alone or together with your family.

        • They are drooling in anticipation for the first patriot to violently oppose a SWAT raid. It will receive national news attention and justify increased restrictions.

          • Lost Patrol

            That is true what you say. However if we do not bring it to a head now while there are folks still alive that understand our culture and our most precious documents … with the new millennia kids and the input of all the refugees, it may be a hundred years before there is a revolt, but by then it will be too late for the numbers that still have a remembering will be too small to effect anything. It is our generation that now stands in the breech. Good bad or indifferent, if not us then who?

  3. Not good at all!
    Learn to kill bugs!
    as in vermin, pests, parasites, etc.

  4. Once you’ve been involuntarily committed ” to analyze you for your own good “, won’t that effect you getting your existing weapons back or more in the future? I believe some states won’t allow you to have firearms if you’ve been voluntarily commited.
    On the other side of this, some definitely will not go quietly.

    • If you’ve been involuntarily committed, you cannot legally purchase a firearm in any State.

      This CA law appears to say that guns may be seized (sans due process) if someone(?) believes that — by reason of your (presumed) mental instability — your ownership of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself****, or another” .

      Of course, IF — by reason of mental instability — you pose a danger of harm to yourself or another; THEN, you may be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility and, therefore, unable to legally purchase or possess firearms.

      The process and length of detention vary by state; but in most states, a doctor who has “examined” you must testify at a hearing (in your absence), that you should be committed. In some states, a doctor’s “say so” is unnecessary, and a Social Worker (read: “State-employed bureaucrat”) may provide the legal testimony enabling the involuntary commitment of any person (read: “crazy-person”, OR “gun-owning-American-citizen”).

      And, should you be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, you WILL receive treatment (read: “pharmaceuticals”, or “crazy-pills”, or “strait-jacket-and-thorazine-injection”).

      Also, an “emergency detention” is allowed based on the suspicion of a police officer that you are mentally ill and that you pose a “substantial risk” of harm to yourself or others.

      I don’t know California’s laws on the matter, but I think that it wouldn’t be difficult for most WRSA readers to see how the medical/legal process could be manipulated to allow for nearly any outcome — including loss of 2d Amdt. (and other) rights, semi-permanent incarceration, and forcible administration of psychotropic chemicals — on the allegation of someone* an axe to grind, and with the barest fig-leaf of due process**.

      * As an example: http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/mental-hygiene-law/mhy-sect-9-27.html

      ** Remember, just as ineffective representation (in Congress) is effectively NO representation; insubstantial due process is substantially NO due process …. regardless of what the Statist judiciary cares to call it.

  5. I wonder if that Eliot Roger event even happened.

  6. The legislators that pass this crap will valiantly fight to the last SWAT team “operator”, but methinks they might cave after the second or third legislator is found shot/stabbed/hung/house burned down. Is there a California chapter of the Cancer Club?

  7. Fear not the cop, he is not the point of the spear in this. Fear the divorce lawyer. 50% of marriages end in divorce. In any contested divorce, TROs by competing sides are common fodder for pretrial positioning. With an arrangement like CA is implementing I can guarantee that will be played against any one who owns a gun by whatever side.

    Consider it the most hostile act conceived to eliminate gun rights.

    • DrDog,

      that will be played against any one who owns a gun by whatever side.

      There are no sides in divorce, only men versus the state. Just another front in undermining any semblance of traditional order to modern life.

      Divorce or no divorce, it will only be men who lose guns this way by nefarious shits who feign offense over wounded feelz.

      Tom

  8. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on The Lynler Report.

  9. colddeadhandsdays

    Blah Blah Blah….Easy to find these pieces of scum in Sacramento. What are you going to do about it? Seriously….Maybe you want to wait until after the first person they kill? Standing on the porch getting killed when they come for you isn’t my idea of tactics. Reference Paul Howe.

    • DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

      It will be interesting to see how TPTB react when a LEO, local political hack, or “celebrity” falls into this spider web. Police are especially “vulnerable” to PTSD-alcoholism-domestic violence and other social peccadilloes that are sometimes hushed up. What does an agency do with one of their own when he/she is forbidden by law to carry a firearm? Most agencies are too small and too broke to fund their own “Rubber-Gun Squad.”

  10. So file a ‘gun restraining order’ against an annoying leftist in your community (there should be a la raza, aclu, or seiu office nearby). This law can be a gift that keeps on giving if utilized properly.

    • Good plan Brian and worth trying, but the judges will be less likely to throw the book at poor defenseless browns/blacks/fellow travelers. No, their true vindictive selves will shine through when evil, white, tea-orrist, IIIper, gun nuts are hauled before them.

  11. What judge will want to be known as the one who didn’t sign one of these orders, especially if someone decides to shoot things up?

    So, that means judges are going to rubber stamp these every.single.time.

    • That’s exactly what my attorney said about this last week at lunch.
      “They don’t want to be wrong”.