California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms (courtesy cape-inc.us)

“If you do become prohibited, we are going to come confiscate your firearms. But only people who have done something in their life – committed a felony, committed a violent misdemeanor, they are a fugitive from justice or they have been deemed mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others. We need to take action and prevent those people from possessing firearms.” –  Director of the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms Steve Lindley quoted in California gun owners warily eye rifle, shotgun database requirement [via sacbee.com]

Recommended For You

95 Responses to Quote of the Day: “We Are Going to Confiscate Your Firearms” Edition

  1. And we have ways of determining that you are mentally ill. Mere possession of a gun satisfies the element of being a danger to others. And being a danger to others satisfies the element of being mentally ill.

    • Actually, Skyler, it isn’t even that convoluted. There are thousands of civilian disarmament proponents whose position is that the mere desire to own a gun satisfies the element of being mentally ill.

      Think about that. They claim that you are mentally ill if you want to own a firearm and therefore you cannot own the firearm because you are mentally ill. That elevates “circular reasoning” to a whole new level. More importantly it illustrates that droves of gun grabbers want to eliminate all guns, not just certain types.

  2. Yeah, that sounds great and all, but how long until that is expanded and abused? It would be fine if thats where it ended(I refuse to fight for the gun rights of criminals), but this is only the beginning.

    • If they are too dangerous to have a firearm, aren’t they too dangerous to be walking the streets free and unsupervised? What’s to stop them from torching a building? Killing somebody with a hatchet or axe or knife or vehicle?

      • There is a small sliver of the population that is generally ok, but lacks the impulse controll to carry a gun. I would allow for sentences that specifically suspended thier rights for a term. But restoring thier rights should be the norm.

        • “I before E, except after C” is not a universal rule. It’s spelled “their”. Sorry, but that particular spelling error grates on me like fingernails on a blackboard.

          THERE – THEIR – THEY’RE

        • @ Leadbelly: The rest of the rhyme applies to “their”. “Except when sounding like A, as in neighbor or weigh”.

        • And then there’s leisure and seizure, the exceptions to the exceptions to the rule.

          English – It’s not for amateurs.

    • “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
      – H. L. Mencken

      • +1. Until I read some of the fine arguments posted here on TTAG, I thought it was perfectly reasonable to restrict ex-felons from possessing firearms. Now I know better – they’re citizens that should have their rights restored too. If you can’t trust them now, then why is their sentence over?

        • I agree. Soooo……you’re cool with the ex-con pedoohile working as a teacher in your kid’s school, right? He’s paid his debt, served his time, and all that, so let’s restore his liberties 100%; starting with leading field trips involving your kid.

          Oh, but that’s a violent felon. You meant nonviolent felons, right? No problem. When Bernie Madoff, or someone equally honest gets released, would you be cool with fully restoring their liberties, not barring them from the finance industry and allowing them to manage your 401K?

        • @Jonathan
          So we bar them from working with kids, but it’s ok for them to live in a neighborhood that mostly likely has kids in it, right? As long as its not your neighborhood? The whole point is, if they can’t be trusted, they should be in jail. Period. You think keeping a child molester out of jobs working with kids eliminates their access to kids? About as much as background checks keeps felons from buying guns on the street or stealing them from your house.

        • @Jonathan,
          So you believe that employment is an inherent, natural, Constitutionally-protected, human right? Anyone who applies for a job must be granted that job regardless of a lack of qualifications or requisite skills?

          Stop conflating discriminating hiring practices of private businesses with legislative infringements perpetrated by government.

        • Imprisonment is like a fine. They give you a sentence, you serve it (or some part of it until parole), and then you are released. There is no requirement that you be “reformed,” or even remorseful.
          There is no way to keep all felons in prison until they are “reformed.” And there is no just way to sentence everyone to prison for life until reformed. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. For example, if an 18 year old kid robs the local corner store, no one gets shot, no one gets hurt. It is sill a violent felony, with the aggravating factor of using a gun/deadly weapon. Would you agree that he should be locked up for life until someone will guarantee that he is now an upstanding citizen who will not commit any further violent crimes?

          What does “reformed’ mean any way? “A Clockwork Orange”, anyone?

        • @ Johnathan,

          I agree with Mr. Bowman.

          “I agree. Soooo……you’re cool with the ex-con pedoohile working as a teacher in your kid’s school, right? He’s paid his debt, served his time, and all that, so let’s restore his liberties 100%; starting with leading field trips involving your kid.”

          The ex-con pedophile actually doesn’t have a “right” to work as a teacher – but he has a right to keep and bear arms. Most vocations now days perform “background checks” on their prospective new hires. A school, or anyone, isn’t obligated to hire them. They can in fact say no.

          “Oh, but that’s a violent felon. You meant nonviolent felons, right? No problem. When Bernie Madoff, or someone equally honest gets released, would you be cool with fully restoring their liberties, not barring them from the finance industry and allowing them to manage your 401K?”

          There is nothing in the bill of rights about barring pedophiles from school or barring embezzling frauds from the finance industry.

          We are talking about a persons rights to defend themselves, their family, their country. You seem to be confused on what “rights” we really have vs. privileges.

        • Their sentence isn’t over. Their sentence is not owning guns. They knew, or should have known that gun ownership is restricted if they are convicted of a crime under due process.

          There is nothing in the constitution that says that “jail” (one huge infringement of rights) is the only punishment allowed for a crime.

        • Jonathan — Houston says:
          “I agree. Soooo……you’re cool with the ex-con pedoohile working as a teacher in your kid’s school, right?”

          Standard liberal extreme example strawman.

          But in answer to your question, yes, I’d be cool with the ex-con pedophile working as a teacher in my kid’s school, as long as my kid is armed. 😉

        • Jonathan — Houston says:
          “Madoff … and allowing them to manage your 401K?”

          No, but what criteria do you use to select who manages your 401K? Notwithstanding when I found out just what a 401K is, I thought, “what kind of idiot thinks ‘playing the stock market’ is a viable retirement plan?”

          In a Free society, BS like a 401K would be unnecessary.

        • Jonathan, there is NO natural, civil nor Constitutionally protected right to be a pedophile or a financial con artist. Can you spell “Straw Man”?

        • @Jonathan it’s not about wether an ex chin should be allowed to own a firearm so much add its about wether or not government can be trusted to pick and choose who can own guns. I posit that in they long run they cannot be trusted to keep from expending such a prohibition beyond ex cons.

    • I refuse to fight for the gun rights of criminals

      Got news for you… eventually, you too will be labeled a ‘criminal’ if you choose to hold dear your antiquated individual rights. Who will fight for your rights then? Understand shall not be infringed and things may become clearer for you. If not, then there’s no hope. If someone is truly a dangerous criminal then their sentence should reflect that by incarceration. If not then everyone should be armed and use of force laws rolled back so that individuals can take care of that violent criminal at the next violent act. This is the way of natural rights and a free society. What you appear to want is a nation of privileges under a tyrannical government.

    • That’s only fair, Urban, since criminals will, given the chance, fight very hard AGAINST your gun rights.

      Rather than fight FOR the gun rights of criminals why not simply admit that this is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right that “…shall not be infringed.” and fight FOR the Second Amendment, since NOTHING you do will effectively prevent criminals from exercising their natural right to keep and bear arms and EVERYTHING the government does to infringe on the Second Amendment will inhibit your right to same.

    • Notice the choice of words…

      Not adjudicated mentally ill or a danger to others, but merely deemed mentally ill or a danger to others.

    • The law is otherwise. Voluntary confinements do not carry a firearms disability. You have to have a 5150 (72 hour hold for evaluation) or a 5250 (10 day hold for evaluation and treatment–which can be extended indefinitely by a judicial officer after a hearing in which the patient is represented by counsel) before the disability law kicks in. At least at the present time.

        • A seizure not authorized by law is a constitutional violation. And I have little doubt that the state agency involved in these seizures–the District Attorney–is well aware of that fact. So yes, state law has a direct bearing on this particular question. Firearms may be seized from “prohibited persons” only–and state law, not some state agency, determines what is a prohibited person. I am not saying that the definition cannot be expanded, but such expansion must be by law passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor. As the law now stands, voluntary admitees are not subject to loss of firearms rights. In fact there was just such a case here in California, in the Bar Area, where a housewife admitted herself to a facility to facilitate adjustment of her depression medications. The police showed up at her door, demanded that her husband open the safe, and then they seized all of his guns (some of which she had purchased for him as gifts). No lawsuit was necessary, just a few threatening phone calls from their attorney, to get the guns back and an official apology.

  3. One of Hitlers first acts as Chancellor was to enact the first nationalized health care system in the Western world, with an edict to doctors to ferret out “mental and genetic defectives” and isolate them from the State.

  4. How long before someone decides voting records and ‘mentally ill’ need to get paired together? Depending on where you live – Oh, you voted Democrat for the last 3 elections. You must be mentally ill and therefore need to surrender your guns. And in other areas of the country – Oh, you voted Republican for the last 3 elections. You must be mentally ill and therefore need to surrender your guns. But then there are a few areas – Oh, you voted Libritarian for the last 3 elections. You must be mentally ill and therefore need to surrender your guns.

    • Good point. I can’t think of a single restriction on firearms that liberals would accept were they applied to voting.

      Not the licensing, not the taxes, not the proficiency testing, not the age restrictions, not the waiting periods, not the restrictions on foreign content, not the superficial external features, not CLEO sign-offs, not the mental stability, not the criminal background checks, and certainly not, my favorite, high capacity magazines and full auto. Really, how else would one describe straight part voting that spews a hundred votes in but a fraction of a second?

  5. “It won’t affect me personally,” Dittmer said, “because I do abide by all the laws.”

    Until your son, wife, and infant is shot by jack booted thugs because you missed a court date that they changed with out your knowledge.

    “My ultimate concern is if someone knocks on my door and says you’ve got three guns, we need two of them.”

    First, why the hell would they only want 2 of the 3 guns? Second, what makes you think they are going to knock?

  6. So Basiclly once WE decide your a criminal WE can come confiscate your firearms…… You can keep your guns until we say you can’t… Wow I wonder if you become a criminal if they one day decide your Ruger 10/22 doesn’t fit the appropriate gun list.

  7. The Man caught you shootin’ n he said no way,
    That hypocrite loads 30 rounds per day,
    Man livin’ in SoCal is such a drag,
    Thugs confiscated all your best Pmags…

    Don’t step outta your house if those the arms you gonna bear,
    I’ll shoot your dog right now if you don’t stop right there,
    .Gov busted in and said what’s that noise?
    Sheeeit you’re just jealous of my evil black toys!

    You gotta fight, for your right, to bear arms!

  8. What I see in California’s Armed Prohibited Persons database is not so much an incipient mass confiscation but an ongoing bureaucratic boondoggle. They have something like 20K people on this list, most of them for criminal convictions, people that they know to be armed. Every year they get around to disarming about 1,000 of them and another 3,000 get added to the list.

    That’s knowing that the vast majority of courts in California admit to not reporting prohibited persons properly to the system, and were unaware of the requirement that they do so. Let me run that by you again: The majority of courts were unaware of what they needed to do to comply with the law.

    When the state enacts laws it does not have the resources to enforce, it ends up having to enforce the laws selectively, and that’s a very dangerous thing. It undermines the concept of the rule of law, if gives politicians cover for bad laws because it hides their unintended effects, and of course it opens the door to use the law for political purposes.

  9. It seems that one thing that everyone is missing is that CA has been ‘registering’ handguns for years. It is thinly veiled, but the reality is that the forms you fill out have the make, model, and serial number on them. The only thing new is extending this to long guns. Also, the Dealer Record of Sale existed for long guns, but all it said was “long gun” without any specifics.

    Not that the change is inconsequential, but confiscation has been an option for a long time.

    Oh the other hand, I made sure I purchased most of what was on my “wish list” before the end of the year. Not just because of this, but also because I am done with giving money to the state (fees, taxes) every time I buy a firearm.

    • As a long term political option the very passage of draconian gun laws that MIGHT someday be enforced ensures that another percentage of law-abiding conservative gun owners will make an effort to leave the state, further guaranteeing Progressive control of the machinery of government.

  10. So, It seems to me a lot of people are probably going to combine that trip to a Las Vegas casino with a trip to a Las Vegas gun shop.

    • That would be a useless gesture. No matter what rifle you buy, it has to be processed by a Cali FFL. And it has to be a Cali legal rifle too.

  11. I haven’t verified the information, but I was told that Califonia judges are taking away guns from people who file requests for restraining orders. They allegedly seize all firearms from both the subject of the orders and the person requesting the restraining order.

    Is there any truth to this?

    • Yes and no. If a TRO is issued, the subject of the TRO has his/her weapons confiscated. Google “CLETS.” This is only good for a few days until the hearing on the temporary restraining order–which are in fact heard rapidly. If a formal restraining order is issued, then the ban is until the order expires. These restraining orders are NOT LIMITED to firearms–they include stay away orders and a bunch of other stuff (it’s a check the box form). AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, and rather than set a contested hearing, the Judge will ask the parties to stipulate to MUTUAL restraining orders–he stays away from her, she stays away from him, and so forth and so on. If THE ORDER IS MUTUAL, THEN YES, BOTH LOSE THEIR GUNS IF THE ORDER CONTAINS SUCH A PROVISION. They usually do–because one or the other is claiming fear/threats/violence.

  12. Congratulations everyone. This is what you get for not wanting felons to have guns and wanting legislation barring felons from having them – Registries! Background checks!

    Now you have opened the door to traceability, mag limits, accessory limits, and now with a registry – confiscation!

    All in the name of safey, children, and keeping weapons out of the hands of felons.

    • And as additional amusing consequences you end up with only two classes of people in California who CAN own guns: 1) Criminals who don’t give shit how many gun control laws you pass, and 2) The certifiably INSANE people who seem to be continually elected to public office in California.

  13. So you take away a gun from a mentally ill person,and then they can no longer kill? I have read so many cases where guns were not used.One woman was beat to death with a can of condensed milk by a burglar.

    Perhaps a wiser course in crime reduction would be more severe punishment.We are far too lax and criminals of all ages,sex, and mental capacity know this.

    If my area passed laws that made my weapon illegal I will move.

    • “Perhaps a wiser course in crime reduction would be more severe punishment.”

      If people were allowed to exercise their Second Amendment RKBA without infringement the punishment for criminal activities would be more severe punishment, immediately.

      Perhaps a law that says if you kill a criminal who was in the act of committing a violent felony and it is ruled justifiable you receive a cash reward of 10% of what would have been the estimated cost to the State of convicting and incarcerating that criminal if he had been captured and tried?

  14. This is not news–this is what the law has been for a long time. The only news is that the State swiped all excess DROS (dealer record of sale) fees–totaling several millions of dollars–and used it to fund this APPS system. DROS fees ($25 per purchase) were by the enacting legislation to be used for running the registration system–and to be adjusted if there was more money than needed. Well, there was more money than needed–but instead of returning it, the Legislature amended to the law to repurpose the excess funds. (No surprise here either–once the gov has your money, it will never give it back.)

  15. Why are liberals winning this battle in states like California, Colorado and all of New England? Because we don’t come together like they do and attack the core of the issues. The school system is the number one problem and number two is, allowing the pussification of America. If we don’t start banding together and fighting back at the core of their indoctrination plan. We will loose all rights. We must create groups like the TEA Party did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *