Question of the Day: Should Cops SWAT Prohibited Persons?

California gun confiscation team (courtesy

“A surge in gun sales and a reduction in funding for the [California gun confiscation] program has stymied efforts by the state Department of Justice to eliminate a backlog of people in California who have firearms and shouldn’t,” reports. “Approximately 10,226 people remain on a list of Californians who legally purchased guns but were later disqualified from possessing them.” Here’s the thing . . .

California cops can’t just show up at a prohibited person’s premises and search for a firearm. As you’d hope in a constitutional republic, DOJ LEOs have to convince a judge that they have probable cause to believe the prohibited person still has a firearm. They have to get a warrant.

As you can imagine, the cops are not going to get 10,226 warrants, if only because they couldn’t. So they show up — in force — and “ask” for permission to search. You can imagine the threats and coercion persuasive skills involved.

That’s how it was. Now . . .

A change in state law on Jan. 1 is expected to help the state put a big dent in the backlog.

A provision of Proposition 63 requires people convicted of certain crimes to provide proof that they sold or transferred their firearms before the court finalizes their sentence. Failure to comply could affect the case and result in the court sending officers to recover the firearms.

Getting a search warrant will now be a rubber stamp deal. Leading to more aggressive recovery efforts. Leading to . . .

Are you OK with this?

OK with the idea of a prohibited person in general, or specific (e.g., a citizen convicted of a violent felony)? OK with prohibited persons having to prove that they’ve complied with their firearms prohibition? OK with cops showing up to “ask” for their gun(s)?


  1. avatar -Peter says:

    I’m not ever ok with the notion that it’s my job to prove my own innocence, “or else.”

    1. avatar Alex says:


    2. avatar FedUp says:

      Which is the beginning of the problem with civil asset forfeiture.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        Don’t forget, “Shotgun, shoot ‘fore he runs now”

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        This is not the beginning of the problem with civil asset forfeiture, that has been going on way too long.

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        It is not civil asset forfeiture, because a convict (or someone likely to be convicted) can give away or sell his/her firearms prior to any confiscation (unless of course those guns are subject to forfeiture proceedings or are crime weapons).
        And besides, California has passed a law that the People have the burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture proceedings. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the only state that has done so.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          There’s a bunch that actually make it hard on the police. That’s what the whole Jeff Sessions overturning Obama policy kerfuffle was about. State agencies, like ones in California, bring in the feds and split the haul. Obama banned it. Sessions brought it back.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Hey MarkN, you can give away your shit before confiscation, er, I mean conviction, oh, whatever. We’ll yell out whichever right before we kick your door in.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Calm down and start over. These persons HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED of a disqualifying offense. By virtue of the conviction, it is a FELONY for them to possess firearms or ammunition. And probably a violation of any probation or parole.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        And because of GVROs the POS state of CA, looks at all of you like you are equal to those “convicted”.

        F dat.

        This would only sound ok to a cop on the wrong side thinking they might somehow be exempt.

        NO > = PIGS

        It’s gone from, shoot through the door to shoot through the fence. Shoot any helo and drone in reach.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:


          The promise of allowing for some of our neighbors to “police” us is that wr’d be relatively free from crime. Well that’s shot in the ass. Next, that we wouldn’t have to take matters (of dealing with the rabble) into our own hands. Ya, leave it to the “experts” who (not a thin few of which are as bad as, if not worse than the criminals). Lastly, that the “police” would ensure a line for the rest of us to easily differentiate ourselves from the “criminal element” in possibly compromising situations, e.g., don’t mistakenly shoot those kids parked in your field making out, that’s not your place/job, leave it for the cops to sort out, after all it could similarly be your kid or you sometime. Well that ladt one just got shit out the fing window right here.
          If we’re (potentially) worthy of that shit, then you gotta replace your FING minders right the F now, per the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

  2. avatar BLoving says:

    Visions of:
    “We don’t serve your kind here.”
    “People like you aren’t welcome in this neighborhood.”
    “Watch that one, his kind are always trouble.”
    “Search him. I bet he’s got something to hide.”
    “Get a rope.”
    California was the last state to overturn the Jim Crow laws. Arguably, they still have them… but now more broadly written to discriminate against those troublesome “gun owners”.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      Don’t forget,
      “Shotguuuuuun, shoot him before he runs, now…..”

  3. avatar MeRp says:

    I hope this gets the constitutional smackdown that it richly deserves. I doubt it will, but I definitely hope it does.

    Total violation of the 4th amendment.

    I don’t even like the idea of them showing up and intimidating either; I wish someone would get that on film and get that the smackdown it deserves as well. Certainly very few people are going to feel like it is not coercion.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Uhh, no, no it is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Either the police have a warrant (based on probable cause to believe that a disqualified person has firearms), satisfying the 4th Amendment issue, or they have consent, which also satisfies the 4th.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Or the gentleman of the house had a grenade launcher.

        In which case, the uninvited had some spectacular indirect fire.

        Grenade launchers are illegal in NJ now. Oh well F it, their cheap and simple enough to roll your own. Might as well live up to your allegations. Our founding fathers sure as shit did.

      2. avatar California Richard says:

        They have proof in the form of the CA DOJ (totally not a gun registraion *sarc) Dealer Record Of Sale System (DROS). They also have proof that you were convicted of a disqualifying felony like: 367(f) PC – selling your organs, 337(b) PC -leaving a fake Yelp! review about getting sick at a restaurant, 227 PC- dueling, 581 B&P – having a fake doctor’s diploma, 71 PC -threatening your kid’s stupid teacher, 470(b) PC – trying to buy beer with a fake ID, 626.10(b) PC – getting off of work from FedEx and bringing that box cutter to your college class accidentally, 115.1 PC- publishing a campaign add with the wrong signature, 283 PC – bigamy, 171(b) – carrying a pocket knife at the DMV, 337f(d) PC – racing a horse with the wrong name, 535 PC – having an auction without the state’s permission, 7028.16 B&P – fixing a house after a fire, flood, etc without a permit, ….. etc etc etc…. the full list is here

        That’s enough to get a warrant in California (and nearly all states)…. all the reason to avoid any defacto registration scheme.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      IANAL, but…
      It would instead seem to be a violation of the fifth amendment.
      “If you don’t provide evidence, then you’re in violation.”
      I don’t see how that”s not in violation of the fifth.
      Someone will undoubtedly tell me, though.

  4. avatar C.S. says:

    Nah, all gun owners are Dreamers, leave us alone…

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Ding, ding, ding, ding! Winner!

      (I also have a dream in which I have a pre-ban HK MP5 and don’t have to pay $40K for it.)

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Bullshit, dreamers get $3,500/mo. From the gov’t., approaching 2x Soc. Sec. or maximum monthly Veteran’s disability. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS IT EVER BEEN NICER TO BE AN OPPRESSED REFUGEE.

        Rep. Dick Durbin said he’s “working full-time” for Dreamers/DACA. DOESN’T THAT SOMEHOW VIOLATE THE TERMS OF HIS HOLDING OFFICE ???
        Schumer and Pelosi, need to get removed from office on the same count as well. Let’s hope the spillover from the fing fake Comey-Meuller Inquisition / FISA warrant/ pee pee dossier sh_t / Upper-level Obama’s FBI /DOJ paying (offering to pay, reimburse expenses) for foreign di<kheads to go after a U.S. Citizen running for office get's Hillary /Clinton Foundation / Uranium 1 people so worked up and nervous, that they whack Chuck, Nancy, and 3/5 of their voters.

  5. avatar little horn says:

    nothing new really. intimidation is their number one tactic. i can’t tell you how many times a cop has asked to search my car and i said no then i was let go after a few minute wait. they just wanted to see if i would freak out for having to wait. i didn’t, no drug dog, and i left. this happened more than once. if you let them intimidate you, then they will just keep doing it. Let them violate your rights then you take their ass to court. as long as you don’t live in Commiefornia or New Fascists City, you will probably win. but you can’t win in court if you make him shoot you. you may not “win” but a settlement to me IS a win.

  6. avatar Walt Longmire says:


  7. avatar Jackass Jim says:

    Such a silly question 🙂

    There is no need for the cops to show up, let alone the SWAT dudes – after all, if the law says the bad-guys cannot have guns, then by definition, the bad guys do not have guns.

    Just repeat the following words and everything will be OK.

    “When guns are outlawed,
    outlaws will not have guns.”

  8. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Thinking about this it’s likely going too far. The reason why is that proving you transferred a firearm could easily be producing evidence that you have committed another crime such as transferring it to someone who shouldn’t have it or some other bureaucratic hitch up in the process. Taking the 5th in such a case would be EXTREMELY advisable regardless of having the guns still or not.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Utter nonsense. Ownership or possession of a firearm in California can only be transferred through an FFL with a background check of the transferee. If the tranferee does not qualify, the FFL cannot return the firearm unless the transferor can pass the check. There is no fifth amendment issue.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Huge chunks of what you just said are as F’d up as CA. You got that stupid shit on you somewhere and it’s been there ling enough for you to fail to notice the smell.

        F to the eye for CA.

        Killa’ commie for mommy, then go after their enablentzes.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        What if you transfer your (non-registered) gun to someone outside of California?

  9. avatar Alex Waits says:


  10. avatar Ing says:

    Sure. Why not? We’ve got all these guys just sitting around…might as well give them something to do.

    1. avatar mick1706 says:

      Like, ducking bullets when they violate the Constitution?

      1. avatar Ing says:

        That would be more than acceptable to me. 🙂

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    No…hell no. From a gubmint defying the feds making all of Commiefornia a sanctuary?!? Mebbe one boo-lit at at a time😄😘😏

  12. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “A provision of Proposition 63 requires people convicted of certain crimes to provide proof that they sold or transferred their firearms before the court finalizes their sentence.”

    And it just so happens, California wants *all* guns ‘Registered’.

    How convenient! Now they know exactly what guns you own!

    It’s *not* to “help fight crime”, that is a LIE.

    it’s to make CONFISCATION easy for the ‘law’.

    And this is *why* ‘Universal Background Checks” should be un-constitutional.

    My ‘Armed self-defense activist’ goal now is the destruction of ALL gun registration schemes.

    ‘No one is coming to take your guns”…

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      “If you like your firearms, you can keep your firearms” sounds vaguely familiar, but I just can’t place it.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:


        If you like your FISA warrants, the FBI can pay for [the foreign d1<kbag, and the making up of the bullshit scenario that illegally gets you] your FISA Warrants.

  13. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Getting a search warrant will now be a rubber stamp deal. Leading to more aggressive recovery efforts. Leading to . . .”

    Wouldn’t it be beautifully ironic if the spark for ‘Civil War, part Deux’, came from California?

    *snicker* 😉

  14. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Not okay with the SWAT bunch showing up and “asking” if they can search. If you want to search go get a search warrant, if you can show probable cause, go for it.

    What do they do if no one is at home? Do they kick in the door and shoot the dog?

  15. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    I’m ok with the concept of prohibited possessors, provided due process has been adhered to. Where we draw that line (violent felons only? multiple non-violent felonies? 1st degree felonies only, regardless of violent or not?), is essentially a political decision for the People to decide through the political process.

    Given a prohibited possessor, though, he should be subject to being busted for that illegal possession when the police have probable cause that he’s in violation. Whether that entails warrants and a task force, or busting them in the routine course of arresting them for some other criminal activity he gets involved in, is a matter for law enforcement to decide based on their reasonable priorities. They can’t pursue every lead on every alleged crime, after all.

    Mandating that newly prohibited possessors PROVE they’ve divested their firearms, however, is an unconstitutional and costly invasion of privacy, in addition to being a potentially Kafkaesque ordeal for the offender. It’s just more unworkable, unhelpful Hell heaped on a nearly bankrupt state with a subprime credit rating on par with Estonia and the Czech Republic. Surely they have better things to do with their time and money.

    Showing up with a SWAT team and “asking” for search consent is a sham. That is an overwhelmingly intimidating and illegal use of government power. It’s even worse than doctors unethically leveraging their special position of authority to inquire about and document a patient’s firearms ownership.

    I know: you can just say “no.” Technically, you can, but many will feel immense pressure to acquiesce, especially as someone already on the crap list who doesn’t want any more trouble.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Mandating that newly prohibited possessors PROVE they’ve divested their firearms, however, is an unconstitutional and costly invasion of privacy,…”

      How high up the legal ladder has a challenge to that gotten? Has SCOTUS denied cert.?

      “Surely they have better things to do with their time and money.”

      Please. That’s how they intend to attack gun rights. Make more and yet more things turn citizens into prohibited persons.

      I can *easily* see in the future the Leftists making a careless driving infraction making someone a prohibited person. If you are that careless with a lethal car, no guns for you!

      A heated verbal argument at work a prohibited person. After all, if you can’t control your temper, you have no business possessing guns, the Leftists would *love* to do that…

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        It’s not a law, so it hasn’t hit the first rung of the ladder.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        Re: making a traffic violation make a person a prohibited person.

        I have a question: if you have a medical MJ card (even if you don’t; MJ is legal there now), and you attempt to buy a gun and are truthful on the form, and you own other guns (legally, because you bought them before the 4473 BS), will CA still go after you?
        You’re a prohibited person, according to federal law, but the state doesn’t really like federal law (CA regularly violates the first, second and fourth amendments and just plain ignores immigration laws), so does the state enforce federal law in that case (becoming hypocritical)(I know, they already are, but…) or do they thumb their collective nose?
        It will be interesting to watch that.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Why is it unconstitutional? Since ANY such transfer MUST occur through an FFL, a paper receipt will take care of that problem.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        And that same receipt will *hang* your ass is they come knocking and *you* can’t cough that gun up…

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Say what? That receipt will prove you do NOT have the firearm.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Example – The gun trail ends with *you*, via Cali’s wonderful ‘UBC’ registration.

          Later, the state determines you to be a legally prohibited person for whatever reason.

          They knock on your door to seize your gun. (It isn’t there, two days earlier you buried it in a forest.)

          You can’t produce it. The ‘ole standby, the ‘tragic boating accident’ excuse won’t help since Cali requires ‘lost’ guns to be reported.

          Is your neck not on the line, there?

          The trail ends with you, they can prove you bought it, you can’t prove you lawfully transferred it…

  16. avatar SurfGW says:

    Prohibited people are prohibited people. Judges have upheld this time and time again. What more is there to say?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      “What more is there to say?”

      How’s about FU ! ?



      F EM ALL. F CA 2x in each eye.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Really? If YOU don’t know that the firearms are there, how the hell do you think the police will find out? Moreover, if the police DO find out, then they can get a warrant.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          This means that the assumed prohibited-person needs to be stripped of their weapons (not necessarily allowing them to legally (if prohibited unrelated to a ‘weapons’ crime) dispose of their own property for a price).

          If you’re their landlord, and you rent them a duplex, or rent them an apartment, or separate home on your property, expect the whole shebang to come under door-kicking scrutiny.

          You could say “well, that’s what happens now, already” BUT IT’S DOESN’T HAPPEN LEGALLY.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          What “presumed prohibited persons” are you talking about? Those affected by this law are ACTUAL (via conviction) prohibited persons. Further, a landlord has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus a search of his property requires a warrant or consent, which consent does NOT extend to a leased apartment. I assume that most landlords don’t give a crap about their tenants and will give consent. And all of these prohibited persons are given an opportunity to dispose of their weapons, at least any that haven’t been seized as evidence of a crime. So what’s the problem?

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          A “presumed prohibited person” could be ANYONE under the new MF POS EVIL FING MF (D) CALIFORNIAN “GVRO”.

          A N Y O N E.

          And I was talking about a landlord’s tenant bringing the door-kicking hurt back on the landlord BUT IT COULD HAPPEN THAT YOUR FRIEND GETS “ON THE LIST” AND YOUR BABY GET’S FLASH-BANGED BY COPS DOING THEIR ‘DOOR-KICKING DUE-DILIGENCE’ AGAINST KNOWN ASSOCIATES. AND THAT



          E V E R Y O N E.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Really? If YOU don’t know that the firearms are there, how the hell do you think the police will find out?”

          Let’s say I live in CA (I don’t).
          Let’s say you’re a prohibited person (you’re probably not).
          Let’s say I’m pissed at you because your large dog regularly dumps in my yard (I don’t know if you have a dog, regardless of size).
          Let’s say I own a shotgun the state knows nothing about.
          Let’s say I hide that shotgun on your property, then call the police (anonymously, of course) to tell them I saw you hiding it.
          They have just found out, and you don’t know about the gun.

          Let your imagination out a little more often. 🙂

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    It’s gonna mean a LOTTA dead CA cops, then the rest of the unarmed population will have to fend for themselves.

    ya, I’m good.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It hasn’t so far, and it has been a program that has been going on for a long time with no dead cops involved in these efforts. Try again.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Cops are shot nearly EVERY FING DAY by the bad guys (no knock warrant or otherwise). More cops will be shot when cops make the good guys the bad guys. That happens nearly every month. It’ll only get worse if cops ratchet up that activity without ‘knock’ warnings.

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    “SWAT” as a verb now has a commonly-accepted meaning, and this ain’t it.

    “A provision of Proposition 63 requires people convicted of certain crimes to provide proof that they sold or transferred their firearms before the court finalizes their sentence. Failure to comply could affect the case and result in the court sending officers to recover the firearms…”

    I doubt this will have any major effects. The situation remains the same in terms of search legality. The police will still need a search warrant- and the language in that paragraph is vague enough to make me think they’ll continue the same song and dance of trying to get in through consent instead. Warrants must rest on probable cause for a crime. If you have no proof that you sold a firearm- or if such proof would incriminate you- that ain’t gonna fly for probable cause of possession.

    In short: if they try to use someone’s lack of proof of sale alone for a warrant (which would still require a tremendous amount of paperwork when used generally) I suspect even the 9th circuit would throw it out.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You lost me there, Chico. How would proof of sale of a firearm be incriminating? As I’ve said above, California is a universal background check state. If you have proof of sale, it is a receipt from an FFL. That is in no way shape or form incriminating. And no one said that “lack of proof of sale” is enough for a warrant–because it isn’t. Which is why they always ask for consent first. I should also add that once a firearm has been transferred TO you, the DOJ does not cross-reference and delete that information when you sell a firearm. As a result, the electronic records of firearms ownership with the DOJ do NOT provide probable cause to support a warrant.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I should also add that once a firearm has been transferred TO you, the DOJ does not cross-reference and delete that information when you sell a firearm.”

        I fully expect Cali to to take care of that ‘loophole’ in the future.

        And financed by a 20 percent ‘gun safety’ tax on all firearm transfers.

        After all, it’s ‘for the children’…

        Tell me I’m wrong on that line of logic … 🙂

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          It’s not a loop hole, it is a relic of an antiquated computer system that cannot be corrected because there is no way to “catch up” the many years of data that were never recorded. It was only recently that long guns were registered with the DOJ, such that there are millions of unregistered firearms in the state. The absence of evidence cannot be used to construct probable cause out of thin air; and this is why the DOJ database cannot be relied upon to provide probable cause, because the mere fact that I bought a gun doesn’t mean I still have it.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Because I sold the gun to my dreamer neighbor in this great sanctuary state, so I didn’t use an FFL, so it is a state and federal felony?

    2. avatar johnq says:

      The issue is that this proposition seems to make the fact that the person is prohibited probable cause for the search warrant.

      So, instead of ‘Your Honor, I know this person is prohibited and we know he has guns this way…’ it will be ‘Your Honor, I know the person is prohibited…’ and the warrant is granted.

      Not cool by any means.

  19. avatar Mark N. says:

    The only real beef I have here is the statement that there has been some sort of reduction in spending on these efforts. What B.S. When one buys a firearm in California, one must pay the state a $25 fee for the background check, a fee that by statute was supposed to only enough to cover the cost of the program. Wll, low and behold, someone discovered that the actual costs of the program were only about $19, and that the State had over $5 million stashed away taken from gun owners–an illegal tax. “OH goody goody,” said the Legislature, “MONEY!” So they snagged that money and gave it to the DOJ to fund these confiscation efforts. So every time anyone buys a firearm in California, $6 goes to pay for confiscation efforts. Cute, huh? (And yes, the courts upheld a challenge to the new law that claimed it was an illegal tax.)

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Upheld the law or the challenge?

  20. avatar Geoff PR says:

    I have a nightmare scenario for gun rights –

    The next Democrat administration that holds power will pass ‘universal background checks’ into law and then organize *lots* of ‘gun safety’ volunteers to go to the big ATF warehouse that has all the 4473 yellowsheets and organize – computerize each and every last one of them.

    The ‘volunteers’ will be paid by Bloomie and the others like him.

    They *must* have a paper trail to disarm America…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      That cannot be done without a change in current law, which prohibits the creation of such a database. A new universal background check law will only catch new sales, not the old ones.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        What a tool, FFL’s have to keep an inventory/transfer log, FFL’s are required to do a NICS check. Pin the call / approval time to the log. Boom. No, the gov’t doesn’t have to keep a list [yet they fing do], but they can force all of the licensed FFL’s to do it for them. Plus, there’s a mandatory surrender of records if the FFL goes out of business.

        You make people hate cops Mark

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      As I understand it…
      The 4473 doesn’t “go to the BATFE(ARBF)” unless the FFL holder goes out of business.
      So, there’s no big ATF warehouse with all the 4473s just sitting there. Just the ones from out of business FFL holders.
      And even if there were such a warehouse, I (and I’m far from the only one) have several firearms with no 4473 connected to them.

  21. avatar AZgunner says:

    I’m good with taking guns away from convicted felons. It’s the only sort of gun control I’m in favor of. I’ve had plenty of opportunity to interact with felons, I don’t want them armed. Will they be armed anyway? Possibly. But if like to at least make that more difficult for them.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “But if like to at least make that more difficult for them.”

      I live in AZ. All I need to do to buy a gun is find someone who wants to sell theirs,and buy it from them.
      So here, it’s as easy for me to buy a gun as it is for a convicted felon (or any other prohibited person). In some states, it’s not that easy to legally buy a gun, though.
      But let’s say, I want to buy a new gun; then I have to go to a FFL holder, and go through the 4473 and NICS check BS.
      Guess what? If the new gun is stolen off a train (which has made headlines in recent years) a PP can buy that new gun easier than I can.
      IOW, it’s not actually easier for me to buy a gun than it is for a PP.
      IOW, all the BS we have to go through is nothing but theater for the uninformed.

  22. avatar Darkman says:

    I seem to remember a Revolution being started over the attempted confiscation of firearms,powder and shot. Does Lexington and Concord ring a bell for anyone. April 19,1775. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If any government goes to far in it’s authoritative ways it is not only a citizens right to oppose tyranny but their duty to destroy it. Try reading the Declaration of Independence and growing some balls before you surrender your Rights. If you don’t believe that your Freedom is worth fighting for then maybe you were never free to begin with. Keep Your Powder Dry…

  23. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    If we went back to the days when the only felonies were things like murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, etc. I’d be fine with felons being prohibited persons. I’ve accidentally committed multiple felonies in my life. No one was harmed at all.

    Honestly, if someone shouldn’t have a gun, they shouldn’t have the keys to the locked door they sleep behind.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      KEEP YOUR GUNS FOR THE END OF AMERICA. There will always be your ahole neighbors attempting to lord themselves over you, but you don’t have to give them a say in what comes next, and may you be the last person to ask St. Peter for a spare mag, when JESUS comes back.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I’m not sure what that has to do with my comment, but, yeah, things will be messed up until Jesus comes back.

  24. avatar anonymoose says:

    “Should cops be forced to go around into situations where they will likely get shot until the police unions tell the politicians that gun control laws are hazardous to officers’ and plebeians’ health?” Certainly.

  25. avatar Joe R. says:

    Question of the Day: Should Cops SWAT Prohibited Persons?

    Cops ain’t got enough on their plate???
    They bored or something???

    NYC ‘swattifying’ all their cops (due to 9/11 [essentially a state dept./ TSA failure involving big airplanes and un-defendable by cops]) got them all jealous???

    Got a shit-ton of surplus mil-spec and cammo, and now they’re chomping at the bit to see if they got what it takes (to take what you got)????

  26. avatar Roymond says:

    The thing is, parole and probation officers have unlimited power in searching the premises of their “clients”, so this is a silly law in the first place: if you want to be sure they don’t have guns once they’re out, wait until they’re on parole and search their dwelling.

  27. avatar Johnny108 says:

    The 4th Amendment isn’t a “thing” anymore?

  28. avatar Nelson says:

    WTF? You turning fascist on us, Farago??

    Constitutionally and in common law, there is no such thing as “prohibited persons,” EVEN convicts: either you were charged, tried, convicted, served your time, and are free, or not.

    IF you’re outta jail, even if you were a convict, you’re free. free is free.

    even as not too long ago as the 1960’s, believe it or not, even if you were an armed robber, and the gun used in the crime wasn’t equally stolen but the robber’s, after serving time, upon release, the very gun that was used in the crime, was returned to the robber, upon release.

    like it or not, THAT is the marker of an actually FREE society.

    peon mundanes have become so fucking brainwashed, that retarded question, shouldn’t even BE a question, least of all, be asked at at PRO-gun website, Robert Farago.

  29. avatar Nelson says:

    plus, govt terrorists are far more dangerous: they should go through a full thorough battery of psych eval. and an actual background check, seeing as how those cunts are the SERVANTS in the hierarchy.

    seeing as how even if you add up all the crimes and murders committed by every non-state criminal throughout history, they still won’t even come close to the millions of industrial scale mass murder democides that govt terrorists have committed.

    the only prohibited persons by default, if at all, are govt terrorists/those signing up to be govt terrorists: they should be presumed to be guilty until proven innocent, seeing as how any ‘power’ they’re to wield under govt agent status, are explicitly enumerated delegated privileges, not rights, it’s entirely constitutional to impose prerequisites to wield such insane amount of power, that already typically attract mostly sociopathic control freak authoritarian losers to begin with.

    so no, and no, and no: only govt terrorists should be background checked and SWAT raided. xD

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email