Question of the Day: Is This the Face of National Gun Confiscation?

Notice the way the California cop talks to the firearms felon at the beginning of this  report. Kiso Yo’s series of assertive, rapid-fire questions demonstrate how law enforcement officers get people to waive their right to remain silent just like that. That’s critical to their work. As NPR points out, po-po working for the Golden State’s Justice’s Armed and Prohibited Persons program don’t have search warrants. They depend on “persuasion” to interrogate and investigate. Note the cop peering into the house from the front porch. Also note: you’re not seeing flash-banging SWAT teams doing the work. Yet. One gunfight . . . With the prospect of Professor Wintemute’s “smart new idea” going national, is this thin end of the civilian disarmament wedge? Meanwhile, Yo was zero for 13 for PBS. How great is that? [h/t FC2 Cody]


  1. avatar ensitue says:

    Power for Thee, none for me

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Cops are cowards. This is the kind of work they do instead of going after people that are actually dangerous. In a way I don’t blame them, they have no incentive to go after dangerous people, in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled they don’t have any legal obligation to protect anyone.

      1. avatar B says:

        Keeping real criminals in jail is too dangerous. Easier and safer to stick people in there for stupid stuff to get your numbers up.

  2. avatar Kirk says:

    Your post title in combo with CalGuns Hoffman image on vid suggests Hoffman “is the face” of gun confiscation.

    Maybe: “Cali Law is the face”?

    1. avatar Jake F. says:

      That was my first thought as well. Gene has done tons for us in Cali, and the headline/image combo was very misleading.

    2. avatar Clay says:

      I agree. Threw me too.

    3. avatar RLC2 says:

      +1. This is a video produced by PBS about CA DOJ gun confiscation efforts.
      It has nothing to do with CALGUNs, other than having Gene Hoffmans face on this page. Heres more about what CALGUNS is doing for gun owners:

      including co-hosting your chance to win a gun-giveaway with FPC.

      1. avatar RLC2 says:

        And suing NSA for privacy rights.

  3. avatar dph says:

    If you haven’t done anything wrong you have nothing to fear comrade. Sarcasm off now.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Just hope your significant other didn’t answer a benign question to a doctor or nurse that took it the wrong way.

  4. avatar Bret says:

    Since it sounds like they target a lot of people on probation and parole, they can get away with this pretty easy, especially since that fudges the rules in regards to warrants.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Yeah, RF’s not wrong, but at the same time the folks on P&P are required to allow searches of their home on demand of law enforcement. They’re still fast talking their way past the people not on P&P though.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        So should we leave the people alone who have DV retraining orders entered against them simply because they can refuse entry to their homes? Or the guys who have been 5150’d because they are a threat to themselves or others? I am not saying I don’t have issues with the law on some of the DV TROs, nor do I think that people who are a threat to themselves alone should be deprived of their weapons (suicide is not illegal here), but you also have to remember that a threatened spouse can’t go down o the LGS and buy a gun when she or he has been threatened by the significant other–there is a ten day waiting period here. And there are a fair number of murders by pissed off spouses fresh out of jail….

        1. avatar thatoneguy says:

          Then maybe instead of championing for a BS program like this you should work toward getting rid of your states terrible gun laws and that spouse can tool up as she sees fit

        2. avatar Brian says:

          Fair point Mark, though to the extent someone is under a 5150 for being a danger to one’s self shouldn’t the cops also remove knives, ropes, pills, the garage door (CO2 poisoning by car) and other traditional implements of suicide?

          Its like every other gun control law, they tend to have an element of sense, but you have to balance the costs with the benefits. Given the high costs in terms of lost privacy (of all gun owners in CA), the police expenses, etc. and the limited benefit I doubt the program makes sense even without the constitutional implications.

    2. avatar Blue says:

      They also get folks who went to a counselor etc. and grab their spouse’s stuff as well. Those are the ones they are fast talking and pulling crap on.

  5. avatar S.CROCK says:

    glad to know what the $25 for background checks is really going to fund. i thought is payed college tuition for illegal immigrants, but this is just as bad.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Actually, it is worse than that. The $24 million mentioned in the article came from EXCESS fees generated by the DROS system, fees that were originally (by the terms of the statute) intended to fund the DROS system. But then some bright young guy got the idea that the excess belonged to the gun buyers who had been overcharged for years for DROS fees, and sued the State for reimbursement. Rather than give up the money, the State passed an amendment to the DROS law that allowed the expenditure of these funds for enforcement of gun laws, meaning they devoted the surplus to another purpose and avoided the necessity of lowering the fee to actual cost. Since the collecting of now illegal firearms will never end, there will never be an excess. In my view this was a retroactive authorization of an illegal tax, because it is no longer just a fee for rendition of a service.

      1. avatar Jake F. says:

        Indeed, and since the transfer of funds was approved while the case was working its way through the court system the plaintiff lost their standing and the case was thrown out.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:


      3. avatar S.CROCK says:

        just think how many people that is that are buying guns. thats the positive side of it.

  6. avatar GC says:

    A 500 caliber handgun? Man, where can I get one of those?

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      In the Navy.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Yeah. Definitely not for home use. Can you BELIEVE that ignorant and ill-trained weasel gets to say that unchallenged?

        MEIN GOTT!, but he could have said it was capable of sinking an aircraft carrier at 20 miles, and how many asshat Americans would know better?

        1. avatar S.CROCK says:

          from what he said, you could think it was a deck gun removed from a battleship.

    2. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      My thoughts exactly.

    3. avatar DDay says:

      You can also get the warship to fire it. What a moron cop.

    4. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      They used one of those to sink the Bizmark.

  7. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    This is a huge waste of time and money. Way to go CA! This makes me really, really not want a gun registry. I would also like to see the old guy with classes lead the charge in confiscation, since it is such a “new smart idea”.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      WHAT? You don’t feel warm and fuzzy all over? Try some brandy!

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I looked that clown up. He’s NOT an MD. He’s basically an ambulance chasing lawyer.

  8. avatar tfunk says:

    Glad to know all these agents are out there solving crimes instead of expanding the police state. Oh, wait…

  9. avatar jwestham says:

    Arent gun checks thrown out in 24hrs? How does california have record of the purchases?

    1. avatar JMS says:

      California has a handgun registry. It stores who purchased which gun and where you are located, etc etc. You must register all handguns in CA, and that includes if you move into the state from somewhere else and bring handguns with you — have to register each of them.

      Federal background check (NICS) info is allegedly destroyed, and that only says whether you pass or not but has no info on the actual firearm(s) or whether you even bought a firearm in the first place… just that you passed a Federal background check for one.

      1. avatar Jake F. says:

        Additionally, California does not actually use NICS, but rather their own DROS (Dealer Record of Sale) system that is run through the CA DOJ.

        Further, starting in Jan 2014 there will be registration of new handgun AND long gun purchases. Not entirely sure if that includes PPT transfers as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Suffice it to say I won’t be purchasing any guns in California.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          PPT transfers in Ca. must be processed by an FFL. So yes, they get registered too because the FFL runs the DROS and the registration paperwork. And if you don’t register, then you have an “illegal” unregistered handgun–and soon long gun. Strangely, there is no requirement of retroactive registration of long guns–except that if it passes, a new law will reclassify a bunch of currently legal firearm as “assault weapons”, and these too will have to registered. Top give you an idea, any rifle that is semi-automatic and has a detachable magazine (think 10/22) will be an “assault weapon” if the bill passes.

        2. avatar JMS says:

          Jake, you’re mistaken. California does use the NICS system, just dealers don’t generally do it directly (although they can if they want to, as you fill out a 4473 and any FFL can do a NICS check). When your FFL submits your DROS to the CADOJ, the DOJ runs a NICS w/ the feds as part of its check into your background and such. The rest of it is the CADOJ checking CA-local things that the Feds don’t care about, like unpaid state taxes or traffic violations, etc. But, yes, a NICS check is done as part of your firearms purchase in California. All firearms, not just handguns and on all transfers, including private party (PPT) or transfers from out of state family (even if it’s a gift), etc etc…

  10. All you need now is to have disgruntled family member calling and accusing you of family violence and you will automatically be on the “Prohibited List”.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not true. You still have to go to court and get a temporary restraining order, which in turn requires a statement of good cause under oath. (Not that that is much of an obstacle. People will lie.)

  11. avatar Rusty Puma says:

    Scariest remark: “targeting people who are likely to commit a crime”. Who gets to make that decision? Bad precedent.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      According to many leftists, anyone with a gun is likely to commit a crime.

    2. avatar Brian says:

      I think Tom Cruise get to make that call.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        ^ This^

  12. avatar Josh Wood says:

    If only people knew their rights, this disgusting program would turn up a lot less guns.

  13. avatar KAT says:

    Post on the inside of your door “come back with a warrant” for the naive in your household. I’m thinking of getting a door mat for the foyer, my husband has way too respect of any & all law enforcement.

  14. avatar Jack says:

    Note the comment about “taking them back”–as if people buy guns from the government.

  15. avatar Tom says:

    People get bullied by law enforcement because they do not understand or are willing to assert their constitutional rights. Until people get a backbone, these government thugs will continue to intimidate and bully citizens.

  16. avatar Ardent says:

    First and as always, you’re badly outnumbered, escape California ASAP.
    Second, some really good advice just got better; Don’t talk to cops.

    Given that many judges routinely issue TPO’s whenever a divorce is filed you can pretty well guarantee that this system is so rife with abuse and corruption as to invalidate any legitimacy it might otherwise have had. Then again, I think I already said, if you have a gun and are in California you missed the bus a while back.

    I think these sorts of confiscations add new rule to the lexicon; don’t’ talk to doctors. Much has been said about the unintended consequences of such laws being that those who need it most wont seek treatment, but for my part the answer is simple. If you think you’re that crazy, commit voluntarily. If you don’t think you’re nuts enough to require inpatient treatment, don’t tell anyone in the medical field about your emotional problems. It’s hideous, disgusting and dangerous, but this is what the libtards leave us. In fact, it’s clearly what they want; victim rich free fire zones (gun free zones), emotionally disturbed people with guns not seeking treatment, less faith and trust in government. . . as if the economic policies weren’t self evidently so flawed as to lead to eventual collapse on their own, the libtards demonstrate well enough for anyone who cares to pay attention that their social policies are equally absurd and self defeating. People who deal with how they wish it were rather than the way it is will forever fall into such traps.

  17. avatar Don says:

    Given that they’re snooping everything everyone says or writes it is only a matter of time before someone makes a BS argument that anyone they want should be on the prohibited persons list.


  18. avatar Robert Peel says:

    @ Bob: Cops are not cowards. It is the politicians, including the police administrators, who are the cowards!. They make the decisions to go after law-abiding gun owners rather than the actual violent felons, and as in this case, remember the legal hocus pocus they did to “steal/divert” money that should have been given back to gun owners and turned it into a jackboot program used against gun owners!. No “cop” thought of that, lawyers and politicians did!. I am fed up with the simplistic caveman-ish mindset: “Ugh-He wear uniform-he enemy-me bash”. Life is never that simple, except for lowbrows. That being said, California DOJ agents have a reputation for underhanded tactics, most notoriously “Alcohol Beverage Control”, so there is a legitimate concern these gun-grabbing agents will carry on these noxious traditions…

    1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      I didn’t know what a CA DOJ Special Agent was, so I went and found this video:

      If the video is accurate, they spend most of their time cocking their guns, putting on body armor, running in slow motion and pointing their guns at camera lenses, all to a percussion heavy soundtrack that could be straight out of a cheesy 80’s cop show. These guys could give any federal agency a run for their money when it comes to militarization, arrogance and diversity.

    2. avatar B says:

      It is that simple, the cops are the ones doing these things. I didn’t see any hand wringing by the cops there are they reluctantly did their duty. They love this sh!t. Normal people are much safer to push around than criminals to give them their power rush. If they believe the law is wrong, maybe they should arrest the people writing them?

  19. avatar NCG says:

    Love how the the Calguns guy basically says “go harass the black folks.” Like the LAPD and Oakland PD aren’t all over that already.

    1. avatar Wrex Allen says:

      Lol. No. That wasn’t a useless, race-baiting inference that you just made, at all. (I’m being sarcastic, in case you miss it).

      Please. Let’s keep things on track, here. I’m sick of hearing the cry of Racism, after the whole Zimmerman thing. Let’s take a break from it, since it’s totally out of place, in this particular discussion.

      1. avatar NCG says:

        The guy did mention Compton, in particular. I’m not saying he’s wrong about straw buyers in those areas. I’m just saying the pro-gun community is often happy to direct the regulators and confiscators in a certain direction. He brought it up, not me.

  20. avatar Michael G Marriam says:

    Moderator, How to I communicate personally with Robert?

    1. avatar Frank Williams says:

      You can email him at [email protected] (or click the “Email Us” link above).

  21. avatar JT says:

    It has probably been on TTAG at some point, but here are a couple more videos on APPS if someone wants to watch something other than the propaganda video that makes it look justified.

  22. avatar Rob says:

    When they leave the safe suburbs, and go into East Oakland, Compton, or Hunter’s Point looking for criminals with guns, then we’ll talk.

  23. avatar lars says:

    90% of my gun collection is through private sales. I love America!

    The idea here is to continue to expand the criteria to prevent more and more people from legally owning a firearm. I imagine one day, almost certainly in CA, everyone will be banned from owning a firearm.

  24. avatar Proverbs says:

    You think you are making a positive difference? In Yo dreams, Kiso.

    This confiscation program and it’s funding mechanism are disgusting. The cop union heads support it because it gives them more cheese.

  25. avatar P51 says:

    I was treated like crap by Kalifornians when I came back from overseas in 73. It was becoming a police state then and it looks like it is continuing down that road. You will never vote out the liberals because that is what lives in the big towns. They influence the state government just like NYC and Chicago do. They are the legacy of the hippy generation.

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