California Using Police Raids on Ammunition Buyers Who Fail Background Checks

Police officers red flag confiscation order

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

California’s ammunition background check law has been a disaster for lawful gun owners since it went into effect. Earlier this year, US District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, writing in his opinion that, “California has tried its unprecedented experiment. The casualties suffered by law abiding citizens have been counted.”

And those casualties include tens of thousands of lawful gun owners whose ammunition purchases have been incorrectly denied by their overseers in Sacramento.

Background checks may have stopped “more than 750 prohibited individuals” from purchasing ammunition at legal outlets, but that was almost incidental to its real impact. “Unfortunately, the Standard background check also rejected 101,047 other law-abiding citizen residents that the laws were not designed to stop,” U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in an April 23 decision blocking enforcement of the law for several reasons, including constitutional concerns. “The standard background check rejected citizen-residents who are not prohibited persons approximately 16.4% of the time.”

Judge Benitez wasn’t first to note the mess California made of background checks. In December of last year, the Sacramento Bee led a story on the issue with the case of Zachary Berg, a Sutter County sheriff’s deputy who was unable to purchase shotgun shells “because his personal information didn’t match what state officials had in their database.” For Berg and the tens of thousands of other Californians wrongly turned away, “the rejections appear to have occurred because of errors and omissions in the Department of Justice’s own gun-registration database,” the story noted.

Shoddy implementation of the law is no surprise given that ammunition background checks and raids on supposedly forbidden would-be purchasers are extensions of an earlier policy regarding firearms. The state has applied its heavy hand to such dubious targets as Lynette Phillips, who was listed as “prohibited” because she checked herself into a hospital after adjusting poorly to a psychiatric medication change (seized guns were subsequently returned). It also went after Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann, who made a good-faith effort to register a gun but was unable to keep current with the state’s ever-shifting restrictions on just what features are and aren’t permissible on rifles (charges were dismissed after state agents seemingly misread the paperwork).

The potential for not just injustice, but tragedy, in such cases is apparent, since news reports describe the raids as being carried out by contingents of armed and armored California Justice Department agents. Anybody who needs a refresher course in the potential dangers of police enforcement of laws great and small need only take a peek at current headlines regarding the killing of George Floyd over a suspected counterfeit $20 bill and the resulting protests and unrest. Or they could consider the killing of Breonna Taylor during a misfired drug raid. And then there’s the killing of Duncan Lemp during a raid for alleged illegal firearms possession.

– J.D. Tuccille in California Ammunition Raids Put Innocent People at Risk of Police Violence

comments

  1. avatar MarkPA says:

    Will PotG awaken with enough of such raids and join BLM in the call to de-fund police?

    The world of aligned/orthogonal interests becomes more convoluted each day.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Joining any organization without exactly the same mission is a poor strategic decision. One organizations sins become spread to all, are easily crystalized and destroyed.. Far better to be many small groups and individuals pushing from many different directions.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I am NOT advocating for PotG to join BLM.

        Merely pointing out that if cops are raiding the homes of law-abiding PotG for the crime of attempting to buy ammunition, then it is the cops who would lose the support of that block of voters.

        I agree that any organization’s sins tend to tar each of its members, even when it is unjust to do so. Gun controllers tar the NRA with the sin of being uncompromising (a false allegation); and, then, each of its members is tarred with being uncompromising (also false). You are correct in cautioning prudence in becoming a “card-carrying member” of any organization.

        Nevertheless, there remains an argument for organizing. Those individuals who refuse to join with others are easily culled by the forces aligned against them. Those individuals willing to suffer the indignity of being members of a club (willing to admit them to membership) have a possibility of survival.

        1. avatar BIatec says:

          Defunding police will solve nothing. I don’t understand what your problem with police is? Why the hell wouldn’t you protest the politicians? The police work for them and simply push what ever laws they propose.

          They are your neighbors and fellow citizens. I just don’t get this. Why wouldn’t you start a group calling for the removal of the politicians ? what is defunding the police going to do? You think the leftist politicians won’t have a police force that goes after you still?

          True police reforms would be get rid of victimless crimes, make non violent crimes private and done through lawsuits and violent crime would be all police deal with.

          You are ignoring the root problem. The other problem is people want to have their cake and eat it too. You want police that will go after drug dealers, police that will protect your property for you somehow. Then when laws you don’t like get made it’s “defund the police”.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          “Defunding police will solve nothing.” AGREED. Or, at best, it will have negative consequences vastly outweighing any positive consequences. Sort of depends on the quantity and quality of the defunding. A 1% defunding would have nothing like the consequences of a 99% defunding. Defunding an activity that isn’t, on balance, constructive wouldn’t hurt; it would help. E.g., defunding the effort wasted on victimless crimes. Might save a fraction of a percent with a net improvement.

          “I don’t understand what your problem with police is?” Correct. You do NOT understand. I actually DO NOT have much of a problem with the police. No individual is perfect; so, there must be at least a few cops who are imperfect.

          The institution of police forces are creatures of our own civilization. We make of them the best we can; at least, the best we bother to make of them. Seems as though police use-of-force has been going down gradually in recent years. We seem to be going in the right direction in this particular regard.

          “Why the hell wouldn’t you protest the politicians?” I DO protest the politicians. One target at a time. Here, I was inspired to remark on how California cops seem to be shooting themselves in the foot by arresting ammunition buyers; folks who have been allies of cops.

          “The police work for them and simply push what ever laws they propose.” ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Given the intrinsic nature of the employer/employee relationship, the presupposition is that the employee is doing what the employer wants him to do. And the buck doesn’t stop at the city council; it ultimately ends with the voters.

          The voters need to figure out what it is that they want, and how to get that which they want, and then pursue that goal. If Democrat voters in a large city want a different sort of policing then they need to figure out what that means and elect councilmen who will deliver it.

          The real difficulty here is that the city wants the police to pursue the politicians interests. The politicians want, for example, policing-for-profit. The politicians WANT something (fine revenue) that the voters resent. Only the voters can resolve this conflict by voting for councilmen who will reduce policing-for-profit to a level the voters tolerate.

          “Why wouldn’t you start a group calling for the removal of the politicians ?” Because we have a republican form of government (with a relatively democratic voting franchise). That’s the way our system works. We can’t remove the institution of that class of society members whom we call “politicians”. We have to elect different individuals to be our politicians.

          “what is defunding the police going to do?” The amount of money we spend on policing is ultimately a matter of discretion. By electing politicians we – in some sense – negotiate how much/little we will be taxed and how much/little we spend on various “public works” whether they be parks or police. We (voters and legislators) can decide to tax and spend 10% more/less on police next year. Neither alternative is obviously the right/wrong choice. Voter sentiment is clearly dead set against any large change in the budget for police.

          “You think the leftist politicians won’t have a police force that goes after you still?” That’s actually what the REAL risk might be. I can imagine a scenario.

          Cops with 10+ years of tenure resign, taking private security jobs with men-of-means. (10+ years is necessary for the LEOSA exemption from any state carry laws.) Their positions in the hierarchy are briefly assumed by cops with <10 years of tenure. These may be good hearted for the most part; but they are inexperienced. In any case, they too will have 10 years of tenure in 1 – 9 more years. Meanwhile, the ranks of street cops will be filled . . . by whom? ANTIFA members? BLM members? If so, how might that change policing?

          Sort of like Soros' tactic of getting soft-on-crime DA's elected. The DA has unfettered discretion of which crimes to prosecute and which to ignore. Until the voters wake-up and realize what has happened, there is no one who could stop the undermining of equal protection of the law.

          "True police reforms would be get rid of victimless crimes, make non violent crimes private and done through lawsuits and violent crime would be all police deal with." Each a very worthy idea. May I offer another?

          Perhaps we should re-think the idea of policing by patrolling. I'm not advocating abandoning patrolling completely. (I can't imagine how to enforce traffic laws without patrolling.) Does it really make any sense for a cop to walk a beat looking (on the off chance that he might be lucky enough) to spot someone doing something illegal?

          Now, with ubiquitous telephone service, anyone can call 9-1-1 and summon a cop (fire/EMT) when muscle is needed to take a report, investigate, stop a prolonged crime-in-progress (e.g., a domestic situation). If we don't want/need a cop patrolling our living rooms why should we really want/need a cop patrolling the street in front of our homes or shops?

          Before the advent of telephones (especially cell phones) a patrol was virtually the only means for a cop to become aware that a crime is in progress or had been committed while the trail was still hot. Hasn't this practice been rendered obsolete by telecom?

          "You are ignoring the root problem." I'm continuously worried about this kind of failure. Whenever I think I've spotted what seems to be THE problem I often find I've grasped just the carrot top but not the carrot itself.

          "The other problem is people want to have their cake and eat it too."
          Yup; it's a natural tendency. We are all tempted to cry out: 'There ought to be a law!' The politicians graciously respond to our pleas and pass new laws that diverse factions ask for. They tax us to enforce those laws. And then we cry-out: 'We are taxed enough already!' We will never solve the problems of civilization as long as we don't recognize this conflict between asking for more laws and being taxed for what we ask for.

          "You want police that will go after drug dealers, police that will protect your property for you somehow. Then when laws you don’t like get made it’s 'defund the police'." Yup.
          One bright exception is with marijuana. Ever so slowly, the voters in states are liberalizing their pot-policies and "nullifying" federal (national voters') decisions that relentlessly gravitate to more government. (Not making an argument favoring use of drugs. Merely concluding that the war on drugs caused more catastrophic damage than it might have mitigated.)

          I don't find my sentiments much different than those you expressed.

        3. avatar Justin says:

          It would be 10 times more effective to defund the elected officials, or better yet hold them accountable for unconstitutional laws and I’m not talking about just them losing an election as they hardly ever get replaced by someone better. I’d like to see them stripped of thier immunity and prosecuted for civil rights violations. Maybe if they had the fear of Federal prison they would think more about the implications of the laws they draft (or in most cases just take from the lobbyist and pass off as thier own)

        4. avatar MarkPA says:

          Interesting idea. I fear it can’t be made to work.

          The founders did the best they could to create a system with checks-and-balances. (They were in a hurry so they made some mistakes; but on the whole, some checks and balances are better than a system with no such design.)

          To imprison a public official you would have to get an investigator to investigate, a prosecutor to prosecute, and a judge to conduct a trial and sentence. Observe that each of the foregoing is a member of the corrupt class that we are trying to hold accountable. Their natural instincts are to protect one-another as members of the same tribe.

          Internecine rivalry (between members of different parties or competitors for promotions, etc.) will – occasionally – result in some politician being pursued for bribery or the like; but this is relatively rare.

          Unfortunately, our best shot remains running better candidates and getting them elected.

        5. avatar Dude says:

          “…hold them accountable…”

          We would need an honest media before that could be possible.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If you could just remove the police, we could be rid of the politicians in a week.

        7. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          What we really need to do is demilitarize the police and do away with no knock raids, red flag laws, and the like. Swat teams must also go. Violence en mass that cannot be handle by a demilitarized police should be handled by the National Guard or, better yet, the police in concert with civilian volunteers.

        8. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          @MarkPa — “I can’t imagine how to enforce traffic laws without patrolling.” First of all, traffic laws are NO LAWS, they are arbitrary regulations that are only enforced when the government (city/state) needs more revenue or when an accident occurs and they want to pile on more charges. 99% of traffic “laws” are not enforced because they do not generate enough money to pay for the time and effort of the cops or courts. Besides that, 100% of the cops violate all of the driving laws all the time; if you don’t believe it just try following a few cops and see how many laws they break when not responding to a call.

          1) The SCOTUS already ruled that the states cannot require a Driver’s License for personal travel.
          2) Not Laws – The SCOTUS says: http://takebackthepower.us/Not-Laws.html

          Traffic laws are a perfect example of the government turning a right into a privilege and creating a revenue stream with arbitrary rules. These rules completely take away the responsibility of the drive to be alert and responsible for their actions and instead have a nanny government tell you what you can and can’t do.

        9. avatar MarkPA says:

          I’m sympathetic to much of what you write. Nevertheless, my sense of the matter is that society has reached an overwhelming conclusion that they want SOME level of enforcement of traffic laws.

          I confess that I’ve rolled through a stop-sign from time to time; and also exceeded the speed limit. There is considerable cop tolerance for such violations provided they aren’t excessive.

          If I roll through a stop sign, as an OFWG, a cop is apt to regard me as not especially interesting. A black guy is not likely to be so optimistic as I am. Each of us is entitled to his own opinion based on our respective experiences.

          An actual incident. I took a right turn on a red light where prohibited in the wee hours of the morning. A cop pulled me over (OFWG notwithstanding). Absolutely no jeopardy under the circumstances. I explained to him that I was in a hurry transporting my wife to the hospital with a head injury. (Wasn’t terribly severe, but it needed attention.) He let me go.

          We want cops to use discretion. The problem is, it’s awfully arbitrary; and there is no great fix.

          We could shift to traffic cameras. You get a ticket in the mail for making any infraction. No room for discretion. But that solution isn’t popular either. Maybe it would actually be a better solution; it’s a political question we have to decide as voters.

          The huge difficulty is that traffic cameras can’t arrest drunk or reckless drivers in the moment they constitute a real physical threat to public safety. Scofflaws without a valid driver’s license and up-to-date registered plates couldn’t be dissuaded. If a patrolman doesn’t run the guy to ground he continues to be an active threat to public safety. We really don’t want to rely on private party interventions to address such cases.

          I’m open to debating whether some alternative to cop-on-the-street traffic patrols might be a net improvement. Nothing occurs to me. Whatever the solution might be (e.g., some combination of cameras and a small force of “SWAT”-like pursuit responders), we the motoring voters, would have to be convinced.

          Americans are – ironically – relatively conservative. We are accustomed to the ways we have always been doing things. We don’t like the status quo. Yet, we recoil at innovations. E.g., we really hate traffic cameras notwithstanding that they can be implemented without serious risk of errors and without arbitrary decision making. (I make no claim that they are so implemented; only that I don’t think I’ve ever been maltreated by a traffic camera so far. Where I know there are traffic cameras I am more scrupulous about abiding by the speed limit.)

          I agree that policing-for-profit is offensive. Yet, this is PURELY a political problem. We the voters need to negotiate this problem with our municipal and state politicians.

          Suppose there is a street with a 35 speed limit and the public is routinely being ticketed for driving at 45. The fine is $100. Gross ticket revenue is substantial. Cost of administration (cops, courts, collection) is high; say $90; only a 10% “profit” margin. The solution is political.

          Voters have to persuade the relevant politicians to a compromise solution. That might be: raise the limit to 40. Reduce the fine to $50. Use traffic cameras rather than cops to lower the cost of administration. Increase the profit margin to 20%. Increase total net profit by three times. Reduce the rate of infractions to 15%. (Purely arbitrary numbers for illustration.)

          Likely, we American voters can’t be bothered to conduct this sort of “negotiation” with our elected officials. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what we need to do. The speed limit is an arbitrary political decision. The method of administration of justice is an arbitrary political decision. The degree of enforcement we desire is an arbitrary political decision. The solution must be political. It’s going to be arbitrary. And we have to accommodate ourselves to these facts.

          The theoretical right decision isn’t going to be made by traffic engineers, Constitutional law experts or philosophers. The decision we implement is going to be made by the crude, foolish, irrational machinery of politics. We simply have to grow-up and admit these are the facts of life.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Well it did work in WWII…

        Well… not for everybody.

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

        1. avatar Henry says:

          Stalin and Hitler were enemies. Which one was our friend?
          (Not Roosevelt’s friend, OUR friend?)

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Unless the enemy of your enemy is ALSO your enemy…. better to go it alone than have to watch your back while trying to execute a war…..

      4. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        “police in concert with civilian volunteers.” AKA a posse.

    2. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

      Yeah no thanks. No way in hell I’d align with a group of socialists who are acting as the modern day Red Guard on Maoist purges.

      Also, BLM is against self defense laws. Why would anyone progun hitch their wagon to them?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If you defund the police, who cares what laws you support, or not?

    3. avatar former water walker says:

      NO POTG should NOT “join”a terrorist organization Markpa. I just lost any respect I had for you. I hope you don’t write any more article’s for TTAG either. I will just say California sucks. Not much different than ILLinois who confiscate’s guns for the “crime” of having an expired FOID! And my black wife agrees with me!

      1. avatar Frontier Jeb says:

        Oh no, MarkPA you have been cancelled by former water walker! Former is is also starting to remind us again that he married a black woman – which makes him super special – nobody else ever did that before.

        1. avatar Jabberwocky says:

          Ha ha, spot on analysis of FWW. The dude just can’t stop reminding us of his “beautiful black wife” ….

      2. avatar Someone says:

        Deep breath, FWW. He just asked if we will “..join BLM IN THE CALL to de-fund police?”.
        Never suggested that we join the organization.

    4. avatar M1Lou says:

      Defunding the police is how you turn your entire city into CHAZ. Do you like being ruled by a warlord who beats you and extorts money from you? No? Then don’t defund the police.

      If you really want to start fixing things, start removing most malum prohibitum laws. This reduces the amount of police contacts for trivial things so they can focus on real crime and problems. Gun laws fall into this category and the police going after people over ammo background checks is a waste of government resources for a non-crime.

    5. avatar Steve says:

      If aliens invade earth, I won’t join with a leftists.

      Leftists first, then aliens.

    6. avatar lntn says:

      The police has nothing to do with this. They were just following orders.
      The only thing need to be defund is the CA’s Legislature & the Democrat party.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Yes, they were just following orders. Responsibility for issuing those orders belongs somewhere up the chain of command. A sergeant? lieutenant? Probably higher still.

        Whoever that was – perhaps the AG of the state – he too has a keen interest in preserving the institution that constitutes the “muscle” of the state. When he decided to issue the order he shot his own interests in the foot.

        PotG – without thinking the matter through – will accumulate a sour taste in their mouths for their police. That will dampen their enthusiasm for supporting funding for the police. The police need all the friends they can preserve.

        The official who gave the order didn’t do the police a favor. And, in the process, didn’t do the government of the state any good.

        I’ll cut some slack for the “just following orders” excuse by the individual officers. Yet, after Nuremberg, that excuse rings pretty hollow. Not clear to me just how much slack I’m willing to cut for the line officers. Some; but not a lot.

        1. avatar Red in CO says:

          It’s actually a very interesting question you’re essentially proposing: how much culpability do individual officers have when they enforce unjust laws, and how much responsibility do they bear when the law punishes honest citizens? There is no easy answer to that (I have my own opinions, but they’re not necessarily any more legitimate than the next guys since it’s largely a philosophical question), but it’s a question that seems to be at the heart of this matter

    7. avatar guest says:

      The enemy of my enemy isn’t your friend. They’re your enemies enemy. Nothing more, nothing less

    8. avatar bill knight says:

      I will Never align with defund the police. Defund the LibTard gun control groups Yes! You do know gun control laws started with the aim of keeping newly freed slave from taking up arms and seeking revenge on their oppressors? Right? If you didn’t, you either failed History, or were failed by your schools!

  2. avatar GuyInWI says:

    California is a frightening look into what lays ahead for the rest of the US unfortunately. Left California many years ago and then Texas as that is getting Californicated now. You know what I like about Wisconsin as opposed to Texas? They don’t have these no gun signs in practically every business like Texas does.

    1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      That is a vast overstatement. The largest impediment I have to carrying daily on the places I frequent is the post office. On the rare occasions that I need to do business where there is a posting, I simply ignore it. I carry concealed and no one will ever know.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        the post office rule dates back decades to when post office employees termed the phrase going postal. It was never the customers that were the danger, the passed over people working terrible jobs were always the problem.

        1. avatar guest says:

          My hometown was where that phrase got it’s start!

        2. avatar Someone says:

          Congratulations, guest. Well done. What an achievement!

      2. avatar CentralVirginian says:

        While in some states you must be trespassed from a location which has to be aware of your gun possession, in other states you have the potential of a fine or misdemeanor arrest. POTG need to stay vigilant on incremental law changes which could allow infringement of constitutional rights.
        I’ll hide in the shadows ignoring laws that infringe on rights isn’t really a stance against them.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I also carry in the Post Office. Pretty sure 2A exists in the Post Office, as well.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Yes, but there is a federal statute that not only prohibits carry in the post office, but anywhere on its grounds. It is a felony that brings loss of gun rights if you are caught. Add to that, Scalia suggested in Heller that restrictions on carry in federal facilities may pass scrutiny. Can you afford the attorney’s fees in losing the criminal case, and the fees for appealing the conviction to the Supreme Court? If you lose, can you afford to spend a number of years in a federal pen?

    2. avatar FB says:

      That’s today however tomorrow can be different for Wisconsin.

    3. avatar Henry says:

      In the past five years of my motoring and lodging in Texas, I have only encountered two establishments with gun signage, and one of those was a tavern (required by law). Then again, I don’t spend my time in the big blue cities, and I don’t frequent taverns. As far as I’m concerned, most of Texas is just fine, thank you.

  3. avatar Dude says:

    First of all, no one cares about Duncan Lemp. He’s the wrong color, so it doesn’t help push the narrative. We aren’t allowed to say that police can be incompetent. They’re only racist.

    Now imagine this being a voting rights issue. Can you imagine the media reaction, if a voting law stopped 16% of legal voters? Where’s the media on this? They don’t care because they don’t report the news, only the narrative. They don’t care about rights when it isn’t convenient for their cause.

  4. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

    “And those casualties include tens of thousands of lawful gun owners whose ammunition purchases have been incorrectly denied by their overseers in Sacramento.”

    You say that as though it’s an unintended consequence rather than a feature.

    Eric Swalwell 2020

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I agree, that struck me immediately. “Not a bug, that’s a feature!”

    2. avatar JoeyK says:

      Appears to be functioning as designed.

  5. avatar Steve says:

    Get a BLM flag and they’re pretty much leave you alone, hell they will probably give you theirs… they may even shoot their self when they see it, at least you will get them to kneel, whoever it is that comes and get the ammo because they are defunding the cops….. mind-boggling

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Being a POTG, I just couldn’t live back in CA.
    I thought it sucked way back when I had to get my mom to buy my .22 ammo for me.
    I do miss it there. Learning to surf in HB. Camping in Joshua tree. Hiking the mountains.
    Shooting at the old Santee landfill. The redwoods.
    Yup. I miss it down there. And I fear the same crap coming to Oregon, so I’m looking at places in Idaho.

    1. avatar dph says:

      You fear the same crap coming to Oregon? You must not be paying attention, Oregon and Washington politicians are falling over themselves trying to be exactly like California. We may not be there yet, but give them some time. The future is not looking rosy in either state.
      edit, reread your post and see you’re looking to get out, smart move. We’ll be getting out of WA after my father is gone.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Or and Ca started letting hoards of Ca morons in 25yr ago. That ship has sailed.

    2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      The other day, Dyspeptic noted a marked increase of typically Leftist ‘Yuppie’ automobiles in his city.

      That’s *Wyoming*. Retiring in Idaho will likely be only a temporary reprieve.

      Now, why would Leftists want to relocate to the boondocks? Well, they’ve ruined their big cities and made them unlivable, but I think there’s something else going on here.

      It’s the low-population ‘flyover’ states with their conservative populations are foiling their national agenda with their senate votes. It’s an invasion with the intent of getting a headlock on the American political system so they can change it to their liking…

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “It’s an invasion with the intent…”

        I read a fairly recent mainstream media article calling for that.

        1. avatar SoCalJack says:

          That’s what it appears to be across the US, Dem voting Yuppies and Elitists moving into other areas.

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Dubois Wy is also suffering from a recent influx of mostly summer but also a few full time residents from places like Chicago, parts of California, and Texas. Oddly enough even the Texans are turning out to be very politically active, trying to gain control of board that used to be pretty laissez faire. Now they are getting more and more litigious and suing other residents for aesthetic crimes and not getting permission before doing work on their own homes. WTF would you move to rural Wy where most of the homes can’t even see each other and start demanding that it be more like big city suburbs?

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          The typical tactics Leftists use is not to relocate to the boondocks, it’s to settle in the state capitals and start to swing their weight.

          Using ways like, getting elected to the city councils and start infringing on rights…

    3. avatar conrad says:

      and good luck in Idaho. people killing and burying their own kids, muslim problems, new rules and regs for gun owners, rich people buying up all the land and blocking access. you’ll be stuck in a shitty tri-level and only able to eat the scenery… when its not frozen.

  7. avatar Baldwin says:

    Unintended denial of rights on top of blatant denial of rights? Leftist heaven.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      This reported use of cops is *exactly* why I won’t ever go through any ammo BGC application. I have about 100 hours of professional instruction under my belt, have owned/built/restored/used firearms for 30 years, am a financial supporter of certain pro-2A organizations, regularly train, and am my block’s Neighborhood Watch liaison. Yet because I don’t have an FFL purchase on record since the early ’90s (CA’s database goes back to only 1996 for ammo checks, as I understand it), I’m persona non grata and risk being given a visit from CADOJ for the suspicious attempt to buy something that CA generously allowed me to buy without comment for the previous 30 years.

      With all our new gun owners, as well as the realization by the masses that all the current turmoil is happening in the Dem-led areas, I can only hope that this November will see regime changes.

  8. avatar WARFAB says:

    If you declare your house an “Autonomous Zone” you can do whatever you want and the police won’t bother you.

    Wait, does that only work in Seattle?

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      They need to send in armed troops right now before the entire city raises the Antifa flag. Start with cutting power and water to the seized area and use medieval tactics. Once they are surrounded move in. All black masks should be removed and a special website created to display hi res photos of the soy bois.

      Now that would be must see TV

      1. avatar MouseGun says:

        Well they already have a war Lord and a bunch of bums ran off with their food (and they quite literally begging ,”please send Soy”) I’m not too worried about it.

      2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        I suggested the same in an earlier thread few days ago.

        The zone is small enough now to need only a couple of Bn’s.

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        Right now it’s all jolly with movie night and hugs . They have their little enclave and all their dreams are coming true.

        Right up until the baddest of them asserts himself and takes control. First comes the purge then the rules. Finally the fist on all their throats. Give them until Saturday and thats’ where they will be.

        Part of me says go for it. Give them the entire city. But too many innocents would be harmed. If this isn’t a reason to GTFO of there what is?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          It’s not all hugs anymore. As expected and right on cue, the absence of police has given rise to a self-appointed “heavily armed warlord who is now enforcing ‘his’ streets.”

          https://www.zerohedge.com/political/seattle-autonomous-zone-now-has-heavily-armed-warlord-governor-clueless

          So…Seattle today, Minneapolis tomorrow? I wonder if our L.A. Mayor Garcetti is wetting his pants yet. Is anyone seeing these Antifa takeovers of any Republican-led cities? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?…

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Pretty much Occupy Wall Street part II…. Someone will get paid off and they will abandon the troops to the wolves….

        3. avatar former water walker says:

          Dunno if anyone watches The Yankee Marshall on YouTube but he’s gone FULL RETARD. He’s traveling to Seattle to “interview” these thugs. He thinks they are “upholding” the SECOND AMENDMENT. Think I’m joking? Watch this idiot. Never followed him…

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I came to the conclusion that he’s not worth watching after viewing only a single one of his vids a couple of years ago.

      4. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        Considering Amazon is donating $10M to leftist causes I’m willing to chuckle at the idea of their HQ getting taken over.

      5. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Boosht. Cut the water and power and close the area off, you can go in but not out. Like a quarantine! Have junk guns available for the asking. Then wait for people to BEG to be allowed to rejoin polite society.

        1. avatar Henry says:

          I’d be dumping a dozen or so barbed-wire-wrapped baseball bats over the perimeter late at night, just for the symbolism.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          AHHHH, Sweet Lucile….

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    Priority seems to be given to going after a single presumed criminal their computers say did a bad thing.
    Burning Rodeo drive isn’t an issue they want to tackle.

  10. avatar Hasaf says:

    My 87-year-old father (with a spotless record) failed an ammunition background check. The next day he passed it.

    The test is simply too flawed for the use that it is being applied to.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Have dad keep an eye out for them runnig up to his house tooled up. When that red ball drops they spring into action,

      Minority Report reference.

  11. avatar Straight Shooter says:

    Locked down a ok. Criminals set free a ok. Cant work a ok. Riots destroying private property a ok. Law against showing a gun to ward off attack or self defense a ok. Gay rights a ok. Child traffickers a ok. Drag queen story hour a ok.
    God why are we suffering? His response hey everything is just a ok.

  12. avatar Matt in MT says:

    Lawmakers, bureaucrats, and judges bear some of the responsibility for the burden laid at the feet of law enforcement. The de-fund police movement conveniently ignores the impact of enforcing silly ordinances, intrusive laws, and no-knock warrants.
    Things like the above ammunition background checks, single cigarette sales (Eric Garner), and no-knock raids (Breonna Taylor) increase the number of enforcement interactions with the public. The police state has to grow to keep up the with enforcement demands of increasing laws and regulations.
    Bad cops should be held responsible. So should authors of bad laws and regulations, as well as judges who authorize bad warrants.

  13. avatar pwrscourge says:

    Where’s that fool Geoff …. PR? He’s usually got about 50% of the post by this time.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Seeing as you’re already here, the math shows that you already have more posts on this page than he does. So…

      Oh, and you never responded to my question yesterday as to why you lied about your claim that Serge “owned” me over Memorial Day weekend. Plus, we’re all on to you and know that you’ve been posting snotty remarks under multiple usernames. If you want to troll, you really need to get better at this.

      1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

        “If you want to troll, you really need to get better at this.”

        That’s the best he’s got. Flinging little insults like a demented chimpanzee that flings its feces at people.

        Dance, little ‘scourge’, I order you to respond… 🙂

    2. avatar Dude says:

      What do you have against him anyway? I guess I missed the genesis of the spat.

      1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

        He’s just a pissed-off little twerp that I bitch-slapped in the past, and all he can do now is jump up and down and screech like a demented chimpanzee that throws his shit at people.

        Dance, ‘scourge’, I order you to respond… 😉

    3. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

      “Where’s that fool Geoff …. PR?”

      Waiting for *you*, little boy.

      Dance, little troll. I order you to respond… 😉

    4. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      We’re all waiting Scourge, you little gnat.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    Haven’t see our favorite poster pwrserge in a while/ did he get put in the time out room?

    1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

      Serge comes and goes, sometime for months, whenever the mood hits him…

    2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Still researching MN laws to come up with a narrative as to why those police were completely justified in killing Mr. Floyd, perhaps.

    3. avatar Montana Actual says:

      He got exposed for claiming to be a lawyer and then refused to prove it. He basically doxed himself without actually doxing himself. The comments were hilarious. That said, he is still here. He goes by pwrscourge now and has resulted to leaving one liners with no follow ups. Definitely him though, because he has singled me out (the one who exposed him) multiple times and left some little jabs. Pretty funny. The mentality of a 14 year old in an AOL chat room during the 90’s.

  15. avatar Dennis says:

    Fingers crossed for the San Andreas fault!!!!

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      As Commiefornia slides into the Pacific Ocean,well bye and good riddance.

      1. avatar DinWA says:

        Ain’t gonna happen.
        The San Andreas is a strike-slip fault. The Pacific Plate is creeping horizontally roughly northwest relative to the North American Plate and eventually (100,000 years?) Los Angeles will nuzzle up to San Francisco.

        1. avatar Bob in Calif says:

          Thank you for clarifying that. Been telling folks for years. If San Andreas cuts loose all we will get is a shit ton of rubble and debris. Hell, then we could just bulldoze it into a big heap at the Mexican border. Wall? We don’t need no stinkin’ wall.
          sarc off (for those who don’t get it.)

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Tijuana will be the new L.A.? Could we tell the difference? Might be less shit on the sidewalk…. Just kidding TJ doesn’t have sidewalks….

        3. avatar DinWA says:

          Los Angeles, San Diego, Tijuana, and all of Baja Cali, Norte i Sur will be riding that bus with the occasional rubble-pile-producing rumble along the way.

        4. avatar Henry says:

          “Los Angeles will nuzzle up to San Francisco.”

          Now I’ll never unsee that image.

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      I’d settle for the people waking the fuck up… I lived in Huntington Beach for eight years, loved it, Beach in the morning, go play in the snow at Big Bear in the afternoon, year round motorcycle riding, diverse car culture… The heart of the John Birch Society, Conservative, laid back and now you couldn’t pay me to cross the state line.. Wake up California, purge the illegals and dump the Commie “Progressives”, take YOUR state back, it could be a great place to live again but, it will take some pain and effort to get there… Hint, start by dumping Schiff, Swallowswell, Pelosi, Madd Maxine and Feinstein…. then recall Garcetti and Newsome….

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        You left out the open homosexual politicians who California voters support as well. They pride themselves on being the first to openly support anyone with an alternative lifestyle. The people they support like Tom Ammiano, state senate president, has never supported Liberty. But he does support his gay lifestyle.

    3. avatar Dave says:

      Dennis, don’t forget MOUNT ST. HELENS !!!!!

      1. avatar DinWA says:

        St. Helens already spoke her piece. Mt. Rainier is the one to watch out for. It is the most massive mountain in North America, considered active, and is on the Decade Volcanoes list. Pictures truly do not give justice to this magnificent monolith.

  16. avatar Debbie W. says:

    All who passed this law should be rounded up and thrown in prison. Frankly cops who obeyed orders to arrest ammo purchasers are along the lines of cops who are prone to hold their knee on the neck of a man already on the ground in cuffs.
    There comes a time when a cop has to decide between being a jack booted thug or standing against sickos with a sicko gun control agenda. It should not have taken a judge to call off the hounds.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Agreed. And as we saw recently with the various (highly illegal) lockdowns, the police don’t even enforce the law, they enforce the (highly illegal) whims of asshole politicians. That’s a problem

  17. avatar enuf says:

    A 16.4% rate of totally shit for brains results is an outrage on top of the outrage of these background checks existing in the first place. Over a 100,000 people already denied their Constitutional Rights! At risk of knocks on the door by police expecting trouble over “illegal” guns or ammo?

    This is a formula for enormous bad news for the already beleaguered police. Some cop overreacts and shoots an honest citizen during some follow-up check, that’s more fuel on the fire.

    The judge is right, this law is crap, unconstitutional and flat out DANGEROUS!

  18. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Kali passes illegal laws then cry when the police enforce them and yet I’m supposed to be all outraged? LOL NO

    1. avatar C Aldridge says:

      Most of the time it is the legislature who passes these stupid laws. The people usually do not get to vote on them and when they do, the whining snowflake lieberals outnumber the good people. I hope the State of New California happens soon.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Most of the time it is the legislature who passes these stupid laws. The people usually do not get to vote on them and when they do…

        The people don’t get to vote on the laws, but they DO vote for the liberal progressives that MAKE the laws and when the people do get to vote on a proposition, if someone doesn’t like the outcome they just find some liberal Judge (not hard in California) to rule against the will of the people…

  19. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The state using the police to further their goals, thus the police state, Antifa should be in line with the states goals as Communists.

  20. avatar neiowa says:

    Well the popo certainly aren’t going to be bothering any black folk this week. For anything they have an immunity card.

  21. avatar BusyBeef says:

    So which is it boys:
    “Come and Take It”
    or
    “Muh Thin Blue Line”
    ?

    1. avatar enuf says:

      It’s both.

      Plus some other stuff too.

      This is what is known as a big mess.

    2. avatar Red in CO says:

      I’ve been wondering that for years. The cognitive dissonance with that is on par with the leftists who think all cops are racist trigger happy assholes and that they should also be the only ones with guns.

  22. avatar Dennis says:

    Let me see if I got this,,,,California has massive illegal alien problem, massive gang violence, alleged massive virus problem, massive homeless and drug problem……and they’re using the police force (who they hate) go to homeowners that for whatever reason weren’t allowed to buy ammo to protect themselves from the aforementioned groups!?🤯

    1. avatar Smart enough to get the flock out of California says:

      If you live in California that is exactly what most of your neighbors and coworkers voted for -STUPIDITY ! And by golly that’s what you will get.
      Idiocracy at its worst.

  23. avatar Rich B says:

    There is a reason it’s called “The People’s Republic of California” This is just another example
    ..

  24. avatar American Patriot says:

    As long as their raiding white people they have nothing to worry about. The news media won’t pickup any of that, it would not make headlines & law abiding with people don’t riot!

  25. avatar Commiefornia shittthole of the west says:

    Need no crime zone signs 👍😷🤕🥊🧨☠️

  26. avatar Top Hall says:

    Because either the police having nothing better to do, what with the riots and all, or this is exactly what the politicians want them to be doing with their time. Why live in California?

  27. avatar Alan says:

    How long might it be before the antics of what could be politely described as “the dim bulbs” of law making and law enforcement lead to more than simple inconvenience visited on the miss characterized citizen? How long before irreparable damage is done during the sooner or later to be experienced “bungled police raid”, based on shoddy paper work, bureaucratic stupidity or something much worse? How long before lives are lost, as has happened before? How long might it be before the shield of “qualified immunity” proves to be a grossly inadequate shield behind which so-called public servants hide from an incensed public? My Crystal Ball never worked especially well, I don’t know about yours, however the question does seem worthy of some thought, doesn’t it?

  28. avatar Hannibal says:

    “The potential for not just injustice, but tragedy, in such cases is apparent, since news reports describe the raids as being carried out by contingents of armed and armored California Justice Department agents…”

    lol yeah okay let’s go to those news reports and see what they say. This ridiculous “Reason” article makes it sound like Waco. Want to know what they describe as a “raid”?

    “Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital. They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.”

    OHMAHGAWD! Cops carrying 40 CALIBER GLOCK MACHINEGUNES and “bulletproof vests” knocked on someone’s door and he let them in!!!

    lol “raids”

  29. avatar Biff says:

    A pro gun group needs to find an illegal alien child rapist who was denied the ability to buy ammo under this law. Since they are being given the right to vote and drivers licenses I’m sure the court would quickly find this law unconstitutional. It’s all about finding the right plaintiff.

  30. avatar Chiefton says:

    If they get rid of law enforcement then they might as well get rid of laws as there would not be anyone to enforce them anyway. No reason for courts or prosecutors either. No attorneys as public trials will be swift and harsh. No jails needed. Gangs will quickly be gone along with thieves and murdrers.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      I’ll take anarchy over totalitarianism any day of the week. At least under an anarchist system the powers that be (because there will ALWAYS be powers that be) would be honest about the legitimacy of their power being solely due to force

      1. avatar Wheel gun guy says:

        In a totalitarian state- I will be the anarchist .

  31. avatar Bemused Berserker says:

    If you want to see what the new improved Community Police Force, just look at Camden NJ. Complaints of abuse by officers went down by 95%. Of course, their other crimes per capital doubled, triple and quadrupled depending on the crime.
    That stupid Futt Bugly T**t in Minneapolis, City Council Prez says they want a “Transformative Model of Community something or other. I thought about that and pondered. Then it dawned on me what they want:. TRANSVESTITES IN FISHNET HOSE WEARING BUTT PLUGS WILL HAVE STORY HOUR WITH THE MISCREANTS THEY CATCH!

  32. avatar Fed up says:

    BLM was founded on lies. BLM is a joke ! This is yet another attempt to destroy our country . The left does not like the US constitution, and wants it ripped up. Wake up you WOKE fools you are destroying your children’s future. If you really want to stop people from being killed by cops– stop fighting them. I have been physically pulled from a vehicle at gun point , cuffed , arrested and booked I to jail . I did not fight ,I followed the officers instructions. I paid my fines and probation officer . I was not hurt by the police. 30 years later I was ordered out of a house at gunpoint, disarmed , cuffed , and then the person that called the cops stepped in and informed the officer there had been a mistake I was supposed to be there. The officer removed my cuffs , returned my revolver to me handed me my ammo( that he had unloaded) and asked me not to reload untill he left the property. Point is I did not fight the cops and all worked out well. If you fight a cop who is trying to detain you – you WILL GET HURT. George floyd shouldn’t have lost his life . A lot of people of all races have been killed by the cops and 99 percent of them were fighting with the cops.

  33. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Drug legalization and alternative lifestyles are more important to california voters. Than gun civil rights. Ten years ago cali cops were putting guns in the faces of health food store owners. Because they sold goats milk.

    Now years later they are put a gun in your face (mr or mrs gun owner) because you didn’t pass their “stupid on purpose” background check system.
    When they came for the health food store owner I didn’t care. Because I was not a health food store owner. Now they are coming for me. And I’m the only one left. There is no one left to stand up for me.
    Yes, I know it’s not the exact quote.

    The problem with these two groups, Drug legalization and alternative lifestyles, is they are both socialist progressive in their political orientation. I’ve been saying on TTAG for a while now that voters in california traded their gun rights for changes in drug and sex laws.
    And these same people support the welfare industrial complex. They like replacing the father and his guns with a government check and his guns, with the guns of a big city police department.

    California has a long history of racist gun control laws. Long before the Mulford Act. The Drug legalization and alternative lifestyles crowds both support racist gun control. They own it and control it. Ronald Reagan is a dead president. They publicly support what he did.

    “The Racist Origins of California’s Concealed Weapon Permit Law”
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2599851

    ps. I was a health food store customer in california back in the day. And I’m still pissed at the cops for what they did. And now the cops pass out tickets to people who wanted to attend church services.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Excellent essay!

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I found this doing research for my college paper on :

        “Firearm Education: Teaching the Second Amendment in Kentucky school system grades K through 12”
        http://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/bis437/149

        Clayton Creamer is an outstanding resource. And yes I gave him full credit for the things I used.
        (smile)

  34. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Think THAT’S bad? How about being raided for letting your pet suffer from loneliness?

    An animal rights law introduced in Switzerland in 2008 makes it illegal to own just one guinea pig at a time. Guinea pigs need social interaction to be happy, so owning a single guinea pig is considered harmful to its well-being and forbidden by law.

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