“In 2016, California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System enforcement program completed more than 9,100 investigations,” ydr.com reports, “which led to more than 500 arrests and nearly 4,000 guns seized, according to an annual report from California’s attorney general’s office.” So the Golden State has a special team that checks-up on Americans prohibited from owning firearms to see if they’re armed, and arrests them if they are. (They get around the probable cause problem by asking the target’s permission to search a target’s home.) Good idea?
Nope, just NO. If you have probable cause to believe I am a felon in possession inside my home, get yourself a warrant. You will NOT get permission from me to search my home.
No, just no. If you have probably cause to think I am a felon with gun(s) stored in my home, get a warrant, because I’m not going to give you permission to come in and search my house.
Definitely worth saying twice.
So, 9,100 cases and only 500 arrests? Doesn’t sound like a good place to spend your tax dollars. Also, arrests doth not equal convictions. What are those figures?
And who were those prohibited people they arrested? Were they law-abiding people, who told the government they had guns as part of the legal purchase process in CA, who then became prohibited because of California’s expansion of the prohibited categories, or because California banned their guns without telling them?
Or were they the gangbangers in places like Oakland and LA County who are responsible for the majority of California’s crime?
I’m guessing option one. But it’s a good thing the “gun safety” advocates assure us that gun registration and UBCs will never lead to confiscation.
That was my thought exactly. That’s almost a 5-1/2% arrest rate. I’m guessing there’s a reason they didn’t mention the numbers of convictions – probably below 1%. They also didn’t mention how many of those 4100 seizures were warranted and how many were taken from people who were legally allowed to own them, or how many they took from law abiding citizens and refused to return.
Or how many of them were because of an involuntary mental health hold (ten year prohibition in California) versus armed and dangerous felons. I remember one where they seized firearms that belonged to the spouse from a safe (constructive possession and all) even though it had been a voluntary stay due to a depression.
500 divided by 9100 equals a 5.49 percent ‘success’ rate. Even if one takes this stat at its face value(accepts that 100% of the arrests led to valid convictions), in what other human endeavor would one ever accept a 5.5% success rate as a good thing? That government brags about this horrid statistic shows how useless even THEY know that they are.
OFC, they know that the sheeple can no longer do basic division. They have corrupted education far too much for the average man to understand 500/9100=0.054945055. And for them to understand that 0.054945055 = 5.494% is even less likely.
Another way to look at it: The lack of arrests means the state forcibly confiscated legally owned, constitutionally protected property from 8,600 innocent people.
How much of this crap should Americans be expected to take? Revolutions have been started over this kind of thing before.
NO. If they do, I suggest a posse of equal or greater size to intercept them at the address of proposed confiscation.
I suggest a posse of equal or greater size, to intercept such a team. I’m willing to die trying to keep them. Are they willing to die trying to take them?
Are you a prohibited person?
There’s no such thing.
#2A
Actually, there are many tbousands such people.
#5A
Oh, FFS!
This is why we can’t have nice things…
Rather than fight to uphold ones’ rights all we can do in denounce them as a criminal and let the thugs have their way.
No, and I hope I never become one, but people get added to this list every day for the stupidest of reasons, like hiring someone to do your social security paperwork when you’re retired.
In Idaho, they tried to take a retired person’s guns for that very reason. They backed down when they were greeted by a posse on the front lawn. The posse did, however, also have the backing of their county sheriff.
So the lesson is to resist bad laws. We have bad laws because we comply.
We can do it as peacefully as possible. Strength in numbers.
LEO is the enemy in this regard because, whelp, they don’t make the laws they just enforce them.
That kind of thinking doesn’t work. But most LEOs are just “yes men” bootlickers anyway.
Your local County Sheriff is the key person. By law, NO government official is allowed to act in his County without his permission. That includes the CIA, the FBI, The President himself, or any other alphabet soup agency they can devise.
This does require that the Sheriff have a spine. Unfortunately, most of them have been bought off with federal ‘grant’ money(YOUR tax dollars at work…), like Doug Gillespie of Clark County, Nevada.
Read the pamphlet sent out to every Sheriff in America by Sheriff Richard Mack at the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn. for more info.
Is this group devoid of human corruption? No? Thought so.
Isn’t that the job for the police we already have?
Or should I put together a team who’s job is to verify officers show up to work on time?
In California, the confiscations are performed by agents of the Department of Justice, specially hired to do the job, and paid for (in part) by the Dealer Record of Sales (DROS) fees paid each time a firearm is purchased. And that’s ony half the story. DROS is supposed to, by statute, pay for thye costs associated with running the background check system (California does its own), but that fund ran a surplus. so, when someone sued to get the money back and to reduce the fees charged, the Legislature promptly allowed the DOJ to take the excess money to pay for the seizure enforcement system. Needless to say, it wasn’t enough, and now the DOJ wants to raise the fees or get more money from the Legislature to run the program, which runs in the red because anyone who goes through the training immediately applies for a job elsewhere.
No, you misunderstand. The team doesn’t do blind checks on prohibited persons hoping to find their guns, they have a system that regularly cross-references new convictions, adjudications, etc against the state firearms registry. Then it spits out a list of people to “visit”. Career criminals who don’t register their weapons are quite safe from this task force.
The real story, or at least it was a few years ago, was how many people are in this list that the government just hasn’t gotten around to, yet. We’re talking thousands of names, people the government knows have guns illegally, but just can’t be arsed to enforce the law against.
I just checked their 2016 report. It’s not as bad as previous years, but still over 10k known armed prohibited persons outstanding.
“State Firearms Registry” yeah, that is such a great idea, because no government ever used that to seize guns that decided they didn’t like or from people they didn’t like.
Fool or tool that is the right label for people who register their arms.
“State firearm registry” is a misnomer. .50bmg rifles and “assault weapons” are the only registered weapons. AW’s since 1994 and .50bmg’s since 2001 (er there abouts). Any handgun sold in the state since about 1999 had to be purchased through an FFL and the DROS (dealer record of sale) is kept on permanent file at CA DOJ. Same with rifles and shotguns since 2014’ish. Before that private party sales and DROS records were either not listed or the records were destroyed after 30 days. Now all private party sales oitside an FFL are prohibited in the state. Any sales that happened out of state or legal importations that were not processed by a CA FFL were obviously not on the DROS. DROS is California’s watered down version of a registration system. It’s an incremental stepping stone to full mandatory registration for all firearms.
I know my facts are off in a few places here. So I wont be butt hurt if you correct me. Please be gentle, its my first time.
If the state gets a record of the sale, they will keep it. That record becomes a de facto registry, and once the government has a database it will exist forever (see Canada). Again, do not register your firearms, because evil will eventually put that registry to a use you will not like. Keeping in mind this is California, it would not surprise me if they decided to put speeding and jaywalking on the list of things to make someone a prohibited person.
California has a record of every handgun legally sold in the state since January 1, 2000, which record includes the make, model, caliber and serial number. ow the only reason one might not call it a “registry” is that the DOJ doesn’t call it that, but that is just playing with words. It functions as a registry, and all those cops in the Bay Area who arrest armed persons run the gun to see if it is “registered” to the possessor, and try to add charges if it is not–even though no guns sold prior to 1/1/2000 are “registered.” If cops think it is a registry, if it functions like a registry, then it is a registry.
The one major failing of the registry is that once you are on it, the registration is never deleted, even if the firearm is subsequently sold through a FFL. Thus, it is massively overinclusive, and this is the reason the registry or “record of sale” does not establish probable cause to believe that an particular individual is in possession of a firearm,.
I would absolutely support a firearms confiscation team, but only if it abuses it’s authority and ultimately serves as the final straw that brings about the next civil Restorative War.
So the last “civil war” was a “restorative war” in your opinion?
You do realize Lincoln was a tyrant and the government we now have is a direct result of his “union at all costs” ideology, right?
War of Northern Aggression
Lincoln did not rule by fiat and was no despot, but ruled with the approval of Congress, a Congress from which the South had voluntarily absented itself, and the population of the north. So by definition he did not rule as a tyrant, even if southerners continue to believe that the Constitution does not require federal assent to a dissolution of the ties that bind. .But whatever. You are right, our government today is due almost entirely to his efforts to preserve the Union. Where would we have been, and what would the world look like today, had he not? A rhetorical question to be sure, since we can never know, but what do you think the chances are that we would have reached our status as a superpower without a union? Would the south, impoverished when slavery had outlived its usefulness, and without northern investment, have remained an agricultural backwater, ignored by the rest of the world? Who would have won had we not opposed the Kaiser and then Hitler? Would Hitler rule Europe–or would it be the Russians? (Probably the latter, but that’s just my WAG.)
The South vacated those seats because they already dissolved the union in their eyes. The Confederacy was already born. So all that was left was for Lincoln and his cronies to fill the vacated seats and pass every wishlist item into law.
It may be an exercise in futility to say “what if” but had the precedent been set that people have the right to peacefully secede and govern themselves – which, ironically, was what the revolutionaries stated was natural and normal and what they were doing in seceding from England – then I would venture to guess that there would be more liberty not less. What if indeed…
You are also mistaken in your assessment of the Constitution. When the North was foisting the tariffs on the South, you know, your nothing little backwater, because they were selling cotton and other exports to Europe, they realized that indeed because of how the Federal Constitution was worded that they had no recourse at a State level to fight off the tariffs. So that was an obvious shortcoming of the Constitution that either needed amending or was cause to create a new government.
You also assume that our status as a “superpower” is a good thing. What if Hitler never had to be fought in the first place? Many of the grievances that led up to the 2nd world war were a direct result of the completely insufferable outcomes of the 1st world war. What if diplomacy won out vs war?
The reason for wars is not some patriotic, “force for good”, installing democracy nonsense. Wars are a racket. The government gets young men and women to go fight and die for a made up cause so that crony industries can capitalize on the war and make huge profits.
I think the appropriate question that should be asked is what would’ve happened to the impoverished North had Lincoln not illegally invaded and conquered the South? Slavery would’ve died out no matter what. Even in the 1860s the only people who could afford to own slaves were big plantation owners. The African slave trade was already outlawed and basically every other country had already outlawed slavery peacefully. I have no doubt that the South would’ve come to the same conclusion. It was becoming economically as well as philosophically unfeasible and would’ve perished on its’ own. But the North did not have the economic output of the South and would’ve suffered mightily on its’ own.
“what would’ve happened to the impoverished North had Lincoln not illegally invaded and conquered the South?”
Good question. Another one is “what would have happened if Lincoln’s greenbacks had been allowed to stay around and replace fiat currency created at no cost by international banksters, and then loaned to the government at interest?
Usury really, the difference is the cost. Loaning something real has costs and interest is a natural outcome of those costs. Loaning something created at NO COST and then charging a fee, ANY fee, for that, is usury.
My problem is not with the enforcement so much as Commifonia’s definition of “prohibited”.
ummmm. No.
But I think their name should be renamed to – “The Ex-Convict Harassment Team.”
Possession of firearms by ex-convicts should be allowed for the following reasons:
A) After they have served their sentence, how will they defend their family, their livestock, their homes without firearms? Not very well – that’s how.
B) For some of them, after they get out of prison, they will need protection, and we all know, police don’t protect, police respond.
C) Why release them from prison, if people think they are not safe with the ownership of a firearm? Do people seriously believe that because they are forbidden by law to own a firearm, that they can’t get one?
D) Ex-cons who finally grew up and moved past their impulsive and ridiculous sensibilities, may also want to have an awesome mil-surp collection just like the rest of us.
E) Some ex-cons would like to go hunting with their hunting buddies, and providing some fresh meat for the family, which is nice. I don’t know about you guys, but, I’m not very good with a bow, and neither are my hunting buddies.
Is that a trick question?
Isn’t this reduntant with anti-gang units? Oops…not confiscating any actual criminals’ guns. Nope.
Should All States have an Armed Prohibited/Illegal Alien/squatter Deportation Team?
YES Obviously so.
CA is a sh_tty example, they are purposefully working against the rest of us and U.S. sovereignty.
We need an armed team to go disarm them, then to make them go to the house.
Is it April 1st?!? Sure give each state MORE authority to screw people…”shall not be infringed”😡
No. If there is a need, then send officers to do the job.
Having a “special” team means they are going to look for reasons to use them to justify their existence.
Lacking due process one would be lead to question the Constitutionally.
This is just fuckin gross. What has this country come to? Anyone who supports this shit is a true nazi.
But…but…but…they’re “prohibited persons”! Maybe they’ve done bad things!
Oh the horror! If we don’t have armed agents of the state employed to carry out this function whatever will we do? People who I think shouldn’t have guns will have guns! Oh Noes!!!
CA doesn’t give one flaming F about the rule of law, they’ve essentially waived their entire right to bitch about any other infraction by anyone, and they can pound their rape and murder crews in all of their asses.
Is the “Armed and Prohibited Person’s Firearms Confiscation Team” confining it’s activities to a few large population centers? Just how large will this group of thugs have to be to cover the entire state? The Golden Shower State may have to use the Clockwork Orange model of law enforcement if they want to force full compliance given their current financial difficulties.
I prefer the approach taken in New York, Connecticut and Colorado. Those state governments simply ignored widespread noncompliance and lied about the efficacy of their new laws. This tact is much less costly, both economically and politically.
Should all states have an “armed and prohibited persons” firearms confiscation team?
Answer: no.
If someone is so dangerous that we do not trust them with firearms, then we also should not trust them with cars, gasoline and matches, rope, hammers, sticks (clubs), chainsaws, kitchen knives, nor hands and feet. (Criminals used their hands and feet more often than rifles and shotguns to murder people last year.)
In other words, if we cannot trust a “prohibited person”, we cannot trust them and they should be in prison or banished from our nation.
Not so obvious: we all should be armed for self-defense because a LOT of convicted abusers, robbers, rapists, and killers are no longer in prison and walk among us.
Californians are subjects, not citizens.
I note that you used the word “citizens” correctly, without the capitol “C”. Meaning a sovereign person and not used as a title(of nobility???).
Excellent understanding. Congrats.
The federal felony flatrate ban in nfa act 68 should repealed and states can choose who banned ore not !!
That was the GCA of ’68, but I totally agree with removing the prohibition. IMO separating someone from their civil rights should require at the very least a separate petition to the court.
I use to support the concept of prohibited persons. I now think at the very least it needs to be trimmed back to only violent felons and even that should expire at no more than five years after release. Maybe we need to do away with prohibited person rules entirely.
California goon squad is no better than Communist Party enforcers and should be required to wear red shirts with hammer and sickle on front and back. Does that make them a target?
“Excuse me sir, I’d I’m from the California State government APPS enforcement division, may i come in?” says the cute little 20 something in a uniform.
“No” Says I and then i close the door.
Should all states have an “armed and prohibited persons” firearms confiscation team? Answer: no.
If someone is so dangerous that we do not trust them with firearms, then we also should not trust them with cars, gasoline and matches, rope, hammers, sticks (clubs), chainsaws, kitchen knives, nor hands and feet. (Criminals used their hands and feet more often than rifles and shotguns to murder people last year.)
In other words, if we cannot trust a “prohibited person”, we cannot trust them and they should be in prison or banished from our nation.
Not so obvious: we all should be armed for self-defense because a LOT of convicted abusers, robbers, rapists, and killers — quintessential “prohibited persons” — are no longer in prison and walk among us.
so they ask permission to enter and search first? then its the idiot citizens fault for letting them in without a warrant.
And what happens when I refuse to let them in to check. Since there is no warrant they have no legal purpose to be there
I wonder how many of the targets are under court ordered supervision, as in parole or probation. Those people don’t have Fourth Amendment rights, so asking permission to search is just for show.
In CA ‘prohibited person’ is a code phrase for ‘US citizen’.
No, absolutely not. Little special purpose units like that, especially armed units, have a way of becoming supply that creates its own demand. Mission creep usually doesn’t end well.
Insofar as there are prohibited possessors out there packing, the standard dragnet of the carceral state will swoop them up in good time. No need or use in designating special storm troopers for the mission.
Ummmmmm….NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, it will lead to major abuses of the 2nd and 4th amendments.
That’s almost as brilliant of an idea as the 16th Amendment (probably better than the 18th though).
My (German) wife’s family is familiar with the idea, but, they called them:
Sturmabteilung ( we call them Antifa, now)
Schutzstaffel (California police and courts, now)
Geheime Staatspolizei/Gestapo (we call them ATFE, now)
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
“Good idea?”
Is that a serious question? Please tell us you haven’t gone full-you-know-what…
Even with President Trump in office. I still don’t see any 2nd (Constitutional Rights)-Amendment reforms in many states. Matter of fact, we appear to be right on schedule for another American Civil War if the US Constitutional-Bill of Rights is continuous trampled upon…It with be a fight for our very Freedoms, Life, Liberties, and the pursuit of happiness! I just DON’T see any Liberty with a state that has “heavily armed paramilitarizied police commando *gun confiscation* Team” in place. How long would it be before being Conservative, Libertarian, etc…Are the people placed on a “Prohibited Persons” list…We’ve already seen the rabid and psychotic episodes the Democrats had over the secret “Government watch lists, or No-Fly, No-Buy lists.” What about PEOPLE being add for “Thought-crimes, wrong-think, so-called hate speech, etc…” What about if the ” Confiscation team” not only violates an innocent US citizens constitutional rights. But, shoots them down for “Not co operating!” Nevermind a lawful US citizen resisting what they may believe to be an unlawful, and UNConstitutional government act upon their person, place, and property!?!? Then what, what kind of due process, and recourse does a citizen if CA. have when rolling the dice that they may, or may not be on such a list of prohibited persons….?