46 votes

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right To Bear Arms

By Michael B. Marois & James Nash | Mar 11, 2013 | 6:36 PM PT

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.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-g...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The only state, uh?

How discouraging it is, when the "only state" to enforce gun confiscation laws is also the same state that had those cops shoot up some newspaper delivery women's car, and didn't even have to apologize.

I really don't trust the cops of Los Angeles.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

All this is going to do is

All this is going to do is encourage people with mental problems to NOT seek the help they need, out of fear that the state will punish them for it.

Counties Have the Right and Should Nullify.

There are several things wrong with this California state action.

1.) Are These People Free?
2.) Are these People Peaceable?
3.) Are the Guns their property?
4.) Can the police take rights from one person from the crimes or prior mental issues of another?
5.) Can they prevent (disarm) one from protecting ones self from others, including from a spouse (who may be actually insane)?

Here are some Rights Based issues from Founders Quotes:

1.) Part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

2.) Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification convention in 1788:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are "PEACEABLE" citizens from keeping their own arms."

3. Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Samuel Adams: "...Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, ANY "PART" of his property without his CONSENT, in person OR BY HIS REPRESENTATIVE.--

These are some of the FIRST PRINCIPLES of natural law & Justice, and the GREAT BARRIERS of all FREE STATES, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcileable to these PRINCIPLES, and to many other fundamental maxims of the COMMON LAW, common sense and REASON, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists.

4 and 5:

Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Samuel Adams:

1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.--

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these

First. a Right to Life;
Secondly to Liberty;
thirdly to Property;

(Fourthly) together with the Right to support and defend them in the BEST MANNER they can--Those are EVIDENT Branches of, rather than deductions from the DUTY of "SELF PRESERVATION", commonly called "THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE"--


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

GEORGE NICHOLAS: "....But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in ALL WELL-REGULATED COMMUNITIES (Counties Can Rule), DETERMINES THE "EXTENT" OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS. If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" WILL declare it "VOID", or else "THE PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "declare" it "VOID".

(APP: This Common Law principle applies in states as well as federal)

"...But the"COMMON LAW"is"NOT EXCLUDED".There is"NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion. ..."

"...A bill of rights is only anacknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE". They BELONG TO US AS MUCH as if they had been inserted in the Constitution...."



This cases should be weighed by county courts which are "Well Regulated Societies". If cases regarding "mental" issues are exaggerated and or unfounded, halted by the County courts.

Condemning free men or their families, because of past crimes or difficulties, into a human state for which they cannot even defend themselves, is both unconstitutional and is like hanging a "no gun zone" on their house;

Are they going to disarm their neighbors as well? Family members or friends a mile away? ten miles? In the next state? Simply because they could by proximity or relation COULD make guns "available"? You may not Think so; But with this false and arbitrary reasoning, they could certainly attempt it.

This can easily be seen to lead The State into Determining that they have the power to blur the difference between someone being Mad as Insane; with someone who is Mad "as in Infuriated" and willing to defend his right to bear arms; Which is all peoples Duty.

Declaration of Independence:

"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to THROW OFF such government and to provide new guards for their future security."

Such a blurring of these lines can only be seen as a means to take firearms from the latter so that the people cannot resist Tyranny and Usurpation in Government without being labeled "mentally unstable".

This type of excuse by the state of California to pass laws masquerading Regulatory LAWS for "PEACE" "SAKE" which are actually Laws for the INFRINGEMENT upon the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is an OLD TYRANNICAL PLOY:

John Locke states it clearly in this way:

John Locke #228. "But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS are made upon their LIBERTIES OR PROPERTIES, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they (the government) invade their properties, CONTRARY TO THE TRUST put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "PEACE" of the world';

>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose ROBBERS OR PIRATES, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed.

If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is not to be charged upon him who "defends his own right", but "ON HIM" that "invades his neighbour's".

If the innocent honest man must quietly QUIT ALL HE HAS FOR "PEACE SAKE" to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered "WHAT KIND OF PEACE" there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,

and which is to be maintained "ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT" OF ROBBERS AND "OPPRESSORS".

Who would not think it an admirable "PEACE" "BETWIXT THE MIGHTY AND THE MEAN", when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? ..."

American Patriot Party.CC


Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Liberty lovers need to

Liberty lovers need to boycott California, including Hollywood's movie industry!

Incremental gun grab

this is how they do it. Divide society and then take their guns away one segment after another...

All returning U.S. Veterans are mentally unstable

because Dianne Feinstein says we are.

I just thought that bears repeating because of how absurd it still is to me.

This b!+ch's term needs to be nullified.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Sounds fine to me...

What am I missing?

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

The part where..

The State decides who is crazy..


I try to change people every day. Do You?

Those seem like 3 good reasons to me... to end your gun right.

"convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable."

Does the State decide who is a murderer? Or is that the public ie a jury? Does the State decide who is crazy? Or is that the public ie a legal inquiry process that is out to protect the public? Does a criminal who held up grocery stores with a gun, get another one when his 5 year sentence is up?

I must say, if someone is mentally off, then we must have a way to investigate are they potentially violent. Most of all are they threatening themselves or others. We must have an investigation into the matter with the eye towards someones mental state. A person who gets mentally worked up and violent, say their schizophrenic or their extreme bi-polar manic depressive has shown dangerous potential for violence, ie picking up knives or weapons of any kind and threatening people with them...

Now I am for the 2nd and everyone's right to self defense as the next Patriot, but if someone shows himself/herself to be acting aggressive, perhaps your right to self defense with a gun must be looked at. Take the girl Jodi Arias, who slashed tires of her ex-boyfriend. Say he proved enough to a judge to get a restraining order against her. That restraining order would hopefully, stop her or at least slow her down in her ability to get a gun.

Again, "convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable." That sounds good to me.

Now if you are to take the position that the STATE, Jury and Judge system is bad or horrible at doing this, that their process sucks, is arbitrary, is misused, is being abused by police or is an excuse so wide as to drive a mac truck through it that all of our rights are in danger, then I am listening and with you.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

I did not read the whole story.

I did read what was on this site. That person gave their guns to Nazi Police. Sorry I dont feel sorry for the poor bastard! He is mental if he allows the cops to come in and takes arms to defend his life and liberty without due process of the law! What is the next topic cause i dont care about someone who allows the cops to take his guns without a legal fight.One less sheep that will be shooting at us when Revoluton blood happens because they sure did NOT EMBRACE REVOLUTION LOVE!


Don't submit to a background check. This is back door registration.

Remind me again why anyone lives in CA


If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

My excuse

To provide for his family, my husband joined the military. We're assigned to Cali.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Good question considering

all the pot smokers/growers moved up here (WA).

Welcome 420'ers! Your business is welcome and appreciated.

Welcome hemp growers! Your business is welcome and appreciated.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

The way it reads...

The way it reads is that being on that list is not probable cause to enter the house. Apparently they have to trick you into violating your 4th amendment rights so that you will "volunteer" to allow them into your house and allow them to take your firearms. In the article it says that one woman did not answer the door and they had to leave "empty handed". Not answering the door is not against the law. They can come back, but what can they do if you do not answer the door? Maybe someone with some legal expertise can answer that.


Yea, seems a bit shakey if

Yea, seems a bit shakey if they really cant take them unless they are voluntarilly let in.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

I don't have ANY legal expertise

but I do know a heck of a lot about law.

There is no law that says you have to answer your door. There isn't even a statute to my knowledge (which would not apply unless you were an employee of that corporation which made the statute).

It's only a matter of time

It's only a matter of time before they knock on the wrong door.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

No mention of any appeals process


Who makes the decision that someone is mentally ill/dangerous.
(example - someone is involuntarily committed for
observation - as in the Brandon Raub case in Virginia -
but is found to be OK, can the person's rights still be suspended?)


What happens to the property that is confiscated.

Whether there are any safeguards at all to make sure
that the process is not being conducted in such a way
as to deliberately disarm people who are not really
mentally unstable or a threat to society.

Why this should even apply to people whose felony
convictions were not for acts of a violent nature...

Nanny state from hell.

There is no provision in the

There is no provision in the Constitution that mentions anything about perceived mental competency of any kind and a restriction on the second amendment. All affronts we have so far tolerated should be removed! Now that this is started, "shall not be infringed" must be defended now with vigor!!!!

There is no "reasonable" level of individual gun control. These laws are an affront to freedom plain and simple. I prefer the US populace, which I believe to be 99.8% made up of good people, to be armed readily. Evil would find itself consistently out gunned as was clearly the intent of the founders in their wisdom and proven before and since by human history time and again.

Thomas Jefferson 1791 Dec. 23. (to Archibald Stuart) "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Strictly A Devils Advocate Question

What about felons who have served out their sentences? Should they retain full 2nd Amendment rights?

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Some Federal Judges

have incarcerated individuals for possession of fire arms after they were convicted of misdemeanors. In Penna. a second class misdemeanor can subject an individual to up to two years in prison. The Fed's prohibit anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more from possession, however Penna. state law places the threshold at two years. There are many cases going on in, I beleive the state is North Carolina, where the Federal prosecutors have determined they have prosecuted many individuals, who are now incarcerated, based upon a mistaken interpretation of this statute and have requested they be released from Federal custody. Guess what, the Judge's have refused to release any one. Gotta keep that incarceration industry rolling along.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

If they served their sentences then

their sentence should be over. Not letting them fully back into society is wrong. In many places they can't even vote. That is crazy.

Basically in this country, if you are a felon you are sentenced to life. So much for a free country.

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth

has been working on this in Kentucky with some success:


I Agree

If they are out of jail, they have full Bill Of Rights protection.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Phrased in a way even

Phrased in a way even statists might approve:

If they can't be trusted with a gun they shouldn't be out.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.



Involuntarily Held

Involuntarily Held

In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

So not only did she get guns confiscated because some nurse deemed her "unstable" and had her committed for two days, but get this - SO DID HER HUSBAND!!

That's right. The law doesn't allow her to have ACCESS to guns. So HE LOST HIS GUNS TOO!

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

The moral of this story?


Registration = CONFISCATION