 |
 |
It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:35 pm |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 8 posts ] |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
CA Database aids in Gun Seizures From Prohibited Owners
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Site Supporter   Location: Hoodsport/Shelton Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 Posts: 3372 Real Name: Don 
|
The perils of a database of registered guns and owners...
While I'm not against prohibited people from having guns, I'm sure as hell not for a database of ownership. https://www.yahoo.com/news/cbs-news-rid ... 10770.html _________________ "The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living". -- Travis A Kisner |
| Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:41 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 Posts: 7649
|
As you've seen in WA they simply keep expanding the parameters of what makes a prohibited person or what is a prohibited firearm that must be surrendered. The database aids the enforcement of that.
_________________ If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto). If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any. https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/ Quote: “I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.” https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738 Quote: [Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them" |
| Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:44 am |
|
|
|
 Location: Union Gap Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 Posts: 1722 Real Name: Randall Knapp
|
And what they got for that shift looked to be two NEF single shot shotguns.....that is some great tax dollars at work.
|
| Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:52 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Puyallup Joined: Thu Jul 5, 2012 Posts: 3066 Real Name: Glenn(sted)
|
We've been told there is no gun registration in Washington......
Bullshit! |
| Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:12 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Lynnwood/Bothell Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 Posts: 8562 Real Name: Curtis
|
Alpine wrote: As you've seen in WA they simply keep expanding the parameters of what makes a prohibited person or what is a prohibited firearm that must be surrendered. The database aids the enforcement of that.  And this is why the only "prohibited person" classification I can get behind is someone who is currently serving time behind bars for a criminal conviction. That is the only time I believe it is valid to deprive someone of their natural right to keep and bear arms. All other prohibitions are arbitrary and can become a slippery slope. |
| Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:14 am |
|
|
|
 Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 Posts: 1367
|
They actually think prohibited persons are the ones who register their guns? Lol.
|
| Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:42 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Mohave Valley Arizona Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 Posts: 13371 Real Name: Casey
|
Guns4Liberty wrote: Alpine wrote: As you've seen in WA they simply keep expanding the parameters of what makes a prohibited person or what is a prohibited firearm that must be surrendered. The database aids the enforcement of that. And this is why the only "prohibited person" classification I can get behind is someone who is currently serving time behind bars for a criminal conviction. That is the only time I believe it is valid to deprive someone of their natural right to keep and bear arms. All other prohibitions are arbitrary and can become a slippery slope. I agree 100%, if they are safe enough to be out in society, they should be safe enough to carry a gun. If they are not safe enough to own a gun then revise the system so that only those safe to own guns get out. _________________ Actor portrayal, Action figures sold separately, You must be at least this tall to ride, Individual results may vary, Sales tax not included, All models are over 18 years of age, upon approval of credit, Quantities are limited while supplies last, Some restrictions apply, Not available with other offers, At participating locations only, Void where prohibited, Above terms subject to change without notice, Patent pending. See my blog: http://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/ |
| Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:04 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Tri -Cities Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 Posts: 2798 Real Name: David
|
TINCANBANDIT wrote: Guns4Liberty wrote: Alpine wrote: As you've seen in WA they simply keep expanding the parameters of what makes a prohibited person or what is a prohibited firearm that must be surrendered. The database aids the enforcement of that. And this is why the only "prohibited person" classification I can get behind is someone who is currently serving time behind bars for a criminal conviction. That is the only time I believe it is valid to deprive someone of their natural right to keep and bear arms. All other prohibitions are arbitrary and can become a slippery slope. I agree 100%, if they are safe enough to be out in society, they should be safe enough to carry a gun. If they are not safe enough to own a gun then revise the system so that only those safe to own guns get out. In the interests of liberty I heartily agree. I especially appreciate your caveat/distinction TCB. However, knowing/seeing/interacting with what has managed to crawl out of the gene pool and function (if at times barely) in society, I think the FFL/NICS process is a (barely) acceptable means of filtering. It is an imperfect system to be sure. It is an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that while someone may be a "productive" member of society, they cannot comprehend the serious nature of firearms. Our risk adverse medically advanced society allows those that might not survive naturally, to be a part of and at times thrive in modern society. Because of this, I grudgingly see some MINOR restrictions as necessary. Having said all that, I am vehemently opposed to many of our current laws. Again, I believe in truly minor restrictions. Capacity tests, psych evals, the NFA, ERPOs, 594, AWB, and mag limits are not IMO minor. They should be completely abolished at the federal level. I'm also opposed to CPL requirements in their current state. I would like to see constitutional carry enshrined at the federal level, but require CPLs for carry in certain places like courts, airports, and other restricted access locations. My two cents, for what they are worth on a free internet forum :D |
| Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:59 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 8 posts ] |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: cmica and 123 guests |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|