State program to seize "illegal" guns gaining notice

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
California has the nation's only program to confiscate firearms from people who bought them legally but are now barred from having them

link

By law, Alexander Hernandez should have surrendered his gun to the state of California three years ago after a judge issued a restraining order against him for alleged domestic violence.
He didn't.

So one night recently , when the 26-year-old was at home in Whittier with his toddler, eight armed agents from the California Department of Justice banged on his door and took it from him.

Agents found the loaded .45-caliber handgun in a safe by his bed. Hernandez, who told the agents he had forgotten that he was supposed to turn in the weapon, was arrested on suspicion of illegally possessing a handgun, records show.

After assuring that the child had a baby-sitter, the agents drove off into the night in search of more illegal guns. Their quest took them across the San Gabriel Valley, from a retirement home to a gated community to a small house with rosebushes in front. In the living room of that house, a mother wept as agents arrested her son. A conviction for misdemeanor battery made it illegal for him to continue possessing his four guns.

California has the nation's only program to confiscate guns from people who bought them legally but later became disqualified. During twice-weekly sweeps over the last five years, agents have collected more than 10,000 guns.

But there are still more than 19,700 people on the state's Armed Prohibited Persons database. Collectively, they own about 39,000 guns. About 3,000 people are added to the list each year.

Clearing the backlog would cost $40 million to $50 million, according to Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. She estimated that once the backlog is cleared, fielding teams large enough to keep up with people added to the list would cost about $14 million a year.

"This is about prevention," Harris said. "This is about taking guns out of the hands of people who are prohibited from owning them, and are known to be potentially some of the most dangerous people walking around.... It's just common sense."

As gun control has moved to the forefront of national debate, California's program is being studied as a potential model.

The list of prohibited owners is compiled by analysts who track gun sales back to 1996 and match them against databases listing criminal convictions, restraining orders and mental health detentions.

Sometimes the guns are used in killings before the state can retrieve them, according to state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who last month introduced legislation that would provide funding for more agents to conduct sweeps.

For example, Roy Perez had been on the list for three years before he shot and killed his mother, his neighbor and his neighbor's 4-year-old in Baldwin Park in 2008, officials said.

Until recently, the gun apprehension teams had received little attention in the five years they have been sweeping through neighborhoods. But they suddenly have become a topic of intense interest — so much so that when agents rolled through Southern California earlier this month , their big, unmarked trucks were joined by two agents in a rented minivan large enough to carry journalists and camera crews.

The job requires a mixture of force and finesse. The agents show up in heavily armed teams, wearing black jumpsuits bulked up by bulletproof vests. But they don't have warrants and, unless their subject is on probation, they need permission to enter homes to search for guns. Obtaining a search warrant typically requires a reasonable suspicion that the gun would be on the premises, a difficult standard to meet based solely on information from a database, officials said.

Instead, they must talk their way in and coax gun owners into turning over their weapons.

Often, they come away empty-handed.

As the sun was setting, they arrived at the home of a man who had a domestic violence restraining order and was living in a Whittier neighborhood of small ranch homes and backyard stables. As agents walked to the door, neighbors came by on horseback, staring.

read the link for more.

A few comments.

1. Assault/misdemeanor/battery = Gun ban. This is absurd IMO. Assault can happen in any number of ways including falsifying a report. Now I wouldn't suspect that happens a lot but the mere fact that it could deny someone the right to possess a handgun for self defense is going too far for such a light charge.

2. Notice that the "illegal" gun seized from the gun owner was in a safe locked up. Then he's arrested in front of his child and taken to jail.

This is grrrrrreat! :rolleyes:

3. "known to be some of the most dangerous people walking around" - Like the ones with restraining orders? Wow.

4. "Sometimes the guns are used in murders before the state can retrieve them" - Really Einstein? How about people will be murdered regardless of who is on a list? Not very bright.

5. The bright side of all this is the "illegal gun" owner simply has to deny he has the weapon. A search warrant is required otherwise.

What I do not like is the list being based on misdemeanor crimes. Just because your x wife got a retraining order on you, or you got in a bar fight, shouldn't give the State the right to forcibly take your protection and throw you in jail.

Fucking Cali!
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
I am amazed people are so cool with stealing guns out of the hands of Americans, but they dont wanna kick non-Americans out when they are stealing jobs and not supposed to be here in America.
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,061
9,531
146
This is getting confusing. Do you want the gun laws that exist enforced instead of new ones put on the books or not? When someone suggest new ones it's always the argument. When the existing ones are enforced they shouldn't be.

Make up your minds.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
This is getting confusing. Do you want the gun laws that exist enforced instead of new ones put on the books or not? When someone suggest new ones it's always the argument. When the existing ones are enforced they shouldn't be.

Make up your minds.

Exactly....
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
I'm sure many of these seizures are stupid.

Still, the law is fairly clear and I think a person ought to know about it and not "forget" that they had the gun.

If it's not the case, it should be that upon any conviction a person is told that (if it disqualifies them from owning a gun) they need to turn over their gun.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
This is getting confusing. Do you want the gun laws that exist enforced instead of new ones put on the books or not? When someone suggest new ones it's always the argument. When the existing ones are enforced they shouldn't be.

Make up your minds.

Exactly....

That's not the argument here. Something as silly as a bar fight removes your right to self defense. How dumb is that? Do you think this should happen?

EDIT - Would you two be in favor of such restrictions nationwide?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I'm sure many of these seizures are stupid.

Still, the law is fairly clear and I think a person ought to know about it and not "forget" that they had the gun.

If it's not the case, it should be that upon any conviction a person is told that (if it disqualifies them from owning a gun) they need to turn over their gun.

Yeah I doubt he forgot. Lame ass excuse. He probably felt the same way I do, its fucking stupid.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
That's not the argument here. Something as silly as a bar fight removes your right to self defense. How dumb is that? Do you think this should happen?

EDIT - Would you two be in favor of such restrictions nationwide?

According to spidey, a bar fight can get you legally shot & killed.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
"First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.

Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.

When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.

Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die."


*some unnamed guy on the net
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,545
1,124
126
Last I checked it is illegal for anyone who has been convicted of misdmeanor domestic violence to own a gun under Federal Law. Constitutional challenges against it have so far been denied(SCotUS reinstated the ban by a 7-2 vote in 2009). Almost every state bans those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning guns.

Its illegal for them to have the guns. This is just enforcement of both federal and state law.

Domestic violence also precludes you from ever being in law enforcement and in most cases you cannot get a security clearence. A misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence is treated as a serious offense under the law. Its more like a felony than some felonies.
 
Last edited:

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Last I checked it is illegal for anyone who has been convicted of misdmeanor domestic violence to own a gun under Federal Law. Constitutional challenges against it have so far been denied.

Its illegal for them to have the guns. This just enforcement of the law.

You sure? My understand has always been you had to be convicted of a felony.

EDIT - I'll be damned. You're right and its been on the books for quite some time! I need to read up on these laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
 
Last edited:

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Last I checked it is illegal for anyone who has been convicted of misdmeanor domestic violence to own a gun under Federal Law. Constitutional challenges against it have so far been denied(SCotUS reinstated the ban by a 7-2 vote in 2009). Almost every state bans those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning guns.

Its illegal for them to have the guns. This is just enforcement of both federal and state law.

Domestic violence also precludes you from ever being in law enforcement and in most cases you cannot get a security clearence. A misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence is treated as a serious offense under the law. Its more like a felony than some felonies.

While I don't see much wrong in the states action, I still feel I should point out the person in question was never convicted of any crime, they were only accused and had a restraining order against them.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,545
1,124
126
While I don't see much wrong in the states action, I still feel I should point out the person in question was never convicted of any crime, they were only accused and had a restraining order against them.

Covers that too.

"The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons."


Gotta take care of your legal matters. He could have had the restraining order removed but apparently never bothered to do so. He may haver never been convicted but a restraining order isn't extinguished by lack of conviction because it is a seperate action. You have to request it be lifted.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
But they don't have warrants and, unless their subject is on probation, they need permission to enter homes to search for guns. Obtaining a search warrant typically requires a reasonable suspicion that the gun would be on the premises, a difficult standard to meet based solely on information from a database, officials said.

Instead, they must talk their way in and coax gun owners into turning over their weapons.

Idiots talk to police and give them access. Anyone with half a brain knows that the police are not your friend and "anything you say can and will be used against you".

Keep your mouth shut when not talking to the authorities.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
This is why I will never accept firearm registration. If they don't know if/what I have, they can't very well come for it.
 

Pantoot

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2002
1,764
30
91
Idiots talk to police and give them access. Anyone with half a brain knows that the police are not your friend and "anything you say can and will be used against you".

Keep your mouth shut when not talking to the authorities.

Very true and good advice, but I have no doubt that in many of these cases they force their way in and later claim you invited them. Its your word against 6-8 of theirs...
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
They could spend that money actually targeting gangs... but no.. they go after the easy targets.

Pure stupidity.
 

Alex C

Senior member
Jul 7, 2008
355
0
76
Abused women are 8 times more likely to be murdered if their abuser has a firearm in the house. I have no problem with them enforcing the law that prohibits anyone guilty of domestic violence from owning a gun.

Having issues with how they decide who is prohibited is an entirely different discussion.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
This is why I will never accept firearm registration. If they don't know if/what I have, they can't very well come for it.
As the article mentions, it's easy to find out at least who has a gun, even if not the particular kind. The truth is there is already de facto registration. I could go to the gov now, get a record of all the NICS transactions and boom I have a database of recent gun purchasers. Now I go to the store where the transaction was made, get a copy of the invoice for the gun. The only truly hidden transactions are those made without background checks with cash.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I don't have a problem with the laws being enforced (in fact, I'm all for enforcing the laws instead of creating all sorts of new dumb ones) but I do have a problem with how little it takes to trigger a prohibition on owning a weapon. That's the part that needs reviewed and fine tuned.

Of course, this is Cali we're talking about, the govt there is only interested in disarming their subjects.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,031
1,131
126
I don't have a problem with the laws being enforced (in fact, I'm all for enforcing the laws instead of creating all sorts of new dumb ones) but I do have a problem with how little it takes to trigger a prohibition on owning a weapon. That's the part that needs reviewed and fine tuned.

Of course, this is Cali we're talking about, the govt there is only interested in disarming their subjects.

Agree with this. Just because you once had a gun doesn't mean you always should. What's up for argument is where to draw the line.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Abused women are 8 times more likely to be murdered if their abuser has a firearm in the house. I have no problem with them enforcing the law that prohibits anyone guilty of domestic violence from owning a gun.

Having issues with how they decide who is prohibited is an entirely different discussion.

I have no problem with them forcing the perpetrator to place his weapons into long term storage at a gun dealer for a fee and mandated period of time, but having it as a blemish that prevents you from ever owning firearms in CA again is a bit over the top. Convicted of domestic violence? Sure... Accused? Fuck no.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
This is my understanding as well. Banned from having one because of a misdemeanor is, well, dumb.

It's as dumb as barring non violent felons from owning firearms.

There's a huge difference between an 18 year old caught w\ a pound of weed and an armed robber/ kidnapper/ rapist type.