Quote:So you admit nothing they are currently doing warrants the freak out you are throwing, you just don't like what you perceive it has the possibility to lead to?
Bro, it is happening right now, and it is specified in the executive order how Obama will confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. Can't you read? You are impossible to debate with because you are so obnoxiously bias.
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/califor...1/37219472
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.
Before the shooting, the suspect uploaded a video to YouTube discussing his plans as well as a 107,000 word manifesto, both of which were circulated minutes before he began killing.
The new law will allow family members who believe someone may be violent to apply for a "Gun Violence Restraining Order."
Quote:I've answered all your stupid questions while you ignore mine. I'm done.
I'll take that as a yes.
Not sure what question you think I ducked.
Quote:I'll take that as a yes.
That's because you're stupid.
Quote:That's because you're stupid.
Good one. Did you come up with that on your own or did Wayne LaPierre write it for you?
Quote:Bro, it is happening right now, and it is specified in the executive order how Obama will confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. Can't you read? You are impossible to debate with because you are so obnoxiously bias.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/california-gun-confiscation-law-takes-effect-jan-1/37219472'>http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/california-gun-confiscation-law-takes-effect-jan-1/37219472</a>
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.
Before the shooting, the suspect uploaded a video to YouTube discussing his plans as well as a 107,000 word manifesto, both of which were circulated minutes before he began killing.
The new law will allow family members who believe someone may be violent to apply for a "Gun Violence Restraining Order."
You are opposed to a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if there is reasonable cause a person is an immediate threat to themselves or others?
Quote:![[Image: 1513326_10201456396359204_325539440_n.jpg]](http://www.texasgopvote.com/sites/default/files/1513326_10201456396359204_325539440_n.jpg)
I take it you read the bill.
Quote:I take it you read the bill.
It's a shame that folks like you are so invested in the words of politicians rather than relying on their long and bloody history to demonstrate their true nature and intent.
Technically it's a bill that gets passed as a law, not a politician's hollow words. You DID read it though, right?
Quote:You are opposed to a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if there is reasonable cause a person is an immediate threat to themselves or others?
In this case, absolutely. If you lived in California, I could tell officials you are my friend and you are thinking of suicide. They could then come and seize your weapons, whether or not you are actually considering suicide or not (or whether you are a friend or not, after all how could a mentally ill suicidal person be capable of telling the truth?).
You don't see that as a problem? Then you are lost.
Quote:The NSA has been spying on American Citizens for some time. Yet nobody is nearly as vocal about that as they are guns. How much of this is really about freedom, and how much of this is about how much you love your guns? Everyone talks about safety, but you don't see Home Security System enthusiasts.
You must not read this board much
Quote:Technically it's a bill that gets passed as a law, not a politician's hollow words. You DID read it though, right?
Yes. It doesn't matter what it says, we know the intent and it's merely another step in that direction. We either kill it now with politics or kill it later with bloodshed.
Quote:In this case, absolutely. If you lived in California, I could tell officials you are my friend and you are thinking of suicide. They could then come and seize your weapons, whether or not you are actually considering suicide or not (or whether you are a friend or not, after all how could a mentally ill suicidal person be capable of telling the truth?).
You don't see that as a problem? Then you are lost.
If that is untrue the accuser would be exposed to penalty for calling the police under false pretenses. The police would need to investigate and find reasonable cause to actually take away guns. (I get that reasonable cause is subjective and see where people can question this).
The flip side.. when a guy calls his ex up and tells her he is going to shoot her or when a fundamentalist (insert religion here) writes a manifesto on how they are gonna kill everyone they work with because they don't follow their beliefs, should the police be given the ability to act?
Quote:
The flip side.. when a guy calls his ex up and tells her he is going to shoot her or when a fundamentalist (insert religion here) writes a manifesto on how they are gonna kill everyone they work with because they don't follow their beliefs, should the police be given the ability to act?
Is either one breaking the law? Yes, death threats are a crime.
Will either one make you a felon? Subjective, depends on the state and severity of the threat.
Are felons allowed to own guns? No.
Current laws handle your scenarios fine.
Current laws do not allow for taking guns away from someone who writes online threats.
Quote:Current laws do not allow for taking guns away from someone who writes online threats.
If the person is identifiable online, the threat is reported, and the court deems the death threat worthy of a felony, then the felon can no longer own a firearm.
Current laws handle your scenario fine.
Quote:If the person is identifiable online, the threat is reported, and the court deems the death threat worthy of a felony, then the felon can no longer own a firearm.
Current laws handle your scenario fine.
You describe a scenario which requires the involvement of a court. The new law would allow officers to determine reasonable cause to temporarily diffuse the situation without having to wait for the courts.
Plenty of people who were involved with mass shootings posted their intentions online prior to taking action and none were stopped.
Quote:Yes. It doesn't matter what it says, we know the intent and it's merely another step in that direction. We either kill it now with politics or kill it later with bloodshed.
Looks like it will be bloodshed (or more likely nothing) since the Governor signed it.
Quote:You describe a scenario which requires the involvement of a court. The new law would allow officers to determine reasonable cause to temporarily diffuse the situation without having to wait for the courts.
Plenty of people who were involved with mass shootings posted their intentions online prior to taking action and none were stopped.
We rubber stamp warrants at dui checkpointsnon the spot, getting the court involved is not a valid concern or reason fir delay.
Quote:I never said people shouldn't have the right to have guns. And I am far from angry. I am just asking what freedoms or guns are being taken away. If the answer is none, then why are you getting so worked up?
Both 2nd amendment and pro-gun restriction proponents have said in this thread regardless of your stance on gun legislation the use of executive orders to get around congressional authority should be extremely alarming. As for what guns have been taken away that depends on where you live, some places like Chicago and new York theyre almost completely banned.