Except of course, when it is.
You should read the entire article, but I’m going to quote some parts of it.
What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.
This sound reasonable until you read some of the other parts of the article.
“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.
Yep, they consider this a good thing.
The no-gun list is compiled by cross-referencing files on almost 1 million handgun and assault-weapon owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental-health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, according to the attorney general’s office.
So, a two day commitment for observation is enough to disqualify a gun owner without further review? Who made the decision to commit this woman? Why was she committed? We don’t know. What we do know is that she has had property taken from her by the State. As has her husband, although he’s not prohibited and two of the confiscated firearms belong to him. No doubt the State of California is going to reimburse him for his taken property.
Most seized weapons are destroyed, Gregory said.
Or not. So, the agents of the State of California decide that someone who does not fit the federal definition of a prohibited person shouldn’t have guns and then they just go and take them. Can’t be, no, they must have a warrant, right?
Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.
So, they can’t even convince a judge that this is legal, so they lie their way into people’s houses to confiscate their property. Yes, that is definitely the way to build up the trust of the public.
So, let’s recap.
The State of California keeps a record of all legal gun owners.
They cross reference that with a data base of people who aren’t supposed to have guns.
They go around to those peoples last known addresses and con their way in because this process is so weak that they can’t get a warrant.
They confiscate firearms owned by that person and those of any other person who lives there, even if those other people are allowed to have firearms.
They destroy that property without compensation to the previous owners.
No, registration can’t lead to confiscation, no way.
What I don’t understand is why no one has sued in federal court over this. Or maybe they have and I just missed it.
Read the whole articles, I’m going to take a long shower.