Report: Gun grabbing sweeping the nation

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by lklawson, May 5, 2015.

  1. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Report: Gun grabbing sweeping the nation

    Report: Gun grabbing sweeping the nation
    by Chad D. Baus
    7:00am Tuesday, May 05, 2015

    According to a recent report on Fox News, and despite claims from anti-gun extremists including the current president of the United States assuring us that no one wants to take our guns away, cases of persons having their firearms confiscated are far from rare.

    From the article:

    Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.

    The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctor’s staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and had two court orders commanding the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.

    With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.

    Chuch Michel, an California attorney whose blog posts are often featured at, is quoted as saying “NRA and CRPA constantly get calls from law abiding people having problems getting their guns back. The state Department of Justice wrongly tells police not to give guns back unless the person can document ownership of the gun and it is registered in the state DOJ’s database. But the law doesn’t require this.”

    To make matters worse, Michel tells Fox News that gun owners can’t comply anyway, because police themselves routinely fail to enter the firearms into the DOJ’s database, and most people don’t have receipts for the guns they own.

    "This kind of below-the-radar bureaucratic gun confiscation is a growing Second Amendment and property rights violation problem, particularly in strict gun control states like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “People can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm."

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s most recent case involves Rick Bailey, a 56-year-old Navy veteran from Glendale, Ariz., whose entire collection of 28 firearms valued at $25,000 was seized by authorities because of an ongoing dispute with a neighbor.

    After Bailey complained over several months to the city of Glendale that his neighbor frequently parked his landscaping company’s dump trucks in front of Bailey’s home -- and toxic chemical odors were coming from his neighbor’s property -- the neighbor obtained a harassment order against Bailey. Police showed up and seized Bailey’s gun collection.

    Gottleib tells Fox News that SAF is helping Bailey in his appeal of the judge’s order so he can not only reclaim his valuable firearms, but also some of his dignity as well.

    The article goes on to discuss cases of gun confiscation in Louisiana, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Ohio:

    In Lakewood, Ohio, in August 2011, police seized 13 firearms valued at $15,000 from U.S. Army veteran Francesca Rice while she wasn’t home, according to Cleveland Scene. Police reportedly had an employee of the condominium complex let them in.

    The firearms collection of Rice, who served her country in Iraq, included handguns, shotguns, a vintage Chinese SKS M21 semi-automatic carbine and a semi-automatic rifle.

    The seizure was based on a “situation involving the gun owner's absence from a VA hospital where she had been receiving treatment…. However, no charges were ever filed, and a year later, Rice's requests to have her guns returned had gone unanswered,” the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute reported, noting after the lawsuit was settled, the police were ordered to return her firearms.

    The Crime Prevention Research Center's John Lott told Fox News that these tactics are a way for police departments or the government to make it more costly to own guns. Lott is quoted as saying he believes the illegal policies most hurt poor gun owners, who not only are less likely to afford to get their property back, but also typically live in neighborhoods where they are more vulnerable to crime. he also notes that seizing legally owned guns can also be a way for law enforcement agencies to boost their revenue if, as in some cases, they sell the firearms rather than destroying them.

    California civil rights attorney Donald Kilmer is quoted as saying “the legislature has never met a gun regulation they didn’t like.” According to Kilmer, despite his having represented the Second Amendment Foundation and CalGuns Foundation in the first legal challenge in California for wrongful retention of firearms and won, the situation in California in some respects is getting worse.

    The problem now is that the State Bureau of Firearms is issuing letters that misstate the law with regard to what documentation gun owners must produce to get their property back, Kilmer said.

    In the past, if firearms were seized in California from a home because of psychiatric issues, domestic violence allegations, restraining orders or other issues, the firearms were returned after the case was resolved through a court order.

    However, under a new law, Kilmer said a background check is required to ensure the property is not stolen, the owner has to prove ownership, and then the owners get a letter clearing them to pick up their property.

    “It makes sense on its face, but it is taking longer to issue letters,” Kilmer said, adding most gun owners can’t meet other requirements because they don’t have paperwork to show title, many legally owned guns are not registered, the federal government is forbidden from keeping firearms ownership records with the exception of for specialty guns, and California just started its database in 1996 exclusively for handguns.

    “People keep forgetting the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment, is protected by the U.S. constitution, and private property is protected under the Fifth Amendment,” Kilmer is quoted as saying. “Government cannot take property without just compensation and due process. The great thing is that when it comes to guns, you get protection under both amendments.”

    Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.

    More evidence of this misconduct.

    Peace favor your sword,
  2. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Ohio has a Bill in Committee which will, at least partially, address some of these issues. But it's still in Committee and not even up to a general vote yet, so it still has a long way to go.

    Peace favor your sword,

  3. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    Looking at this and the IRS's abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws, there need to be some reforms to that whole category of the law. Private property is an inaliable right, and due process must be served before it can be seized. These laws are unconstitutional and must be reformed.
  4. ekim

    ekim Member

    No, not reformed but struck down as being un Constitutional!
  5. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    It will take a lot more than a few confiscations to be "sweeping the Nation". Those confiscations sited in the article were in 2010 and 2011.
    I don't think that is news, pretty much expected.
  6. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    Reformed= Struck Down

    We're on the same track.
  7. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket. It won't stop this sort of thing, but at least you won't be unarmed.