This issue is both interesting and problematic. This 4:01 video of a CNN news segment is about California's program to confiscate firearms from those who shouldn't have them.
It's very easy to see that people will be all over the map about whether they support this program. One the one hand, we want to remove firearms from those who aren't allowed to possess them due to violent crimes or mental disability. (I'm still very skeptical about who ends up on that list and for what offenses.) On the other hand, isn't the state required to 'prove' a person is in violation?
That's their current dilemma in enforcing their program. It seems they didn't think through this legislation and now law enforcement officers have to 'ask' permission to enter their premises to search for and seize firearms. (Hmmm. Legislators not thinking through their legislation, its enforcement, its unintended consequences... This seems familiar.) But this is California, so they're likely to bulldoze those speed bumps in a next round of gun control lawmaking.
Here are some problems.
I've previously shown concern over what constitutes "access" to a firearm. If a person who is legally able to own a firearm is cohabitating with someone who isn't and the firearm is legally owned and stored in a safe, is that "access" for the person not allowed? From my previous post, you can see that California is confiscating firearms from legal owners because POTENTIALLY non-legal owners have "access" through cohabitation. I don't believe "proximity" is "access". I think someone banned from firearms possession can accompany a legal owner to a shooting range, for example, and no crime is committed unless they touch (possess) the firearm.
Probable cause. Is it satisfactory and on firm legal ground to call it probable cause to obtain a search warrant if someone purchased a firearm legally at some point in the past (back to 1996, according to this article) and then subsequently was placed on the banned list for criminal conviction, a restraining order or mental illness? In the time span we're talking about, there could be more than 15 years between those events. A day, week or month's separation is probable cause, I think. Maybe a year. Longer than that? I'll grant that most people don't purchase a firearm and get rid of it a short time later. Many keep their firearms for life. And there are certainly hard core criminals and violent offenders who have already shown no respect for the law or others who will still be in possession of those firearms. But there are others who may find themselves on the banned list who will actually dispose of them. They'll sell them, give them to friends or relatives, or ask someone to store them for them if they think their banned status is temporary. So put yourselves in the shoes of those people. Maybe you're subject to a temporary restraining order or have been convicted of a felony for a non-violent crime. (Perhaps simple possession of a so-called "high capacity" magazine that is a felony in some states already. Default, "standard capacity" pistol magazines holding 12-19 rounds are VERY common, legal in some states and illegal in others.) You did the responsible thing and disposed of your firearms in some way. A team of law enforcement officers knocks on your door and asks for consent to enter your premises. Perhaps you refuse. Perhaps your spouse or roommate answered the door and let them in. You're asked if you're in possession of any firearms. You truthfully say "no". They confirm your past purchase with you and ask how you disposed of them. You refuse to tell them for any of a variety of reasons. They therefore don't believe you and they search your entire home. That could be a lengthy and disruptive process. A handgun is pretty small and could be stored or hidden anywhere. Meanwhile, they find a hunting or 'military style' knife among camping gear in your garage, or a 3.5" serrated, locking blade pocket knife in a bedroom, a "weapon" that you're probably not allowed to possess because of your restraining order status. (Yes, knives are on the same list of banned possessions for some offenses and statuses. I've spoken to a lawyer about this and wasn't able to get a clear answer on when a knife is a "weapon" and when it's a tool, like the ones in your kitchen. They are equally capable of being used as weapons.) Or they find an ammo magazine in your garage that you forgot was there and would have gotten rid of along with your firearms if you had remembered. (It may or may not be for the specific firearm that they're searching for. Yes, this DOES happen.) Now you're arrested and charged with a crime. Maybe this 'crime' conviction does deny you your 2nd Amendment rights for the rest of your life while your restraining order status may have been temporary. (I read earlier this year that many divorce attorneys are advising their clients to get restraining orders on their former partners REGARDLESS of whether there's cause for doing so.)
As you can see from this video segment, "Emmy nominated TV judge" and former Juvenile Court Judge Glenda Hatchett is bubbly in saying she thinks there is probable cause for search warrants. She doesn't put any limits on it but isn't asked. (She appears to me more like a TV personality than a judge in this segment.)
http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/gun-confiscation-program-seen-as-model-for-nation/#tpkB8gK4Ad4yMys6.99
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
California Firearms Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment