They’re not coming for our guns, right?
I read a story on Bloomberg titled California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms. Yes Bloomberg.com, the site owned by Michael Bloomberg, and yes, that title is what I’d call an attention-getter. The article details how in California, the stateÂ tracks and disarms people with legallyÂ registeredÂ guns who have lost the right to own them.
Reading through the article, at first glance it doesn’t seem so bad – California by law prohibits certain groups of people from owning firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable. Once you’re added to this prohibited list, law enforcement can pay you a visit and look for probable cause.
So far so good. At first I thought this was just a propaganda piece so that Bloomberg could highlight how well registration works in California (because what’s good for Cali is good for us all, right?). Then I read this part a little closer:
[agents] had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, whoâ€™d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.
David, the husband of Lynette Phillips, had his guns confiscated, even though he wasn’t on the prohibited list. In California, not only can the prohibited person not have a firearms, but they can’t have access to a firearm either. On those grounds, California can seize firearms legally owned and registered, even if you yourself are not prohibited in any way.
Therein lies the danger of this program, and to registration in general: what’s to stop California from tightening this noose further? It certainly won’t be the freedom loving politicians.Â God forbid that this model becomes a national program, as some are suggesting.
How long before the prohibited list is expanded to include the groups labeled “Extreme Patriots” by the SPLC? How long before speaking out against the government gets you put on this list?