It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In California, officials are ramping up a unique program that identifies and seizes guns from people who are prohibited from keeping them. Under state law, a legally registered gun owner loses the right to own a firearm when he or she is convicted of a crime or becomes mentally ill.
Last year, state agents seized nearly 2,000 firearms, but implementing the gun seizure program is a painstaking job. In a recent operation, a caravan of four unmarked trucks traversed the bedroom communities of San Francisco’s East Bay. The trucks carry nine state agents wearing bulletproof vests and armed with .40-caliber Glock pistols and Tasers. They’ll spend the next six hours looking for illegal guns, explains Special Agent Kisu Yo of the California Department of Justice.
Yo’s team will visit the homes of 11 people who are considered Armed and Prohibited Persons, people on the so-called APPs list. They are all people who at one time purchased firearms legally, but have since run afoul of the law, Yo says. “Such as maybe a felony conviction, mental health commitment, they received a restraining order, domestic violence restraining order — some type of a misdemeanor conviction that prohibits them from possessing firearms.”
Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:
Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;3
Is an illegal alien;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child;4 or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.5
Persons subject to restraining orders are prohibited from possessing firearms provided that the order: (1) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; and (2) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child, or by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(8). For more information on the prohibition on purchase and possession of firearms by persons subject to a domestic violence protective order, see our Domestic Violence and Firearms policy summary. [↩]
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (d), (x)(1). Federal law does not prohibit persons with other misdemeanor convictions from purchasing firearms. Misdemeanor convictions have been found to be a risk factor for future criminal activity among handgun owners. Garen J. Wintemute et al., Prior Misdemeanor Convictions as a Risk Factor for Later Violent and Firearm-Related Criminal Activity Among Authorized Purchasers of Handguns, 280 JAMA 2083 (1998). For more information on the prohibition on purchase and possession of firearms by domestic violence misdemeanants, see our Domestic Violence and Firearms policy summary. [↩]
Did they bother to investigate the reasons why these people had their guns removed from their home or is this one of those threads where we pretend that there isn't a single justifiable reason that some people simply shouldn't have a gun period?
Originally posted by Bassago
California and New York are the laboratories for ass-hat ideas. Maybe they should get a special award for their stupidity.
As far as cops go we would be better of without almost all of them. Never needed them, would never call one and whenever I see one my main concern is if the steroid freak is going to freak out and beat or kill someone. We would be much safer to go back to just having US Marshall's, locally elected Sheriff's and that's it. IMO.edit on 21-8-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)
I went ahead and posted this thread, because of the progression I believe they're making, to that inevitable total gun ban, everyone by now should obviously see coming.