California inched closer to passing a gun confiscation bill last week. The bill returns to the Senate for some "non-controversial" amendments and then goes to the desk of Governor Brown. What the people of California need to realize is that this is all a formality. The gun confiscation is already happening and will continue. This legislation would only provide more money to expedite the process.
With all of the major news stories this legislation has been largely unnoticed in the media. What I want all of our readers to understand is that what is happening in California, and will continue to happen, is only happening because people do not know and understand their rights.
The thing that you must understand is that this bill deals with a type of gun confiscation that happens without warrants. Let me quote a Huffington Post article which appeared late last week:
"California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. Because gun-confiscating agents do not obtain search warrants, their job involves convincing people to let them into their homes and hand over their guns. If an individual does turn over a gun, he or she can be arrested on suspicion of illegally owning a firearm."
Really? Is this one of the craziest things you have ever heard in your life? This paragraph shocked me.
Your 4th Amendment rights protect you from unreasonable search and seizure. Here is the text of the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We don't even have to talk about the 2nd Amendment and "shall not be infringed" to understand that the 4th Amendment is also in play here. If they don't produce a warrant, you are not required to let them in the door. Period.
If you do decide to let them in, and you do decide to hand over a gun to them then you may be giving up your own protection under the 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I have added emphasis to key parts of the 5th amendment text that I want you to look at. I am not a constitutional attorney so you will get a layman's explanation here. If you let these gun grabbers in your home and give them what they are asking for, then you have given up your right to due process in my opinion. They have not produced a warrant that has been signed by a judge and you have given them what they wanted in spite of that. Also, in a way, you have just been forced to witness against yourself. If the situation were different I wouldn't bring that up, but according to the Huffington Post if you comply then you might be arrested.
How's that for justice? You accommodate the officers that come to your door. You hand over what they ask for. Then they might arrest you for being cooperative.
So what do you do if one of these gun grabbers shows up at your door? Tell them to wait outside while you call your attorney. Or tell them to come back when they can produce a warrant. This goes far beyond the 2nd Amendment. It may loosely relate to the 5th Amendment but as already discussed the 4th Amendment is definitely in play.
This California Legislation is a joke. It's not only in the way it's applied but in the way it came to be. Do you know where the money is coming from? I am again quoting the Huffington Post article below:
"Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he voted against the measure because the fees that make up the DROS funds are intended to cover the cost of background checks — not confiscations.
'For example, if you go to the DMV and pay for a driver's license, that fee is for processing the driver's license, not for setting up sting operations for catching drunk drivers,' he said.
'If the legislature wants to raise extra funds for the DOJ, it would have to impose a tax on firearm sales, which requires a two-thirds vote,' he added."
From the Federal Government all the way to the California Legislature…they continue to use the back door. They will find a way.
We read this stuff almost every day and one of our first responses tends to be something like…that's in California. Just a couple of weeks ago there were probably people in California saying…that's in New York.
If you don't know what I am talking about… check out a previous D.C. Clothesline article entitled New York Gun Confiscation Starts: May Set National Precedent
How many places does freedom have to fall before we come to the aid of our fellow Americans?
If the 2nd Amendment continues to crumble, no other rights will matter. This is the people's power of enforcement. We keep hearing the rhetoric that they are only taking guns from the bad guys and every day we read stories that are quite contrary to government propaganda.
The gun grab is on and has been for a while…
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.