POLICE CAN RAID AND CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS WITHOUT WARRANT OR CHARGES

[Windwalker]

POLICE CAN RAID AND CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS WITHOUT WARRANT OR CHARGES
http://www.politicalears.com/blog/shock-federal-ruling-police-can-raid-and-confiscate-your-guns-without-warrant-or-charges/

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.

In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it, and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.

--------------------------------------

- So I am reading this, meanwhile my wife has flown to Cali. to visit her parents who are not up to speed on the latest politics/gun laws being implemented so I compile a list to send her so they understand what has happened while they weren't paying attention... and hopefully get them to engage.
Gave me a headache.....the list was over 7 pages long..

 A few California gun laws that stick out - we all know you can't have an AR or AK. Or mags over 10 rounds. Or a 50 BMG ( but you can have a 50DTC )
Someone breaks into your home and steals you guns, commits a crime and they prove you didn't have a secure enough storage- your busted and liable.

SB 683- as of Jan. 1 2015 – expands existing handgun safety certification laws to apply to ALL firearms- A firearms Safety Certificate and safe handling demonstration will be required to buy any gun. Unexpired Handgun Safety Certificates will be accepted for handgun acquisitions

It is illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another non-licensed person (private party) unless the sale is completed through a licensed California firearms dealer . Need to fill out a “Private Party Transfer” (PPT) & wait the mandatory 10-day waiting period. (The infrequent transfer of firearms between immediate family members is exempt from the law unless it is a handgun)

An illegal firearm purchase can bring a felony conviction sentence of 10 years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000

Persons who move to California with the intention of establishing residency in this state must either report ownership of handguns to the DOJ within 60 days, or sell or transfer the handgun(s) pursuant to California law . (Pen . Code, § 28050 .)
Persons wishing to keep their handguns must submit a New Resident Handgun Ownership Report (BOF 4010A), along with a $19 fee, to the DOJ .

How much gunpowder can I store in my home?
Per state law, you may possess up to 20 lbs of smokeless powder and up to 1 lb of black powder, however, your local city or county ordinances may impose additional limits. Keep in mind that black powder substitutes like pyrodex are considered smokeless powder and would fall under the 20lb restriction as opposed to the 1lb black powder restriction

Can I give or sell my gunpowder to my friends?
Yes, but the law requires you to keep records of each gift or sale.

Pending California Gun Laws-

SB 53 (De Leon): Ammunition Purchase Permitting – SB 53—the Law Center’s priority bill for 2014—would require ammunition sellers to be licensed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).  The bill would also require that every ammunition purchaser hold an ammunition purchase authorization issued by DOJ after it conducted a background check on the purchaser.  In completing an ammunition sale, a vendor would be required to confirm that every purchaser has a valid ammunition authorization, record identifying information about the purchaser, and submit that information to DOJ.  The bill would also require ammunition sales to be completed in face-to-face transactions.  This provision would allow online purchases of ammunition so long as the ammunition purchased was shipped to a licensed ammunition seller to complete the transaction.
Status:  This bill passed the Senate in 2013 and is currently in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Then there is the "biometric readers " and microstamping statute  they are trying to shove down their throats..

So you may wonder what this has to do with us?
Be aware and stay frosty- they practice implementing these laws in areas of low resistance and next thing we know they are piled up on our door step for us to contend with.

[Dan-o]

Not good.......   
Not good at all........

[Mark Brenckle]

Ok, just read that article. She threatened to commit suicide and she had the means to do it... and if she'd decided to take a few people with her, we'd be blaming the cops.

[CAMPMEAT]

.............another reason to dislike Kalifornia. I have nothing good to say about that state, except the scenery.

[GUscottie]

Mark hit this one on the head. LEO can't just go busting down everyone's doors and taking guns. This was done under the exigency rule, or so it seems to be the guise. Maybe not exigent right now, but in the very near future. Also, if the PD hadn't taken her guns and she turned into the next (pick your mass murderer) then we'd be up in arms that the police didn't take her guns when we knew she was suicidal...say homicidal.

There is generally a lot more to it than: let's go steal someone's guns...Generally there is a bigger picture being taken into account and if the entirety of the story been read there would be a lot more known than: The police (say nanny state) is taking over...

End of "jump to conclusion" rant

[JLS]

Mark hit this one on the head. LEO can't just go busting down everyone's doors and taking guns. This was done under the exigency rule, or so it seems to be the guise. Maybe not exigent right now, but in the very near future. Also, if the PD hadn't taken her guns and she turned into the next (pick your mass murderer) then we'd be up in arms that the police didn't take her guns when we knew she was suicidal...say homicidal.

There is generally a lot more to it than: let's go steal someone's guns...Generally there is a bigger picture being taken into account and if the entirety of the story been read there would be a lot more known than: The police (say nanny state) is taking over...

End of "jump to conclusion" rant

Whaaaat, you mean we have to look at the big picture?  Everyone on here knows the poooooliice just do whatever they want, whenever they want.  It's fact. 

[JLS]

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-2272/12-2272-2014-05-09.html

This link allows you to download the entire 7th circuit opinion.  For those that say this creates a loophole, I say BS.  Exigent circumstances is nothing new and has long allowed officers to enter a home without a warrant.  Every case is it's own unique animal, and even though an officer may say they are doing something "in a person's best interests", you can well bet that it will be thoroughly scrutinized.

The courts will look at the totality of the circumstances before deciding if it passes the smell test or not.  It is not simply a free pass where one can say "I was worried about their safety".  This is exactly why Washington requires the Ferrior warning before a residence can be searched without a warrant, because the police actions did not pass the smell test.

[Jingles]

Anyone and I mean Anyone come busting in my door and someone is leaving in a body bag

[sakoshooter]

Pretty scary what's now allowed in this country by the court system.