New Legislation Proposes Gun Confiscation

By Dave Dolbee published on in Gun Rights, Industry News, Legal Issues, News, Second Amendment

Have you ever heard the one about the politician offering assurances that no one is out to take away your guns? Well, a handful of Democrats from California can’t make that claim any longer. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are leading a new charge.

In true political anti Second Amendment fashion, and not wishing to waste the opportunity to capitalize on a tragedy, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has introduced the “The Pause for Safety Act.”

Barbara Boxer

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is leading the charge, but pulling several of her Democrat colleagues with her, to enact new gun control measures.

According to Boxer, The Pause for Safety Act would help ensure that families “and others” can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.

It would also help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant allowing law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.

Last, but not least, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate. National gun registry?

The shortsighted Democrat’s proposed legislation misses the mark on several levels. First, she recently said the following when discussing The Pause for Safety Act.

“It is haunting that the family of the gunman who committed this massacre in Isla Vista was desperate to stop a tragedy, and yet they lacked the tools to do so,” Senator Boxer said. “My bill would give families and associates who fear someone close to them could commit violence new tools to help prevent these tragedies.”

The speech sounds fine… if you do not care about the facts. First, the family did contact law enforcement. Law enforcement did contact the subject and determined he was a well-spoken young man and not a danger—just acting out. The family did not take away the car he later used to maim over a dozen people!

Second, of the six people the suspected murder killed (not including himself), the first three were stabbed to death. Why doesn’t the Left want to take away sharp objects or find a way to regulate knives? The murderer used his BMW to hit and injure 13 people; Boxer does not have a provision for family members to engage the police to confiscate an individual’s motor vehicle. Why? The answer is simple. As we all know, it is not about saving lives, it is about an agenda bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights.

According to Boxer’s website, the Act would allow family members “or close associates” to obtain the emergency restraining order and then seek law enforcement confiscation. Does this mean one abusive spouse could claim the other was unstable and likely to hurt someone in an effort to nefariously eliminate the tools of self-defense?

Can a nosey neighbor claim they heard you say something that leads them to believe you are a danger to yourself or others and thus the police need to collect data about the firearms you own in preparation for confiscation. How would that be accomplished? Would beat cops be expected to knock on the suspected dangerous person’s door and ask for all of their guns? Or would a SWAT team be kicking in the door with flashbangs, potentially terrorizing anyone in the house in the name of safety?

Senator Dianne Feinstein holding an AR-15

Senator Dianne Feinstein said these weapons are not for hunting deer – they’re for hunting people.

What exactly is a “close associate?” How qualified are these “close associates” and what qualifies them to call in law enforcement to confiscate legally owned items without due process. What is the burden of proof? After all, the California murderer’s videos and subsequent interview was not enough for law enforcement to act or determine him to be a threat. For this Act to be effective, the burden of proof would have to be extremely low and firearms would be confiscated at the slightest accusation.

How far will this proposed legislation go? It is hard to say. The NRA is under fire as always, and the President is showing a willingness to subvert the law by acting unilaterally. He has also threatened to act through Executive Order in cases where he cannot get legislation passed. The danger is real, and the midterm election critical to our future Second Amendment rights.

Of course, it is unlikely the mainstream media will report on this without a heavy anti-gun spin. The responsibility is ours. Please take a few seconds and share this article as widely as possible through email and social media. It is our responsibility to spread the warning and hold any politician endorsing this legislation accountable.

On a related note, Senator Boxer is pleased that similar legislation has been introduced in California by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Assemblyman Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara) as well as state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara).

What will you do to help spread this message? Tell us in the comment section.

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

Tags: , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (471)

  • Secundius

    |

    Just as much evidence the NRA produces!

    Reply

    • Paul

      |

      The NRA is not a party to this discussion. You are.

      Kind of, anyway. The problem is that you keep making claims that you cannot back with facts.

      Reply

  • Secundius

    |

    As far as the NRA is concerned, the Jury-Still-Out. As far a Fox News in concerned, Local TV stations, maybe. Cable Fox New Network, No-Way.

    Reply

  • AgingMarine

    |

    As usual, Secundius is showing his ignorance. Would you please clear up exactly what the difference is between “tells the news” and “reports the news”?

    No matter what dictionary I look in, I can’t find a difference in the meanings of “tells” and “reports”. In the usage you have illustrated, they both mean the same thing…” to inform or educate”, so I am having trouble following you when you say ” Fox news tells the news, they dont report the news”.

    Jesus, even your idiot buddy Beau isn’t backing you on this, and he has been your ONLY supporter here. Get a grip, Secundius. Stop trying to screw with my rights. Lol you won’t win.

    Reply

  • Paul

    |

    And the world continues to wonder… why we should care what the NRA has on their wall, and why does it get Secundius’ panties in a wad?

    Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      Your right Paul, the NRA has nothing to do with this forum. But, then again you being up the NRA at least 30-times in your comments. So stop associating the 2nd Amendment with the NRA, Because the NRA has nothing to do with , or any association with the 2nd Amendment. Past, Present and Future comments, included. Your Rules Paul.

      Reply

    • Paul

      |

      Let’s see… Why did I ever mention the NRA?

      Only to question or challenge your absurd allegations regarding the NRA.

      any person can read the thread and see just who brought the NRA into the discussion.

      You.

      And you STILL can’t explain how the NRA is in the least bit relevant to the topic at hand.

      Reply

  • Secundius

    |

    You TELL a fairy tail, you don’t REPORT one!

    Reply

    • Paul

      |

      As the prime purveyor of fairy tales here, you should know.

      Reply

  • Secundius

    |

    I brought the NRA into the discussion, because of their interpretation of their rewriting of the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd Amendment as written by the Founding Father’s in December 19, 1791. You to the discussion of track, when you insisted that both versions meant the same thing. They don’t. It’s not up to me to proven which writing is the correct one in meaning. It’s up too you to prove how the NRA version mean the same thing as the original. And it’s up too you to explain why the NRA decided to change the original content of the Constitutional 2nd Amendment of 1791. It’s your insistence that they me the same thing, PROVE IT! It was written that way for a reason. The NRA does not have creative license too change it.

    Reply

    • Paul

      |

      I never insisted that they meant the same thing. Read the thread and you will find that is true.

      You, on the other hand, have insisted that there is a significant difference, but have yet to demonstrate that is true.

      Reply

  • Secundius

    |

    It’s like the that Tax Law that was changed in 1959, where the word EXCLUSIVELY was changed to PRIMARILY. In Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines social welfare organizations for tax-exempt purpose, defines them this way:

    Civic League or Organizations not organized for profit, but operated EXCLUSIVELY for the Promotion of Social Welfare.

    This means that 80% or more of charitable contributions must be use for Charitable Social Welfare and the rest going for operational expenditures.

    This was changed to:

    Civic League or Organizations not organized for profit, but operated PRIMARILY for the Promotion of Social Welfare.

    This means: As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their charitable contributions on Campaign Related Activities, and the rest going for operational expenditures and charity.

    A one word substitution can make major difference in it meaning of the structure of a sentience.

    That’s the same difference between The United States Constitution, Amendment II. Which states:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary TO the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Ratified, December 15, 1791.

    And, The NRA Constitutional, Amendment II. Which states:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary FOR the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Reply

    • Paul

      |

      Except it’s not the tax law, and you have not shown that changing “to” to “for” makes any significant difference.

      You just keep spewing the same nonsense.

      Reply

    • Paul

      |

      …and, despite repeated requests, you refuse to explain why it matters what version the NRA has on their wall.

      Reply

    • Paul

      |

      You can repeat “because changing EXCLSUIVELY to PRIMARILY makes a significant diffference, changing TO to FOR makes a significant difference” all you want. That doesn’t make it true.

      Reply

    • AgingMarine

      |

      Paul, while I agree that Secundius is a total moron, continuing this course of action is more and more becoming an exercise in futility, and has already met the definition of insanity. He will never explain the difference because there is no actual difference. I have supplied, in 2 or more of my posts, the meaning of the two words in their respective uses. As used, each word is given the same meaning. We know that those words are not the same as comparing “Exclusively” and “Primarily”, but Secundius has a rather limited intellect. Whether this is due to excessive drug use, or never having a normal intellect, whatever. Maybe he was born challenged, or maybe his parents dropped him on his head one too many times. Who knows. I personally don’t care.

      The gist is this: he cannot show any validation for his claim of such a ” significant difference” between the two versions because there is none. He is on a sinking ship and it’s going down fast, he is just looking for company! Please do yourself a favor…stop arguing with him. It is an exercise in futility, not to mention the textbook definition of insanity ” continuing invariably the same action each time expecting a different outcome. You have, beyond a show of a doubt, proven you are rational and intelligent, and that He and his cronies are just weak minded people who have been drinking the Kool-aid for a long time.
      I seriously doubt there is anymore that can be proved by beating the dead horse, or in this case, the horses ass. Just my 2 cents, brother. You are free to do as you choose. At least for now…who knows what the future holds in store for us. Semper Fi, brother, I salute you.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.


nine − 3 =