New Legislation Proposes Gun Confiscation

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

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.

SLRule

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!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

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 (634)

  • Mort

    |

    The reason that these two Democrats want gun confiscation is because most crimes are committed by their democrat constituents! They don’t want to lose any democrat votes! The other reason is that both of them are from San Francisco which is a Illegal Alien protection city, case in point Kate Steinly!

    Reply

  • Don

    |

    I’ve owned a 22 single shot “youth gun” since I was 9 in Kentucky. As a Boy Scout, at 13, I became a Civil War re-enactor. This meant taking the family relic saber onto the field and buying a working reproduction 44 cal. Colt Army black powder revolver to go with it. I obtained a 58 calibre genuine 1863 Springfield rifle-musket to be able to “stand in line” with my fellow troop members in gray. At the 1968 re-enactment at Perryville, KY, there were 400 troops on the field. 3 different movie studios shot footage of us in “action”. This footage was used as “background” for Civil War movies for a couple of decades. At 14 I got a 1918 Mauser trench rifle to hunt with. I actually JOINED (opposite of drafted) the Army during the Vietnam War. This is where I discovered that I was an excellent target shooter. My collection of antique and unusual firearms grew as I inherited and purchased “neat” and historic guns. Since I was a kid, in the state of Kentucky, one had to sign a log sheet to buy ammo. I saw no harm in this. Felons are not allowed to even own ammo, much less a gun. However, as a proud Vet and NRA member, stuck in California, I have three times had to ward off robbers and bad actors intent on doing my wife and me harm. How? I PRETENDED to have a firearm on me! How DANGEROUS is that? But it worked. Once, me and the wife needed to post the mortgage check on time. We pulled up to the post office about 9 pm. Instantly, a car with four shave headed, facial tattooed, laughing individuals blocked us in. As I got out, the driver flashed a switch blade. I turned my back on him, and unstrapped the belt holding my rubber coated iPhone into its “holster” on my hip and covered it with my hand, trigger finger pointing straight down, mimicking the action taken by a police officer as he approaches you to write a traffic citation. I walked over to the mail slot, posted my letter and turned fast, left shoulder pointing at them and my hand on my holstered “gun”. The driver yelled “Pistolo! Pistolo! Pistolo!” and they roared off. My wife asked what happened. I told her that I thought they were double parked. Thank God she doesn’t speak Spanish. And no, I think I’ll hang on to my iPhone 3, thank you. They don’t make thick rubber cases for the new ones. Buy a gun safe, stay legal and spread out your collection so they don’t “get them all” if it comes to that.

    Reply

  • AgingMarine

    |

    Lmao, leave it to Beau, taking a statement made about one specific item and broadly applying it to others.
    Like you said, Beau, SOME areas need some regulation, but, as always, you are too stupid to stay on topic. I was taking about firearms and the 2nd Amendment, not chemical Companies and pollution control. Jesus Christ, you really need to stay on topic so you don’t look like a perfect asshole. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT DEREGULATION ACCROSS THE BOARD! I was, however, talking about deregulation concerning firearms. I made the point that there is already too much Governmental interference, and what we need is for people to stop being lazy, and for them to take responsibility for their own lives, instead of blaming the failures of Government.
    But, as usual, Beau, you reply to a post by myself or Paul, and simply because it is us, who have wiped the floor with you, you have to become immediately adversarial. I don’t care if you like me or not, but you have to stick with reality. You cannot continue to ignore it because it comes from a source that makes you feel uncomfortable.

    So, two things before I post this.
    First thing is: STOP replying to posts that you cannot understand. You are trying to twist my words to suit your purpose. It won’t work. I wasn’t talking about deregulation across the board, I was taking about it with respect to Firearms. That’s all. Not one time did I mention any deregulation of any engineering or textile industries. I mentioned FIREARMS AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT. So stop trying to twist my words.

    And finally, you need to answer the question: Name ONE business, or any other area of peoples everyday lives, for that matter, that has no regulation by the Government. You can’t. There is too much Governmental control already, and your dumb ass wants more! LMAO, that’s utterly ridiculous.

    Reply

    • Andrew N.

      |

      Aging Marine-Remember no one is perfect.

      Reply

  • Paul

    |

    Once again, Beau defends his pathetic strawman.

    He cannot cite one post here advocating less gun regulation, but continues to argue as if someone has proposed that. Perhaps he’s arguing with folks who aren’t here.

    And then he speaks as if the gun industry is unregulated. Delusional.

    Reply

  • Paul

    |

    lovely straw man argument. No one suggested deregulation, but Beau blithers on as if someone did.

    Reply

    • Beau

      |

      What? Are you reading anything, or do you just lash out blindly whenever I post something/anything? Your blatant attempts to diminish my viewpoint, only serves to make you look like an idiot. Again.

      This is getting too easy Paul.

      Take a look at the post I was responding to.
      It clearly says: “. . . name ONE industry that has no Governmental regulation and control….. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
      We need less government and more people taking responsibility for themselves.

      If that’s not a tacit complaint about regulatiosn and a call for deregulation, I don’t know what is.

      Now, get ready for Paul to somehow try and ‘parse’ his statement into some unintelligible blathering about ‘What he REALLY meant’.

      You’re right ss1. There needs to be some regulation and it does NOT mean the end of gun ownership. Closing the gun show loophole, selling ‘smart’ weapons, restricting little kids from shooting at shooting ranges, just common sense stuff. We can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

      Reply

    • ss1

      |

      Hi Beau,

      I totally agree with your comment about regulation in America, i.e. the one in which you capitalized all the words. Also, your photo essay was powerful. If left alone and uncontrolled, human beings tend to be greedy and have other undesirable side affects (LOL).

      Some of the things you wrote just above this reply seem logical. I don’t want little kids next to me at the gun range. I don’t want a criminal to buy a gun at a gun show.

      As far as smart guns go, I have not studied that topic to even comment on it. I’m usually on these forums looking for technical topics for guns or accessories that I like.

      Hang in there with Paul. If he’s the Paul I think he is, who I argued with on another forum (M1A Korean import blockages I think?) many months ago, he’s a tricky one to argue with….LOL!

      Reply

    • Dennis Michaels

      |

      Well let’s look at some of those “common sense stuff”.

      1. Gun Show Loophole. Mostly a lot of hot air. Criminal do not patronize gun shows, virtually all guns sold at “gun shows” go through the same background check as buying from firearms store. Agree, a FEW firearms are sold on a person to person basis but very darn few.
      2. Well I don’t think a “little kid” should be let loose with a full auto weapon as it is easy even for a adult to “loose it”. But I was shooting my fathers .45 ACP that he brought home from WW2 when I was 7. Kicked like the devil but I never shot anyone by accident either. Proper training and supervision is all that is required to allow a “little kid” to shoot a gun.
      3. Smart weapons? Great idea, except that such a creature is still in the realm of Science Fiction. How do you make a firearm that will distinguish between a “bad guy” and a “good guy”??

      What needs to be done is STRICT enforcement of the already existing laws. Most prosecutors will allow the “gun charge” to be plea bargained away for the “guilty” plea on the main charge. The BATF will not prosecute those who are under firearms disability and attempt to purchase a firearm through legal gun dealers. In fact the BATF has done nothing but harass firearms dealer while ignoring the bad buyers. I am aware of one such incident in my own locale. The dealer actually reported a suspicious buying pattern to the BATF and almost lost his license for selling the guns even though the buyers were clear on the background check and he had no legal reason to refuse to sell to them. Of course it turned out that they were Straw Buyers who the BATF did nothing about because they said they “couldn’t prove it” but turned around and wanted to revoke his license. Cost him several thousand in lawyer fees to get clear of the BATF.

      Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ Beau.

      The “Biggest” problem I see, ISN’T “Smart Guns”. But “Smart Munitions”, at least with a Smart Gun you have to overcome curtain Variables that’s between the Gun and the Target. With a Smart Projectile, it going to WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER, on an Unimaginable Scale. We’ve already had a Taste of Micro and Mini Drones in the Wrong Hands, Multiple that by a Factor of a Thousand or MORE. And the Carnage is going to be like Nothing in Recorded History Has Ever Seen the Likes Of…

      Reply

  • ss1

    |

    This kind of a law would have to be worded very carefully in a BI-PARTISAN effort, so that law abiding citizens are not manipulated by misuse of the law. If done correctly, this law could save lives.

    The 2 ladies shown are definitely NOT the people I want leading a bill like this.

    Reply

    • AgingMarine

      |

      Its not going to save lives. What it will do us open up more opportunities for criminal behavior. Any restrictions will only serve to weaken the abilities of law abiding citizens to properly defend themselves.
      Think of the 2nd Amendment as a water jug…… Any restrictions, limitations, Etc. only hinder it’s ability to hold water, and therefore render it useless. We have enough restrictions as it is. What we NEED is actual enforcement of existing laws, without interference from big company’s like banking institutions and the power lobbies, like the Auto makers, insurance giants like GEICO. Anyone know what GEICO stands for? GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY. G. E. I. Co. Now name ONE industry that has no Governmental regulation and control….. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
      We need less government and more people taking responsibility for themselves.

      Reply

    • Beau

      |

      What a load! There is a rich history of deregulation causing incredible harm as we’ve all recently seen on Wall Street and in the Gulf of Mexico. Get real. SOME businesses WILL CHEAT, WILL DEFRAUD, WILL COVER-UP, and WILL CUT CORNERS in order to increase shareholder profits.

      CERTAIN INDUSTRIES need to have some regulations. Period.

      NEED PROOF? Here is a link to a photo essay on where deregulation failed:
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/03/1271430/-25-Images-of-Markets-Regulating-Themselves

      Reply

    • AgingMarine

      |

      Beau, you like to point out the failures in America, but never point out that these failures in your photo essay, while not all in America, are failures of Corrupt Governments.
      What I don’t understand about you is that you want more restrictions on firearms, and these restrictions have to be enforces by the very corrupt Government that causes these problems you complain about.
      For instance, why should multi-billion dollar chemical companies be allowed to CONTINUALLY break EPA laws and guidelines, simply because they can afford to pay the fines?
      Or, to address one of the instances in your Photo Essay, the fertilizer plant in Texas, who was allowed to operate with no liability insurance….. How is MORE regulation going to help that situation, when it was the state Government that caused it?

      As I said before, the best way to fix things today is to STOP the corrupt Government from making MORE regulations, and simply ENFORCE the regs we already have on the books. And yes that means no MORE regulations on firearms, just enforce the laws that are already on the books. If this was done, we wouldn’t have HALF of the problems we have now.

      The only reason you don’t want this is because you have to have an adversarial relationship with those here. There has to be some common sense in that dense head of yours.

      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.


%d bloggers like this: