California; gun control lied surprise surprise.

[h=1]APPS Abuse: The Sequel – Another NRA News Video Exposes Cal-DOJ’s Firearm Confiscation Program For What It Truly Is[/h]News have released a follow-up video containing an extended interview with former DOJ Special Agent, Greg Cameron, who has nothing good to say about the California DOJ gun seizure program in which he has participated. As part of their efforts to justify increased firearm purchase fees and universal gun registration nationwide, anti-gun California politicians are enhancing a program which identifies people who are prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, ammunition components, clips, magazines and speed loaders, and then send out teams of police to confiscate them.

Attorney General Kamala Harris claims that this program goes after “violent felons” and people “determined by a court to be mentally ill.” This “system” doesn’t work that way, and Harris’ claims are not accurate. Thefirst video, that NRA News recently released, featured accounts from innocent victims of the APPS program, the informed critical opinions of a former DOJ agent who actually took part in APPS sweeps and firearm civil rights attorney, C.D. Michel. That video revealed the APPS program as at best ineffective or incidental at getting guns from violent criminals, and at worst a campaign of civil rights violations against unknowing accidental and harmless “criminals” mislabeled as crime fighting.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...arm-confiscation-program-for-what-it-truly-is

I can tell you that most police departments are not interested in cooperating with these searches. They don't have the man power and it's too dangerous to go after someone "just because". Cops are not encouraged to do "stop and frisk" in the drug and gangster controlled areas of the cities, so why call them off the beat for a fishing trip? These are people your neighbors or ex wife has said are "crazy" and "dangerous". These are mostly homes with a felon as a family member. They are often poor and in dangerous areas and posses guns for family protection.

It's off the charts dangerous because the subject has tactical advantage unless you bring a SWAT team. But it's not SWAT level policing. It's serving an order with no expectation of trouble since you have no sense of who you are dealing with - a dazed and confused senior citizen or an altzhimers or attack dogs, or the Crips. It's not like you are going to do a stake out.

I can only presume the California Justice Dept wants someone to die to make headlines of how dangerous armed Californians are, and they don't care who dies first.
More info:

Disarming Prohibited Persons in California | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Prohibited Purchasers Generally in California | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

The problem I see is they don't have the manpower to do dragnets anymore. California is chock full of felons, they are so out of space they are releasing them as "low level offenders" - IOW, they copped a plea to become one. You don't get in prison in California very easy. My position is, you don't have a problem until you have one.

Time for decaf.

Crimefree said:

[h=1]APPS Abuse: The Sequel – Another NRA News Video Exposes Cal-DOJ’s Firearm Confiscation Program For What It Truly Is[/h]News have released a follow-up video containing an extended interview with former DOJ Special Agent, Greg Cameron, who has nothing good to say about the California DOJ gun seizure program in which he has participated. As part of their efforts to justify increased firearm purchase fees and universal gun registration nationwide, anti-gun California politicians are enhancing a program which identifies people who are prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, ammunition components, clips, magazines and speed loaders, and then send out teams of police to confiscate them.

Attorney General Kamala Harris claims that this program goes after “violent felons” and people “determined by a court to be mentally ill.” This “system” doesn’t work that way, and Harris’ claims are not accurate. Thefirst video, that NRA News recently released, featured accounts from innocent victims of the APPS program, the informed critical opinions of a former DOJ agent who actually took part in APPS sweeps and firearm civil rights attorney, C.D. Michel. That video revealed the APPS program as at best ineffective or incidental at getting guns from violent criminals, and at worst a campaign of civil rights violations against unknowing accidental and harmless “criminals” mislabeled as crime fighting.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...arm-confiscation-program-for-what-it-truly-is

Click to expand...

Well first and foremost we are getting this information from the NRA; that's like getting information from MSNBC or Fox news reporting about the left or right in politics. Good luck in believing any of it. I hear an axe on a grindstone.

From your link:

In fact, as the NRA’s important videos show, APPS suspects are overwhelmingly non-violent, good people who were unwittingly prohibited from firearm possession and typically don’t even know of their prohibited status or that they may be violating the law.

Click to expand...

Out of the whole state of California how in the world would Ginny Simone (I believe that is who wrote this article. There was no name under the title. :roll: ) would Ginny know the entire effectiveness of the program? From what I found the program is doing a good job on finding illegally owned firearms.

One By One, California Agents Track Down Illegally Owned Guns

In conclusion, seeing that Wayne LaPierre doesn't like all the plans others come out with on making the populace safe from known violent felons and the mentally ill, may I ask Wayne just what his concrete plan is on this? Ginny Simone failed to inform us on a better way to protect ourselves from known felons and the mentally unstable. All she showed us in that article is how people can get around the APP. :roll:

Bob N said:

Well first and foremost we are getting this information from the NRA; that's like getting information from MSNBC or Fox news reporting about the left or right in politics. Good luck in believing any of it. I hear an axe on a grindstone.

From your link:



Out of the whole state of California how in the world would Ginny Simone (I believe that is who wrote this article. There was no name under the title. :roll: ) would Ginny know the entire effectiveness of the program? From what I found the program is doing a good job on finding illegally owned firearms.

One By One, California Agents Track Down Illegally Owned Guns

In conclusion, seeing that Wayne LaPierre doesn't like all the plans others come out with on making the populace safe from known violent felons and the mentally ill, may I ask Wayne just what his concrete plan is on this? Ginny Simone failed to inform us on a better way to protect ourselves from known felons and the mentally unstable. All she showed us in that article is how people can get around the APP. :roll:

Click to expand...

Thanks Bob for your take on this but was this information not based on the reports of an officer taking part in the round up. That many of those caught in the net are simple administrative charges.

I really don't go for smear tactics and that usually shows a weak or irrelevant response coming up.

As a firearm owner can you explain what the heck an illegal firearm is and what good this round up is doing?

I see you refer to gun controls claims of mentally unstable and felons. So how many lives will be saved Bob? Can you give an estimate of the accuracy of this round up in preventing anything? Can the State of California provide this information? If not why are you supporting arbitrary unfounded police brutality in confiscation of innocent peoples firearms?

chuckiechan said:

I can tell you that most police departments are not interested in cooperating with these searches. They don't have the man power and it's too dangerous to go after someone "just because". Cops are not encouraged to do "stop and frisk" in the drug and gangster controlled areas of the cities, so why call them off the beat for a fishing trip? These are people your neighbors or ex wife has said are "crazy" and "dangerous". These are mostly homes with a felon as a family member. They are often poor and in dangerous areas and posses guns for family protection.

It's off the charts dangerous because the subject has tactical advantage unless you bring a SWAT team. But it's not SWAT level policing. It's serving an order with no expectation of trouble since you have no sense of who you are dealing with - a dazed and confused senior citizen or an altzhimers or attack dogs, or the Crips. It's not like you are going to do a stake out.

I can only presume the California Justice Dept wants someone to die to make headlines of how dangerous armed Californians are, and they don't care who dies first.
More info:

Disarming Prohibited Persons in California | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Prohibited Purchasers Generally in California | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

The problem I see is they don't have the manpower to do dragnets anymore. California is chock full of felons, they are so out of space they are releasing them as "low level offenders" - IOW, they copped a plea to become one. You don't get in prison in California very easy. My position is, you don't have a problem until you have one.

Time for decaf.

Click to expand...

And the people of California put up with this obvious abuse of power and most certainly highly unconstitutional process? Why? Are they sheep?

I am not a fan of the NRA and really think it's members should be ashamed of themselves in allowing the organisation to negotiate with their rights, fail to protect their rights or show any ability in leadership of this fight.

I simply used their report to show the huge problem of California and other states. If I asked how did this happen? What kind of response would I get?

The next most obvious question is how does one prevent it happening? Now if the answer to both of these questions is irrelevant to you this fight is lost.

Does anyone think Californians should be just a little bit angry about this behaviour of their governing body?

Now those are good talking points.

Crimefree said:

I am not a fan of the NRA and really think it's members should be ashamed of themselves in allowing the organisation to negotiate with their rights, fail to protect their rights or show any ability in leadership of this fight.

I simply used their report to show the huge problem of California and other states. If I asked how did this happen? What kind of response would I get?

The next most obvious question is how does one prevent it happening? Now if the answer to both of these questions is irrelevant to you this fight is lost.

Does anyone think Californians should be just a little bit angry about this behaviour of their governing body?

Now those are good talking points.

Click to expand...

Nope.California didn't become the way it is overnight. They know they are voting for left wing loonies every time they go to the polls.

Crimefree said:

Thanks Bob for your take on this but was this information not based on the reports of an officer taking part in the round up. That many of those caught in the net are simple administrative charges.

Click to expand...

I don't know anything about this officer. For all I know he could be a member of the NRA.

Crimefree said:

As a firearm owner can you explain what the heck an illegal firearm is and what good this round up is doing?

Click to expand...

Well it's got to be doing better than just doing nothing. And I could probably define what I wrote earlier--illegally owned firearms--better than an illegal firearm.

Crimefree said:

I see you refer to gun controls claims of mentally unstable and felons. So how many lives will be saved Bob? Can you give an estimate of the accuracy of this round up in preventing anything? Can the State of California provide this information? If not why are you supporting arbitrary unfounded police brutality in confiscation of innocent peoples firearms?

Click to expand...

About as many lives that were imposed by California's system of dealing with this problem. What was those numbers?

Bob N said:

I don't know anything about this officer. For all I know he could be a member of the NRA.

Well it's got to be doing better than just doing nothing. And I could probably define what I wrote earlier--illegally owned firearms--better than an illegal firearm.

About as many lives that were imposed by California's system of dealing with this problem. What was those numbers?

Click to expand...

California's laws are designed for one purpose (other than pandering to stupid people to convince them politicians are doing something about gun violence)

to harass gun owners. Pure and simple

Bob N said:

I don't know anything about this officer. For all I know he could be a member of the NRA.

Click to expand...

Well then find out instead of nay-saying on what you have no other evidence of. Muck racking don't work with me try the low wattage types that suck in gun control propaganda..

Well it's got to be doing better than just doing nothing. And I could probably define what I wrote earlier--illegally owned firearms--better than an illegal firearm.

Click to expand...

So lets see with what kind of solution disarming innocent people is better than nothing. Endangering peoples lives because you do not have a single clue as to what this folly will actually do is better. Is that an exhibition of how much care there is for others safety or lives?

About as many lives that were imposed by California's system of dealing with this problem. What was those numbers?

Click to expand...

Are you claiming a first for gun control that this incredible stupidity for reasons already outlined and ignored actually works? You are going to need verifiable evidence of that.

How about you define "illegally owned firearms" would you be meaning what government says are illegal or what has been illegally acquired? Which are the heroes of California going after?

In other words were those guns previously legally held, A simple yes or no will suffice.

Any idea of how many lives have been saved that you can actually prove? Any idea of how many disarmed people have come to harm or is that of no interest to you?

jamesrage said:

Nope.California didn't become the way it is overnight. They know they are voting for left wing loonies every time they go to the polls.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they think that is a good idea and possibly one of the reasons is that the "left wing loonies" have convinced them gun control is going to make them safer. I wonder why that happened. I mean it would be impossible if firearm organisations were leading education programs.

You see nobody owes citizens protection from those bent on removing their rights. It is up to the rights owners to defend what they want. So who is defending firearm owners rights and California is just one example of not defending those rights. Squealing government must do it is just, well l lets say insanely stupid.

Crimefree said:

I'm pretty sure they think that is a good idea and possibly one of the reasons is that the "left wing loonies" have convinced them gun control is going to make them safer. I wonder why that happened. I mean it would be impossible if firearm organisations were leading education programs.

You see nobody owes citizens protection from those bent on removing their rights. It is up to the rights owners to defend what they want. So who is defending firearm owners rights and California is just one example of not defending those rights. Squealing government must do it is just, well l lets say insanely stupid.

Click to expand...

The NRA, GOA and other 2nd amendment groups could run commercials and newspaper ads 24/7 in California and nothing would happen except for those organizations going broke. Their money would be better spent on lawsuits representing a tiny handful of people in California who actually support the 2nd amendment(not the lying sacks of **** who say they support the 2nd amendment and so called reasonable gun control laws). Even then with pro-2nd amendment victories in court the left wing loonies in California would just enact work around like they did in Chicago.

jamesrage said:

The NRA, GOA and other 2nd amendment groups could run commercials and newspaper ads 24/7 in California and nothing would happen except for those organizations going broke. Their money would be better spent on lawsuits representing a tiny handful of people in California who actually support the 2nd amendment(not the lying sacks of **** who say they support the 2nd amendment and so called reasonable gun control laws). Even then with pro-2nd amendment victories in court the left wing loonies in California would just enact work around like they did in Chicago.

Click to expand...

Once the Dems adopted gun control to pretend they were doing something about violent crime (that would work with low wattage voters but would not upset their important black constituency) the die was cast and gun groups could either say nothing or end up being the enemy of the Democrats and their scam to stave off attacks that Dems were weak on violent urban street crime

Crimefree said:

[h=1]APPS Abuse: The Sequel – Another NRA News Video Exposes Cal-DOJ’s Firearm Confiscation Program For What It Truly Is[/h]News have released a follow-up video containing an extended interview with former DOJ Special Agent, Greg Cameron, who has nothing good to say about the California DOJ gun seizure program in which he has participated. As part of their efforts to justify increased firearm purchase fees and universal gun registration nationwide, anti-gun California politicians are enhancing a program which identifies people who are prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, ammunition components, clips, magazines and speed loaders, and then send out teams of police to confiscate them.

Attorney General Kamala Harris claims that this program goes after “violent felons” and people “determined by a court to be mentally ill.” This “system” doesn’t work that way, and Harris’ claims are not accurate. Thefirst video, that NRA News recently released, featured accounts from innocent victims of the APPS program, the informed critical opinions of a former DOJ agent who actually took part in APPS sweeps and firearm civil rights attorney, C.D. Michel. That video revealed the APPS program as at best ineffective or incidental at getting guns from violent criminals, and at worst a campaign of civil rights violations against unknowing accidental and harmless “criminals” mislabeled as crime fighting.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...arm-confiscation-program-for-what-it-truly-is

Click to expand...

Okay, so you want felons and the mentally ill to have guns.

Good.

Good thinking.

jet57 said:

Okay, so you want felons and the mentally ill to have guns.

Good.

Good thinking.

Click to expand...

stop the lying. You want to ban everyone having lots of different types of guns in the faith based hope that this will stop "felons and the mentally ill" from having them.

yes...the sourced article describes it very well.

"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."

And this...is the anti-gun left. While violent crime takes a 10% upswing in the state...the left busies itself with rounding up guns from many people that dont even know they are on the list.

LA Times
Jul 1, 2016 - The numbers were up in all major categories of violent crime compared with those of 2014, according to reports released Friday by the state attorney general's office. Homicides increased 9.7%, and robbery and aggravated assault climbed by more than 8%. Hate crimes followed the same trend, with a 10.4% jump.

jamesrage said:

The NRA, GOA and other 2nd amendment groups could run commercials and newspaper ads 24/7 in California and nothing would happen except for those organizations going broke. Their money would be better spent on lawsuits representing a tiny handful of people in California who actually support the 2nd amendment(not the lying sacks of **** who say they support the 2nd amendment and so called reasonable gun control laws). Even then with pro-2nd amendment victories in court the left wing loonies in California would just enact work around like they did in Chicago.

Click to expand...

It is not possible to win in governments courts. Court cases are hugely expensive for no return other that the potential to gain huge publicity for ones cause or grievances. It that is not done then it is a complete waste.

If running adverts worked as a good return on money why is gun control not using it?

If courts were the way to go why is gun control not using it?

Yet gun control spends the majority of it's money on hiring experts and publicity. You think maybe that is working?

If firearm organisations had a clue do you think they could have noticed this and asked why does gun control do that?

We are so full of crap pet theories we cannot and will not see the correct solutions because it means taking responsibility for our own destiny

jet57 said:

Okay, so you want felons and the mentally ill to have guns.

Good.

Good thinking.

Click to expand...

It is a whole lot better to disarm the victims of crime so they can be injured and killed with impunity?

VanceMack said:

yes...the sourced article describes it very well.

"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."

And this...is the anti-gun left. While violent crime takes a 10% upswing in the state...the left busies itself with rounding up guns from many people that dont even know they are on the list.

LA Times
Jul 1, 2016 - The numbers were up in all major categories of violent crime compared with those of 2014, according to reports released Friday by the state attorney general's office. Homicides increased 9.7%, and robbery and aggravated assault climbed by more than 8%. Hate crimes followed the same trend, with a 10.4% jump.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. Why are firearm organisations and owners not pointing out this folly of decreasing public saftey by following the lunatic laws of gun control?

Do they foolishly believe that real criminals are being deprived and that is even vaguely possible? That somebody else will do this for them? A magician is going to wave a wand and everyone will just understand.......

Lets get real. It is our lives and safety. It is our loved ones we protect, if we are not willing to make any effort to do that what have we become?

Bob N said:

I don't know anything about this officer. For all I know he could be a member of the NRA.

Click to expand...

OMG! NO,.... NOT THAT! The horror. A law enforcement officer actually being an NRA member!
Sieg Hiel!

TurtleDude said:

Once the Dems adopted gun control to pretend they were doing something about violent crime (that would work with low wattage voters but would not upset their important black constituency) the die was cast and gun groups could either say nothing or end up being the enemy of the Democrats and their scam to stave off attacks that Dems were weak on violent urban street crime

Click to expand...

I think its more sinister than a facade of being tough on crime. Sure crime control is an excuse.But I don't think leftists in UK, Australia and other countries that enacted draconian gun control laws were accused of being soft on crime. I think they want to disarm the people for the sake of being able to control the people more.An unarmed populace can't fight back or provide any resistance. These people don't think short term,they think long term and therefore don't mind using incrementation or baby steps to get what they want.

Crimefree said:

It is not possible to win in governments courts. Court cases are hugely expensive for no return other that the potential to gain huge publicity for ones cause or grievances. It that is not done then it is a complete waste.

Click to expand...

Taking a case to court does provide a return. But it won't mean anything if the Supreme court is not filled with pro-2nd amendment judges at the time those cases are filed.Its probably why it took 30 plus years for DC vs Heller to happen. SO court cases do have merit if they are timed right. If a DC vs Heller took place in 1975 or 1980 the results might have been the other way with the supreme court siding with anti-2nd amendment trash that the 2nd amendment is a collective right. This is how right now some of the anti-2nd amendment states are allowed to ban so called assault weapons. Regardless of how bad supreme court decision is the supreme court tends to let those previous rulings stand.

If running adverts worked as a good return on money why is gun control not using it?

Click to expand...

They don't need to use them.Because the media is already doing that for them.Its why the media fraudulently uses the term assault rifles on semi-automatic firearms in order to imply that the military is using AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47s or why they use the term "military style assault weapon or assault weapons to imply that those are weapons the military uses in order to justify banning them or why they use the term "high capacity" magazine when referring to 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazines as high capacity.

If courts were the way to go why is gun control not using it?

Click to expand...

1.Its mostly all about timing. 2.The anti-2nd amendment sides knows court cases can take years or even decades to happen and by the time the law is overturned they bred a generation of sheeple who never touched a gun and therefore most likely to support gun control and not give a **** about the 2nd amendment. This is why the NRA,GOA and other pro-2nd amendment groups could run ads 24/7 in California and not make a difference other than going broke.

Yet gun control spends the majority of it's money on hiring experts and publicity. You think maybe that is working?

If firearm organisations had a clue do you think they could have noticed this and asked why does gun control do that?

Click to expand...

I doubt they are spending that money to change the minds of people in California or Illinois or NewYork. Besides that those "experts" and publicity is just a means to justify their attempts to severely restrict or ban the 2nd amendment. Its like that elected official in Colorado who tried to claim that high capacity magazines were a one time use in order to justify banning them or that one elected official who didn't know what a barrel shroud was but supported a ban on it. Pro-2nd amendment side laughed their ass of at them said they are moron who didn't know what they were talking about.But the reality is that was just an excuse they used in order to further chip away at guns.

I doubt anti-2nd amendment groups have to spend anything on publicity when the liberal media gives them a soap box to stand on and uses terms like "assault weapon" and "high capacity" and blasts mass shooting stories for weeks or when tv shows do social commentary supporting gun control.

RetiredNSmilin said:

OMG! NO,.... NOT THAT! The horror. A law enforcement officer actually being an NRA member!
Sieg Hiel!

Click to expand...

I don't think that you're getting what I'm referring to. If the officer is a member than that person definitely has an axe to grind while reporting the story.

Crimefree said:

It is a whole lot better to disarm the victims of crime so they can be injured and killed with impunity?

Click to expand...

Stumped again and another loss for Jet.