‘Right to Bear Arms?

Posted on April 10, 2015 by KG

Gun grabbing sweeping the nation
Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.
The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctor’s staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and had two court orders commanding the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.
With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.
Second Amendment lawyers say his case is not rare…’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to ‘Right to Bear Arms?

  1. Wombat says:
    April 10, 2015 at 16:08

    The article conspicuously avoided one of the other fates of confiscated guns.

    They end up at Joe Officer’s house.

    I recall a police car dash-cam video where several officers who’d just arrested a man for doing nothing much at all were searching his house without a warrant. They took the keys to his gun-safe from his belt and cleaned it out. The best part was that one of the officers could be heard talking about how he’d “always wanted one of these” and that he was going to take it.

    Of course, the gun in question was listed as “destroyed” although no proof of this is ever given, is it?

    In another instance an Australian police officer was taking many surrendered firearms home with him. We can only wonder how many of them lost their serial numbers and mysteriously ended up in the hands of criminals.

  2. Pascal says:
    April 11, 2015 at 06:40

    How could anyone be confused about all this?
    — Criminals WILL get proscribed weapons when needed to commit crimes. It’s their profession.
    — Even criminals who are less ruthless can become victims.
    — Other potential victims may get weapons and use them in self-defense. But then they will be at the mercy of the state when their defensive moves reveals their possession of them. Dead if they don’t and selectively damned if they do. Caught between two hostile forces.

    Any pol who does not admit and fight the logical conclusion is no friend of the common man.