State confiscates 83 guns in prohibited possessor sweep
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris showed off her agency’s latest round of impounded firearms last week. (Photo: CA DOJ)
A two-day operation by California law enforcement officials ended with the arrest of 10 individuals and the seizure of a number of registered firearms.
Acting on information in the state Department of Justice’s Armed Prohibited Persons System, DOJ agents and Santa Barbara County Sheriffs deputies moved last week to pick up firearms from those deemed illegally in possession of them.
The controversial APPS system, first established in 2007, uses lists of firearms owners cross-referenced with criminal and mental health records to identify once-legal gun owners who have custody of weapons in violation of state law.
The latest dragnet, as noted in a statement from Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, recovered 83 firearms, 6,326 rounds of ammunition and 52 magazines.
“Removing firearms from dangerous and violent individuals makes our communities safer,” said Harris, currently running for a U.S. Senate seat. “I thank our Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms Special Agents and the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department for taking on this dangerous work and their steadfast commitment to keeping our streets safe.”
Despite the stockpile listed, the release from Harris’s office which touted three weapons designated by the state to be “assault weapons” the only image showed about 25 firearms including at least two that were primitive black-powder weapons, some apparently incomplete weapons, as well as a number of single-shot and single-action firearms.
No details were released of those arrested or the charges in their cases, though the DOJ has had issues with making cases stick on APPS arrests in years past.
Starting their first sweeps by armed agents to confiscate these guns nine years ago, the unit has had several high profile missteps.
In August 2013, an Upland, California, man had his guns confiscated by the state after his wife checked into the hospital following an adverse reaction to a change in medication. Citing incorrect hospital charts, the state came to get their guns nine months later, only to return them after the mistake was uncovered.
Following that incident, a Bakersfield man expressed disbelief when armed agents came to his door to seize 18 guns when he flagged in the APPS system. The reason for the raid came from a 40-year-old charge for marijuana possession that is no longer listed in the state’s criminal code. After holding his guns for two weeks, agents returned them once the mistake was realized.
Finally, last November a federal firearms license holder had his 541 gun inventory impounded after he went through mental health treatment last summer, which, unknown to him, landed him in the APPS database. His attorney maintains the guns are legally owned and is fighting the action.
These incidents bolster the argument from gun rights groups in the state who claim the DOJ’s database is overly flawed despite recent efforts to legislate its correction, and that legal gun owners are caught up in its outdated dragnet.
However, despite a $24 million influx by state lawmakers in 2013, Harris asked Sacramento for more cash two weeks ago, citing the unit and its efforts are just treading water. Although financed by a mandatory $19 dealer’s record of sale fee attached to every gun transfer that pumps an estimated $2 million surplus into state coffers in the form of an unauthorized tax, federal courts have upheld the legality of the mandate in recent months.
As of February 11, 2016, the number of subjects on the APPS list still under investigation is 12,334, which the Attorney General holds up as the lowest it’s been since August 2008.
The post State confiscates 83 guns in prohibited possessor sweep appeared first on Guns.com.
Source: http://www.guns.com/2016/02/16/state-confiscates-83-guns-in-prohibited-possessor-sweep/
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms Special Agents and the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, Are all engaged in act’s of TREASON, and need to be Arrested by State Militia.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S.
1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply
with his oath to the Constitution of the
United States wars against that
Constitution and engages in acts in violation
of the supreme law of the land. The
judge (is engaged in acts of treason.)
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated
that (no state legislator or executive ) or
(judicial officer) can war against
the Constitution without violating his undertaking
to support it.
See also In Re Sawyer,
124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
200, 216,
101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.
Ed 257 (1821).
Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation
of the law under which he presumes to act.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137,
180 (1803)
“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the
United States confirms
and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all
written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is
void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that
instrument.” “In declaring what shall be the supreme
law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not
the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall
be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”. “All
law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are
VOID”. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO
State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the
United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”,
this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime.”
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
this exercise of constitutional rights.”
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”.
United States Supreme Court, Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term 1796: “…, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Fishing, hunting, traveling by any means, arms, building ones home, etc)
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42: “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
Felons Rights to Guns, and Yes even the Disabled.
It is a right of defense against that government, or any other person who might violate your rights to Life, Liberty, Property, or the right
to defend the above. By allowing criminals to be defined out of rights are secure, as it is the government… who defines crimes.
Citizenship is the right to have rights and not subject to good behavior of the citizen.
(Trop v. Dulles). In 1866, the rights were extended to all persons in the United States under the 14th amendment, and 1871 civil rights
act. (Currently under title 28, section 1343 USC, title 18 sections 241-245 USC, title 42, sections 1981-1985 USC
As a vested protected property interest, it is not subject to forfeiture by later congress, without becoming a bill of attainder. it was not
limited to the lawful citizen, even in the beginning.
All of our”founding fathers” were traitors by definition, and subject to execution. Yet we now define “felonies as anything subject to more
than a year in jail, even though the original definition required hard labor for infamous crimes, and even then, it was only capable of
being accomplished by a writ of attainder, (Blackstone’s commentaries on Laws of England)
The only means by which to make rights secure, was to secure them for all, and to punish the lawbreaker, by imprisonment or execution, not
to deprive them of the rights that were common, and belong to all citizens equally.
Under the 1871 civil rights act, it was recognized that the states would try to deprive rights under the color of law by declaring
felonies, and the punishment for those felonies (often involving curfews or other restrictions) was a deprivation of rights. it was made
a felony act for a reason, and one of the rights involved was particular mentioned in the Congressional records as the right to keep and
bear arms for self-defense, including against their own government… for no other could engage in acts under the color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom to deprive them of their rights. It included officers both federal and state, judicial and executive.
And was so rarely enforced it was near forgotten about. See McDonald v, Chicago, 2010.
To be quite frank, if they are citizens, they retain ALL their rights of citizenship. The citizenship is the rights, not the title. If they
are not citizens, the governments have transgressed, as stripping citizenship for a crime is unconstitutional (Trop v. Dulles) as an 8th
amendment issue.
Further, stripping the rights from any person, under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom in any state, territory,
district, or possession, is a felony act, punishable up to and including life in prison, or the death penalty under title 18, section 242
of the US code.
The supreme court has already found that this code ( under the 1866 civil rights act) was the reason for the establishment of the 14th
amendment, and that the 1871 civil rights act reestablished it, and placed all states on notice. ( McDonald v. Chicago) that the second
amendment was fully enforceable against the states.
The objective of the act ( Under Monroe v. Pape) was to prevent any group from depriving the rights of the minority, under any semblance of
any law, regardless of the color or other statutes.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
— 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
From Supreme Court Gun Cases (Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin, Bloomfield Press, 2003):
“Miranda’s basic principles are only tangential to the infringement issues continually arising over the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms, and Miranda is by no stretch a gun case itself per se. But it is in a special category of cases that is cited frequently in terms of the general rights involved in firearms rights. A reader who feels that the inclusion of this case goes too far afield of the Supreme Court Gun Cases theme (and case count) will be pleased to note that the following seven cases have not been included for that very reason:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 1803:
“an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 1886:
“It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886:
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 1928:
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” (Note: quoted from dissent.)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 1943:
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”
“a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.’” (read Gun Permits, FOIDs)
Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 1958:
“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official-as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official-is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” (read Concealed Carry Permits)
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 394 U.S. 147 1969:
“And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”
Now can someone go arrest these Oath Violating criminals.