, , , , , ,

This story has been burning up the internets:

In Los Angeles, California, nine CA Justice Department officers came to the house of a woman who had voluntarily checked herself into a mental facility for two days for evaluation, but they didn’t stop there — they also took the legally-owned weapons of her husband (most likely without appropriate 5th Amendment compensation.) so you don’t have to be ineligible — just someone who lives with you.

“Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.” Or, apparently, if you live with someone of this status. While it might sound like a good idea at the jump, it deprives the eligible person from their civil right to weapons ownership and by logical extension, self-defense.

Do I lose my all RIGHTS because my child has some mental condition? Why just this one? My right to vote is certainly more dangerous than a handgun. What about my property rights — do I lose my property if my wife committed a crime without my knowledge? (Answer: see “asset forfeiture”.) The government already takes people’s property without just compensation…how long before your First Amendment right to speech is curtailed because “you’re nuts” and your ideas could “harm the community?” It’s already the law in Germany that activities like homeschooling or speech that is offensive because it creates a separate social norm .

Remember that California is held up by the Democrats as the example for where the nation should be legally. You aren’t paranoid when the opposition really is out to get you.