TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... reatening/

So much wrong in this article

"I am a huge proponent of gun control," the mayor said, when asked about the temporary restraining order proposal. "And I want to make sure we do everything that we can to keep guns away from people because, obviously, of the harm they can do."

No qualification on that... Didn't say keep them away from criminal people, or mentally ill people, but all people.

The effect of a D.C. law would be different than that of a federal law because of the mandatory registration of every single gun in the nation's capital.

On the federal level, law enforcement officers wouldn't know who has guns -- or how many -- when a temporary restraining order is issued. But in the District, the police would be able to easily confiscate guns without giving a resident his or her day in court.

This is crazy...no excuses anymore for anyone to say registration does not lead to confiscation IN THIS COUNTRY! It is unashamedly happening right now. The NRA needs to advertise what's happening like crazy...wake this country up.

Cheh said she will push to pass the bill with nine votes so that the council can override the mayor's expected veto.

DC is lost. Any sane person left long ago.

Mordor on the Potomac.

Time to find/make some very good hiding places.

VoiceofReason wrote:Time to find/make some very good hiding places.

If it's time to bury your guns, it's time to dig them up.

Who do you think is going to come and take them and on whose orders?

healthinsp wrote:Who do you think is going to come and take them and on whose orders?

I don’t know, after operation “fast and furious” where our government sent guns to Mexico as a pretext to make laws here, nothing would surprise me.

In WWII the Japanese bombed a railroad in Manchuria as a pretext to invade. How many times in history have governments used false attacks and threats to get it’s people to allow them to get away with something they otherwise wouldn’t?

I would bet that if the DOJ’s part in this had remained secret, Brian Terry’s death would have been blamed on gun runners and we would have had a boatload of new restrictive laws.

healthinsp wrote:Who do you think is going to come and take them and on whose orders?

The article answers your question (but on a localized scale...not national yet).

Temporary restraining orders generally are given for a two-week period to allow time to set up a court date for the accused to defend himself or herself before a judge.

Under these proposals, firearms could be taken during that period -- as opposed to current law which only allows for that to happen when someone is convicted of domestic violence or subject to a final restraining order.

So the same who and under the same authority (who = police, whose orders = government) as when the firearms are taken after a domestic violence conviction or subject to a final restraining order. Everything will be "legal" because the government makes the rules (and enforces them). The only practical way this can happen though is if the government has a gun registry, which D.C. has...hence why they can now successfully take the next step of confiscation.

So the point is that we have a domestic example happening right before our eyes or a place that has gun registration, and now they really are trying to confiscate. But notice it is another baby step...it is only taking them for the 2 weeks. It is a "common sense" step that will be used as precedent to expand further.