California police conduct raids against people who failed background checks

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by kazenatsu, Jun 11, 2020.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It looks like law enforcement in California conducted raids against some people's registered home addresses after they filled in their name on forms to apply to buy ammunition, but the background check rejected them.

    https://reason.com/2020/06/10/calif...t-innocent-people-at-risk-of-police-violence/

    So these people wrote and registered their home address on a government form, then later, they wrote their name on another government form, seeking to be granted permission from the automated database to buy something, and then, even though the database rejected them and they did not end up being able to buy, a police raid was conducted on their home.

    And there were over 100,000 people who filled out the application to buy ammunition who were wrongly rejected, and unable to buy, even though they should have been.

    Now, in complete fairness, we can presume that police didn't just automatically choose to conduct raids on everyone who failed the background check, they probably looked up whether that name had a prior criminal history attached to it.

    But you can still see the huge civil liberties violation here, based on the principle of the thing.

    Even if the particular individuals had been convicted in the past, and were aware they were legally prohibited from buying guns or ammunition, still, many years later, they get their homes raided because they entered their name on an application into a government database, trying to get legal permission to buy.

    And of course many critics are pointing out the danger, that even someone who never had a criminal record could have their house raided, due to errors both in the database and by law enforcement.

    Another possibility, imagine you were living with someone who had a past criminal record. With the very high cost of housing in that state, many people are living together in boarding houses with roommates.
    Another possibility, maybe that individual with a past criminal record never even actually applied to be able to buy ammunition, maybe someone else with a fake identification card applied using their name.
    Maybe the criminal violation they were convicted of was actually relatively minor, but years later they find themselves terrorized by law enforcement again.
    The thing is, all of this would be up to the discretion of local law enforcement and the judge granting the warrant, there are no specific rules that govern this.
    This type of law enforcement strategy seems potentially very questionable. Even if there may be some specific instances where it could be understandable, it could easily be a slippery slope.

    The point is, the very law which purports not to violate your rights and requires you to hand over information (your name), could use that very same information it demands against you.

    Hopefully I don't have to explain to any of you that a raid is not always just a benign thing. A large group of officers show up with guns, start giving orders, sometimes handcuff anyone who happens to be inside the home, and there have been many cases of people being accidentally killed.

    All this could potentially be triggered just because a name was entered into an application, and that application was rejected. Even though, pretty much by definition, no guns or ammunition ended up actually being bought.

    I realize this can easily be seen as two sided issue. You don't want bad people, maybe with a gang history, trying to see if there are any errors in the automated government database that they could exploit, to be able to get a gun from a law-abiding gun seller.
    But there is definitely a very concerning flipside to this issue too.

    Would you like to enter your name into a government system in order to legally buy a gun, knowing that there is a possibility that because you gave your name, people with guns pointed at you are going to break into your home and start looking for things?

    What ever happened to the notion that these names were supposed to remain private and confidential? That's obviously not the case and not actually happening if law enforcement is raiding people's houses because they failed a background check.
    That point alone should be concerning.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2020
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Depends.
    If the denials were due to a criminal disqualification, the people who filled out the forms committed a number of crimes, and the state has more than enough evidence to convict, say noting of getting a warrant.
     
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From the source....

    Unfortunately, the Standard background check also rejected 101,047 other law-abiding citizen residents that the laws were not designed to stop," U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in an April 23 decision blocking enforcement of the law for several reasons, including constitutional concerns. "The standard background check rejected citizen-residents who are not prohibited persons approximately 16.4% of the time."
     
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right.
    But that does not remove the legitimacy of the arrests of the people who -did- break the law.
    There's a chance - a small chance, since this is CA - the authorities looked at each of the rejections, discovered why the purchase was rejected, and chose to not pursue a warrant and charges against those who were wrongly rejected.
     
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are not talking about arrests. Maybe that needs to be clarified for you.

    These are people who may have been convicted of a crime years ago.


    Do you think it should be considered a crime unto itself for a disqualified person to apply for purchasing a gun (submitting their name into the government database) even if they are rejected and thus not able to buy the gun?

    And I would wager to guess, some of these individuals who were the subject of raids may have never even have actually "tried to buy", they just had their name submitted to see if the system would reject them (although you could argue what other point would there be to submit one's name unless one was going to try to buy at some point in the future).


    It sounds like these raids were not actually about going after people for breaking the law, per se. It was about searching to see if prohibited persons had guns when they should not have. Because presumably what other reason would there be for them to try to buy ammunition (even though they failed to do so), unless it was for a gun?

    But even though there is a clear law enforcement rationale for this, that does not mean these tactics do not have some severe potential civil liberties concerns.

    Maybe it seems that I am just parsing details to you, but are you able to see the potential big problem?
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2020
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are they finally going after the restricted person's who try to buy guns too? Because they havn't been...
     
    Rucker61 likes this.
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it still illegal for them to guy a gun/ammunition?
    When you fill out a 4473, you attest to all your responses being true.
    If you know it is illegal for you to buy a gun/ammunition and you attest to the contrary, you commit perjury.
    Its easy enough to check a rejection against a criminal database and take the info to a judge.

    So... as long as the authorities acted against the people who had rejections due to a criminal disqualification, I don't see an issue here.
     
  8. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no excuse for this abuse of power. Like other gun/ammo laws, it only affects good people while criminals have no trouble getting guns or ammo. I have to enter my name on forms when I buy a gun or ammo, but Flaco-the-Felon doesn't have to fill out forms or wait 10 days.

    "On May 19, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office breathlessly announced "12 operations throughout the state where special agents with the California Department of Justice seized dozens of firearms, tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, ghost guns, assault weapons, and drugs over the last month. "

    Proof that these laws did not prevent these people from getting guns, ammo, and illegal drugs. This means that they knew who these violent people were, but waited for the few stupid ones to attempt buying ammo before paying a visit! If someone has been convicted of a violent crime, perhaps law enforcement can focus their efforts there and leave us non-violent people alone.

    At least the smart criminals still have their weapons, right! That should be comforting as police are being defunded!
     

Share This Page