California’s Gun Solution: Drug Everybody; Then Confiscate Their Guns

It’s become more and more obvious as the fake debate over gun control rages on in the media circus that citizen disarmament will come not through an overturning of the 2nd Amendment, but rather through background checks and mental illness.

Many people, and unfortunately many conservatives, have bought into this idea that maybe federally-mandated background checks aren’t such a bad idea after all. I mean, who would really want a person with a criminal record to own a gun?

And since the mass shooters in the past several years have all been “mentally ill,” maybe it’s a good idea to also bar those who are known to be mentally ill from owning firearms.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: ‘Houston Chronicle’ Forced to Retract Stories After Reporter’s Work Proven a Fraud

No one’s going to come after our guns. They’re just trying to make it harder for those who are a danger to themselves and/or others to purchase a gun. It’s common sense.

But New York is showing us how they’re going about confiscating people’s guns all the while championing the 2nd Amendment. The Mental Health Law provision in New York’s new SAFE Act requires the removal of firearms from those who are mentally ill. It also requires that mental health professionals report to the authorities anybody who is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

The Blaze documented a case that took place a couple weeks ago in which a New Yorker had his guns confiscated because he was once prescribed an anti-depressant drug. Therefore, he had a history of “mental illness.” The man was very compliant but immediately filed suit after giving up his guns. The judge eventually ordered that his guns be returned. Is this what every victim of gun confiscation in New York has to do now to keep his self-defense weapons?

This is what they’re trying to do in San Diego County, California. California enacted Laura’s Law in 2002. It was named after 19-year-old Laura Wilcox who was shot and killed by a severely mentally ill man.

This law gives individual counties the option to force any of its residents into psychiatric treatment and/or to take psychotropic drugs if the authorities say the person needs them, and the “patients” have no say in the matter. LA Country adopted Laura’s Law in 2004. And now San Diego County is trying it out for size.

California’s criteria to determine if someone needs to be forced into a mental health facility is deliberately vague so that anyone can be accused of being mentally ill and deserving of psychotropic drugs:

 “Condition likely to substantially deteriorate; unlikely to survive safely in community without supervision; history of noncompliance which includes two hospitalizations in past 36 months or act/threat/attempt of violence to self/others in 48 months immediately preceding petition filing; likely needs to prevent meeting inpatient standard; and likely to benefit from assisted treatment.”

 Writing for Natural News, Mike Bundrant points out how this can be used to incarcerate anyone:

 “But wait, it says that you have to have a hard history of hospitalization and violence in order to qualify. Not so! All you need to qualify to lose your physical and mental freedom is, at any time during the last four years, to act/threat/attempt violence to self/others. An “act/threat/attempt” of violence, by the way, could be ANYTHING. Giving someone a dirty look could be interpreted as a threat of violence. Finally, authorities have put themselves in a position to predict whether or not you are “likely to benefit” from assisted treatment. And the clause, condition likely to substantially deteriorate, suggests that they can take over your life if they feel you may do something wrong in the future.”

 The drug industry invents new illnesses all the time so that they can sell more of their drugs. If they can get everybody on their drugs that supposedly treat their made up illnesses, that’s all the authorities will need to confiscate people’s guns. Even if you were prescribed an anti-depressant just one time in your life. That constitutes a “history.”

This is where universal background checks and mental health checks are headed. This will lead to confiscation, because they think you and I are mentally ill. If we’re not on drugs, I’m sure they’ll find a way at some point to force us to take them.

Previous The Sequester Is Law, So Obama Will Ignore It
Next Throwing a Flag on Liberals' 'Offensive' Plays


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.