California woman has guns taken away

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

An incredible story coming from the People’s Republic of California, one even shocking by their liberal standards. The government is confiscating firearms from people they deem have ‘lost the right’ to own a firearm. Who fits into that category will shock you — Glenn explains on radio today. Check out the clip above.

  • Draxx

    Wow, these stories do nothing but Piss Me Off…

    If they are telling old women that they have Zero Constitutional Rights, then tomorrow Drones are going to start killing people…

  • Draxx

    What is America Really?

    We have City Police, County Police, State Police, FBI, CIA, TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Federal Marshalls, Jails, State Prisons, Private Prisons, Federal Prisons, Military Prisons, and I am sure that I missed a couple more!  Are these to Protect People or to Control Them…??? 

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    They took this poor woman’s first amendment and second amendment rights away from her. Her faith says that she cannot be alone with a man that is not her husband and not allowed to be touch by another man. Liberals don’t care about our rights in this country. This is Nazism not only didn’t the tell them to sit down or shut up or we will come for you and treat you like a terrorist for standing up for your rights. Liberals wonder why we don’t like the whole let’s kill American terrorist with drone attacks in our country. I am sick of liberals calling me extremist for wanting the government out of my life which it has no right to be there to being with. I thought you believed in right of the people or does that go away when you have a liberal in power in the white house. I am sorry but liberal double standards piss me off. We are the misfit movement in this country a counter revolution and it is time to take the fight to the Constitution and ask these liberals what is so extreme about freedom and liberty? Why does the government in your eyes have the right to dictate how I live because of what I believe but when it comes to gay marriage the government has no right? Why the double standard liberals when it comes to women’s rights? They have the right to free birth control but not a right for their first and second amendment rights?

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    The Democrats and Progressives have reached the end game where they no longer bother to act in secrecy. They want to push people into either complying with their demands or to have someone make a stand based on the Constitution and then try to crush them completely as a warning to all who dare to oppose them.

    This will not end well for in the near future I can all too easily imagine those coming to take the guns away will become ever more hostile, and someone will be killed. The day that line is crossed there is no going back.

    Pray that God keeps the evil building in this nation in check and that He helps us be rid of it once and for all.

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Liberals believe in only one kind of right – the kind given or taken away by an uncaring and all-dominant Federal government. 

    Anyone who dares to stand in their path to absolute power has to be silenced or forced to comply, or, failing that, eliminated. The bloodbath will begin in short order if Obama and them have their way.

  • Anonymous

    They say the Big One (earthquake ) is about to hit California.  I can hardly wait until that state falls off when the Big One hits…. I just hope my relatives and other good people are able to leave before it falls off.

  • Anonymous

    I’m confused- California or New Jersey??? Pick one!

  • Sean Reilly

    Don’t forget the urine yellow color

  • Anonymous

    The problem is that the government is all about POWER. There  are too many levels of government. Just remember that this situation is not afederal jurisdiction. The fact is that all levels of government are taking the lead from the feds. Each level thinks of CONTROL of the subjects and has nothing to do for the good of those subjects. It is the same as having teachers telling parents how to raise kids when those same teachers don’t have families of their own. POWER, POWER and more POWER!

  • sparducks

     The only law enforcement agency we ever really needed was the county sheriff; who has the power to deputize unpaid citizen posses. When you hire a police chief and officers they are just hirelings. They will not serve the people. There should be no federal police period. The local sheriff can serve arrest warrants on behalf of the feds. But this is the bullshit we’ve become. Everyone loves to watch NCIS and cheer the feds when they tell the local sheriff how the law is gonna lay down in his county. It’s BS. time to take America back one county at a time. countysheriffproject.org

  • Anonymous

    Check out a hair-raising, blood shooting out your eyeballs, cranium exploding, public service announcement being played on the airwaves in California courtesy of the “California Endowment”.  My mouth was literally agape with shocked disbelief the first time I saw it:  http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/03/tv-campaign-pushes-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants-ented-immigrants.html

  • Anonymous

    They have to disarm us before they take away our soda, otherwise shit would get ugly!

  • Draxx

    I agree that sheriffs should be the main law enforcement officers…  The Rest of them monitor and control our actions (even when we do everything legally they still watch us to find some fault somewhere to put us in the system of no return).

  • Anonymous

    CIVIL WAR IS COMING! Be prepared. stock up on guns, ammo,food,water,etc and if you can move out of the city. Move into the country, the hills, the forest, the swamp, an island, the Alaskan  out back, New Zeland, to the mountains–find a spot away from large populations.Where you have water naturally and can grow your own food. Start today it is never too late.—– If you want to survive what is coming–chaos, anchary, hyper inflation, food shortages, riots,dictatorship, prison, government reeducation camps,etc. Whether you believe it or not doesn’t matter–it is coming! No political party,election,court or judical system can stop it. The America we knew and loved is gone. The next 4 years and then 8 years of Hillary will destroy whatever is left of the Republic,our freedoms and the constitution. You can scream and shout and protest by not voting or voting for the GOP, the Tea Pary or whoever–it just doesn’t matter,nothing will change and the socialist,communist,progressive,Obamaites will continue to build the kool aid drinking,zombie filled,brain dead country they want. Lock and Load people or start learning how to be a good  slave to the New Order.

  • crazy betty

    I’d sue the crap out of those bastards.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure this was a County Building. Let’s see the video. Then she needs to find a damn good lawyer and file a suit that will loosen their teeth permanently.
     Welcome to your change!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4HAW7OERGSC7VZM72V7IGDJ3B4 Sharmane

    We need to fight this nonsense and unconstitutional infringement at every turn.  The goons are running the country and if we don’t assert ourselves and stuff the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in their faces it will be to our country’s great detriment.  I hope she wins a mega lawsuit and that others will stand with her and against this government tyranny.

  • http://twitter.com/nutts2020 nutt

    Somebody has a furious argument and threatens to return with a gun. That SHOULD get guns confiscated. That’s not the sort of person you want armed, surely?  It’s easy – if you have an argument, don’t go threatening to return with a gun. Otherwise, be prepared for somebody to take your threat seriously. Be prepared for the consequences of your actions – isn’t that what Glenn’s always preaching? Or is that to be applied selectively?

    “If quoting the constitution makes me a terrorist”  – no, lady – threatening to return to the building with a gun is the problem. 

  • Anonymous

    According to her, she never said anything of the sort, but rather was harassed by a member of the organization responsible for orchestrating these “appraisals”.  And there wasn’t a “furious argument”…didn’t you watch the whole clip? She was essentially “shut down” by daring to stand up for herself and her rights, and wanting to get answers.

  • Anonymous

    These people are ridiculous. She made a mistake, however, in going with the police officers. She had no obligation to speak with them or go with them without a warrant. She had no obligation to invite them into her home. Speaking with them without an attorney present is pure foolishness. It doesn’t matter if they make an illegal arrest, it doesn’t matter if she is incarcerated illicitly…at some point they have to justify their actions in the open. She should NEVER have given them her guns. She will never see them again under any circumstances.

    What it would come down to is that this bozo used his position to try to make their lives miserable. The city expended tax dollars to incarcerate the woman and make threats that they would influence the judge to make her bail so high that she could not be released. They completely abused their power to the point that it will make it quite easy for her to bring not only criminal charges against them, but sue them both personally and as representatives of the city. When government officials step outside of the confines of their legal mandates, they are not subject to the same protections that they would have had they followed those mandates and investigated the case properly. Because of that, while the city may choose to protect them, it is likely that they will serve them up on toast to avoid further legal responsibility by firing them and settling with this poor woman and her husband.

    There’s another major issue here, though. The fact that they also chose to violate her civil rights by having men touch her when they were duly informed of her religious beliefs is going to be very, very tough for the city to defend. To overreact to this degree in response to some government flunky who will ultimately prove an untenable liability means that they are very, very foolish. This one is going to cost them and their insurance company will most likely deny the claim because most contracts to cover cities for liability specifically do not cover them when it is proven that city personnel have committed civil rights violations.

    It never ceases to amaze me to see the extremes that foolish government entities will go to in order to hurt someone that they perceive as evil for having denied them free rein to commit unconstitutional, unlawful acts out of pettiness and arrogance. It happened in my city, as well. I was part of a group that made it our mission to unseat a city council that had remained unchallenged for more than 20 years. They laughed at us when we warned them that their illegal consequences would result in their political demise. Some were so arrogant that they didn’t expend a single dime on reelection, so certain they were that they would prevail as in the past. Not a single one of those people, not one of whom had held their positions for less than 20 years, is now leading the city. If this woman and her husband rally the public around what is happening to her and others through the rampant and wanton abuse of governmental power, they could not only prevail in both criminal and civil court settings, they could also rid their city of these menaces and recapture some measure of freedom.

  • Anonymous

    California should start worrying about the radiation from Japan’s meltdowns that NOAA tracked to the west coast of the U.S. and Canada.

    You might want to consider taking seafood off your list.

    http://enenews.com/hidden-noaa-animation-shows-ocean-all-along-u-s-west-coast-wtih-fukushima-cesium-by-april-2011-video

  • http://twitter.com/nutts2020 nutt

    …and according to the police she did say that. Have you just watched the clip, or have you bothered to look at the story?

  • http://www.facebook.com/barbaratracie.harris Barbaratracie Harris

    was this from the executive orders obama signed, to take property and land, this is over the top

  • http://www.facebook.com/barbaratracie.harris Barbaratracie Harris

    you said it Sam this is so bad we need to fight the evil taking over our free country

  • http://www.facebook.com/barbaratracie.harris Barbaratracie Harris

    i know they need to piss us off how else will we demand change for America

  • greywolfrs

    You are an idiot.

  • Draxx

    Anger Serves A Purpose as long as we don’t get out of hand with it and let it blind us…

  • Anonymous

    This is to nutt, not tgarb76. The problem is that the police acted without thinking and with a show of overwhelming, unnecessary force in relation to the incident reported. The second thing is that they reacted on the word of someone who was OBVIOUSLY way more agitated than necessary and trusted his word alone. Third, they accosted them at their house, telling her and her husband that they HAD to come with them. They did not Mirandize her or her husband. They did not handcuff them, standard protocol in the case of death threats against city officials. They encountered a situation in which, clearly there was no imminent danger and were informed about her Jewish orthodoxy, but failed to provide a female police officer to transport her and touch her. She was told she was under arrest at the station and THEN handcuffed to a chair by a male police officer, AGAIN violating her civil rights. She apparently did not know that she had a right to an attorney because they threatened her and her husband with unspecified, warrantless incarceration, threatening to leave her children motherless if she did not relinquish her rights and voluntarily turn over her guns.
    This could almost be a comedy routine about government abuse of power if it wasn’t so sickeningly real and common. If we could draw a flowchart using this case as an example, at every single juncture, we could place the words “Correct procedure” and on the other choice, “Incorrect procedure”. At each and every switchpoint in the chart, they deviated from correct procedure, even when there was clearly no imminent threat. It does not matter that this man claimed that she said what she did. They had no proof of that act excepting his word and the man was clearly unduly agitated even during the hearing and completely belligerent without cause.
    It angered him why? Because one of the peons DARED to oppose his capricious decision and, horror of all horrors, made him look foolish for his ridiculous actions on a public record. The police didn’t investigate the claim, didn’t pull any security video, didn’t act with appropriate caution. This sounds like something out of the deep south in the 1960′s with fat “Bubba Joe” running all the “coloreds” out of town. It’s like watching a bunch of inbred Jeds attempt a comedy routine that could be handled only by someone with a brain consisting of nothing more than a functional hypothalamus that keeps their heart beating, their lungs respiring, and tells them when they are hungry and sexually aroused.
    Eventually, it will come down to nothing more than “he said, she said..” In other words, the police are going to pay, the city is going to pay, and they are going to look like abusive jackasses because they ARE. This town needs a new city council, new contractors, and a new police chief along with some seriously needed training. Not much you can do for the terminally stupid. They’ll never admit they were dead wrong.

  • http://twitter.com/nutts2020 nutt

    But don’t you think that any report of somebody threatening to return to a public building is something that, these days, deserves to be taken seriously and dealt with as a viable threat? Imagine the fall-out if a warning was given, the police shrugged their shoulders, and a massacre occurred?  So this isn’t about the in’s and out’s of the tax argument, nor is it about her religion or the Constitution. As you say, it’s coming down to ‘she said/he said’, and she’s making damn sure her side is getting right out there, including her family history as a back-up, but the police had to act on the report, and fast, just in case.

    Again, her denial is very carefully worded and, to me, is rather revealing. She denies swearing or using the word ‘gun’. Don’t you think it’s strange that she doesn’t tell the world what she actually said? She’s very clear on every other detail here, yet fudges the part on which this whole argument hinges…

  • http://twitter.com/nutts2020 nutt

    And you are poopypants weeweeface.

  • Anonymous

     The police did not respond to the report properly. I didn’t say they shouldn’t follow up. However, responding in force to a nebulous threat, then continuing on in the way that they did was completely improper. They violated her civil rights, probably believing that they could do that under the guise of “domestic terrorism”.  They are incorrect. It obviously didn’t occur to them at ANY point in time to involve the FBI, who have jurisdiction and authority to make the decision to act under those laws. I’m not going to go through the entire list of improper procedures they broke because I already listed that in detail above, but this was FAR beyond an investigation.

    As to who’s more believable, look at the behavior in the council meeting of the fool who made the report. At no time during the debate did she lose her temper, threaten, call names or attempt to intimidate. What was HIS reaction? Hostility, name calling, intimidation and threats. The police failed to even follow up with him. He should have been brought to the police station to make a statement. I have searched the internet and nowhere have I found that he swore out a complaint or was even questioned as to what happened. The security tapes of the altercation are going to be pulled and how much would you like to bet that they show this gentleman following them into the parking lot? How much would you like to bet that HE was the one who first started screaming. This is overtly threatening behavior. Why would they bring the suit knowing what’s on the tapes if it shows them approaching him and screaming? You don’t need sound to understand body language or who is more agitated. Why was he outside of the building at that time of day? Now, they will have to answer those questions on the stand and I would venture to say that those videos will be quite interesting to see. If his story on the stand is different than what can be easily seen, he can be charged with perjury, making a false police report, etc. The police can be charged with making a false arrest and civil rights violations.

    How exactly is it that you believe that the police are innocent in this? At some point someone on that force should have stepped back and realized that they could be held liable for every single procedural violation. These are not just nebulous rules, there is a written protocol. There HAS to be in order to receive state and federal funding for the police force. They broke protocol at every step, when they had a chance to turn back and do the right thing. These are not unusual protocols and when it became apparent that there was no way to verify either party’s story, they should have stopped. They cannot simply take away a person’s civil rights out of expediency. This is what leads to abject abuse of power. This is what brought about that evil monstrosity called the Patriot Act. Those who will trade safety and security for a loss of rights are fools cowering in the shadows, afraid of every bump in the night.

    Here’s another tidbit for you. Those buildings probably have metal detectors, security, etc. How would she get guns/knives/ammo, etc, through the security cordon? Do most orthodox Jewish women strike you as the types who would find a ceramic gun and bullets and risk everything to get them through security? Give me a break. This was an overreaction on their part.

    And no, it’s not unusual at all that they are not giving details on what happened or what she said, since now she has an attorney who would have very carefully told her what she can and cannot say prior to trial because every single word she says can be used in court. There’s nothing suspicious there. They will tell their story in front of a jury.

  • http://twitter.com/nutts2020 nutt

    I’ll go with you on the procedure bit; that’s not what I’m disputing. You raise the metal detector, however. The alleged threat is that she said she’d return armed, so the dectetor/ceramic bullet bit is by-the-by. The fact is, she had guns and (allegedly) threatened to return with them. An open threat, so metal detectors weren’t a consideration of hers.

    And back to her words. The only reporting of this is coming from her contact to the Blaze (surprise surprise) and is very explicit and detailed, even down her tragic family past. So if there’s any legal coaching going on, it’s only being done to weigh things in her favour and, as I keep saying, is being incredibly careful about what she says she said. So yes; if this goes to court, she’ll say under oath that she didn’t say ‘gun’; but there’s a lot of threat that she could have come out with without specifically using that one word.

    Let’s see how this plays, however, see what happens if/when the footage comes to light. If Glenn doesn’t report it (he’s not exactly good at following-up on stories – the headline is everything to him, even if it subsequently proves to be utter bollocks), then you’ll hopefully see it locally as you appear to be local to the story. I’d be really inteterested in hearing how it plays out, so please let me know – my name here is my twitter name.

  • Anonymous

    Local sheriffs?  You’ve got to be kidding. They are the number one rights violators.  

  • Anonymous

    Government serves government and corporations who see the government as the grantor of favors in return for campaign contributions.  We need a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are not people who can buy politicians.