Gun Violence Restraining Order - what are you're thoughts?

Okay -- here's the key provision

18101. (a) Any person may submit an application to the court, on a form designed by the Judicial Council, setting forth the facts and circumstances necessitating that a gun violence restraining order be issued. A gun violence restraining order shall be issued to prohibit a named person from possessing a firearm if an affidavit, signed by the applicant under oath, and any additional information provided to the court demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, the named person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms.

Click to expand...

Note that "any person can submit an application" and there is NO provision for the victim to appear in court, be represented by a lawyer, or even KNOW someone has submitted an application against him.

How does this square with Due Process?

A gun violence restraining order shall be issued to prohibit a named person from possessing a firearm if an affidavit, signed by the applicant under oath, and any additional information provided to the court demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, the named person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms.

Click to expand...

Substitute "demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court" with "to the satisfaction of the Crown" and you have just thrown out the entire 2nd Amendment.

Substitute "demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court" with "to the satisfaction of the Crown" and you have just thrown out the entire 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

And the rest of the Bill of Rights along with it.

You guys crack me up. You don't want to live in a democracy with laws, just an anarchy.

There is such a divide...

Every time there is something that may actually address the problem rather than just targeting all gun owners, even the gun owners have a divide.

My opinion ? Stop with the rights garbage. You own guns and you are loony tunes, the guns go. Period.

If you are suspected of loony tunes, the guns go.

If you are not loony tunes, you get them back or don't get them taken away.

Have some faith in the system that will not allow just anyone to say "He's crazy" and confiscate your firearms. The very same judicial system you want to uphold your second amendment rights is the same judicial that will decide if there is sufficient evidence to go forward. will mistakes be made? Yes, as with anything.

We are talking about numbers here and if it can cut the violent crazy acts in half I am for it. I really wonder about those who rail again the "invasion of privacy" stuff. What are you hiding ? We are in this position because HiPPA and background checks don't get in sync. They should. we are not talking about the right to buy a house, or a car or a toaster. We are talking about purchasing and owning firearms. Weapons. some quite serious.

I know this will upset many here, but I am all for some rational accommodation to sanity if it will at the same time stop focusing on the guns and focus on the mental health of the owners.

I had a dialog recently with that LA Times reporter about how far apart both sides are. I did not dissuade him, nor did he change my mind but we had a respectful dialog. The only reason he wrote to me was because I did not exhibit the typical Neolithic attitude of some gun owners. He shared some of their nasty and low life comments. Some quite threatening and violent. Yet, we want to protect the rights of those people ? Not me.


All just my opinion, fire away. We are entitled to our opinions.

If a person can be proven to be a danger to themselves or others they can already be locked up against their will. That takes evidence.

This instead is removing a single kind of weapon from someone based on someones word alone. It does nothing to make the person less dangerous since there are other weapons. If they really were a danger you have just escalated the situation.

At least it has to be a sworn affidavit and not an anonymous tip. Until the first case of revenge that is.

Don't kid yourself, ohbythebay. If a reporter contacted you, it is because the editorial spin they want is that gun owners support gun control and you gave them what they wanted.


The problem with this proposal is simple: first, it will not result in a reduction in harm, second, it will result in a reduction in treatment for mental illness (because people in need of help will self-censor), third, it will be abused just as swat teams are abused (look up "swatting") today.

Plus people won't get their guns back. In CA as I recall if police take your guns you must pay a fee per gun for them to be returned. If anyone has any discretion about returning them they are never returned because who wants to risk their reputation and career so a citizen can get her/his gun(s) back?

Every time there is something that may actually address the problem rather than just targeting all gun owners, even the gun owners have a divide.

My opinion ? Stop with the rights garbage. You own guns and you are loony tunes, the guns go. Period.

If you are suspected of loony tunes, the guns go.

Click to expand...

Since you appear to be loony tunes, your guns must go.

in order to have any freedom at all, society has to assume some risks. I am very much against .gov being able to just take away Constitutional rights, based on what someone MIGHT do.
A slippery slope indeed, but one that America has gladly done a belly flop for.

in order to have any freedom at all, society has to assume some risks. I am very much against .gov being able to just take away Constitutional rights, based on what someone MIGHT do.

Click to expand...

PRECISELY.

Freedom is not SAFE.

The fact is, a free people accept that freedom means that others may indeed make terrible mistakes and commit terrible evil, and society can do little about that except in reaction to it. I.e. taking punitive and corrective measures after the fact. It is a roll of the dice, and it relies on two basic understandings that our founding fathers had well in mind:

1) The vast majority of people accept the norms and rules of society and law and behave themselves acceptably well out of enlightened self-interest. A few do not. So be it.

2) The idea that we can pre-emptively do almost anything effectively to stop evils and bad mistakes from causing harm to individuals is completely illusory. It doesn't work. Can't work. All enforcement is after-the-fact, and can do almost nothing to stop negative actions except providing a threat of society's retribution to come.

Sam1911 said:

2) The idea that we can pre-emptively do almost anything effectively to stop evils and bad mistakes from causing harm to individuals is completely illusory. It doesn't work. Can't work. All enforcement is after-the-fact, and can do almost nothing to stop negative actions except providing a threat of society's retribution to come.

Click to expand...

If this weren't true, a maximum security prison, where the greatest imaginable control is exerted over the populace, would be the safest place in the world.

Stop with the rights garbage.

Click to expand...

*sigh* No. Not so long as short-sighted guys like you are around.

If you are suspected of loony tunes, the guns go.

Click to expand...

*sigh* No. Not even close to good enough.

Have some faith in the system that will not allow just anyone to say "He's crazy" and confiscate your firearms.

Click to expand...

*sigh* No. Not on your life. Or mine.

We are talking about numbers here and if it can cut the violent crazy acts in half I am for it.

Click to expand...

What in God's green Earth makes you think this will reduce them, and by half no less?

I really wonder about those who rail again the "invasion of privacy" stuff. What are you hiding?

Click to expand...

I seriously wonder about someone who so casually would discard large portions of our civil rights protections in exchange for pretty promises. If you must know, we're hiding from the prying eyes of people like yourself. Why can't you trust anyone else to live their own lives?

I know this will upset many here, but I am all for some rational accommodation to sanity if it will at the same time stop focusing on the guns and focus on the mental health of the owners.

Click to expand...

So, you call us dissenters crazy in the same breath you say we should focus on the 'mental healt of the owners.' Nice. And right after saying we should have faith in a system populated with folks like yourself to not falsely accuse us and strip our civil liberties?

I had a dialog recently with that LA Times reporter about how far apart both sides are. I did not dissuade him, nor did he change my mind but we had a respectful dialog. The only reason he wrote to me was because I did not exhibit the typical Neolithic attitude of some gun owners.

Click to expand...

The only reason he wrote to you was because your opinion reinforces the one his editors have ordered him to work into his story. This is very well known, that reporters seek out sycophants to support their opinions, and represent the opposition with the most unsympathetic people they can find.

TCB

It's worth noting that most of these folks aren't "crazy" in the sense that would allow an insanity defense. They plan these things weeks or months in advance in attempt to maximize the death and resulting media coverage.

convicted violent felons have no problem getting guns illegally. what makes these dolts think yet another law will prevent a murder?

ohbythebay said:

Have some faith in the system that will not allow just anyone to say "He's crazy" and confiscate your firearms. The very same judicial system you want to uphold your second amendment rights is the same judicial that will decide if there is sufficient evidence to go forward. will mistakes be made? Yes, as with anything.

We are talking about numbers here and if it can cut the violent crazy acts in half I am for it.

Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not going to attack you for it, but this is a pretty radical post.

"Have some faith in the system"? Really? Suppose you're a parent (or maybe you actually are, which is fine). Someone accuses you of parental negligence or something equally serious, and CPS arrives to temporarily take your kids away from you while an investigation is conducted. Would you "have faith in the system," or would you fight - possibly to the death - to prevent having your kids taken from you? It's a critical question and very difficult to answer; and while a firearm isn't a child, the fundamental root of the matter is the same: Why should any law-abiding citizen have faith in the system while his rights are being trampled - even temporarily? Remember, some mistakes will be made; probably fewer than 1%. But you might end up in that unfortunate fraction of cases where your right to firearm ownership - your right to defend yourself - was wrongfully denied. Is it still a price worth paying?

I'm pretty big on justice. Justice, ethics, honesty, and freedom all go hand-in-hand. You either get all of them, or one or more are sacrificed, and you end up with none of them. There's nothing ethical about asking honest people to sacrifice their freedoms in the pursuit of justice. And if one honest person ever loses a single freedom in the pursuit of ethics (in this case, safety), the justice system has failed. That's all there is to it.

- A few mistakes will be made, as with anything else. Don't worry though, it won't be many.
- We in the business call that a misappropriation of justice. You ought to be honest with yourself, and call it failure.

- But we're human; it's never going to be perfect.
- I suppose you're right. Then the best thing to do - the only ethical thing to do - is to not infringe on peoples' freedoms; stop pretending safety is something anybody can give someone else; and start being honest with ourselves, that the only way to give people their safety is to inform them that are responsible for protecting themselves.

Logically, the next step is for the Federal Government to get out of the way of the people. "Gun Free Zones" have got to go the way of the dinosaurs. That's the biggest problem here. Yes, even bigger than addressing mental illness.

ohbythebay said:

I really wonder about those who rail again the "invasion of privacy" stuff. What are you hiding?

Click to expand...

I took a class on substantive criminal law, which is the area of law associated with rights and duties, crimes and punishments, justifications, etc. The class was taught by a county prosecutor who was teaching on the side.

Anyway, we got to a point in the class where we discussed the Fourth Amendment, (searches and seizures, probable cause, consent, etc). At this point, the instructor opened up the floor to student opinions. It didn't take long for us to realize the class was split pretty evenly. Half the class felt strongly that if a person obeyed the law, he ought to always give a police officer consent to a search if asked. After all, he isn't doing anything wrong. So he should have nothing to hide.

The other half of the class felt strongly that whether or not a person obeyed the law was irrelevant. As a result of our Fourth Amendment protection, a person ought to exercise his right to privacy and never give a police officer consent to search without a warrant.

We debated for around a half hour, with many people on each side getting pretty worked up as we went on. As we ran short on time, our instructor called an end to the discussion and gave us his opinion, based on his legal education and experience as a criminal prosecutor.

The bottom line was this: Regardless of how you feel about this topic, if approached with logic and common sense, rather than emotion, most people will always reach (or be lead to) the same conclusion. You may be an honest man. If you are, that's great and I commend you for it; and if not, shame on you (lol). But whether or not you're an honest man, you have no way of ever knowing whether the people you first meet are honest. There are dishonest attorneys (*gasp*), dishonest judges, dishonest state officials, dishonest police officers.

The US Constitution was not designed to make it more difficult for cops to catch bad guys; it was designed to protect honest people like you and me from having representatives of the state treat us unethically and unjustly. With that in mind, waiving any of your rights is always a bad idea. You will never, ever gain anything by waiving any legal right you have - even if you feel it isn't important or applicable to you. Logically, waiving any right will only ever put you in a position where you lose something and gain nothing.

It really is that simple. You have nothing to hide? Terrific! Exercise your rights anyway.

A simple response - please take the time to read

I don't want to debate my opinion. I want to clarify.

1) The reporter - No, I did not feed him what he wanted. In fact, try as I might to get him to see that punishing ALL for the actions of the few was not only wrong, but unconstitutional. Try as I might, our final conclusion was (our words) we were diametrically opposed in our opinions and there was no meeting in the middle.

2) I am not "short sighted". In fact, I strategize long range all the time; its my mode of operation and part of what I do for a living. I mitigate today against
what will happen or could happen in the future. So one does not have the right to call me short sighted (except under the 1st amendment unless it causes me harm or reputational impact in which case I could sue). I would never sue but I am making a point.

The constitution is a framework and subject to individual laws and interpretation as are passed down by the court. They are not absolutes. Never have been and never will be. If they were, I could yell "fire" in a movie theater and only a search warrant with a judges signature could get my car searched.

Oh wait ?
I cant yell fire and police can search my car under specific circumstances. How is that ? Clarification and modification by law of the amendments that address this.

The same with the second amendment. In its absolute, there are no restrictions yet; we know they are.

And here is the final absolute point I am trying to make. I am far sighted. I write politicians, editors, etc. I try to get them to see the other side when they start their ban guns garbage. I am trying (probably more than most) to stem the tide that is coming. If things continue as they are today, WE WILL LOSE this fight.

Its a matter of perception. It is too easy for the vocal minority to hold high all the shootings (how many at colleges this week) of evidence of a problem. Can anyone here truly defend against that (some here have said "that's life" and I agree) that when these things happen, you can say it means nothing ? If so then your are pretty callous.

They have the high ground. They have the gory dramatic pictures to support their cause. We stand too often on a vague amendment from our framers that has been whittled away. We need counter-action, not "well our founding fathers said we could...kinda ..sorta".

So many of you have misunderstood my intent. so be it. But I assure you my intent is more than placating and caving. Its finding common sense in showing that we are responsible and that those who would be irresponsible or incapable, shall NOT own and buy guns.

So if you disagree, that is fine. But I assure you, if HIPPA,mental history and court actions is not coordinated with ownership, if preventative measures are not taken, then we will lose our rights. I for one will fight that tooth and nail.

Pick your hill to die on, but don't die before even being in the fray

The problem with "mental health" standards for gun possession is that there's such a vague line between sanity and lunacy. Even mental-health professionals are unable to predict future behavior. And a plan to deny guns to the "mentally ill" is ripe for all kinds of arbitrariness and abuse. Ultimately, the mental-health profession may decide that the desire to own a gun is itself a symptom of mental illness; therefore, if you want a gun, you're too "loony" to have it! Not to mention that if anyone in your household is deemed "crazy," then you can't have a gun because that other person might have access.

What is the common denominator among mass shooters? Almost without exception, they're young men. Raise the age limit for gun possession to 25 or 30, and the problem is solved. At least that would be a "bright line" that would not be subject to misinterpretation. (If you wanted to have a gun at a younger age, you could do so under close supervision, such as by joining the Army.)

If things continue as they are today, WE WILL LOSE this fight.

Click to expand...

You mean the 20+ year wave of INCREASING gun rights and DECREASING restriction we've seen across the country? THAT's the trend we're on. Not a losing, declining, failing one.

Since Sandy Hook (and at various times before) we've seen folks wring their hands and furrow their brows and decry that we MUST compromise NOW, must give up something to placate the enemy. Must submit to "reasonable" restrictions, bans, infringements. Must put our hats in our hands and kneel at the table of compromise, or we wouldn't even "have a seat at the table" when our enemies took all of our rights away.

Well? We didn't. We stood up. We fought hard. We resisted. And the whole nation watched amazed as that united front of gun owners saw the worst the administration and all their anti-gun supporters could come up with rose like a tidal wave and smashed against our front. And broke, and receded, and expended itself without an inch of gain on the national front. (And precious little in the states.)

The antis were hoping that we were still the weak and scared bunch we were in the early 1990s when they pushed through the Brady Bill and AWB. They knew there had never been a moment so perfect for their aims than the mass murder of those children in NJ. And yet, when they met the new, strong, unified US, their efforts crumbled. And it will be a long time before they can expend even that much political capital to try and drive against us again.

So gird up your courage and stop finding ways to give in.

Alexander...I like your idea

Not because I think it IS the answer but because it thinks about what COULD be answers. Thinking outside the box. I would like to see more of that and less on "well its just our right" I KNOW its our right, they know its our right. But that defense is ringing hollow with the people who make the decisions.

All I am asking for is people think outside the box, use facts, figures, ideas and such against those who would take our rights if we do nothing.

God forbid the Fed goes the way of states like NJ...

Sam....

You mean the 20+ year wave of INCREASING gun rights and DECREASING restriction we've seen across the country? THAT's the trend we're on. Not a losing, declining, failing one.

Click to expand...

tell that to NJ, NY, Conn, California, DC and many others. How can you say we have MORE gun rights ? That's ludicrous

You mention the Brady bill and AWB ...so rights have decreased?

My loins are girded for the fight...but the concept is to fight smart. Common sense is not giving in...its common sense.

Tell me your justification for not wanting to support mental health as it relates to guns (since we both know the root cause of the dang problem is mental health, NOT guns)..

I truly think you and others misunderstand me.

convicted violent felons have no problem getting guns illegally. what makes these dolts think yet another law will prevent a murder?

Click to expand...

Jerry wrote the above quote.

Just think about it for a few minutes. It is a very simple post and short. I am not trying to take anything away from the guys who have replied to the OP. However, this has been the law of the land since 1968. So close to 45 years of this being on the books and hasn't stopped criminals from getting guns. Additional laws wont stop crazy people from getting guns or killing people.

All of you sympathizers get over it. If laws would stop people from committing crime we wouldn't have any drugs on the streets right now. Before you start signing your rights away and favoring further incrimination of your countrymen ask yourself "have the laws we have on the books now stopped any of this?" .

I truly think you and others misunderstand me.

Click to expand...

It is up to YOU to make yourself clear.

When you say things like, "Have some faith in the system that will not allow just anyone to say "He's crazy" and confiscate your firearms" I see a big, fat guy trying to persuade a little girl to get in his car with him.

AlexanderA said:

What is the common denominator among mass shooters? Almost without exception, they're young men. Raise the age limit for gun possession to 25 or 30, and the problem is solved. At least that would be a "bright line" that would not be subject to misinterpretation. (If you wanted to have a gun at a younger age, you could do so under close supervision, such as by joining the Army.)

Click to expand...

ohbythebay said:

Alexander...I like your idea

Click to expand...

So now we're proposing that you should need to be at least 30 years old to have the right of self defense with a firearm? These ideas keep getting worse and worse.

A longtime state senator and former New Jersey governor, Richard Codey, said the Isla Vista shootings that left six students dead last month have led him to introduce a bill that would allow firearms to be temporarily seized from gun owners who are proved to be mentally ill or a threat to others.

Click to expand...

Interesting, in that the Isla Vista shooter was investigated and interviewed by Sheriff's Deputies that concluded he was a polite and well spoken fine young man and not a danger.