California Will Allow Family Members to Seek Seizure of Guns

[oneounceload]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/us/california-bans-single-use-plastic-bags.html

California will be the first state in the country to allow private citizens to ask a court to seize guns from family members who they believe pose a threat to themselves or the public, under a measure signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday.

So, have a spat with a family member like a spouse or one of your kids, and this can allow the cops to take your guns?

Shades of 1930s Germany seem to be getting more and more in this country.......

 

[MICHAEL T]

Shades of 1930s Germany seem to be getting more and more in this country.......

Only in liberal states . Main street America still has common sense

 

[Librarian]

Assembly bill 1014 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014&search_keywords=

Note

SEC. 9.
Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of this bill incorporate amendments to Section 18250 of the Penal Code proposed by both this bill and Senate Bill 1154. They shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, (2) each bill amends Section 18250 of the Penal Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Senate Bill 1154, in which case Sections 4 and 5 of this bill shall not become operative.

Senate Bill 1154 DID pass, before this one, and was signed into law.

 

[vaupet]

Already common for years in our part of the world.

neighbour or soon to be ex-wive complaining about feeling threatened or unsafe because you own guns will have them (teh guns that is, not the wife or neighbour) taken into police care, just to make sure.

To buy a handgun or semi-auto rifle, one needs a permit and to get the permit, there is a police investigation, wich concernes adult housemates and neighbours.

(One also needs a clean sheet and a doctors certificate stating mental health)

 

[CWL]

Yep, already happens and I've seen it happen to a friend of mine here in CA.

Going through a messy divorce, the wife filed a (wholly unsubstantiated) Restraining Order on him just to mess with him and take-away his rights to the children. Guns went to police lock-up and it took months + tens of thousands of $$ in supervised visitation & mental health evaluation just to get joint custody in the end.

Now I feel that there are legitimate times when this is needed, but it is already being used as a weapon during family disputes.

 

[HexHead]

I was just reading an article about this, and there it was, the quote...."If it just saves one life, it will be worth it".

Trampling on people's rights be damned.

 

[Tirod]

The Lautenberg Amendment already did it in the retroactive sense. Any domestic incident meant you couldn't handle firearms on the government payroll.

Soldiers couldn't get deployed, and senior LEO's lost their jobs over it.

Now we get to see how a proactive system works - prior restraint. While California has been the leader in new ways to live under the Constitution, it has now become a different kind of leader - in onerous overreach. That continues to be a role in which other state governments can see why things are wrong, not as an example of what to do better.

As another nail in the coffin, it will have serious repercussions in the unintended consequences. Overall, it will only cause more to leave the state and their will continue to be an exodus. Which many consider negatively already.

 

[lxd55]

I was just reading an article about this, and there it was, the quote...."If it just saves one life, it will be worth it".

Trampling on people's rights be damned.

how many times have you heard that and the gangs run wild in Chicago and other cities.

 

[50 Shooter]

Let's hope this backfires on them once again and a whole bunch of LEOS and other ABC agencies lose a bunch of people. Ya know "if it saves just one life"! If they didn't speak up to get rid of this then they should be subject to this garbage also!

 

[buck460XVR]

This is another one of those "started out with good intentions". While it could be a good thing in theory, especially in cases of violent domestic abuse or real mental illness, as has been pointed out, there will always be misuse and over reactions.

Let's hope this backfires on them once again and a whole bunch of LEOS and other ABC agencies lose a bunch of people. Ya know "if it saves just one life"! If they didn't speak up to get rid of this then they should be subject to this garbage also!

Can't see any good outta wishing good, innocent, law abiding folks death and harm just because they don't agree with us.

 

[50 Shooter]

I do! This will save NO ONE and if LEOs and other Government agencies can't see this for other then that "one life" tuff ***** for them! I hope they lose their jobs for not speaking up, oops... Didn't know this would affect you too?

If this happend to you or a family member going through a divorce or break up and you couldn't protect yourself... Call 911 and pray they'll get there in time to save your life!

 

[BSA1]

According to the article I read the defendant can appear before the Court three weeks after their firearm(s) are seized and argue why the guns should be returned to him/her.

The way I read this is the assumption is that the defendant does not have right to possess firearm and must present evidence (whatever that may be) proving his mental capacity and state of mind.

 

[50 Shooter]

Exactly and ANYONE can turn you in, ANYONE! All they have to say is that they think you're mental and the police come and take your firearms without question! This is worse then Lautenberg, its basically taking away your rights without them proving there's anything wrong with you!

Hopefully this will be shot down in the courts.

 

[oneounceload]

You are guilty until proven innocent. The comparison to 1930s Germany and 1950s Russia is too close for comfort. This is the direction the country is heading in and we (the voters) need to do something this November, or I fear, it will only get worse. IF the liberals hold or gain seats, with a lame-duck POTUS, everything will be up for grabs in one last big push to make this country truly third-world in every way. (Sorry for the rant)

 

[ladder13]

They've been doing that in NY for years. Look crossed eyed at your wife and goodbye guns.

 

[316SS]

Imagine if some folks started calling in requests for Gun Voilence Restraining Orders rolleyes on anti legislators, local and state government officials (AG Harris!), etc. who are known or suspected to own guns.

I'm not advocating this, but just imagine!

 

[docsleepy]

Guys, be very certain to keep all of your firearms either right out in the open or all locked up in a single obvious safe so everybody can find them when they need to! It's just being a good citizen, now isn't it?

 

[Twiki357]

Just as a personal example of the abuse this law can cause. Back in the early 1980s, my wife and I were going through a amicable divorce until she got a lawyer. Her scumbag filed a court action for an unnecessary restraining order against me that contained multiple lies and fabrications of violence. I found out later that she didn't even know about what was in the court filing. If this law was in effect at that time, I would have lost all of my guns. Needless to say, the divorce was no longer on a friendly basis.

 

[Impureclient]

Is there a legal way around this like putting them in a trust? So if you aren't "allowed" to have the guns they aren't just gathered up and taken away but instead put in another persons possession in the trust.

 

[JTHunter]

oneounceload said:

You are guilty until proven innocent. The comparison to 1930s Germany and 1950s Russia is too close for comfort. This is the direction the country is heading in and we (the voters) need to do something this November, or I fear, it will only get worse. IF the liberals hold or gain seats, with a lame-duck POTUS, everything will be up for grabs in one last big push to make this country truly third-world in every way. (Sorry for the rant)

Until partially overturned with the new concealed carry law, Illinois had assorted "Unlawful Use" statutes on the books for decades. Many of these odious laws had "exemptions" BUT were worded in such a fashion that defendents had to PROVE they were "eligible" to use those exemptions BEFORE they could be used to reduce or eliminate the main charge(s).

 

[Speedo66]

The agency I retired from had a good policy. If you were involved in a marital separation or divorce, they strongly advised you to check your guns into the office when off duty.

More than one time we had spouses make claims of officers pulling guns on them when said guns were documented as being checked in.

 

[steelerdude99]

The agency I retired from had a good policy. If you were involved in a marital separation or divorce, they strongly advised you to check your guns into the office when off duty.

More than one time we had spouses make claims of officers pulling guns on them when said guns were documented as being checked in.

However, such as system involves "registering" what firearms an individual owns with their employer and/or state.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

ah yes, good ole CA. The biggest hypocritical state in the union. It's the only state in the union that does not track abortions because, yah know, that infringes on a woman's rights. Yet, if that same woman has an ax to grind then all she has to do is accuse someone of something and BAM, your rights are revoked and you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Speedo66]

Steelerdude99 said "However, such as system involves "registering" what firearms an individual owns with their employer and/or state."

I worked in NYC, most people had only their service gun. We worked for the state, they knew what we had because we were already required to list our handguns with the state.

 

[HOWARD J]

Good thing all my relatives are dead otherwise I would be in deep trouble.
Guess what--I DON'T MISS ANY OF THEM EXCEPT MY MOTHER, DAD & BROTHER