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

[wally]

After reading this thread I have to ask, if there is any evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others how do existing laws fail?

Problem is, as in the recent case, if that evidence is ignored by our "protectors" the "we must do something" crowd is too quick to throw out the Constitution, due process, and the rules of evidence for an imagined solution. Much like the Temperance movement deluded themselves into thinking if alcohol was banned as the "root of all evil" utopia would result -- instead we got Al Capone and organized crime that we still can't deal with adequately.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

After reading this thread I have to ask, if there is any evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others how do existing laws fail?

Problem is, as in the recent case, if that evidence is ignored by our "protectors" the "we must do something" crowd is too quick to throw out the Constitution, due process, and the rules of evidence for an imagined solution. Much like the Temperance movement deluded themselves into thinking if alcohol was banned as the "root of all evil" utopia would result -- instead we got Al Capone and organized crime that we still can't deal with adequately.

The answer is to be able to shoot back if they are not locked up. If discovered BEFORE they do something bad, lock them up and throw away the key.

Woody

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The answer is to be able to shoot back if they are not locked up.

I agree.

If discovered BEFORE they do something bad, lock them up and throw away the key.

What evidence must we have before we do this to someone? Are they to get a trial? Are they entitled to a lawyer?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I agree.

What evidence must we have before we do this to someone? Are they to get a trial? Are they entitled to a lawyer?

Yes, due process is a must.

Woody

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, due process is a must.

The clearly we must duplicate criminal trials for those accused of "being a danger to others."

 

[RPRNY]

The clearly we must duplicate criminal trials for those accused of "being a danger to others."

The only way to do it consistent with the Constitution.

But I am very very afraid for this country if we start having "preventive incarceration" as a bulwark against "violence". According to some statistics, "79 % of the perpetrators of school/public place shootings" in the last five years have a 'history of mental illness', whatever that means. So, a 100 % effective govt run mental health screening and 'committal' program (but how many govt programs are 100% effective?) could stop up to 79% of the perpetrators of these mass shootings. Ok. Are we prepared to give the govt the power to prosecute for 'mental health crime prevention' in order to save the 50 -70 lives a year that a 100% effective program would possibly save (while recognizing that 10 - 20 people per year would still be killed anyway)?

I'm not.

The risk that hundreds (probably thousands) of people per year would be locked up in government 'mental health detention', medicated into zombies, or otherwise have their lives ruined without their ever having been a threat to society outweighs the benefits of possibly saving 50 - 70 lives.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If we look at the cost, we should ask ourselves, "Is this the BEST use of all that taxpayer money? Is there some BETTER way we could deal with the problem at a lower cost and NOT violate the Constitution?"

 

[Epee]

AB 1014 passed the Assembly with 55 yea's, 17 no's.

This will become law. The Senate will pass it on to Moonbeam.

 

[Sentryau2]

I think some need to read the plot of "psycho-pass" Its a garbage show but shows us what life with thought police would be like. Innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial are being thrown out the window here. I expect people to start getting stabbed soon, "if I cant kill you with a gun, I'll simply use any other weapon"

 

[george burns]

Restraining orders never stopped determined people. To them it's just another piece of paper.
You won't know when they intend to come at you, so what good is it?

 

[Sam1911]

so what good is it?

They can help establish a case history which can help you in the event that a violent encounter does eventually happen and a decision has to be made about prosecuting, of if it does end up in a trial.

It isn't an "o.k. I can shoot him now" card.

But, since it will be clear that there was a relationship of some sort between the shooter and shoot-ee, it helps make clear that the contact was not voluntary and bolsters the case that your act of violence was not willful on your part.

 

[Zach S]

Sounds good in theory, but can I see this being used excessively.

Restraining orders are pretty common in divorce court. The deck isnt stacked in her favor as much as it used to be, but I know a few guys that got slapped with a 50B (NC RO) simply because their soon to be exes asked for one.

And I know of one that deserved that 50B, and deserved time, which he later served...

 

[TMCCOY]

It seems as though efforts like this will stifle people from seeking help when they need it (if they are aware of it) because they don't want to have the negative actions taken against them. I also subscribe the gov't will over-reach on laws like this and it would be an arduous and expensive process for citizens to retrieve their possessions. They will also become labeled a risk and I would imagine additional legislation would follow around this.

 

[leadcounsel]

Ripe for abuse and serving no legitimate purpose.

If someone makes a threat - that's already a crime. If someone is violent, that is already a crime.

But for vindictive people to manipulate and use law enforcement and the courts to financially harass, ruin, and DISARM someone until they can hire a $5,000 lawyer and fight it out in court is reason for alarm for every gun owner and every freedom and justice loving person.

Maybe the person being disarmed actually is the target of violence?

Another horrible feel good law with serious negative consequences.

 

[mgkdrgn]

The world is full of stupid ideas. Now we have another one.

 

[cbob1911]

i'm positive this has been echoed many of times. It's not about gun violence, it's about gun control and disarming the population.

 

[george burns]

It's also a good way to stick it to the one who owns the guns, especially if they have a lot of money invested in a nice collection.

 

[fastbolt]

Perhaps some folks might like to read the current Bill Analysis provided from the Senate Appropriations on 8/4/14.

Click on the Bill Analysis, and then the Senate Appropriations 8/4/14 link on the analysis page:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml

Note that at one point it states ... Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to file a petition for a GVRO knowing the information to be false or with the intent to harass.

New ground. New costs. New requirements and procedures for LE (and DOJ peace officers).

Have to wait and read the JC forms and instructions to see how this works.

Won't be surprising if the PJ's in each of the Superior Courts of the 58 counties may devise some differences in assigning & handling these new types of cases.

 

[leadcounsel]

Note that at one point it states ... Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to file a petition for a GVRO knowing the information to be false or with the intent to harass.

I've been a lawyer for a long time, and an adult even longer. I have never seen, or personally heard of, the case where an alleged "victim" is every prosecuted for filing a false report. It's a feel good measure that will rarely if ever be implemented, nor deter a single false report.

Laws like this will continue to disarm innocent law abiding people while completely missing their alleged target audience - because you can't predict criminal behavior like this.

In most of the mass shootings in the last couple decades, this law would have done nothing to prevent them.