California--State can now arbitrarily seize firearms based on "potential" for violence

[Cabal]

California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1 (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/29/california-gun-violence-restraining-order-law-goin/)


Gun control legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there is potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” he said. “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.”

Rodger, 22, killed six people and injured 14 others before taking his own life during a wave of attacks across Isla Vista near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, that he carried out with two knives and three handguns that he legally purchased.

“This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict,” Janet Napolitano, the university’s president and a former homeland security secretary, said in the aftermath of Rodger’s ambush.

Twenty months later, implementation of the bill is expected to give family members a mechanism for having loved ones briefly lose access to their own, legally acquired weapons in hopes of stopping similar rampages.

“It’s the family members, it’s the people closest to the perpetrator, who are in the best position to notice red flags,” Wendy Patrick, a San Diego State University professor and lawyer, told San Diego’s CBS affiliate this week.

Second Amendment advocates have cried foul, however, and insist that legislation is not the answer in a state already ripe with gun rules that are more restrictive than most anywhere else in America.

“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told The Associated Press. “We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

w2g Cali

https://media.giphy.com/media/TbRXNJJJbgIkE/giphy.gif

[phill4paul]

One of the few situations where I would have a "potential" for violence is if someone were to try to seize my firearms over allegations of "potential" violence. Catch-22.

[Cabal]

https://media.giphy.com/media/m05R3zh9oR5eg/giphy.gif

[Zippyjuan]

It is "arbitrary" if family members go to a judge and convince him/ her that the guns should be removed for up to 21 days. The state does't arbitrarily pick people to remove guns from.



Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

[phill4paul]

It is "arbitrary" if family members go to a judge and convince him/ her that the guns should be removed for up to 21 days. The state does't arbitrarily pick people to remove guns from.

People can say anything.

And often do.

[Slave Mentality]

People can say anything.

And often do.

See something say something.

[Origanalist]

People can say anything.

And often do.

I see you've met my ex.

[morfeeis]

It is "arbitrary" if family members go to a judge and convince him/ her that the guns should be removed for up to 21 days. The state does't arbitrarily pick people to remove guns from.

You must not have family or have ever had an ex wife or one you are separated from. besides if theses people aren't safe enough to own guns for 21 days then i sure as hell don't want them roaming the street. if they are a threat then go through the steps and get their crazy asses locked up, don't be fooled this "law" isn't about mental health it's about moving one more step towards banning PEOPLE FROM PROTECTING THEMSELVES. besides the next step is if we can remove right x from people for reason y then why not right q for reason b....

[Dr.3D]

The ministry of pre-crime never takes a break.

[ZENemy]

The ministry of pre-crime never takes a break.

Correct, we must BREAK it.

[Dr.3D]

Soon, it may be mandatory for people to stay in bed all day so as to make sure they don't commit a crime.

[otherone]

Possessing a weapon gives anyone the potential for violence. THAT'S THE POINT.

[VIDEODROME]

I'm frustrated because I agree with the intent of this, but have concerns about the implementation.

If someone is experiencing clear mental deterioration, I don't think they should have easy access to guns. On the other hand, in the process of implementing this, I wouldn't want to see this handled in an unnecessary aggressive manner with police where the individual in question winds up killed in a standoff.


I'm wondering if there can be any kind of compromise. Could the person get to keep their guns, but with gun locks preventing them from being used? That might be a small gesture respecting the person's property rights and not making them feel like their guns are being stolen from them. In fact, some people might be more willing to voluntarily participate if they're under psychiatric care, but feel that the police are not coming to haul away their property.


http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-21.png

[puppetmaster]

I'm frustrated because I agree with the intent of this, but have concerns about the implementation.

If someone is experiencing clear mental deterioration, I don't think they should have easy access to guns. On the other hand, in the process of implementing this, I wouldn't want to see this handled in an unnecessary aggressive manner with police where the individual in question winds up killed in a standoff.


I'm wondering if there can be any kind of compromise. Could the person get to keep their guns, but with gun locks preventing them from being used? That might be a small gesture respecting the person's property rights and not making them feel like their guns are being stolen from them. In fact, some people might be more willing to voluntarily participate if they're under psychiatric care, but feel that the police are not coming to haul away their property.


http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-21.png

Who determines you are unfit? Why stop at guns? How about a straight jacket....seems safe to me.

[klamath]

If you are a good peaceful law abiding citizen why would you fear this law if it catches the badguy........might be a good line to use against those conservatives that are railing against this but support NSA warrantless spying on americans.

[VIDEODROME]

Who determines you are unfit? Why stop at guns? How about a straight jacket....seems safe to me.

It depends on how unhinged the person is I guess.

Unless we just want to ignore the signs of mental illness and let them hold onto their firearms.

[Working Poor]

I'm frustrated because I agree with the intent of this, but have concerns about the implementation.




I'm wondering if there can be any kind of compromise.

http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-21.png

So you are down with the state incrementally confiscating guns because that is the agenda. The states only "intent" is to confiscate guns.

There is no compromising with the state only increments.

[Cabal]

I'm frustrated because I agree with the intent of this, but have concerns about the implementation.

If someone is experiencing clear mental deterioration, I don't think they should have easy access to guns. On the other hand, in the process of implementing this, I wouldn't want to see this handled in an unnecessary aggressive manner with police where the individual in question winds up killed in a standoff.


I'm wondering if there can be any kind of compromise. Could the person get to keep their guns, but with gun locks preventing them from being used? That might be a small gesture respecting the person's property rights and not making them feel like their guns are being stolen from them. In fact, some people might be more willing to voluntarily participate if they're under psychiatric care, but feel that the police are not coming to haul away their property.


http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-21.png

Should they also have boots put on their cars as well?

http://www.atlantaintownpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/car-boot.jpg

[Dr.3D]

Should they also have boots put on their cars as well?

http://www.atlantaintownpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/car-boot.jpg
If they do, then they should also confiscate the cutting torch.

[morfeeis]

I'm frustrated because I agree with the intent of this, but have concerns about the implementation.

If someone is experiencing clear mental deterioration, I don't think they should have easy access to guns. On the other hand, in the process of implementing this, I wouldn't want to see this handled in an unnecessary aggressive manner with police where the individual in question winds up killed in a standoff.


I'm wondering if there can be any kind of compromise. Could the person get to keep their guns, but with gun locks preventing them from being used? That might be a small gesture respecting the person's property rights and not making them feel like their guns are being stolen from them. In fact, some people might be more willing to voluntarily participate if they're under psychiatric care, but feel that the police are not coming to haul away their property.


http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-21.png

There is already a set of rules in every state in the country to remove firearms from people who are an immediate threat to themselves and others, this act bypasses due process and removes a right before true proof is provided. for example this would be like saying you could be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment based on the word of someone else until you were found to be sane.

[seapilot]

California is going for broke. Actually they are already broke and JP Morgan owns the note for their debt.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/breaking/

Firearms Policy Coalition press release:



Minutes ago, the rabidly anti-gun California Attorney General Kamala Harris — and longtime San Francisco liberal buddy of Gavin Newsom — issued the title and summary for the most radical and dangerous anti-gun ballot initiative in over 30 years. A title and summary is supposed to be a clear, unbiased analysis of what the initiative does so that voters can understand what they’re choosing when they cast their ballots. But that’s not what the voters are getting here . . .


Kamala Harris did her partner in progressivism Gavin Newsom a huge favor by issuing one of the weakest summaries we have seen in some time.

Thanks to Kamala Harris, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is now 1/3 of the way done with destroying what is left of the Second Amendment in California.

Here’s what Gavin’s anti-gun ballot initiative will really do:

BAN all standard (“high-capacity”) magazines…even “grandfathered” mags
BAN online and mail order / catalog ammunition direct purchases
BAN the importation of ammunition purchased out-of-state
DESTROY virtually all small business ammo retailers with insane new regulations
CRIMINALIZE the sharing of ammunition between friends
MANDATE a new $50 DOJ “ammunition purchase permit”
REQUIRE that ammunition sales are recorded in a new gun owner database

Click here to read the CA AG’s doc. [h/t DrVino]

[GunnyFreedom]

Minority Report ftl

[AFPVet]

I'm not surprised by Commiefornia....

[Mach]

It is "arbitrary" if family members go to a judge and convince him/ her that the guns should be removed for up to 21 days. The state does't arbitrarily pick people to remove guns from.

Just another precursor........

[Zippyjuan]

California is going for broke. Actually they are already broke and JP Morgan owns the note for their debt.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/breaking/

Firearms Policy Coalition press release:

If you want to read it: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0098%20%28Firearms%29_0.pdf?

[Weston White]

No I do not believe in coincidences, not at all. Janet Napolitano transfers over as the UC president in September of 2013 and then in May of 2014 this happens on her turf. Yea, true story. ...Yet another coinkydink!

[Origanalist]

SECTION 1. Title.
This measure shall be known and may be cited as "The Safety for All Act of2016."

Do I really need to go any further?

[Danke]

It is "arbitrary" if family members go to a judge and convince him/ her that the guns should be removed for up to 21 days. The state does't arbitrarily pick people to remove guns from.

And they should take away any knifes, bats, power tools, and of course vehicles

Etc. etc.

[Weston White]

Taking this in consideration with this bill, how is it any better, as described:

Isla Vista shooting: Read Elliot Rodger's graphic, elaborate attack plan:


On the week leading up to date I set for the Day of Retribution, I uploaded several videos onto Youtube in order to express my views and feelings to the world, though I don’t plan on uploading my ultimate video until minutes before the attack, because on that video I will talk about exactly why I’m doing this. …

After only a week passed since I uploaded those videos on Youtube, I heard a knock on my apartment door. I opened it to see about seven police officers asking for me.

As soon as I saw those cops, the biggest fear I had ever felt in my life overcame me.

I had the striking and devastating fear that someone had somehow discovered what I was planning to do, and reported me for it.

If that was the case, the police would have searched my room, found all of my guns and weapons, along with my writings about what I plan to do with them. I would have been thrown in jail, denied of the chance to exact revenge on my enemies. I can’t imagine a hell darker than that. Thankfully, that wasn’t the case, but it was so close.

Apparently, someone saw my videos and became instantly suspicious of me. They called some sort of health agency, who called the police to check up on me.

The police told me it was my mother who called them, but my mother told me it was the health agency. My mother had watched the videos and was very disturbed by them. I don’t suppose I’ll ever know the full truth of who called the police on me.

The police interrogated me outside for a few minutes, asking me if I had suicidal thoughts. I tactfully told them that it was all a misunderstanding, and they finally left. If they had demanded to search my room… That would have ended everything. For a few horrible seconds I thought it was all over. When they left, the biggest wave of relief swept over me. It was so scary.

It was all because of the videos. I must have expressed too much anger in them.

I immediately took most of them off of Youtube, and planned to reupload them a few days before the Day of Retribution.

This incident made me realize that I needed to be extra careful. I can’t let anyone become suspicious of me. All it takes is for one person to call the police and tell them that they think I’m going to perpetrate a shooting, and the police will be coming to my door again, demanding to search my room.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-isla-vista-document-20140524-story.html

[seapilot]

Feels the agenda of gun confiscation is shifting into high gear.Is it because oligarch puppet Obama is a lame duck and has nothing to lose? Or is something that people do not know is going to happen that makes the rulers in ivory towers nervous about an armed populace?

An old tactic that worked years ago is being pulled out again. "Gun owners" joining forces with gun confiscation groups to limit gun ownership.


Groups such as MoveOn.org, however, have begun to mobilize firearm owners to support expanded background checks and other measures aimed at curbing gun violence. David Mark Williams, a farmer in Halfway, Ore., described guns as “a tool. If you’re hunting or living a rural lifestyle, you’re going to have a firearm.”

But Williams, who came to Washington this fall with MoveOn.org to meet with members of both parties, said he resigned his NRA membership after its president opposed stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“I’m also a supporter of rational reasonable gun control measures,” he said.

[seapilot]

And they should take away any knifes, bats, power tools, and of course vehicles

Etc. etc.

Forgot hammers, rocking chair legs, fists and feet.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV0QNOrtbGM