Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"People who fear a close relative may commit gun violence will be able to petition a judge to temporarily remove the person's firearms in California, under a bill signed into law on Tuesday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown."
"close relative"
No doubt the law will be clarified to include anyone who knows the individual. After all, there will no be domestic partners, live-ins and everyone else wanting to be included and "protected".
So you couldn't tell the cops before this legislation passed that someone is on the edge of sanity?
Love that 'take the guns temporarily'!!!!!!!!!!!! when pigs fly and you can keep your doctor is you like your doctor.period!
My peace of mind is more important than your freedom. Duh.
Crime scene convesation....
'Yup, that there is a piece of mind splattered on the wall, make sure you get that sample for the coroner'.
People get turned into the cops by disgruntled girlfriends, wives and neighbors most often and long before this peace of mind legislation passed. So what is different?
People without close relatives are immune form the law so if a neighbor or starnger reports suspicious behavior the cops hands are tied??????
There has got to be special wording in that legislation that involves more than face value.
To quote the article
"Under the so-called gun violence restraining order in the court system, immediate family members and law enforcement agencies could ask a judge to order guns temporarily removed from certain individuals.
The restraining order would last 21 days, and could be extended up to a year, after a notice and a hearing. "
I do understand the need to protect families; but there are two problems with this:
First if the person has not broken the law, then there is no legal recourse in taking their firearms, it is just hearsay.
Second part I have a problem with, is it did not specify what condition law enforcement could get your firearms confiscated under, and I believe that needs to be very clearly spelled out.
One of the biggest problems with the law is that the burden of proof is on the individual to prove that he should be able to retain possession of the guns.
The burden of proof should be on the state to prove that the individual should not retain possession of his/her firearms.
This law is going to lead to some interesting court cases.
Will the order instructing law enforcement to confiscate the guns be confidential? How does that work when the people making the complaint will know too?
I just hope some poor soul who gets their guns taken away doesn't end up being the statistic on the receiving end.
Everyday we can say the sky isn't falling. What they said in Pompeii too.
One of the biggest problems with the law is that the burden of proof is on the individual to prove that he should be able to retain possession of the guns.
The burden of proof should be on the state to prove that the individual should not retain possession of his/her firearms.
This law is going to lead to some interesting court cases.
I agree WhipperSnapper 88; I can see this being miss used and abused by both the police, and the person making the complaint.
Several years ago, I took on a room mate. Being a mod, there was a guy looking for a temp place while he looked for a place to stay. I had tried to help him locate to this area and when it got down to the wire, I agreed to take him and his 11 year old son in. I was single and lived in a 1800 sq ft home, all by myself. So I said come on.
He was here for 3 months. Couldn't pay the rent on time. He was supposed to be here less than 30 days. However, one thing after another, couldn't find a place, nothing available, etc. After 3 months of grocery's disappearing, no rent money, no money for phone, etc... I told him to get out. He had 72 hours.
The last day, he was loading things in his car and I was kind of napping in my easy chair. All of a sudden, I hear a police bull horn outside, "come out with your hands up". I thought, what the hell? I walked out the front door to see what was going on. I was immediately slammed to the ground and cuffed. My carry weapon was taken. I was hauled down to the local hospital.
Long story short, he had called the police and told them I was suicidal. After talking to two doctors and answering all of their questions, I was released. I went home and found I had been cleaned out. Jewelry, food, etc. He was gone. It only took a couple days to get my carry weapon back, but I never did get anything else back.
"People who fear a close relative may commit gun violence will be able to petition a judge to temporarily remove the person's firearms in California, under a bill signed into law on Tuesday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown."
"close relative"
No doubt the law will be clarified to include anyone who knows the individual. After all, there will no be domestic partners, live-ins and everyone else wanting to be included and "protected".
It's just another stupid mundane law that won't do anything to curb crimes committed with guns. This law is about feeling good about one's self for having passed it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
