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.
Seems reasonable as a lot of these people seem to go through the cracks, some issues with the disgruntled relative but still a step in the right direction.
Quote:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California
will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove
firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov.
Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.
The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Relatives of the victims and other supporters of the bill said the parents of
22-year-old Elliot Rodger were thwarted in their attempts to seek help for their
troubled son before the rampage.
Supporters had said such a measure could have prevented the attacks, winning
out over critics who said it would erode gun rights.
"If both of these laws had been in place on May 23, things could have been
very different," Rodger's father, Peter Rodger, said in a statement Tuesday
night. "California, today, is a safer state because of this legislation. Let's
hope other states follow."
Law enforcement authorities in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas can seek a
judge's order allowing them to seize guns from people they deem to be a
danger.
The new California law gives law enforcement the same option and extends it
to family members.
It's blatantly unconstitutional, and will hopefully go down quickly to a lawsuit. It's not even a second amendment issue as much as it is a fourth amendment one.
Also, it would have made absolutely no difference in the case of Elliot Rodger. Ten seconds of research will confirm that.
It's blatantly unconstitutional, and will hopefully go down quickly to a lawsuit. It's not even a second amendment issue as much as it is a fourth amendment one.
Also, it would have made absolutely no difference in the case of Elliot Rodger. Ten seconds of research will confirm that.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Nothing like the statists violating civil rights without due process for no real world gains.
Reasonable or not, if its unconstitutional as some are saying here, its a horrible thing to sign into law. It wastes government resources in fighting a losing argument.
It's like the politicians in California have never heard of the Constitution..... What in the world would make Gov Brown think that this law will be held up? Obviously he know it wont, but wants to score political points from the left.
It's like the politicians in California have never heard of the Constitution..... What in the world would make Gov Brown think that this law will be held up? Obviously he know it wont, but wants to score political points from the left.
That's my theory - he signed it for political favor, knowing it will go down in flames anyway. He has vetoed some very unconstitutional stuff before.
Shame that when an unconstitutional law goes down - it's the taxpayer that pays to defend it. Shame the costs aren't passed on to the lawmakers...
They will receive a hearing within 14 days of the restraining order, sounds reasonable considering they may be a threat to themselves or others, what's the downside.
They will receive a hearing within 14 days of the restraining order, sounds reasonable considering they may be a threat to themselves or others, what's the downside.
What's the downside to automatic issuance of a warrant, removal of at least two of someone's civil rights, damaging their reputation --- on hearsay? Something that really opens the door to abuse both by people with a grudge or even law enforcement?
They will receive a hearing within 14 days of the restraining order, sounds reasonable considering they may be a threat to themselves or others, what's the downside.
Why stop there? If "family members" say that a relative might become a danger, then have government preemptively take away their car then. Their knifes, their hedge trimmer, the nail gun in the garage, the gasoline canister for the lawnmower..... Just in case they might becomea danger to someone.... Lock him up just in case...
They will receive a hearing within 14 days of the restraining order, sounds reasonable considering they may be a threat to themselves or others, what's the downside.
If they are a threat to themselves or others then they should be put on a 5150 hold and evaluated by doctors. Not some relative who doesn't know left from right make a determination that someone might do something then tell a judge whatever they want to get someones rights taken away.
Probably should just lock everyone up make them prove they shouldn't be, just common sense.
You probably believe women never make anything up to maintain custody of children during divorces either.
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.
