|
|
12-30-2015, 10:40 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California :(
Posts: 303
Likes: 276
Liked 402 Times in 97 Posts
|
|
End of 2A in California...
I came across this on the net, I have no idea if it's true or not but I wasn't in the mood to check and verify... Kind of disturbing!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When California’s new law takes effect on Friday, your Second Amendment rights will be in the hands of your ex-girlfriend.
Or ex-wife, or therapist or neighbor – anyone, really, who doesn’t like you.
The “ Gun Violence Restraining Order” act, which goes into effect the first of the year, gives the state authority (it claims) to seize all your legally-owned weapons for up to three weeks based on nothing but someone else’s word.
A judge – after hearing “concerns” from just about anyone who claims to know you, can sign a search and seizure order, giving police full authority to bust into your home and seize your firearms.
This can all be done without you ever knowing, The Daily Caller is reporting. You are not a party to the complaint and you have no way of contesting the seizure or getting your firearms back until after the three-week “cooling-off” period has expired. Then you are required to prove you’re not a public menace to get your guns back. If you don’t, the judge can extend the seizure for up to one year.
The person who wants your guns taken away need not provide any proof or any evidence whatsoever that you’re a danger to yourself or others. Some of the reasons (but not all) a judge can sign off on the seizure are vague and ridiculous. They include: any prior arrest for a felony (conviction not necessary); reckless “display or brandishing” of a firearm; threatened use of physical force; and, my personal favorite: “evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition or other deadly weapons.”
This means if you’ve done nothing but bought a gun recently, you are subject to having them confiscated.
When the police break down your door and ransack your home looking for your guns, they’re required to provide you this notice:
“To the restrained person: This order is valid until the expiration date and time noted above. You are required to surrender all firearms and ammunition that you own or possess in accordance with Section 18120 of the Penal Code and you may not have in your custody or control, own, purchase, possess, or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive a firearm or ammunition, while this order is in effect. A hearing will be held on the date and at the time noted above to determine if a more permanent gun violence restraining order should be issued. Failure to appear at that hearing may result in a court making an order against you that is valid for a year. You may seek the advice of an attorney as to any matter connected with the order. The attorney should be consulted promptly so that the attorney may assist you in any matter connected with the order.”
The devil’s in the details. California calls it a “ Gun Violence Restraining Order” but what it should be called is the “ Second Amendment Elimination Act.”
Californians, you have been warned!
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
12-30-2015, 10:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 13,524
Likes: 1,184
Liked 18,473 Times in 7,310 Posts
|
|
I wonder what happens to the person who files specious or false charges under this new law? Same as filing any other false police report? I sure hope the consequences for them are at least as bad as the consequences for the person they file it against.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
12-30-2015, 11:58 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 7,179
Liked 6,595 Times in 2,117 Posts
|
|
I don't think it will pass judicial scrutiny. The first person this happens to needs to jump back at it. I realizes that there are liberal judges out there, but any judge who would sign off on this needs to be forced out of office.
__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner
|
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
|
|
12-31-2015, 01:50 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pikeville, Tennessee
Posts: 6,072
Likes: 924
Liked 9,967 Times in 3,664 Posts
|
|
"This can all be done without you ever knowing."
Okay---cop-out clause up front: I am not an attorney. Accordingly, I don't KNOW what I'm talking about-------------------BUT
It strikes me the actions you recite lack "due process". Accordingly, I think something of considerable significance is missing from your tale. Perhaps one of the attorney's in this forum can lend a hand.
As an aside, I lived in California for a spell (2nd and 3rd grade)-----a loooooooooooong time ago. Now that I'm some older, and maybe a little bit wiser, I have no intention of returning. Actually, it would be at least interesting, and perhaps enlightening, to learn why anybody lives there anymore.
Ralph Tremaine
|
12-31-2015, 07:54 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 131
Likes: 38
Liked 66 Times in 40 Posts
|
|
Craziness...
|
12-31-2015, 09:40 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: NE FL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 1,407
Liked 4,022 Times in 1,259 Posts
|
|
Just googled it. Article in the Washington Times from two days age and other news outlets. Pretty much what the OP posted. Family members and loved ones have to convince a judge that you are a danger to yourself or others. With that, your firearms can be taken for a "cooling off period ". Article did not indicate any "due process ". This all depends on Convincing a judge, which in California, may not be difficult. This is amazing, just amazing..........
__________________
"Your other right........."
Last edited by fordson; 12-31-2015 at 09:45 AM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
12-31-2015, 01:30 PM
|
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Craig, Montana
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 363
Liked 2,346 Times in 893 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC38
I wonder what happens to the person who files specious or false charges under this new law? Same as filing any other false police report? I sure hope the consequences for them are at least as bad as the consequences for the person they file it against.
|
My question exactly.
I can see some neighbor, ex wife, whacky relative, ex girlfriend, etc filing on someone, resulting in damage to a collection from the confiscation. WHO pays for that damage?
What a mess. California TRULY is the land of fruits and nuts.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
12-31-2015, 01:45 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minden, Nevada
Posts: 3,627
Likes: 2,014
Liked 5,296 Times in 1,736 Posts
|
|
One more reason why I'm moving to Nevada. If all goes well, I will be buying a house in Gardnerville.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
12-31-2015, 04:44 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 5,125
Likes: 8,526
Liked 1,231 Times in 429 Posts
|
|
And when some terrorist kills someone again, and their neighbors, friends, and family haven't mentioned any "concerns ", what laws will be coming next?
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
12-31-2015, 04:56 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: WI
Posts: 758
Likes: 1,022
Liked 1,023 Times in 396 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrhiner
I don't think it will pass judicial scrutiny. The first person this happens to needs to jump back at it. I realizes that there are liberal judges out there, but any judge who would sign off on this needs to be forced out of office.
|
But then again, I can see even a non liberal judge signing off if the complainants are not anonymous. What judge wants to say no to the order only to have that one be THE one who is a real danger and commits some act that could have been avoided...etc and so forth. Bad, very bad...
|
12-31-2015, 10:59 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 928
Liked 1,751 Times in 542 Posts
|
|
The first instance this happens, the NRA need to step in with the best legal team available. Set down a marker early.
|
12-31-2015, 11:29 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 7,179
Liked 6,595 Times in 2,117 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sconnie
But then again, I can see even a non liberal judge signing off if the complainants are not anonymous. What judge wants to say no to the order only to have that one be THE one who is a real danger and commits some act that could have been avoided...etc and so forth. Bad, very bad...
|
This may sound horrible, but if due process is suspended just once , it will be suspended again and again. If you have a family member that might be a danger to themselves or others, present evidence to a Judge. Then let the Judge require evaluation by Professionals. Then remove their firearms, knives and chainsaws. Put them on the "NO BUY LIST". Do it right. Not wrong.
__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner
|
01-01-2016, 12:30 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,284
Likes: 2,972
Liked 1,494 Times in 702 Posts
|
|
"Absurd" comes to mind but I live in a state where at 12:00 AM CST a licensee can open carry. hardcase60
__________________
You want me to do what?
|
01-05-2016, 05:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: WI
Posts: 758
Likes: 1,022
Liked 1,023 Times in 396 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrhiner
I don't think it will pass judicial scrutiny. The first person this happens to needs to jump back at it. I realizes that there are liberal judges out there, but any judge who would sign off on this needs to be forced out of office.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrhiner
This may sound horrible, but if due process is suspended just once , it will be suspended again and again. If you have a family member that might be a danger to themselves or others, present evidence to a Judge. Then let the Judge require evaluation by Professionals. Then remove their firearms, knives and chainsaws. Put them on the "NO BUY LIST". Do it right. Not wrong.
|
I am confused by your comment but we may be on the same page. Initially you felt the CA measure "might" not pass judicial muster. And my thought was even a non liberal judge might uphold the measure for fear of letting a dangerous person keep their guns. I don't tend to put a lot of stock in "professionals" evaluating anyone's future behavior. Like I said, we may actually agree that due process is needed to strip someone of their 2nd amendment rights. I just lack faith in "the system" to accurately assess a person and I can see that "they (the system)" will error in favor of stripping the right versus taking a chance that "they" will be the one who enabled somebody to have a gun that might be used in a horrible criminal act in the future.
|
01-05-2016, 09:02 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mansfield, Texas
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 11,499
Liked 2,888 Times in 947 Posts
|
|
wait....what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcase60
"Absurd" comes to mind but I live in a state where at 12:00 AM CST a licensee can open carry. hardcase60
|
.... and just what is it you are inferring sir? ... I do not see the connection.
|
01-05-2016, 10:08 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 7,179
Liked 6,595 Times in 2,117 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sconnie
I am confused by your comment but we may be on the same page. Initially you felt the CA measure "might" not pass judicial muster. And my thought was even a non liberal judge might uphold the measure for fear of letting a dangerous person keep their guns. I don't tend to put a lot of stock in "professionals" evaluating anyone's future behavior. Like I said, we may actually agree that due process is needed to strip someone of their 2nd amendment rights. I just lack faith in "the system" to accurately assess a person and I can see that "they (the system)" will error in favor of stripping the right versus taking a chance that "they" will be the one who enabled somebody to have a gun that might be used in a horrible criminal act in the future.
|
You have a problem with "professionals" evaluating someone but are OK with a Judge arbitrarily denying civil rights to someone based on heresy?
I would rather a 100 "questionable" people have their rights affirmed than 1 "un-questionable" person have their rights denied.
__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner
|
01-06-2016, 11:46 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK area
Posts: 2,876
Likes: 1,461
Liked 7,056 Times in 1,581 Posts
|
|
Mark my words, it will come to this:
You wish to own a firearm.
You are not allowed to own a firearm if you have "mental issues".
Wanting to own a firearm is evidence of mental issues.
Catch 23.
|
01-06-2016, 01:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,636
Likes: 242
Liked 29,147 Times in 14,094 Posts
|
|
As I earlier stated, if someone is stripped of their second amendment rights based upon mere accusation, the extension of that logic is that they should be locked away immediately without trial to keep them away from anything and everything that could be used as a weapon, including knives, hammers, baseball bats, cars, gasoline, etc., etc.
|
01-09-2016, 11:47 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 67
Likes: 10
Liked 23 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Slow down a little everyone
As I read the new law, it is the people who know you intimately, who must provide objective evidence to a judge for the gun violence restraining order.
Restraining orders are given by a judge, when evidence is presented that shows a history, or the likelihood of a serious threat.
Since the heller decision, all laws that effect an individuals right to keep and bear arms, have to pass a higher level of judicial scrutiny.
I agree with everyone, that the potential for abuse might exist.
The courts will be careful with this. This kind of a law makes the execution of justice difficult.
|
01-11-2016, 02:35 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 120
Likes: 20
Liked 319 Times in 82 Posts
|
|
In Illinois, your spouse, ex-spouse, live-in, "significant other", relative, or any person with whom the accused has or had a family or romantic relationship may apply to a judge for an emergency order of protection. This is done without any notice to the person who is supposedly a danger until AFTER the order is issued. It is then valid for 10 days, when a hearing is to be held. Your firearms MAY be ordered to be held by the local police until after the scheduled hearing, and longer if a "permanent" order of protection is signed. A friend of mine, and a city police officer, was on the wrong end of such an order due to a vicious, manipulating ex-wife who thought she could gain more child visitation time this way. Unfortunately, she had to allege facts, and the day after the order was served I showed the judge that her alleged "facts" were, in fact, lies. He suspended the order. She failed to show up on the hearing date. We went to family court and got her visitation time reduced, based only partly on her lies to the court.
The important thing to note is that a protection order was issued without the person whom the order was against being given any notice or opportunity to appear until AFTER the order was issued! His due process was to come 10 days later! In most areas of the state, his guns would be gone and he would be out of work for 10 days. THIS is "due process" in Illinois. I can't believe California will be inclined to interpret due process in a stricter manner than has been done in Illinois (and other states) for years.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
01-11-2016, 09:48 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 122
Likes: 1,600
Liked 207 Times in 73 Posts
|
|
Hard to imagine such wanton stupidity regarding the right of individuals.
|
01-11-2016, 09:55 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 7,179
Liked 6,595 Times in 2,117 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retired Chief
In Illinois, your spouse, ex-spouse, live-in, "significant other", relative, or any person with whom the accused has or had a family or romantic relationship may apply to a judge for an emergency order of protection. This is done without any notice to the person who is supposedly a danger until AFTER the order is issued. It is then valid for 10 days, when a hearing is to be held. Your firearms MAY be ordered to be held by the local police until after the scheduled hearing, and longer if a "permanent" order of protection is signed. A friend of mine, and a city police officer, was on the wrong end of such an order due to a vicious, manipulating ex-wife who thought she could gain more child visitation time this way. Unfortunately, she had to allege facts, and the day after the order was served I showed the judge that her alleged "facts" were, in fact, lies. He suspended the order. She failed to show up on the hearing date. We went to family court and got her visitation time reduced, based only partly on her lies to the court.
The important thing to note is that a protection order was issued without the person whom the order was against being given any notice or opportunity to appear until AFTER the order was issued! His due process was to come 10 days later! In most areas of the state, his guns would be gone and he would be out of work for 10 days. THIS is "due process" in Illinois. I can't believe California will be inclined to interpret due process in a stricter manner than has been done in Illinois (and other states) for years.
|
Chief,
Has anyone challenged this "law" in a higher court? Because that is exactly the type of abuses I fear most.
__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner
|
01-11-2016, 10:00 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,891
Likes: 6,993
Liked 28,126 Times in 8,915 Posts
|
|
Missouri has had something similar forever, although the "evidence of recent acquisition" prong seems a little bit of a reach. You can get a 96 hour stay for a mental health evaluation, during which your firearms may be subject to seizure. In my experience, Missouri judges do not hand these out like candy, but are very deliberate in their evaluation. Protection orders similar to the Illinois situation described above are common, but generally require a police report or other evidence of violence prior to issue. 18 USC 922(g) makes someone subject to such an order a prohibited person.
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Last edited by Muss Muggins; 01-11-2016 at 10:06 PM.
Reason: added facts
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
01-11-2016, 10:03 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 821
Likes: 5
Liked 338 Times in 114 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins
Missouri has had something similar forever, although the "evidence of recent acquisition" prong seems a little bit of a reach. You can get a 96 hour stay for evaluation, during which your firearms may be subject to seizure. In my experience, Missouri judges do not hand these out like candy, but are very deliberate in their evaluation.
|
Lucky you don't live in Mass, a friend pulled a restraining order against the boyfriend of his daughter as he was abusing her and threatening her, the boyfriend then pulled a restraining order against the father AND it was the same judge who handed out both restraining orders, only in MASS
__________________
Free Advice is never cheap
|
01-11-2016, 10:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,891
Likes: 6,993
Liked 28,126 Times in 8,915 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Cartwright SASS
Lucky you don't live in Mass, a friend pulled a restraining order against the boyfriend of his daughter as he was abusing her and threatening her, the boyfriend then pulled a restraining order against the father AND it was the same judge who handed out both restraining orders, only in MASS
|
Dueling protection orders are pretty common here.
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
|
01-11-2016, 10:23 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Tincup, CO
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 6,290
Liked 7,472 Times in 2,287 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Jim
I came across this on the net, I have no idea if it's true or not but I wasn't in the mood to check and verify...
|
Forgive me, but I find it disturbing that someone starts out a post with those words, then continues with what may or may not be the truth or an unfounded internet rumour. Could we stick with the facts and maybe take a moment to verify?
__________________
Some collect art; I shoot it!
|
01-11-2016, 11:18 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California :(
Posts: 303
Likes: 276
Liked 402 Times in 97 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peak53
Forgive me, but I find it disturbing that someone starts out a post with those words, then continues with what may or may not be the truth or an unfounded internet rumour. Could we stick with the facts and maybe take a moment to verify?
|
I am sorry that you were disturbed by my choice of words but the source on the Internet I've found this News was the CNN and not the questionable personal blog of "Joe-the-gun-lover"!
But, as you requested at the beginning of your post; I forgive you!
California lawmakers push 'gun violence restraining order' - CNN.com
Last edited by Capt.Jim; 01-11-2016 at 11:22 PM.
|
01-12-2016, 12:29 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 120
Likes: 20
Liked 319 Times in 82 Posts
|
|
Capt Jim, this is settled law in Illinois, and I am sure in most states (although I never practiced law anywhere other than Illinois, Wisconsin and U.S. Military.). Emergency Orders of Protection (EOP) are most commonly issued in boy/girl splits and divorces, although neighbor and/or family disputes are not unheard of. The complaining party must allege violence or the threat of violence to obtain the order. While a police report is helpful, it is not necessary, and, as I'm sure you know, sometimes a police report is just a report "that she came into the police department at xx time date and reported that her ____ struck her with his hand, cursed her and said he would kill, beat, whatever her if she ____ again.
Did not wish to press charges, ____ not contacted." In other words, if the complainant will lie to a judge, he/she will lie to the cops. As an EOP is for a short time, it is most often issued. Everybody leans toward not getting an innocent party hurt or killed, while imposing what is considered a minor inconvenience to the served party. Unfortunately, EOPs are just a piece of paper, and if the ex is really violent, don't serve to slow him/her down at all. Sorry, I'm starting to wax philosophical. Yes, EOPs have been appealed, but since they only last 10 days, by the time an appeal can be heard, the EOP has expired and the issue is moot.
Hope this helps rather than confuses.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
01-12-2016, 02:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: South of Rochester , NY
Posts: 1,229
Likes: 77
Liked 1,342 Times in 559 Posts
|
|
Here in NY, anyone can go into the county courthouse and file for a restraining order. And they get a temporary order until the hearing takes place. But even then,generally if the two people involved aren't living or working together , the judge will just grant the order. No threats have to be made, nothing has to be proven. And the SAFE act requires judges to order weapon confiscation, where it was discretionary before the SAFE act.
__________________
1st smiles,lies.Last,gunfire.
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|