Thoughtcrime, Anyone???

[2hawk]

I see Cali is at it again:
California mulls bill to remove guns from potential offenders | Reuters

According to the article, "(Reuters) - A bill allowing family members to ask a judge to order firearms removed from people likely to commit gun violence advanced in California on Wednesday, one of several gun control measures up for votes in the last week of the state's legislative session..."

You know, I do understand that people want to be safe, and after that kid shot up the street in Santa Barbara, I can see where this is coming from.

But, can anyone seriously not see a danger to interpreting possession of firearms as intent? I know the ATF has been famous for their interpretation of "constructive intent", but this proposed bill seems to advance the stupidity several levels. Orwell must be having a laugh, somewhere....:-/

ETA, this comes right on the heels of passage of a bill approving $24 million to seize "illegal" guns.
California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure
Guess they want to make sure they use all that funding... CA guys, my heart goes out to you :-(

 

[Mcwsky09]

If possession of firearms is an indication of intent to kill then aren't all the LEOs etc all guilty as well?

 

[Harkrader]

I go back and forth on this. Some years ago I worked with pro-bono lawyers and others who were working under a federal grant to help poor and sub-poor women in Milwaukee. That, and several horrifying murders in the greater Milwaukee area by slime bags had us outraged that the courts did NOTHING to remove guns from the murderers. The judges politely asked the men to turn their guns into the police, and promise, pretty please, not to buy any more. It was and is common that other abusers and friends of the abusers would give them guns with no traceable past, and they then murdered or attempted to murder the women and children. I knew three women very well who were nearly murdered by men who were under court order to stay away from them and to NOT possess firearms. I don't know how best to do it, but I want those men forced to surrender all firearms, and I want anyone who gives them a gun to be prosecuted for murder or attempted murder. I include any so-called "hunting" guns. The men claimed they did not know the prohibition meant NO guns.
You cannot tell these women to get a gun and defend themselves. Many could not afford a gun, and could barely afford a place to live. They had been abused so much that they did not know how to resist the abuser, and would allow him to violate injunctions, which he then used to get the court to nullify the order. After which he would move right back in with her and start it all over again.
One woman was repeatedly attacked by her soon-to-be-ex husband's buddies who would tailgate her on the highway, drive their trucks through the yard revving the engines and tearing up the lawn and screaming obscenities at her. No pictures, no proof. Until her father and brothers staked out the house and took pictures of the trucks and showed them to the wives or parents of the *******.s.
Those women did not want to live a life where they had to defend their own lives and the lives of their children. The courts were of no help at all, with no "proof" of the violations.
As far as I am concerned, if the court finds enough to issue the injunction, there is enough evidence for a forced search of the guys properties, and to post a notice on his door that anyone who facilitates his violence will pay the same penalty as he will.
I say "death to abusers." No compromise for violence.

 

[2hawk]

Harkrader, good post. But I thought that domestic violence convictions or restraining orders based on DV were an automatic "lose your guns" for the offenders, per Federal law*. Was that not the case with your clients?

*What should an individual do if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? | ATF

 

[Mcwsky09]

I think we can all agree hat there are cases where individuals should be prohibited form possessing firearms and that there are already laws in place which, if enforced, already cover these cases.
I think most would agree that no amount of legislation is going to stop someone who is determined to commit a violent crime from doing so.
The trouble with laws like this is that it opens the door to all sorts of people making accusations based on their personal feelings about firearms in general with no basis in any potential threat posed by the firearm owner, and cases where citizens can be proactively deprived of their rights based on hearsay or circumstantial evidence of a third party with no tangible evidence of a threat is a bad idea.
Even being able to drag a law abiding citizen into hearings etc to defend themselves against a witch hunt is a bad idea and poor use of limited resources.

 

[CoMF]

What's really scary is that there is a copy of this bill that has been introduced in both houses of Congress.
As for why it's problematic, it allows law enforcement to strip you of your property based on little more than a sworn affidavit (because, you know, those never get falsified or maliciously embellished ). You can't confront your accusers in court prior to the order going into effect, and I don't imagine the process of having the order vacated and getting your property back would be "convenient" by any stretch of the imagination.

ETA: I'll post GovTrack links when I get home.

 

[CoMF]

H.R. 4906: Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act

...and it's sister bill:

S. 2445: Pause for Safety Act of 2014

Not surprisingly, BOTH were introduced by a California Rep and Senator, respectively.

 

[Mcwsky09]

What's really scary is that there is a copy of this bill that has been introduced in both houses of Congress.
As for why it's problematic, it allows law enforcement to strip you of your property based on little more than a sworn affidavit (because, you know, those never get falsified or maliciously embellished ). You can't confront your accusers in court prior to the order going into effect, and I don't imagine the process of having the order vacated and getting your property back would be "convenient" by any stretch of the imagination.

ETA: I'll post GovTrack links when I get home.

Add to that the real possibility that if you are not 100% cooperative when the police show up to confiscate your firearms then you will likely get arrested for resisting arrest and any number of other charges - in which case you will then have an arrest on your record with possible misdemeanor or felony charges which might make it difficult or impossible to ever get your guns back.

 

[eyegots2no]

Yea

It is quite Orwellian. WAY too Thought Crime type stuff.

I must say to Hark---if I as going to kill my ex---I want to use my bare hand!!!! Wouldn't you???

Just kidding---but, what REALLY does having a firearm make the difference in whether someone IS or CAN or WILL harm someone. A chain saw works nice as do an '82 Bruick.

Actually---the point to be made here IS THAT THE POTENTIAL VICTIM NEEDS THE EQUALIZER.

Why did ya'll not "pro-bono" a pistol.

 

[SMSgt]

SCOTUS will end up deciding this one . . . also. It is a violation of due process and an unjustified denial of 2A rights.

 

[coltle6920]

This subject has been discussed before.Opens up a whole can of worms.

You tick off your neighbor or dump a girlfriend and you're in a whole world of hurt if they know about this law.Even if you are innocent you will be put through Hell trying to prove it was malicious intent on their part.

 

[Practical]

All the more reason to let no one know about your guns and be very selective on dating. If the women walks or cheats let her go.

 

[walkin' trails]

I have very mixed feelings about the current. Federal DV law, primarily because it's retroactive elements hurt a lot of good men who weren't abusive by nature but got into a bad situation and thought they were doing something honorable, I.e. taking the blame after she first came in swinging. What really needs to happen is that everyone who may find themselves as potential crime victims must take charge of their own situation to prevent becoming a crime statistic. I'm not talking about preemptive strikes or premeditated murder, but rather situational awareness, avoiding traps, and being prepared to defend ones self. Read Pat McNamara's "Sentinel".

 

[ClayCow]

I dont know of any good men who werent abusive who took the blame to be honorable.

 

[johngalt]

This is why I am opposed to banning felons who have fully served their sentence and are no longer under the state's custody. Once you establish that it is acceptable to ban a class of individuals, all they have to do is move the bar until everyone is banned.

First it was felons. Then it was any crime that could be punished by imprisonment of 2 years. Then it became misdemeanor domestic violence, which it some places apparently could be just harsh words. Anyone who is under a restraining order. Then it was veterans. Next it will be anyone prescribed anti-depressants or have seen a mental health professional.

 

[Beemer-mark]

I think the law is trying to address people who exhibit mental illness but have not been declared mentally ill by a judge. Most mass murderers have serious mentally illnesses and it appears our laws are incapable of dealing with that. The VT killer was the most obvious example. Here was a guy that everyone who had had contact with was thoroughly scared to death. Examined by doctors, presented to a judge and free to go buy a hand gun. So in one sense the CA bill is on the right track.
On the flip side I once had a Psychiatrist tell me everyone is insane. I work in the nuclear industry and am subject to every background check imaginable. The best, required to be taken periodically, is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). This is approx. a 500 multiple choice question test that evaluates a person in roughly ten categories. If you score out the norm in one of 10 areas then that raises a flag to the Psychiatrist. I always fail and so do almost all my fellow engineers. We fail in the category (tough to believe) Social Introversion, basically which means we prefer to be alone. One of the most telling questions is when answer we would love to have the job as a Park Ranger in a large western forest Fire Observation Tower.- Because we fail that question (and others that confirm the category) we get to talk to the friendly doctor for a mental evaluation. No problem there.
So imagine you have to take that test to own a firearm. Odds are good you'll fall out of at least one category. What happens when you get to talk to that friendly government shrink who believes gun ownership is a disease?

 

[italiansport]

This is why I am opposed to banning felons who have fully served their sentence and are no longer under the state's custody. Once you establish that it is acceptable to ban a class of individuals, all they have to do is move the bar until everyone is banned.

First it was felons. Then it was any crime that could be punished by imprisonment of 2 years. Then it became misdemeanor domestic violence, which it some places apparently could be just harsh words. Anyone who is under a restraining order. Then it was veterans. Next it will be anyone prescribed anti-depressants or have seen a mental health professional.

The antis will use any and all means to progressivly make it more and more difficult to acquire and keep firearms. It's exactly the same approach that was used in England and Australia. The same far left billionaire George Soros funded the efforts in both those Countries where firearms ownership is virtually impossible today and I expect he's behind the funding here.
Socialism and private firearms ownership are not compatible in the lefts view.
I won't go into detail here because it would get into "politics" .
Jim

 

[bhayles]

Here's a deterrent to girlfriends/ex-wives, angry family members, etc making false claims...add an amendments to those laws discussed above that anyone proven to be making a malicious or otherwise false accusation shall be guilty of a felony punishable by not less than 10 years.

 

[Fastbolt]

Here's a deterrent to girlfriends/ex-wives, angry family members, etc making false claims...add an amendments to those laws discussed above that anyone proven to be making a malicious or otherwise false accusation shall be guilty of a felony punishable by not less than 10 years.

The legislators apparently agreed there should be consequences for filing a knowingly false petition, or with an intent to harass, but they didn't think it merited a felony charge.

CHAPTER 5. Offenses

18200.
Every person who files a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 18150) or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18170), knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

AB-1014 Gun violence restraining orders.(2013-2014)
Bill Analysis