End of 2A in California...

Capt.Jim

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
303
Reaction score
403
Location
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!
 
Register to hide this ad
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.
 
"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
 
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..........
 
Last edited:
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.
 
And when some terrorist kills someone again, and their neighbors, friends, and family haven't mentioned any "concerns ", what laws will be coming next?
 
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...
 
The first instance this happens, the NRA need to step in with the best legal team available. Set down a marker early.
 
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.
 
"Absurd" comes to mind but I live in a state where at 12:00 AM CST a licensee can open carry. hardcase60
 
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.

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.:confused:
 
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.:confused:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top