End of 2A in California...

[wunderboy]

Hard to imagine such wanton stupidity regarding the right of individuals.

 

[jlrhiner]

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.

 

[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 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.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

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

 

[Muss Muggins]

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.

 

[Peak53]

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?

 

[Capt.Jim]

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

 

[Retired Chief]

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.

 

[F75gunslinger]

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.