Seriously, they are actually celebrating this…

CSGV California Gun

In California, however, we found a tool and legislators with the courage to pass legislation that has the potential to have a huge impact on preventing these and other similar tragedies. Assembly Bill 1014 will take effect in California on January 1, 2016, allowing for family members or law enforcement officers to petition for a Gun Violence Restraining Order against individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others. It is the first law of its kind anywhere in the country

Source: Submission: California sets example for US, pioneers gun violence prevention | Daily Bruin

Knock at the door.

-“Police, open up please”
-“Oh! Thank you Lord you guys are here. .”
-“Ma’am, Are you the one that applied for the Gun Violence Restraining Order?”
-“Yes. My significant other is acting weird.”
-“Very well. Can you tell us where the guns are?”
-“The arsenal is in that cabinet there.”
(Police removes 2 revolvers and a single shot shotgun)
-“
Well, we are done. Thank you for calling.”
-“Wait, where are you going?”
-“Back to the precinct. Our job here is done.”
-“But I told you my S.O. was acting weird. Are you gonna do something about it?”
-“We did ma’am. You are safe from these guns we are taking.”
-“That does not help. He is gonna go apeshit when he finds out the guns are gone.”
-“You dial 911 if he gets too upset.”
-“That is insane! he still can strangle me, stab me, cave my skull in with a hammer!”
-“But he won’t be able to shoot you with these guns. That is progress ma’am. You should be thankful.”
-“You don’t fucking get it? I am still in danger!”
-“Ma’am, I would advice you to get a restraining order then and…”
-“…and call 911 if he gets too upset. Like that is gonna help. You know what? Forget about the Gun Violence Restraining Order. Leave me the guns.”
-“We can’t ma’am. They need to be removed for your own safety.”
-“How can I be safe if I can’t defend myself?”
-“We are the Police. We can’t give you advice on how to do that.”
-“You have to protect me!”
-“Actually ma’am. We have no duty to protect you. We only enforce the law.”
-“This is insanity!”
-If there is nothing else, we need to get along. You have a good day.”

The End?

15 Replies to “Seriously, they are actually celebrating this…”

  1. Well done Miguel. Most people do not know of multiple Supreme Court decisions stating “no duty to protect”. To say nothing of being deprived of life or property without due process, which a “restraining order” is NOT.




    0



    0
  2. Yellow journalism not not become you, Miguel. The restraining order is an emergency temporary one, and the law requires a hearing within 3 days to determine of the order should be continued. It also has some pretty serious provision for penalties for using false or misleading statements in applying for the order

    Restraining orders in other states often contain a provision prohibiting the subject of the order from possessing firearms. Some specifically allow for the transfer of firearms to a third party. Given that, the CA law really is not all that pioneering.

    stay safe.




    0



    0
    1. And that hearing will be overseen by a single judge who in all likelihood was nominated by an anti-gun Democrat. No juries, no guarantee of representation (it’s not a trial, after all), and very limited avenues of appeal.

      What do you suppose are the odds the gun owner will get a fair shake? And what do you suppose are the odds the “serious penalties” will ever be invoked on someone asking for a GVRO by a prosecutor who was in all likelihood elected by an anti-gun Democrat electorate?

      The CA law is “pioneering” because it allows a wide variety of people to phone in a gun confiscation visit/raid, on nearly any suspicion, or no suspicion at all. The owner doesn’t have to be dangerous, or exhibit any “warning signs” he/she is a threat to him/her self or others. Someone just has to claim they’re “worried”.




      0



      0
    2. And these orders are handed out by judges who fear the alternative like candy at Halloween. The safe course for the judge to take is to grant the order, particularly since it is brought by a “frightened” SO who has certainly been coached by an victim advocate. It’ll also be used to get custody of the kids under the temporary order, so when the party later files the divorce, the custody matter will be a fait accompli; it’s easier to simply leave the kids there.

      Of course, that the target of the order even has firearms is evidence that he is mentally unbalanced; he must be a budding murderer, or he would not have them (seriously, I’ve been presented with that argument by a prosecutor).

      By the time the permanent hearing is held (and it WILL be later than three days, given the judge’s dockets and the inevitable continuances in order to secure counsel, assuming you can afford it), the court will likely decide not to upset the applecart; after all, the status quo is keeping us safe, and after all, he doesn’t really need those nasty firearms anyway.

      This will be abused, just as these sorts of temporary restraining orders are routinely abused everywhere else. I’ve seen it personally. This particular statute targets gun ownership, and raises the legal risk of gun ownership. Raising the costs of gun ownership is, of course, the point. The goal here is to demonize gun ownership and gun owners as deviant. And the left coast happily participates in the whittling away of their constitutional rights.




      0



      0
  3. Good point…….a smart women would then (take the kid[s]) get the hell out of Dodge, then file the restraining order. Unfortunately some (most?) women stick around and try to “change” the SO. It seems if one or both parties were abused in one form or another growing up. They will tend to repeat the pattern (of what they think is “normal”). I’ve seen it.




    0



    0
  4. Well-written, and precisely what happens when the politicians focus on guns instead of bad people wielding them.

    The due process violations are a feature, not a bug.




    0



    0
  5. When I saw the word “Submission”, I thought that was exactly the attitude taken by those unfortunate enough to live in the Utopian Paradise. It looks, after reflection, that my first impression was not wrong. How can those people stand living in such a remote backwater of civilization?




    0



    0
  6. The thing is, California has already had a law like this in place for years that is actually far more severe. It’s under the 5150 law where law enforcement can bring a person in for a mental health evaluation. If admitted, the person can be held for up to 72 hours against their will. This triggers a 5 year ban on gun ownership. Note it’s the act of being held for evaluation that triggers the disarment- not the results of the evaluation. If they admit someone and then quickly determine this was a mistake and they let them go within a hour- they will have an expensive and uphill legal battle to get their rights back. No judge is needed for this disarment- just cops and doctors (and possibly a family member if they called the cops in the first place). Doctors can also extend the 72 hour hold another two weeks. In that case, the law strips that person of the gun rights for life.

    This is a classic MO for gun control groups. Pretend the laws that are currently in place don’t exist so that you don’t have to admit failure, and you can ask for more laws. This would be like if DC (pre-heller) passed a law banning Tec-9s because someone used one in a high profile crime when they already have a handgun ban in place.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .