Posted on 10/05/2014 7:15:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ah, California. The land of beautiful mountains, amazing desserts, awesome surfing, the Motion Picture Industry, fake boobs and the first ever gun law that allows courts to seize your weapons if a close relative thinks you’re cracked. Yep, as of last Tuesday, your moody, manic, anti-Second Amendment, Castro-loving, eco-terrorist, tree-humping, Prius-driving twisted sister can call you “crazy”, report you to the cops and boom … Deputy Wedge Figgus can confiscate your Remington 870 ‘til a court decides you’re not demented. Check it out …
First law of its kind in the U.S.
California residents can now petition a judge to temporarily remove a close relative’s firearms if they fear their family member will commit gun violence, thanks to a new safety measure signed into law Tuesday (9/30/14) by Gov. Jerry Brown.
Under the “Gun Violence Restraining Order” law, a successful petition would allow a judge to remove the close relative’s guns for at least 21 days, with the option to extend that period to a year, pending an additional hearing, according to Reuters.. The law is the first of its kind in the U.S., and will be an extension of existing legislation that temporarily prohibits people with domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.”
California, like Obama, has a one-size-fits-all answer for all conundrums and it is this: Mo’ Gubbermint! As soon as Governor Moon Beam signed this highly subjective, guilty-before-innocent, Second-Amendment infringing piece of … uh … legislation into law, I shot my gun and liberty loving, NYT best-selling author friend Frank Miniter an email asking him his thoughts. Herewith are Miniter’s musings … Should my crazy aunt be able to take my Second Amendment rights away? She hates guns and thinks people who own them are nuts. Toss that to an anti-gun activist judge and they’re guilty ‘til proven innocent. I thought it was the other way around? That’s the first thought I had when California’s Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that allows a person’s relatives to petition a judge to take away their guns. Now, if a parent or anyone else knows someone who is clearly becoming a threat to themselves or to society they have a duty to intervene and, if necessary, to seek help. That is already how American society works. But to argue that my crazy aunt—a person who once told me she would vote for Hugo Chavez if she could … a person who has told me the police should go door to door to seize everyone’s guns—has some special right to decide I don’t deserve the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights then I say that’s not just unconstitutional but also just plain nuts. I realize a judge has to side with my aunt, but I’ve done enough reporting to know that too many judges are willing to use their personal politics to make decisions. Also, a judge wouldn’t want to be accountable for not disarming someone who is really a danger to others. All that means that people would have to prove they are innocent before a judge after their right to bear arms had been infringed. They’d be assumed guilty of an intention to harm others. American freedom rests upon the belief that a person must be considered innocent until found guilty by a court of law. Despite this Gov. Brown empowered an anti-gun relative to meddle with the rights of a woman in their family who bought a gun after an ex-boyfriend began stalking her. They’d allow my aunt to smugly toy with my constitutional rights. Relatives should speak out, but they shouldn’t be able to press their views on others. I don’t see how this makes California safer. Instead of empowering bad behavior why don’t we work with parents and others to diagnose those who clearly need help and then to find real ways to help these troubled individuals?
(Get Frank Miniter’s latest book, The Future of the Gun.) Aside from Frank’s frank take, here’s some of my thoughts on what could curb violence without infringing on our Second Amendment rights. If the anti-gun goobers truly wish to curb murder, then they should get busy banning fire, fists and feet because according to the FBI’s latest report the aforementioned fell way more folks than firearms. Also, do we really need more laws? Why can’t the family just take care of their own business like we did in Texas back in the day. If we had a family member that was acting stupid threatening to kill someone, we either slapped some sense into them, or bent their gun barrels, or Baker Acted them or all the above until they dialed the heck down. Problem solved. No need for the Second Amendment to be violated. And lastly, if these Liberals really, truly, want to see murder rates drop in their state, then instead of creating new, unconstitutional laws, why not instead enforce immigration laws, because illegal aliens murder a whole lot of folks. Especially in Los Angeles.
My letter to the editor in todays reno gazette urinal:
So now we have a conundrum when it comes to the matter of the universal background check initiative that is being pushed by out-of-state interests on to the citizens of Nevada.
Mark Robison, the Fact Checker for the RGJ and not one I would consider a conservative, apparently upset Professor Phillip Cook when quoting some of Professor Cook’s research. I was actually quite shocked at Mr. Robison’s fact check being more accurate than I would have expected. Professor Cook’s response is full of vagaries and “feelings” about the subject. Professor Cook’s response looks more like it was taken from the “Gun Violence Messaging guide.”
As far as I know, if one is selling a firearm, there is nothing to prevent them from going to an FFL and having a check run on the perspective buyer. So to Professor Cook and Mike Bloomberg, Mares (sic) Against Guns, Moms Demand Action, Mark and Gabby Giffords, Sarah Brady and their ilk, keep your money and your desires to further infringe on our rights in Nevada out of our state and we’ll stay out of your states and out of your rights.
XXXX
Reno
I wrote this in response to a letter from prof cook being upset about the fact checker not buying what he was selling. Which I was shocked at myself.
So are there any penalties imposed on the “crazy aunt” accuser if the court finds the defendant sane? Or can the aunt just keep accusing every single relative she doesn’t like of being a nut (with no proof what-so-ever)?
There's your answer.
It’s not so much the aunt (except in this case) but the ex-wife. You’ll see. Every man seeking a divorce or child visitation will get an accusation and his guns confiscated. I can see this already, and I’m a woman!
Oh. Wait.
Another California example of similar laws that Hitler passed so that not a single day could pass without a citizen breaking some law or another.
When the shooting war starts, these same Liberal ‘helpers’ will be clamoring to be taken in with safe harbor by those who have guns & supplies.
My answer? Not only no-—but Hell NO!!! They have shown themselves to be enemies of freedom. I won’t harbor my enemies.
That you are!
};^P>
How about the other way around? The wife-—who never wanted guns in the house, etc, etc, etc, now has one because she is terrified of the separated/divorced boyfriend/husband and he has made plenty of threats.
HE can turn HER in, and now, she is completely disarmed, and he can attack here-—possible not for the first time!!
This law will have terrible consequences. Jerry Brown is nuts.
What is the process for getting the guns back after the 21 day hold? How will the courts deal with vindictive relatives with frivolous claims? Loss of guns thru restraining orders is already nearly standard practice in divorce cases.
We don’t let our crazy relatives know we are armed.
If you’re not so lucky, you could casually mention that anyone who maliciously reports a relative should be strangled.
The process for getting guns back will be slow,intrusive, and expensive to discourage the gun owners.
I think there is at least one family member in every family who is not happy that other family members own guns;this will be a way to totally disarm America beginning with California.
THe statists HATE personal responsibility and independence.
LOL! Probably have to have one of those intergalactic background checks done on the person whose guns were confiscated. And as an added feature, the “confiscatee” gets to pay for the checks. Win/win. For somebody.
What this appears to be is a reaction to the fact that for a number of gun massacres, the killer took guns from the home, often from a relative, to go and kill a group of people in public, such as in a school or mall, and then commit suicide. The problem is that this policy is foolish to assume that the only ideal case is what I just mentioned, how about a bitter ex-spouse, or how about a case where someone doesn’t listen because the accused is a special protected class? Or how about the fact that someone wants this restraint undone because they have gone years without ever hurting anyone? This law has more holes than a sponge.
Doubt it, these libs are in the company of armed security. They wouldn’t see a need for any gun owners.
No question in my mind that there are some people
who should not have access to guns. I don’t know how
to accomplish that but you sure as hell can’t justify
taking people’s stuff on a whim.
“but you sure as hell can’t justify
taking people’s stuff on a whim.”
You and I can’t but liberals, progressives, fascist, bureaucrats and politicians can.
That will happen too, but not as often as the vengeful ex wife looking to hurt her (soon to be?) ex husband. I betcha.
Youuuuuu!!!!! :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.