Of course since the targets will be assumed “armed and dangerous” it will require a midnight swat raid, complete with flash bang grenades and shooting the family dog.
Is there a provision for being wrongly accused, and deprived constitutional rights? Didn’t think so.
But that wasn't the point of the law - the law is specifically aimed and targeted to remove without prior notice someone’s clear rights.
One hopes this is bounced out by the first judge it goes before.
“Shall not be infringed” is perfectly clear. People who would deprive free men of their God-given rights are evil. I hope they are stopped through the courts before the gun-grabbing leads to far worse natural consequences.
Well they have to do something... Just read about record gun sales in LA.. If they wait til crime rates go down, they are in trouble. Anyone can claim any citizen is mentally ill, and I am sure some of our postings here were rants against... Fill in the special protections class here..
Heck Cali is beautiful they can’t have any root of common sense taking place.. Especially in LA. Imagine the deems losing Cali.
Estranged family members with axes to grind are going to have a field day with this one.
After three weeks, the person can challenge the judge's decision.
First a family member ask the POLICE to go to a judge to ask the judge to take away someone's guns. The judge never sees or ask questions of the person seeking this confiscation of property.
So a person can be deprived of their property for three weeks BEFORE they can seek relief from a judge's arbitrary decision.
Knowing how overloads the judicial system is I am certain that a person who falls in to this system will not see their property again for a very long time if at all.
There is nothing in this article saying what criteria a judge will use to determine if the accused may get his guns back. There is no powers mentioned by which the judge could require the person to see a doctor to determine the accused mental health. Just how is the judge to determine if the accused is legally unfit to own guns?
If someone thrown in to this legal quagmire doesn't want to kill his family before they cast him in to this legal drowning pool he will after.
I don't see this law as described as meeting constitutional muster.
Family members first, disgruntled neighbors and coworkers next.
So much for due process, sworn testimony, right to face accuser, etc. I could understand the need for this under some conditions, but it would seem to me the potential for abuse here is significant - especially with an estranged spouse/girlfriend or just someone that hates you.
No way anyone would ever abuse this.
Time for a wagon train headed East this time. Get the hell out of Kalifornia.
Note that the one thing missing are remedies for the wrongly accused.
Kalifornistan - we put the doo in due process!
Are you nucking futs? Call 1-800-...
Violates due process, and the bill of rights.
i envision an immediate need for more paperless guns, more pvc gardens, and more tragic boating accidents.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Unconstitutional. But don’t expect Pansy Roberts (thanks Jorge) and his court of feminazi hags to overturn it.
Is this something like a TRO where one party gives credible evidence to a judge, who issues the temporary order but a short hearing date is scheduled where the restrained party can challenge the order and regain their rights? Of course, that depends on the quality of the judges.
Look. This is nowhere Soviet enough.
California has to pass a law that you can be tried in a secret court for a secret crime by witnesses you can never confront.
THAT is the way the SOVIETS did it, California, you lame-ass pikers.