Posted on 12/30/2015 6:51:42 AM PST by conservativejoy
We've been warned, and now here it is, just days away...starting with, SURPRISE SURPRISE..California. THIS Friday when this new law takes effect, just about anyone will be able to "whine" about you. Then shortly after.. a search and seize order to grab your guns can follow.
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."
California is calling it a "Gun Violence Restraining Order"...more like the beginning to the end of the 2nd Amendment. People of California…be prepared.
If legislators wants to make these kinds of laws to disarm law abiding citizens, they should never be allowed any armed security of their own.
Ja. Wenn befehl ist befehl, um dann alles in ordnung ist.
“They do take your weapon even if you’ve shot an intruder. Until the case is cleared, you do not get it back.”
That has absolutely nothing to do with is new ‘law’.
To all those who have been saying how the “authorities” should be able to intervene when it seems as though some whacko might be about to do a mass shooting: this is what you were asking for.
It’s always a balance between personal freedom and public safety. The possibility (remote, as far as any individual is concerned) of being a victim of a mass shooting by some psycho is what I refer to as the price of freedom. (Ben Franklin said it better than I can.)
Consider the power needed by the state to prevent any possible violent crime, then ask yorself whether you would like to live under such a regime.
Do you really? When and where have you done so?
I was responding to a question from another Freeper about whether they take your gun if there is an incident, say you shot an intruder.
yourself. Sheesh, and I do preview.
Context is important in language. Is attack here a physical description?
No, not if your definition of “attack” is that of the dictionary, which includes the use of hostile words only. My apologies, for thinking that you were referring to physical attack.
Thanks. In this sense the meaning was with words.
Sorry. I see that now.
Yes, and you are lucky to get it back. Start with the least expensive.
The Brits had similar authority prior to the Revolution. One should study and learn from history.
Very good point!
If it’s time to hide them, it’s way past time to be using them.
No worries. My fault for jumping to conclusions. Wonderful exercise, though, and I doubt I’ll give it up soon.
They can quit, and live out the rest of their lives with their conscience clear.
What? If I was a cop, I would not follow unlawful commands. The excuse of I was just following orders doesn’t fly. How about these cops don’t carry this out, or quit. I agree judges should be held accountable, but I can’t excuse the foot soldiers.
They are probably hoping for some incidents, so they can fully clamp down.
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.