New California Gun Law Lets Residents Ask Judge To Seize Guns From Relatives
California would be the first state where a relative could petition a judge to take guns away from relatives they think are dangerous.
Click here for reuse options!The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Supporters had said such a measure could have prevented the attacks, winning out over critics who said it would erode gun rights.
Law enforcement authorities in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas can seek a judge’s order allowing them to seize guns from people they deem to be a danger.
The new California law gives law enforcement the same option and extends it to family members.
It continues California’s efforts to lead the nation in preventing firearm injury and death, said Amanda Wilcox, an advocate for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, whose daughter was a victim of gun violence.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
56 responses to New California Gun Law Lets Residents Ask Judge To Seize Guns From Relatives
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Carla Akins September 30th, 2014 at 22:33
I know nothing about this law or how it’s structured but on its face it appears to have the potential for abuse and false accusations. This is not the type of regulation I personally would like to see changed. I prefer better background checks on all gun sales, requiring a license for all gun use supported by proven ability to understand legal and personal liability, education, proficiency and proof of available adequate storage.
tracey marie September 30th, 2014 at 22:49
This could also make it easier for family members to get hands out of the abusers, drunks, addicts and rapist family members
Carla Akins September 30th, 2014 at 23:02
Several states have recently passed laws regarding those accused of or with a history of domestic violence. There are still legal remedies to remove guns and guardianship in extreme cases family members cases. I just do not like the idea of a family member or worse – the police can just remove these rights. It would depend on the requirements and legal standard.
whatthe46 September 30th, 2014 at 23:04
stay outta my head!
Carla Akins September 30th, 2014 at 22:33
I know nothing about this law or how it’s structured but on its face it appears to have the potential for abuse and false accusations. This is not the type of regulation I personally would like to see changed. I prefer better background checks on all gun sales, requiring a license for all gun use supported by proven ability to understand legal and personal liability, education, proficiency and proof of available adequate storage.
tracey marie September 30th, 2014 at 22:49
This could also make it easier for family members to get hands out of the abusers, drunks, addicts and rapist family members
Carla Akins September 30th, 2014 at 23:02
Several states have recently passed laws regarding those accused of or with a history of domestic violence. There are still legal remedies to remove guns and guardianship in extreme cases family members cases. I just do not like the idea of a family member or worse – the police can just remove these rights. It would depend on the requirements and legal standard.
whatthe46 September 30th, 2014 at 23:04
stay outta my head!
AnthonyLook September 30th, 2014 at 22:42
It should be open to everyone, not just relatives. A substantiated call to question another’s right to bear arms, by any citizen; is a right we must demand. Stasis is not a reality and the government has no pragmatic choice other than to count on it’s citizens. Anyone should be able to challenge, for safety’s sake the right, of another which they deem exists serious concern. Narrowly defined specific guidelines need to be implemented for the very real concerns of those with mental illness and gun ownership. The blinders must come off and this serious issue must be addressed. The Constitution does not afford the right of gun ownership to everyone. Those that suffer the burden of severe mental illness need to be protect as much as Americans wanting protection with the implementation of gun safety legislation. It is imperative that all citizens; family and otherwise approach the issue of safety and gun ownership with candor and with non passive involvement in appropriately alerting authorities when concerns warrant.
whatthe46 September 30th, 2014 at 23:03
“A substantiated call to question another’s right to bear arms, by any citizen…” opens the door to pandora’s box. can you imagine the false reports made? how will it be substantiated? after spending a sh’t load of money on an attorney? the family findings i can understand.
AnthonyLook October 1st, 2014 at 21:17
Why family only? The burden falls on the authorities that will decide how “substantial” any concern is. What if the family of some mentally deranged trigger happy gun owner are a bunch of open carry gun nuts; how do you rectify that his whole family would never air concerns to authorities. It is not sufficient to afford this right to only family members. It’s a weak and flawed limitation.
Carla Akins October 1st, 2014 at 21:49
The bill allows for a police reporting/statement as well as family.
AnthonyLook October 1st, 2014 at 22:08
Read your link as well, thank you. It still appears to be weak legislation though a step in the right direction. There should be an avenue open for all citizens and not just police officials and family, additionally; a weapons licensing renewal system (background check) with empowered similar rights should be the norm nationwide. There seems to be a reluctance to address adequately the multi faceted aspects of the issue of mentally unstable individuals allowed to have possession of firearms.
Carla Akins October 2nd, 2014 at 05:01
I agree, I believe all of the various ones currently debated need to be strengthened in the domestic violence arena. My first thought are those news stories you read about embattled neighbors that escalate slowly over years until someone gets shot. These seem to go on for years with plenty of time for someone to step in before it gets out of hand. But the timeliness factor is one factor that none of them adequately address. In DV cases, too many times the system just moves too slowly to be effective.
AnthonyLook October 2nd, 2014 at 21:05
I’m seriously concerned about the future of rights for American women; especially in the arena of DV. Realities that should not even require they be defended or debated are being diffused and fogged up in a concerted effort to advance the conservative “place” of women in society. In Republican speak, Domestic Violence is being minimized, justified, rationalized and even stretches in to realm of demonizing the victims. As in this issue of unstable individuals and firearms; the rights of safety are being eroded and replaced by a demand by Republicans for compliance. Family’s and police officers are a good start; but we need to fight for more.
greenfloyd October 1st, 2014 at 02:57
I think it’s a great idea. Although problematic. I’d like to see the names of all gun buyers and selllers published on line and in local newspapers with the deal subject to a challenge peroid before any transaction can be completed. We also have the technology to make handguns much safer, more secure. Sadly we don’t yet have the political will to make it happen.
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 03:28
Why not make all gun owners wear the a “Yellow Star of David” button?
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/EncJud_Jewish-badge-and-armbands-1939-1945-ENGL.html
greenfloyd October 1st, 2014 at 05:08
I think you are conflating issues. Doing a disservice to both gun rights and public safety.
AnthonyLook September 30th, 2014 at 22:42
It should be open to everyone, not just relatives. A substantiated call to question another’s right to bear arms, by any citizen; is a right we must demand. Stasis is not a reality and the government has no pragmatic choice other than to count on it’s citizens. Anyone should be able to challenge, for safety’s sake the right, of another which they deem exists serious concern. Narrowly defined specific guidelines need to be implemented for the very real concerns of those with mental illness and gun ownership. The blinders must come off and this serious issue must be addressed. The Constitution does not afford the right of gun ownership to everyone. Those that suffer the burden of severe mental illness need to be protect as much as Americans wanting protection with the implementation of gun safety legislation. It is imperative that all citizens; family and otherwise approach the issue of safety and gun ownership with candor and with non passive involvement in appropriately alerting authorities when concerns warrant.
whatthe46 September 30th, 2014 at 23:03
“A substantiated call to question another’s right to bear arms, by any citizen…” opens the door to pandora’s box. can you imagine the false reports made? how will it be substantiated? after spending a sh’t load of money on an attorney? the family findings i can understand.
AnthonyLook October 1st, 2014 at 21:17
Why family only? The burden falls on the authorities that will decide how “substantial” any concern is. What if the family of some mentally deranged trigger happy gun owner are a bunch of open carry gun nuts; how do you rectify that his whole family would never air concerns to authorities. It is not sufficient to afford this right to only family members. It’s a weak and flawed limitation.
Carla Akins October 1st, 2014 at 21:49
The bill allows for a police reporting/statement as well as family.
AnthonyLook October 1st, 2014 at 22:08
Read your link as well, thank you. It still appears to be weak legislation though a step in the right direction. There should be an avenue open for all citizens and not just police officials and family, additionally; a weapons licensing renewal system (background check) with empowered similar rights should be the norm nationwide. There seems to be a reluctance to address adequately the multi faceted aspects of the issue of mentally unstable individuals allowed to have possession of firearms.
Carla Akins October 2nd, 2014 at 05:01
I agree, I believe all of the various ones currently debated need to be strengthened in the domestic violence arena. My first thought are those news stories you read about embattled neighbors that escalate slowly over years until someone gets shot. These seem to go on for years with plenty of time for someone to step in before it gets out of hand. But the timeliness factor is one factor that none of them adequately address. In DV cases, too many times the system just moves too slowly to be effective.
AnthonyLook October 2nd, 2014 at 21:05
I’m seriously concerned about the future of rights for American women; especially in the arena of DV. Realities that should not even require they be defended or debated are being diffused and fogged up in a concerted effort to advance the conservative “place” of women in society. In Republican speak, Domestic Violence is being minimized, justified, rationalized and even stretches in to realm of demonizing the victims. As in this issue of unstable individuals and firearms; the rights of safety are being eroded and replaced by a demand by Republicans for compliance. Family’s and police officers are a good start; but we need to fight for more.
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org October 1st, 2014 at 02:57
I think it’s a great idea. Although problematic. I’d like to see the names of all gun buyers and selllers published on line and in local newspapers with the deal subject to a challenge peroid before any transaction can be completed. We also have the technology to make handguns much safer, more secure. Sadly we don’t yet have the political will to make it happen.
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 03:28
Why not make all gun owners wear the a “Yellow Star of David” button?
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/EncJud_Jewish-badge-and-armbands-1939-1945-ENGL.html
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org October 1st, 2014 at 05:08
I think you are conflating issues. Doing a disservice to both gun rights and public safety.
Obewon September 30th, 2014 at 23:11
This merely fast tracks existing federal law: Any gun owner under judicial restraining order must surrender any weapons, ammo and are barred from purchasing weapons or ammo:)
Obewon September 30th, 2014 at 23:11
This merely fast tracks existing federal law: Any gun owner under judicial restraining order must surrender any weapons, ammo and are barred from purchasing weapons or ammo:) “Mental Defectives” are why nearly 90% of NRA households favor background checks on all Guns & Ammo purchases. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
tiredoftea September 30th, 2014 at 23:26
It is a step in the right direction, but solves only a small part of the gun ownership issue. Few people with mental problems cause harm to others, a myth dangerously repeated by the gun fetish organizations, NRA and GoA and other misguide 2A groups.
Irresponsible individuals, as we see from how many postings about killings and injuries involving children and innocent bystanders, dangerous political views and militia groups represent the bulk of gun violence towards others.
Until we come to recognize that gun ownership is not a right under the second amendment, despite today’s politics and lobbying, only then can we address the national sickness of gun ownership.
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 02:08
Gun ownership is a right under the second amendment.
Rusty Shackleford October 1st, 2014 at 02:22
If it’s a RIGHT, and not a privilege, then that means it can’t be taken away.
Do you endorse returning gun ownership rights to convicted violent criminals? They retain access to every other amendment in the Bill of Rights, why not the Second?
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 02:38
(note to self: don’t respond to this racist)
Rusty Shackleford October 1st, 2014 at 03:21
You know you’re not convincing anyone when you pretend that you’re seriously hurt or insulted when someone calls you a cracker.
You see people of color who are ACTUALLY hurt by systemic racism and slurs, and you want in on some of that sympathy (because god forbid people of color have something that you, a white man, do not).
So you put on this little facade, this mocking imitation of their pain, a contemporary blackface if you will, pretending like you were deeply insulted and emotionally scarred by that person who called you “cracker” or “honky.”
And then you’ll go right back to the rest of your day, completely unfazed by these words (as you, I, and literally everyone else knows), and return to ignoring systemic and institutionalized racism, because it’s not a problem that directly affects you or ever will.
Or maybe you DON’T actually think you’re convincing, and you think you’re actually DEPRIVING me of something I honestly desire when you don’t reply to me, in which case, you’re drastically overestimating your own importance to my life. Fucking fantastic, I get to make my snarky quips at you and move on with my day rather than get dragged into a “debate” with your tired-ass and predictable talking points.
So I’m gonna go ahead and take this as a “No, I don’t endorse that, but I’ve never actually bothered to think of the larger implications of the rhetoric I recite by rote.”
jasperjava October 1st, 2014 at 09:30
I think that Skydog2 may actually be mentally ill, suffering from clinical narcissistic personality disorder.
I would feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such a nasty bigot.
jasperjava October 1st, 2014 at 09:27
Skydog2 has some nerve accusing others of being racist (especially for using a mild innocuous epithet like “cracker”) when he admitted that he wouldn’t apologize to the family of an African American youth who was gunned down in the street like a dog.
Skydog2 is a proud racist Klansman white supremacist. That’s why he pretends to be offended at being called a “cracker”.
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 09:45
You clearly have trouble understanding nuance and dealing with opposing points of view.
#1. I wouldn’t apologize (and acknowledge wrongdoing) when there’s a lawsuit hanging over my head.
#2. Multiple investigations are underway and a grand jury is looking at the incident. Until these processes are completed, I don’t know which party is wrong.
When there’s an incident between a black and a white, jasperjava only needs “some” evidence to:
– jump to a conclusion
– call others racist for not jumping to the same conclusion
tiredoftea October 1st, 2014 at 12:32
Only when kept under the umbrella of a state organized and controlled militia.
greenfloyd October 1st, 2014 at 02:32
I knew you were in trouble when you wrote
and then you went to the moon with
It’s not the sickness, it’s only a symptom.
Nonetheless this new law is a good idea and I think it will save lives without infringing on gun rights of the vast majority of happy and healthy legal gun owners.
The really “sick” thing are the illlegal guns, which are used much more frequently in cirmes that hurt and kill people, sometimes innocent bystanders. Truly addressing gun violence is futile, without recognizing this basic fact.
tiredoftea October 1st, 2014 at 12:35
Every illegal gun was legal once. Addressing that to remove them from the wrong hands goes a long way to diminishing the violence.
tiredoftea September 30th, 2014 at 23:26
It is a step in the right direction, but solves only a small part of the gun ownership issue. Few people with mental problems cause harm to others, a myth dangerously repeated by the gun fetish organizations, NRA and GoA and other misguide 2A groups.
Irresponsible individuals, as we see from how many postings about killings and injuries involving children and innocent bystanders, dangerous political views and militia groups represent the bulk of gun violence towards others.
Until we come to recognize that gun ownership is not a right under the second amendment, despite today’s politics and lobbying, only then can we address the national sickness of gun ownership.
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 02:08
Gun ownership is a right under the second amendment.
Rusty Shackleford October 1st, 2014 at 02:22
If it’s a RIGHT, and not a privilege, then that means it can’t be taken away.
Do you endorse returning gun ownership rights to convicted violent criminals? They retain access to every other amendment in the Bill of Rights, why not the Second?
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 02:38
(note to self: don’t respond to this racist)
Rusty Shackleford October 1st, 2014 at 03:21
You know you’re not convincing anyone when you pretend that you’re seriously hurt or insulted when someone calls you a cracker.
You see people of color who are ACTUALLY hurt by systemic racism and slurs, and you want in on some of that sympathy (because god forbid people of color have something that you, a white man, do not).
So you put on this little facade, this mocking imitation of their pain, a contemporary blackface if you will, pretending like you were deeply insulted and emotionally scarred by that person who called you “cracker” or “honky.”
And then you’ll go right back to the rest of your day, completely unfazed by these words (as you, I, and literally everyone else knows), and return to ignoring systemic and institutionalized racism, because it’s not a problem that directly affects you or ever will.
Or maybe you DON’T actually think you’re convincing, and you think you’re actually DEPRIVING me of something I honestly desire when you don’t reply to me, in which case, you’re drastically overestimating your own importance to my life. Fucking fantastic, I get to make my snarky quips at you and move on with my day rather than get dragged into a “debate” with your tired-ass and predictable talking points.
So I’m gonna go ahead and take this as a “No, I don’t endorse that, but I’ve never actually bothered to think of the larger implications of the rhetoric I recite by rote.”
jasperjava October 1st, 2014 at 09:30
I think that Skydog2 may actually be mentally ill, suffering from clinical narcissistic personality disorder.
I would feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such a nasty little bigot.
jasperjava October 1st, 2014 at 09:27
Skydog2 has some nerve accusing others of being racist (especially for using a mild innocuous epithet like “cracker”) when he openly admitted that he wouldn’t apologize to the family of an African American youth who was gunned down in the street like a dog.
Skydog2 is a proud racist lynching Klansman white supremacist. That’s why he pretends to be offended at being called a “cracker”.
Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 09:45
You clearly have trouble understanding nuance and dealing with opposing points of view.
#1. I wouldn’t apologize (and acknowledge wrongdoing) when there’s a lawsuit hanging over my head.
#2. Multiple investigations are underway and a grand jury is looking at the incident. Until these processes are completed, I don’t have enough facts to know which party was wrong.
When there’s an incident between a black and white person, jasperjava only needs “some” evidence to:
– jump to a conclusion
– call others racist for not jumping to the same conclusion
If the investigations / trial determine the police office was wrong, I feel he should pay a heavy price.
If the investigations / trial determine the police office was NOT wrong, jasperjava still feels he should pay a heavy price because ???????.
tiredoftea October 1st, 2014 at 12:32
Only when kept under the umbrella of a state organized and controlled militia.
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org October 1st, 2014 at 02:32
I knew you were in trouble when you wrote
and then you went to the moon with
It’s not the sickness, it’s only a symptom.
Nonetheless this new law is a good idea and I think it will save lives without infringing on gun rights of the vast majority of happy and healthy legal gun owners.
The really “sick” thing are the illlegal guns, which are used much more frequently in cirmes that hurt and kill people, sometimes innocent bystanders. Truly addressing gun violence is futile, without recognizing this basic fact.
tiredoftea October 1st, 2014 at 12:35
Every illegal gun was legal once. Addressing that to remove them from the wrong hands goes a long way to diminishing the violence.
Lindsncal October 1st, 2014 at 02:10
As far as the argument in today’s show about people having guns when the 2nd amendment was written…hardly any citizens at all had a working gun then and if they did, it was a one shot musket. They even had to hire people to hunt for them. The founding fathers never imagined so many people with guns or they probably would have made laws against it. The second amendment was made to appease the southern states to get them to ratify the constitution. It was merely to allow them to control their slaves.
Lindsncal October 1st, 2014 at 02:10
As far as the argument in today’s show about people having guns when the 2nd amendment was written…hardly any citizens at all had a working gun then and if they did, it was a one shot musket. They even had to hire people to hunt for them. The founding fathers never imagined so many people with guns or they probably would have made laws against it. The second amendment was made to appease the southern states to get them to ratify the constitution. It was merely to allow them to control their slaves.
Carla Akins October 1st, 2014 at 20:50
So I went looking for more info on this bill but found bill AB1014. I like the way this is designed. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-isla-vista-restraining-order-mass-killings-20140930-story.html
Carla Akins October 1st, 2014 at 20:50
So I went looking for more info on this bill but found bill AB1014. I like the way this is designed. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-isla-vista-restraining-order-mass-killings-20140930-story.html