California Gun Law Will Let Police Confiscate Legally-Owned Weapons

[Bill the Cat]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/ca...#ixzz3vpwRnelX

[Adam]

Excellent. Law already provides that a person can be involuntarily institutionalized if he is a danger to himself or others, so it's quite reasonable that lesser restraints should be ordered where appropriate. Most people would prefer to have their guns seized to themselves being seized. If not, do both!

[Catholicity]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/ca...#ixzz3vpwRnelX

No the law doesn't allow for further examination, it just takes away weapons. There is no part of this that states explicitely "allows for a mental health hold if someone feels they are a danger to self or others" which is what is needed. THe only law in existence is a person must meet certain criteria. We need a form of the older law which was that another person had to testify the person was a danger.

[Bill the Cat]

Excellent. Law already provides that a person can be involuntarily institutionalized if he is a danger to himself or others, so it's quite reasonable that lesser restraints should be ordered where appropriate. Most people would prefer to have their guns seized to themselves being seized. If not, do both!

Would you like a restraining order getting taken out on you if you did nothing wrong and you were not given time to dispute its validity?

[Adam]

I thought I said that it is already legal to seize anyone who is a danger to himself or others. I didn't see either that (1) that was good (tho I do) or (2) that law authorizing a mental health hold has been replaced by the new law in question. Does it? I doubt it. Therefore what is your point or Catholicity's? Read and think.

[Bill the Cat]

I thought I said that it is already legal to seize anyone who is a danger to himself or others. I didn't see either that (1) that was good (tho I do) or (2) that law authorizing a mental health hold has been replaced by the new law in question.

It "enhances" the existing law.

Does it? I doubt it.

Never claimed it replaced the existing law, which was actually more along what should be happening.

Therefore what is your point or Catholicity's?

That it is yet another end-around violation of the 2nd Amendment by California liberals.

Read and think.

I do. Why you felt it necessary to act like you are lecturing me, I don't know.

[Cow Poke]

Meanwhile, be afraid.... On Friday, I, and millions of my fellow Texans, will legally be allowed to strap on sidearms, and roam the streets openly carrying.

(still not sure how I feel about this.. not sure I think this is a good idea)

[rogue06]

Meanwhile, be afraid.... On Friday, I, and millions of my fellow Texans, will legally be allowed to strap on sidearms, and roam the streets openly carrying.

(still not sure how I feel about this.. not sure I think this is a good idea)

Georgia law is sort of a hybrid in this case.

Source: OpenCarry.org

Georgia is not a traditional open carry state. However, open carry IS legal with a Georgia permit. It is also worthy of note that you MAY openly carry a firearm without a permit in a motor vehicle.

© Copyright Original Source

[Adam]

Congrats, Bill, on your great A1C reading. My wife has severe diabetes as "well". (We can't afford the new concentrated insulin she needs.)

Meanwhile, I see your point now. You are also against allowing the State (of California, anyway) to involuntarily hospitalize people who are regarded as threats to society. (Must be most states allow this, as the TV news is full of all the failed attempts to get the police to come haul away mentally ill adults without necessarily killing them to do so.) Perhaps your position is that only actions (domestic violence, for example) should be considered grounds for involuntary mentally institutionalize, but not the mere opinion of family members. Frankly I had not seen that one coming. So yes, the lecture I gave you guys was inappropriate. (I'll leave it to someone else whether to lecture you whether society opinion is enough to hold someone for mental evaluation. (It's quite true that advocates for (against?) the mentally ill for decades have defended the rights of the mentally ill to be their own judges of whether they need hospitalization. Witness how many of them live on the streets or wind up in jails and prisons.)

[Littlejoe]

Congrats, Bill, on your great A1C reading. My wife has severe diabetes as "well". (We can't afford the new concentrated insulin she needs.)

Meanwhile, I see your point now. You are also against allowing the State (of California, anyway) to involuntarily hospitalize people who are regarded as threats to society. (Must be most states allow this, as the TV news is full of all the failed attempts to get the police to come haul away mentally ill adults without necessarily killing them to do so.) Perhaps your position is that only actions (domestic violence, for example) should be considered grounds for involuntary mentally institutionalize, but not the mere opinion of family members. Frankly I had not seen that one coming. So yes, the lecture I gave you guys was inappropriate. (I'll leave it to someone else whether to lecture you whether society opinion is enough to hold someone for mental evaluation. (It's quite true that advocates for (against?) the mentally ill for decades have defended the rights of the mentally ill to be their own judges of whether they need hospitalization. Witness how many of them live on the streets or wind up in jails and prisons.)

But in those instances of involuntary hospitalization, there is always a hearing isn't there? The "Bill of Rights" Amendments #4 and #5 (from our Constitution of the United States) forbid unlawful search and seizure and depriving someone of Life Liberty or Property without due process...a secret proceeding without allowing you to defend your self should have you howling at the injustice...

[Jichard]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/ca...#ixzz3vpwRnelX

Ok, this provides a beautiful instance of why I tend not to trust the conservative press or sources like The Daily Caller. Basically, the above source is misleading and leaves out important information. For example, the press source says:

Yet the bill itself includes a number of points, such as:

"This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury [emphasis added] to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified."

So the standard here is "reasonable cause", which may be akin to the standard judges use to allow for search warrants for people's homes. And it is not the case that the judge applies the restraining order "based solely on accounts from family members or police". Instead it depends on law enforcement asserting reasonable cause and a judicial officer agreeing with law enforcement on that. Much the same thing seems to occur with search warrants. For example: the police assert the need to search someone's home and a judge agrees, usually based on evidence/justification provided to them by law enforcement (possibly through an attorney). A parallel point seems to apply to the current restraining order bill: law enforcement convinces needs to convince a judge to issue the restraining order. And that will usually involve providing evidence that the gun-owner is dangerous. That's why the bill says things like:

"This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future [emphasis added] by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified."

Is there a problem with taking weapons away from someone if you can show there is substantial likelihood that the person poses a significant danger? I don't see how that's a problem. Yet Te Daily Caller leaves these points out, and instead leave their readers with the impression that everything is based solely on the say-so of family members or law enforcement. Sad.

Also, The Daily Caller article says:

"The restraining order can be granted without the affected person knowing it exists or being allowed time to contest it."

That's a distortion, since the bill itself notes that steps should be taken to notify the affected person of the existence of the order. For example:

"The bill would require a law enforcement officer to serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located, file a copy of the order with the court, and have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice.

[...]

The bill would require a law enforcement officer or a person at least 18 years of age who is not a party to the action to personally serve the restrained person the ex parte order, if the restrained person can reasonably be located."

So I wonder why a conservative press source like The Daily Caller left out pertinent facts like this, and instead misled their readers.
... Just kidding; I know why.

[Jichard]

Ok, this provides a beautiful instance of why I tend not to trust the conservative press or sources like The Daily Caller. Basically, the above source is misleading and leaves out important information. For example, the press source says:

Yet the bill itself includes a number of points, such as:

"This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury [emphasis added] to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified."

So the standard here is "reasonable cause", which may be akin to the standard judges use to allow for search warrants for people's homes. And it is not the case that the judge applies the restraining order "based solely on accounts from family members or police". Instead it depends on law enforcement asserting reasonable cause and a judicial officer agreeing with law enforcement on that. Much the same thing seems to occur with search warrants. For example: the police assert the need to search someone's home and a judge agrees, usually based on evidence/justification provided to them by law enforcement (possibly through an attorney). A parallel point seems to apply to the current restraining order bill: law enforcement convinces needs to convince a judge to issue the restraining order. And that will usually involve providing evidence that the gun-owner is dangerous. That's why the bill says things like:

"This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future [emphasis added] by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified."

Is there a problem with taking weapons away from someone if you can show there is substantial likelihood that the person poses a significant danger? I don't see how that's a problem. Yet Te Daily Caller leaves these points out, and instead leave their readers with the impression that everything is based solely on the say-so of family members or law enforcement. Sad.

Forgot to mention this: this law doesn't even seem to violate the fourth amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures. The relevant portion of the Constitution is as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The bill in question fits fine with this. After all, the bill authorizes seizure of the guns only if there reasonable cause (or substantial likelihood) of significant danger or harm from the person having access to said weapons.

[Jichard]

Would you like a restraining order getting taken out on you if you did nothing wrong and you were not given time to dispute its validity?

If you think that's an accurate description of what this bill does, then you probably haven't read the bill. The bill (in rough terms) operates on the same principle as a search warrant: just as one needs to show cause in order to search someone (as per the fourth amendment), one needs to show cause before issuing the restraining order for their guns (as per the fourth amendment). The text of the bill makes it clear that cause is required before the restraining order is issued. So I don't see what the problem here is.

Really, if we applied your logic to search warrants, then one would ask:

Would you like a search warrant getting taken out on you if you did nothing wrong and you were not given time to dispute its validity?

And my response to that question would parallel my response to your question on restraining orders:

Your question is based on a number of distortions. First, people are free to dispute a search warrant, once they are notified of it. And law enforcement is expected to notify people of the warrant. Second, the relevant standard for a search warrant isn't whether you actually did something wrong. Instead, the standard is whether the judicial official has probable cause for the search.

[Jichard]

Excellent. Law already provides that a person can be involuntarily institutionalized if he is a danger to himself or others, so it's quite reasonable that lesser restraints should be ordered where appropriate. Most people would prefer to have their guns seized to themselves being seized. If not, do both!

No the law doesn't allow for further examination, it just takes away weapons. There is no part of this that states explicitely "allows for a mental health hold if someone feels they are a danger to self or others" which is what is needed. THe only law in existence is a person must meet certain criteria. We need a form of the older law which was that another person had to testify the person was a danger.

Um, what are you talking about? First, the bill has provisions that require reasonable cause to believe (or sufficient evidence) that the person in question is a danger. Second, the bill authorizes seizure of the guns only if there reasonable cause (or substantial likelihood) of significant danger or harm from the person having access to said weapons. For instance:

"This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury [emphasis added] to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified.

[...]

This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future [emphasis added] by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified."

That would cover being a danger to one's self or others due to mental health issues. Third, previous law covers some relevant mental health provisions. As noted on the bill:

"Existing law requires the Department of Justice to request public and private mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions to submit to the department information necessary to identify persons who are prohibited from having a firearm because the person has been admitted to a facility, is receiving inpatient treatment, and is a danger to himself, herself, or others."

Fourth, the bill itself includes the relevant mental health provisions. These are covered in Sec. 6 and Sec. 7 of the bill.


Given this, why are you making the claims you're making, Catholicity?

[lilpixieofterror]

Got tired of people ignoring you, so you decided to troll other people's threads because you're hatred of Christians/conservatives knows no bounds?