On Jan 1, 2016, CA Police Can Seize Guns From Law-Abiding Citizens Not Charged With A Crime

[Rey C.]

No, this isn't something fake and exaggerated that popped up from some fringe, wingnut website.

Big Brother - the PC Edition

A California gun law will permit the confiscation of legally owned firearms. The new gun control law is slated to go into effect in just two days. Police officers in the state will be allowed to take legally owned weapons from law-abiding citizens and keep them for three weeks without filing any charges against the owners. The statute opponents feel this powerfully infringes upon Second Amendment rights and does not offer a manner in which to contest such seizures.

The California gun law, also known as AB1014, was passed after the Isla Vista shooting by Elliot Rodger last year. The teenager opened fire on the University of California at Santa Barbara campus and killed six people before taking his own life. Prior to the mass shooting, Rodger’s parents had reportedly informed law enforcement that they had concerns about his mental health and the “rants” he was posting online.

After a meeting with police, the officers determined that Rodger did not pose a criminal risk. Gun control supporters maintain that the “stockpile” of ammunition and guns in his apartment should have raised a red flag. As gun rights advocates are quick to point out, it is not against the law for an American to legally own as many firearms and ammunition as desired.

California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1 https://t.co/Zhn3WT5MW0 pic.twitter.com/cApr5JQCHS

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 29, 2015

Second Amendment activists have likened the reasoning behind the law which will allow police to seize legally owned guns without notice, a warrant, or any criminal allegations, akin to taking the car of an individual with a drinking problem based the number of cans of beer in their fridge and the possibility that the person could get behind the wheel while drunk.

The new California gun control law permits a judge to grant a restraining order against a gun owner who has been charged with a crime, the Daily Caller reports. Immediately after the order has been issued, police officers can seize all of the individual’s guns. Such an order can be signed due to comments of concern uttered by relatives of the gun owner. If the family members claim that the person might pose imminent harm, the judge can sign the gun seizure order without notifying the individual – or the person even being present in the courtroom to contest the gun grabbing dictate. There is no requirement for law enforcement officers or mental health workers to meet with the gun owner prior to the issuance of the restraining order.

California Gun Law Will Let Police Confiscate Legally-Owned Weapons: https://t.co/kl0pzdMcXZ#2A#GunControlpic.twitter.com/A1prcHYtPR

— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 30, 2015

Here’s an excerpt from the California gun law.

“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 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.”

According to the text in AB104, the gun owner who has never been charged with a crime could be prohibited from owning or possessing firearms or ammunition for up to one year on an annual basis. The California gun control law also states that the court can renew the firearms seizure order for another year and allow the citizen just a single hearing to request a termination of the order on an annual basis.

 

[Johan]

“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 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.”

Outrageous !

How can a judge order police to seize guns from a potential criminal BEFORE he kills someone. Wait until he shot and killed a bunch of people, then police would seize the guns !

 

[Rey C.]

But since "there is no requirement for law enforcement officers or mental health workers to meet with the gun owner prior to the issuance of the restraining order", can you explain to me just how this determination will be made?

A "potential criminal"... interesting terminology, in that it pretty much covers most of the human population. Where have I heard similar logic and reasoning? Ah yes, I believe it was Catharine MacKinnon, who proclaimed that all men are potential rapists, so incarcerating any man based on any charge of sexual misconduct was perfectly acceptable. And similar to this situation, the police could become the weapons of people with grudges or axes to grind against an innocent person. This is why I support a system of just laws, and not kangaroo courts backed up by ad hoc laws. But that's not where we are going. I know that. I accept that. And I am sorry.

The Republic and the Constitution are dying a slow, miserable death. May God help us all.

 

[Johan]

You think police would just seize someone's guns just because a neighbur reported that they could be suspicious ? Off course not. And even if they do, they would do some investigation and restore the guns after they found the person poses no threat at all.

Now, tell me what's worst ?
A) Someone' report that his neighbour might be preparing a mass shooting, police get there, seize the guns, do some backgound research, have the persons physcholigicaly examined and the restore the guns a few weeks after if they found nothing
OR
B) Someone reports that his neighbour migh be preparing a mass shooting, police starts some background checks but the persons kills a dozen of people before police investigations could find that that person was indeed up to no good...

But since The Republic and the Constitution are dying a slow, miserable death. May God help us all.

There is no God

 

[Rey C.]

You think police would just seize someone's guns just because a neighbur reported that they could be suspicious ? Off course not. And even if they do, they would do some investigation and restore the guns after they found the person poses no threat at all.

I'm stating how the law is written, not how you wish it was written. And yes, among other things, the suspicions of a neighbor could very well factor into their decision since (again) "there is no requirement for law enforcement officers or mental health workers to meet with the gun owner prior to the issuance of the restraining order".

Now, tell me what's worst ?
A) Someone' report that his neighbour might be preparing a mass shooting, police get there, seize the guns, do some backgound research, have the persons physcholigicaly examined and the restore the guns a few weeks after if they found nothing
OR
B) Someone reports that his neighbour migh be preparing a mass shooting, police starts some background checks but the persons kills a dozen of people before police investigations could find that that person was indeed up to no good...

Right. Because we all know that the only way to buy a gun is to go to a gun shop and submit to a background check. If someone is planning a criminal act, do you not understand that words on a piece of paper mean nothing to that person? Seriously. How do you think gang members, with more felony convictions than sharks have teeth, are able to secure firearms? Do you not know that in the United States, it is already strictly prohibited for such persons to own or possess firearms... or even a single round of ammunition? And yet (fake shock), these people break the law! :eek:

As I've said many, many times, although I am greatly in favor of efforts to reduce violent crime, including firearms violence, poorly written and constructed laws, dreamed up by people who have ulterior motives, aren't worth a damn.

There is no God

Your opinion is noted.

 

[mongo18]

The Republic and the Constitution are dying a slow, miserable death. May God help us all.

The police in the USA can seize any property they want with no explanation, it's called civil forfeiture.

The biggest political fight in your countrys history has been over whether poor people should be able to see a doctor. Another pretty big one is whether US citizens should be allowed to get married if they're homosexual. Over half of your school aged children are living in poverty. Police are killing people with impunity and rolling through the streets in armored military vehicles. Celebrity culture. Crumbling infrastructure. Massive national debt. Crippled, ineffective government. The list goes on.

But THIS is the thing that worries you? Everything was fine until this one thing happened? No wonder your country is so fucked up.

 

[Jack Davenport]

The police in the USA can seize any property they want with no explanation, it's called civil forfeiture.

The biggest political fight in your countrys history has been over whether poor people should be able to see a doctor. Another pretty big one is whether US citizens should be allowed to get married if they're homosexual. Over half of your school aged children are living in poverty. Police are killing people with impunity and rolling through the streets in armored military vehicles. Celebrity culture. Crumbling infrastructure. Massive national debt. Crippled, ineffective government. The list goes on.

But THIS is the thing that worries you? Everything was fine until this one thing happened? No wonder your country is so fucked up.

The property owners can retrieve their property by disclosing how they acquired it. Most people that obtain property legally have no problem doing this and one other thing, civil forfeiture has rarely been used against people that are not engaged in criminal activity. In fact, I cannot think of one instance that it has been exercised against someone that was charged with a crime and ultimately found not guilty..

This California law will not make it past the Summer SCOTUS session.

 

[Johan]

Right. Because we all know that the only way to buy a gun is to go to a gun shop and submit to a background check. If someone is planning a criminal act, do you not understand that words on a piece of paper mean nothing to that person? Seriously. How do you think gang members, with more felony convictions than sharks have teeth, are able to secure firearms? Do you not know that in the United States, it is already strictly prohibited for such persons to own or possess firearms... or even a single round of ammunition? And yet (fake shock), these people break the law! :eek:

Classic anti-gun control law ; Guns laws are useless since criminals break these laws so let's not have gun laws.
Then, since thives steal things even if stealing is illegal, what's the point of having laws against thieves ? Let's make stealing legal. Pedophiles rape kids even thought pedophilia is illegal so let's make it legal. Murder is illegal but murderers still murder people so let's make murder legal...

 

[Will E Worm]

Let the lawsuits begin! :yoda:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Sounds to me like a good way to push a frustrated person into a dangerous corner. All I see coming from this is more violence and bodies. I also wouldn't put it past them to be counting on exactly that, to happen.

 

[knowone]

What seems to be missed in the discussion is it takes a Judge's order. A judge can already issue an arrest order with the same amount of evidence as well as a 5150 psych hold, and with either one of those you can be sure police would be picking up and guns laying around.

 

[Jack Davenport]

This is a disturbing law nonetheless. I guess you've never heard of judge shopping.

 

[Supafly]

Why bother seizing guns? Just pour hot lead into them, and let them be kept as talismans

 

[Rey C.]

But THIS is the thing that worries you? Everything was fine until this one thing happened? No wonder your country is so fucked up.

You've been here longer than I have, though you may not have read or understood some of my past posts, so if you believe that THIS is the only thing that worries me, you are sadly mistaken. I don't post in this child's playground as much as I used to. But I've posted on a fairly broad array of topics, including civil rights, crime, poverty, health care, financial market reform, etc., in the past. If you'd prefer to make a point about these other topics, create a thread. If I have the time and desire, I'll address the topic. But for now, this is the topic at hand. Understood?

I consider this measure to be within the same realm as civil asset forfeiture laws, which I have also long opposed. Some, though not all, civil asset forfeiture laws provide a mechanism for legal relief. This California law does not. I have an issue with that.

 

[Rey C.]

Classic anti-gun control law ; Guns laws are useless since criminals break these laws so let's not have gun laws.
Then, since thives steal things even if stealing is illegal, what's the point of having laws against thieves ? Let's make stealing legal. Pedophiles rape kids even thought pedophilia is illegal so let's make it legal. Murder is illegal but murderers still murder people so let's make murder legal...

As with many of the other feel good, populist measures that are cobbled together by political hacks, this one seems to lack the one thing that a good law should focus on: effectiveness. If law enforcement truly believes that someone poses a threat to public safety, you believe that simply removing guns from the residence, and then sending him back out into the community, is all that needs to be done? Really? Seriously?!

And again, I have not and have never said that gun laws (all) are useless. If you can find a post anywhere on this site where I have said that, link it here and I'll buy you two round-trip tickets to anywhere in the world for a vacation. Real deal. But I don't buy tickets based on false claims and childish hyperbole. Sorry. Well thought out measures, which address the root cause(s), will always be more effective than these naive, fantasy measures, that baby-step around the actual problem.

But as I said before, we live in a new (age) time now. So if these nanny state measures make you feel good, feel safe, feel warm inside... then more power to you.

 

[Rey C.]

What seems to be missed in the discussion is it takes a Judge's order. A judge can already issue an arrest order with the same amount of evidence as well as a 5150 psych hold, and with either one of those you can be sure police would be picking up and guns laying around.

Then it seems that this law is rather superfluous. But in truth, arrest warrants and 5150 holds provide the accused with a day in court. The 5150, depending on the state, expires after a certain number of hours (72, I believe it is, in my state) and then the person is taken for a hearing.

My concern here is the precedent that is being set. As I read the summation of this law, it's set up so that a person wouldn't have to face charges or even be subjected to a psychological assessment... ever. All of that could be bypassed and the order could simply be renewed annually. If they were convicted of a crime or were found to be mentally ill, in most states, that in itself would prohibit them from legally owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition. As a temporary measure, I still have some issues with it, though I believe that if it was better written, those civil liberty concerns could be addressed. But because of its rolling, perpetual nature, I have a massive problem with this. The opportunity for abuse is simply too great - no different than the law signed by Reagan in the 80's, which gave the state the power to seize private property (real estate) if drug transactions occurred on property belonging to a landlord or hotel owner. How reasonable was that? Have you ever submitted to a background check when checking into a hotel? Have you ever been asked if you were a drug dealer when checking into the Marriott? Neither have I. So that law was also easy to abuse, and it was abused.

My belief is that at some point, every American citizen deserves a day in court if the state seizes legally owned private property from them. I don't care if it's a house, a car, a stack of cash... or a gun. And the onus should be on the state to prove its case.