New california bill could allow families to petition a judge to take away relatives' firearms.
13 replies, posted
[QUOTE]
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California would become the first state to allow family members to petition judges to take away relatives' guns if they are deemed to be dangerous under a bill facing a Tuesday deadline for action by the governor.
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, introduced Assembly Bill 2014 after a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara that left six people dead and 13 injured from gunshots and stab wounds.
Tuesday is the deadline for Gov. Jerry Brown to act on the last of the 768 bills approved during the final weeks of the legislative session, which ended Aug. 31. He has not indicated whether he will sign or veto Skinner's bill.
Supporters say it could help prevent future attacks like the one in Isla Vista, while opponents say it would erode gun rights.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.ktul.com/story/26665115/bill-would-allow-families-to-ask-judge-to-take-away-relatives-guns[/url]
That actually sounds like a pretty good idea. If someone is unstable and should not be in possession of a firearm, then the best people to determine that would be a combination of the court and the family I think.
It's a good idea, but without proper wording the potential for abuse is huge.
i feel this bill but the as unclejimmema said, this has the potential to be abused. What i hope for is that this will be well worded to patch any loopholes that could be there.
Any new law can be abused if it's not hashed out properly.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;46119113]i feel this bill but the as unclejimmema said, this has the potential to be abused. What i hope for is that this will be well worded to patch any loopholes that could be there.[/QUOTE]
I'm a bit concerned about that simply because it's coming from California and their gun laws are asinine. Hopefully there'll be a provision allowing someone to dispute the claim if they can prove it false, otherwise...yeah, it could be really bad.
If this is worded properly, allows an easy way to dispute false claims while keeping the chances of disputing a legit one minimal, and can't be abused to disarm people who have no issues, then I'm all for it. Some people aren't fit to own guns, yet as far as the state knows, they're still good to go.
Good luck trying to take a dangerous person's gun.
Just saying.
It's a good idea.. but, it does somewhat violate a persons autonomy.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;46120042]I can see the glaring issues just reading the short article, the whole thing puts the confiscatee into a situation where they're assumed to be guilty before innocent and if I am to extrapolate based upon the fact that its not a criminal matter and rather civil (correct me if I am wrong on any points) you lack your constitutional rights you would have in a criminal case. They can take your guns on a hunch, they will abuse it.[/QUOTE]Plus what if your whole family is basically a pack of soccer moms and they don't like you having any gun? While I think this is a good idea in theory, I cannot really put myself behind this because the potential for abuse is glaringly obvious, plus getting back your second amendment rights is next to impossible after you've been marked as "crazy." We really need to improve how we view and handle mental illness above all else, because otherwise you're treated as essentially a felon in the eyes of the law and an invalid in the eyes of the public.
I know plenty of people who suffer daily because of this, getting treatment means subjecting yourself to a gauntlet of [i]completely unnecessary[/i] bullshit.
[editline]30th September 2014[/editline]
Oh, and a lot of people are really uninformed and ignorant of what kind of help there is out there, mostly because they don't want to even admit they could be "crazy." I bet a lot of the people who could be helped and do decide to do something bad (suicide, violent outbursts, etc) never knew help was there in the first place.
Honestly the whole thing pisses me off really bad.
Let's keep in mind that less than 1 for every 1000 CA residents has a CCW permit anyway. The process of obtaining one is extremely convoluted and you essentially have to prove that you need a gun on you moreso than anyone else in the state.
The vast, vast, [B]vast[/B] majority of CA gun owners are holding illegally. This law will have almost no effect.
Also, [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1427919"]late[/URL]
As Ian Malcolm once said- the law will find a way
[QUOTE=MR-X;46120117]Good luck trying to take a dangerous person's gun.
Just saying.[/QUOTE]
Resistance will end up with the owner behind bars or dead, both of which seem like better options than letting a looney keep a gun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.