[QUOTE]Gov. Jerry Brown took mixed action on several gun control bills Tuesday, approving a measure allowing temporary restraining orders to block gun use but vetoing legislation that would have required Californians to register home-made guns.
Assembly Bill 1014, by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, was the Legislature’s central response to the lethal shooting in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara. It will allow family members of someone who is displaying signs of mental instability to request a court order temporarily barring gun use and purchase.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/30/6749098/jerry-brown-signs-gun-restraining.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#mi_rss=Capitol%20Alert"]Article[/URL]
Sounds good to me. If someone's acting crazy or weird, you can have them banned from buying guns. Only crazy gun nuts would decry this.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46117546]Sounds good to me. If someone's acting crazy or weird, you can have them banned from buying guns. Only crazy gun nuts would decry this.[/QUOTE]
or the NRA
[QUOTE=Sableye;46117568]or the NRA[/QUOTE]
so basically crazy gun nuts
[QUOTE=Sableye;46117568]or the NRA[/QUOTE]
Why are you repeating him? He already said crazy gun nuts
At first I thought this would something silly like, "If your ex-girlfriend has a restraining order against you for some reason, you cannot own firearms" but this does make sense. It would allow families to ensure that their other family members will be unable to harm themselves during periods of lowness. Another thing which should be taken into account is that before any of these laws are thrown out into the open, the targeted person should have a psych evaluation before any restraints are made. I have known to many friends/family members who have been thrown under the bus by mothers and fathers who are notoriously anti-gun, and go about saying that they'll disown them for owning firearms, and something like this could lead to abuse pretty badly.
[editline]30th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;46117568]or the NRA[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, most gun-rights organizations are for mental well-being checkups every two years or so. IIRC, most NRA Shoots require you to be mentally checked out before entering.
I wouldn't be surprised tbh. For me, I understand needing medical legislation, but my only problem is where something begins and stops. I have mentioned back and forth that I am probably going to get diagnosed with schizophrenia, and losing one of the few hobbies/money making jobs I presently have would be a serious blow to my depression issues currently.
Glad to see that someone in charge here understands that it's a mental health problem we have here, just one that happens to look like a gun problem. As JoeSkylynx pointed out, this needs to be managed carefully to avoid it being abused, but it's for the most part a good idea.
Gotta say though, the "People's Republic of California" is just about last place I expected to have someone make that realization in, that state government is nationally renowned for being absurdly anti-gun.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46117831]i don't know how to put this nicely but if you're diagnosed with schizophrenia you really shouldn't own guns. this is why the us needs sensible gun laws..[/QUOTE]
I fully understand that, but at the same time guns are sorta that escape which allows me to feel happy. I know that may sound creepy without context so let me explain: My enjoyment from firearms comes from the fact that I enjoy researching their history, enduring into the mechanics, and studying how they work. I am an avid hunter/fisherman, and losing those hobbies because of a mental illness that rarely effects me outside of hearing a few things off and on, would probably throw me off the deep end regarding depression.
[quote]It will allow family members of someone who is displaying signs of mental instability to request a court order temporarily barring gun use and purchase.[/quote]
Now do it federally please.
Easier said than done obviously.
[QUOTE=Aide;46117919]Now do it federally please.
Easier said than done obviously.[/QUOTE]
How about let's see how this works out in reality in California before we start implementing it across the U.S. I fully support this if it works out how it's supposed to, but let's let them work out the bugs first....
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46117931]i'm a gun owner too and i agree it's a hobby that can give you plenty of joy, but mental illness and guns do NOT mix. sorry. i do not believe anyone currently diagnosed with a mental illness should have access to a firearm/ammo. if i had suddenly been diagnosed with something tomorrow i would have someone else keep them for me as long as i was still ill.[/QUOTE]
Once again, I'm fully on the same boat with you. For the most part, my family keeps the guns in a locked safe which my mother has the keys for. The thing is though, I am not going to give up my rights to firearm ownership simply because I hear a few noises here and there. I do not exactly jump at noises, and more often then not I tend to have every firearms receiver disassembled when I come home to prevent any negligence.
I'm very concerned that this will lead to abuse by angry exes and friends feuding with each other. Who has the onus to prove here? Does the state have to prove they can't have the gun, or do they have to prove they can? Who pays for the mental health checkup? What checks and balances are there to prevent false accusations? What repercussions are there for a false accusation?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46118371]I fully support this on the condition that the very second they're deemed "mentally competent", their rights are restored completely. Any weapons confiscated would be returned immediately, etc etc. Unfortunatly, this is California, a "temporary restraining order" would probably remove your right to bear arms for YEARS before you actually managed to get them restored; and all it takes to have that happen to you are "concerned family members". On top of that your weapons that were confiscated would probably have been "lost".[/QUOTE]
My concern is that there will be a paper trail left behind that can act as a sort of "registration".
The confiscation process will probably require the serial/make/model be recorded to assure the correct firearms can go back to their owners. But what is done to those records after they get returned?
Stupid because it's redundant. It's already federal law that someone accused of domestic violence or has a restraining order must relinquish their firearms until they are found to be not guilty of the charges.
[url=http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1bg.gif]ATF Form 4473[/url]
Note boxes 11b, 11c, 11f and 11h
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46117931]i'm a gun owner too and i agree it's a hobby that can give you plenty of joy, but mental illness and guns do NOT mix. sorry. i do not believe anyone currently diagnosed with a mental illness should have access to a firearm/ammo. if i had suddenly been diagnosed with something tomorrow i would have someone else keep them for me as long as i was still ill.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why you assume this but schizophrenia doesn't instantly mean
[t]http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTg0WDYzMQ==/z/Fb0AAMXQCZ1Tc91d/$_35.JPG[/t]
schizophrenia could be as minor as seeing a cat follow you around from a distance on the weekends and that's it. Of course, it can be very very serious as well, but everyone has a different case.
[QUOTE=J!NX;46118502]I don't know why you assume this but schizophrenia doesn't instantly mean
[t]http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTg0WDYzMQ==/z/Fb0AAMXQCZ1Tc91d/$_35.JPG[/t]
schizophrenia could be as minor as seeing a cat follow you around from a distance on the weekends and that's it. Of course, it can be very very serious as well, but everyone has a different case.[/QUOTE]
This right here. Rather than blanketing EVERYONE, it needs to be handled on an individual basis. Someone can have a mental disorder and still be a safe, non-violent individual. Give people the tools to deal with dangerous ones and leave everyone else in peace. Seems like Jerry Brown is the only Californian politician to have any sense in decades.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46118657]yeah, and this is exactly why mental health should be the #1 consideration before you're allowed to buy, own, and use guns. it should rather be about people having to be PROVEN okay gun owners rather than letting them buy them and THEN find out they shouldn't have them.[/QUOTE]
no doubt
we need harsher gun licenses restrictions but looser gun laws
only the very trusted get guns, but not be TOO hard on those who do get them
as soon as they aren't trusted temporarily prevent them from purchasing.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46118757]i agree. this is the way it should be done, but sadly all the idiots screaming about their rights can't handle the words "gun control" without lusting for blood.[/QUOTE]
its sad that the people who are hyper trashy and arrogant about their gun laws are the ones that shouldn't have guns but still can vote to decide on the matter anyways
The phrase "home-made guns" does not sound safe to me, but I have no experience to judge the vetoing of that legislation.
Personally, as someone who enjoys my gun rights, those who are mentally stable should be allowed to own guns. America is the most unstable over these gun rights, and the solution seems so easy. Plus the US is the most gun happy country yet the most afraid of them.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;46118784]The phrase "home-made guns" does not sound safe to me, but I have no experience to judge the vetoing of that legislation.[/QUOTE]
It's a reference to 80% complete firearms which only require you to build up the lower receiver with premade parts bought from certain websites.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46118840]i am pretty sure it refers to building guns like ar15s and aks at home. read up on it, there is no difference between you doing it in your garage or some big company doing it if you use the same tools (which you can get pretty much everywhere). you literally assemble some parts, just like furniture from ikea.
my view is that all guns, bought or made yourself, should be registered. not ever going to happen in the US, sadly..[/QUOTE]
Registration doesn't do anything though. Canada is a shining example of this, we did away with our registry because of how useless and expensive it was.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46117891]I fully understand that, but at the same time guns are sorta that escape which allows me to feel happy. I know that may sound creepy without context so let me explain: My enjoyment from firearms comes from the fact that I enjoy researching their history, enduring into the mechanics, and studying how they work. I am an avid hunter/fisherman, and losing those hobbies because of a mental illness that rarely effects me outside of hearing a few things off and on, would probably throw me off the deep end regarding depression.[/QUOTE]
they're not really going after people like you they're going after people who are a clear danger
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46119138]how does it punish anyone?
it keeps track of what guns are registered to whom
easy concept[/QUOTE]
And used how? You don't know who is going to commit a crime before they commit it. What does registration accomplish?
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46118840]i am pretty sure it refers to building guns like ar15s and aks at home. read up on it, there is no difference between you doing it in your garage or some big company doing it if you use the same tools (which you can get pretty much everywhere). you literally assemble some parts, just like furniture from ikea.
my view is that all guns, bought or made yourself, should be registered. not ever going to happen in the US, sadly..[/QUOTE]
Question, in your opinion what would a registry do instead of just a serial number that people can tell the police if they are stolen?
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46119258]so, what, you're a lost cause?
you have to begin somewhere to fix a problem
stop the sale of guns without approval to buy one at first, then make it illegal to have guns as long as they're not registered and bought with permission.
someone gets an permission, you can get what you want, as long as it's registered.
what the problem with that preposition?[/QUOTE]
In California, you have to go through an FFL to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to another person, unless the transaction is between a parent and a child/grandparent and grandchild. To own a pistol, one must first complete a test and pay a fee to acquire a handgun license. A gun registration would be useless as a preventative measure, as it's already illegal to sell a gun to someone who is ineligible to own a firearm, or sell one without going through a licensed dealer.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46119399]no, you're contradicting yourself. you're saying you don't want to restrict the rights of everyone- how else are you going to fix the problem? keeping your current laws are only letting the problem getting worse. seriously. if you stopped allowing sales just over the counter (or in walmart parking lots), the amount of guns in the wrong hands would get much smaller over time as guns used by "gangbangers" are confiscated bit by bit as someone shoots another guy and gets arrested.
in norway, criminals use unregistered guns that are -get it- illegally brought into the country.
in the us, criminals use literally untraceable guns they bought over the counter of the local store, over craigslist, from some dude in their neighbourhood. if the gun is even at all registered by sale at some point it can be when some random guy named Nick Jones bought it from some store in 1992 before it was stolen in 2003 (since Nick didn't even have a gun safe) and has since then been in circulation everywhere in his town.
the start of stopping gun crime in the US is simple:
ban sales to random people
introduce gun licenses that you need to be able to purchase and own guns
introduce mandatory gun safes from the first gun you buy (this has literally [B]no[/B] negative sides and if you are against it you are very close minded. hiding your guns in your mother's clothes cabinet is pretty much the stupidest thing you can do, gun safes inherently lowers the rates of theft of guns and their use in suicide when Billy can grab his father's shotgun standing in the corner of their garage)
let people WITH licenses buy and sell guns as they please as long as sales are reported and as such a gun will be registered to a specific person unless it's permanently destroyed[/QUOTE]
Do you even know what you're talking about??????
You can't buy a gun over the counter without going through a background check.......
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46119511]the problem is that the guns are already in circulation
do something to stop the ones in circulation and THEN set a registry in place.
get it?[/QUOTE]
And how would you do that?
[QUOTE=darunner;46118474]Stupid because it's redundant. It's already federal law that someone accused of domestic violence or has a restraining order must relinquish their firearms until they are found to be not guilty of the charges.
[url=http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1bg.gif]ATF Form 4473[/url]
Note boxes 11b, 11c, 11f and 11h[/QUOTE]
implying people are truthful on these
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
