Gun confiscation legalized in California effective Jan. 1

ca-gunBreitbart

Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.
This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.

On September 30, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law that will allow a person’s guns to be confiscated if a judge can be convinced that a person with a gun is a danger to himself or others.

This law, AB-1014 Gun violence restraining orders, goes into effect on January 1, 2016:

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 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. 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 the presiding judge of the superior court of each county to designate at least one judge, commissioner, or referee who is required to be reasonably available to issue temporary emergency gun violence restraining orders when the court is not in session.

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. The bill would require the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order and would require the court to hold a hearing within 21 days of issuing the ex parte gun violence restraining order to determine if a gun violence restraining order that is in effect for one year should be issued. 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.

The bill would authorize a court to issue a 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 for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury 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. The bill would authorize the renewal of the order for additional one-year periods and would permit the restrained person to request one hearing to terminate the order during the effective period of the initial order or each renewal period.

The bill would require a court, upon issuance of a gun violence restraining order, to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in his or her custody or control, or which he or she possesses or owns. The bill would require the local law enforcement agency to retain custody of the firearm or firearms and ammunition for the duration of a gun violence restraining order.

Be careful about seeking help for mental problems, as law enforcement can now use that information to rescind your right to own or possess firearms or ammunition.  AB-1014 broadens the scope to include assessment whether or not a GVRO should be issued.

Are the acts called for in this new law in violation of 2nd Amendment protections? Will a legal challenge be mounted?

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Gun confiscation legalized in California effective Jan. 1

  1. texan59's avatar texan59 says:

    I see a whole bunch of bitter folks going through a divorce using this as a very lethal weapon against a soon-to-be ex. Like every other “well-intentioned” “law”, this will not end well either. 👿

    Liked by 7 people

  2. nyetneetot's avatar nyetneetot says:

    ” …gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice… “

    Hello Mrs. Moonbat. Your yoga instructor called us because she could see your negative energy flow and thought you could be a danger to yourself or others. While we checked your records and see you don’t own a gun yourself, just for the safety of others we will be searching your home for guns owned by other members of your family and removing any guns in a 2-block radius owned by your neighbors. This is for everyone’s wellbeing. Have a nice day.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. MaryfromMarin's avatar MaryfromMarin says:

    I so want to leave this state.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. lovely's avatar lovely says:

    As of 2010 approximately 1 in 5 adults were on some type of mental health medication. I believe i is 25% of women and 15% of men. Also factored into that number is the one in ten Americans on antidepressants.

    Imagine that.

    I wonder how long it will be before nicotine is considered a drug which can be counted as mind altering enough to cause a person to be disarmed.

    Liked by 4 people

    • MaryfromMarin's avatar MaryfromMarin says:

      Or aspirin. Or occasional cold medication use. Or vitamin/mineral supplements.

      Not entirely sarc.

      Liked by 5 people

      • nyetneetot's avatar nyetneetot says:

        Any processed foods from the grocery store that contain “yellow number 3”

        Liked by 5 people

        • WeeWeed's avatar WeeWeed says:

          Oddly enough…… I can’t “do” yellow #5. Can bring on hives and/or vertigo. I regularly forget this little nugget….. and pay for days/weeks. I AM fortunate, though, in that I am NOT a sweet-eater, nor do I worship mucous (dairy) products so I stay relatively healthy in that respect.
          So, my tommy-gun will prolly be picked up tomorra. 🙄

          Liked by 5 people

          • WeeWeed's avatar WeeWeed says:

            And I was gettin’ bids on having it mounted on the hood of the Highlander….. it jus’ goes to show ya……it’s always sumpthin’.

            Liked by 4 people

            • lovely's avatar lovely says:

              You could probably tie it on with hemp cord I think anything done with hemp cord is considered legal because hemp is earth friendly and kind. Heck Willie Nelson might even come out with his own hemp line.

              Like

          • Menagerie's avatar Menagerie says:

            Last year when I changed my eating habits my allergy symptoms went away in about a week. Took me a little while to figure out it was dairy related.

            Like

  5. lovely's avatar lovely says:

    Meanwhile Trump’s spokeswoman Katrina Pierson does a CNN interview wearing a bullet necklace 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.