Police in California can seize guns without prior notice starting Jan. 1

KPCC-FM ^ | December 28, 2015 | Frank Stoltze, Correspondent

[2ndDivisionVet]

Family members who believe a loved one poses a danger to themselves or others will be able to ask police to seek a temporary "gun violence" restraining order from a judge beginning Jan. 1. The order would allow police to seize the person's guns for 21 days.

State lawmakers approved the legislation (AB1014) and Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law after a 2014 mass shooting in Isla Vista, near the University of California, Santa Barbara, in which six people were killed and 14 injured. Before the shootings, sheriff's deputies had visited the shooter, Elliot Rodger, after his parents raised concerns about his mental health and online rants against women.

But deputies concluded Rodger, 22, was not a risk. They decided they had no basis to search his apartment, where he had amassed guns, ammunition and knives.

Under the new law, a restraining order could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police....

[2ndDivisionVet]

The old Soviet trick.

[Hugin]

Of course since the targets will be assumed “armed and dangerous” it will require a midnight swat raid, complete with flash bang grenades and shooting the family dog.

[SpaceBar]

Is there a provision for being wrongly accused, and deprived constitutional rights? Didn’t think so.

[kingu]

I love how the report carefully omits how 3 of the six died, from a knife. You'd imagine that had half of the dead come from such an item, it would be significant enough to mention, especially since this law doesn't address that at all...

But that wasn't the point of the law - the law is specifically aimed and targeted to remove without prior notice someone’s clear rights.

One hopes this is bounced out by the first judge it goes before.

[Pollster1]

“Shall not be infringed” is perfectly clear. People who would deprive free men of their God-given rights are evil. I hope they are stopped through the courts before the gun-grabbing leads to far worse natural consequences.

[SpaceBar]

Probably not a popular view, but I think even convicted felons who have fully paid their debt to society through fines and/or imprisonment, should have their 2’nd amendment rights fully reinstated on completion of their restitution.

[Fai Mao]

I would generally agree with that

[momincombatboots]

Well they have to do something... Just read about record gun sales in LA.. If they wait til crime rates go down, they are in trouble. Anyone can claim any citizen is mentally ill, and I am sure some of our postings here were rants against... Fill in the special protections class here..
Heck Cali is beautiful they can’t have any root of common sense taking place.. Especially in LA. Imagine the deems losing Cali.

[ScottinVA]

Estranged family members with axes to grind are going to have a field day with this one.

[peyton randolph]

It will be used by women in divorce and custody battles to portray themselves as “victims” in order to obtain a legal advantage in court. Count on it.

[Pontiac]

Family members who believe a loved one poses a danger to themselves or others will be able to ask police to seek a temporary "gun violence" restraining order from a judge

After three weeks, the person can challenge the judge's decision.

First a family member ask the POLICE to go to a judge to ask the judge to take away someone's guns. The judge never sees or ask questions of the person seeking this confiscation of property.

So a person can be deprived of their property for three weeks BEFORE they can seek relief from a judge's arbitrary decision.

Knowing how overloads the judicial system is I am certain that a person who falls in to this system will not see their property again for a very long time if at all.

There is nothing in this article saying what criteria a judge will use to determine if the accused may get his guns back. There is no powers mentioned by which the judge could require the person to see a doctor to determine the accused mental health. Just how is the judge to determine if the accused is legally unfit to own guns?

If someone thrown in to this legal quagmire doesn't want to kill his family before they cast him in to this legal drowning pool he will after.

I don't see this law as described as meeting constitutional muster.

[Carthego delenda est]

Family members first, disgruntled neighbors and coworkers next.

[dasboot]

Don’t piss off your wife.

[Gaffer]

In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question.....

So much for due process, sworn testimony, right to face accuser, etc. I could understand the need for this under some conditions, but it would seem to me the potential for abuse here is significant - especially with an estranged spouse/girlfriend or just someone that hates you.

[AlaskaErik]

No way anyone would ever abuse this.

[ImNotLying]

Time for a wagon train headed East this time. Get the hell out of Kalifornia.

[SpaceBar]

Note that the one thing missing are remedies for the wrongly accused.

[Pontiac]

The judge issues an order without hearing from the accuser or the accused. He issues an order to confiscate property on hearsay evidence from the police.

This does not sound like the justice system envisioned by the Founders at all.

[Gaffer]

I suppose they think it makes it all better because the person gets his weapons back after 21 days (if he survives a rigorous mental rectal exam).....

[SpaceBar]

In virtually every mass homicide story we read, there were early warning signs. Family or friends knew, but said nothing. There are already laws on the books for prosecuting people planning murder.