[EclipseFour20]

https://news.yahoo.com/gov-jerry-brow...195626557.html


Gov. Jerry Brown signs California gun restriction

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.

The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Relatives of the victims and other supporters of the bill said the parents of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger were thwarted in their attempts to seek help for their troubled son before the rampage.

Supporters had said such a measure could have prevented the attacks, winning out over critics who said it would erode gun rights.

"If both of these laws had been in place on May 23, things could have been very different," Rodger's father, Peter Rodger, said in a statement Tuesday night. "California, today, is a safer state because of this legislation. Let's hope other states follow."

Law enforcement authorities in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas can seek a judge's order allowing them to seize guns from people they deem to be a danger.

The new California law gives law enforcement the same option and extends it to family members.

It continues California's efforts to lead the nation in preventing firearm injury and death, said Amanda Wilcox, an advocate for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, whose daughter was a victim of gun violence.

The greatest effect might be in preventing suicides or intervening where there is a history of domestic violence, she said.

"It's hard to know how much it will be used or how much it will prevent," Wilcox said. "It only takes avoiding one loss for this to be worth it."

Lawmakers approved the bill by Democratic Assembly members Nancy Skinner of Berkeley and Das Williams of Santa Barbara amid pleas that they act after the May 23 attack in which six people were fatally stabbed or shot and 13 others wounded in the community of Isla Vista.

Weeks before that shooting, Elliot Rodger's parents had his therapist contact Santa Barbara County mental health officials. Sheriff's deputies talked to Elliot Rodger but never entered his apartment or checked to see if he owned guns.

They decided he was not a threat to himself or others and took no further action.

Elliot Rodger later wrote that had deputies searched his room, they might have found guns that police said he used to shoot three people after stabbing to death three others. Elliot Rodger killed himself while being pursued by police.

Under the California bill, whoever seeks the restraining order would have to sign an affidavit under oath. If they lie, they could be charged with a misdemeanor.

A court hearing would be held within 14 days after the restraining order is granted to give the gun owner a chance to argue there is no danger.

Republican lawmakers and some Democrats voted against the measure, known as AB1014.

In Elliot Rodger's case, there is no evidence his parents or anyone treating him knew he had weapons. That prompted Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to introduce a related bill that would require law enforcement to develop policies that encourage officers to search the state's database of gun purchases as part of routine welfare checks. That bill, SB505, also was signed by the governor.

Brown's signing of the bills "helped to honor the life of my son, Christopher, and so many others killed by senseless gun violence," said Richard Martinez, father of Isla Vista shooting victim Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez and an advocate for the group Everytown for Gun Safety.

"Nothing we can do will bring back Christopher, but I'm confident this new law will help save lives and prevent other families from experiencing this same kind of tragedy. States around the country should be exploring this life-saving measure," he said in a statement about the restraining order legislation.

Currently in California, authorities can seize legally purchased guns only from people convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, people subject to a domestic violence restraining order or those who are determined to be mentally unstable.

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups opposed the restraining order legislation.

"Our concern is not so much what they intended to do; our concern is with the method they put in place to address people with mental or emotional issues," said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. "We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy."

So...let me get his right....if I piss off someone in my family--all they have to do is make a simple call and "poof", my rights as a gunowner are immediately gone? Guilty until proven innocent. What next?

[minds_I]

in before the bin

[resinryder]

"Weeks before that shooting, Elliot Rodger's parents had his therapist contact Santa Barbara County mental health officials. Sheriff's deputies talked to Elliot Rodger but never entered his apartment or checked to see if he owned guns."

So THEY dropped the ball and now all citizens of CA suffer. Well now, isn't that the socialist thing to do.


"So...let me get his right....if I piss off someone in my family--all they have to do is make a simple call and "poof", my rights as a gunowner are immediately gone? Guilty until proven innocent. What next? "

Now every gun owner will have to play nice. Piss anyone off, or not, and have your rights stripped away. Once a psychiatrist gets involved you'll never get your rights back.
CA dems like to tell everyone else how to live by their standards and they keep re-electing them. Ya get what ya vote for.

[EclipseFour20]

Originally Posted by resinryder

... Once a psychiatrist gets involved you'll never get your rights back. ...

I have a nephew that went "bonkos" a few years ago and attempted suicide. He had a relapse a year or so ago and decided to self-admit himself for help (he is 100% all better now). He lived with roommates that owned swords, knives, and firearms. He admitted himself at 4 PM and around 11 PM that night LEO came to his home and removed all weapons owned by his roommates...and then the craziest thing happened...LEO went to his parents home (my brother-in-law) and confiscated all their weapons (the kid's drivers license used is parents address). Imagine waking up at 12 midnight and being told by two cops standing in your front door--that they are here to confiscate your weapons...not to mention being told by LEO that your son is "sick again" (nice way to discover your son is relapsing).

It took my brother-in-law 3-4 months to get all his guns back...but he had to pay two attorneys. I don't think the roommates even bothered, they said it was cheaper to buy new than to pay what the attorney would charge.

Heads they win...tales I lose.

[resinryder]

Damn

[bentom187]

Yeah, this one is destined for the bin. Before that happens you simply apply the same tactics for growing MJ as you do firearms ownership. Don't tell your relatives or anyone else. Matter of fact think of everyone as a informant. Its a sad state of affairs indeed.

That's a terrible story eclipse. Its pretty sad that people have to fear going to get help for mental distress during their life without sacrificing their rights.

[draztik]

This law is par for the course, and the game they're playing is "total enslavement". Take a moment and just imagine where this road is going to take us.

[420somewhere]

Thanks for the thread

[stoned-trout]

keep several caches... I have guns in multiple states.. I also have unregistered guns and I don't show off ever....need to know basis...like if we go huntin......yeehaw we might be rednecks but we aint all dumb

[Capt.Ahab]

Trout beat me to it. Dont keep all the boom sticks in one place. I could never live in Cali. because of this type of shit.