http://www.americanthinker.com/2014...a_democrats_wage_war_on_the_constitution.html Two California Democrats in the State Assembly, Nancy Skinner and Das Williams, have authored what may well be the most draconian and flagrantly unconstitutional bill in the state’s, and maybe even the nation’s, history. AB 1014 provides for the addition to the California Penal Code of provisions involving “gun violence restraining orders” and associated “firearm seizure warrants.” The way the statute is supposed to work is as simple, and as horrifying, as the minds that produced it. To begin with, under the statutory language the GVRO and/or firearm seizure process can be initiated by anyone -- and I do mean anyone: 18101. (a) Any person may submit an application to the court, on a form designed by the Judicial Council, setting forth the facts and circumstances necessitating that a gun violence restraining order be issued. A gun violence restraining order shall be issued to prohibit a named person from possessing a firearm if an affidavit, signed by the applicant under oath, and any additional information provided to the court demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, the named person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms. The statute commands that the magistrate shall, in assessing what may well be randomly or maliciously submitted affidavits, consider “recent threats” of violence or acts of violence against others or oneself (see 18102 of the bill.) How do you think leftist judges will construe “threats”? In actuality, though, it might not matter, since the statute provides that, in determining probable cause to issue the GVRO and/or firearm seizure warrant, the magistrate may consider: (7) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons Here’s something else. The probable cause determination described above is rendered in the complete absence of victim gun owners or victim prospective gun purchasers, and so, therefore, are the resulting GVROs and/or firearm seizure warrants. Indeed, the victims of this proposed law might have no idea they have even been targeted until police show up at the door, conceivably in the middle of the night (see the “proposed form” of the firearm seizure warrant in the statute). What’s that about a right to be heard, you say? Oh, don’t worry; that comes two weeks after the authorities have already snatched guns or prohibited people from owning them. Two weeks after the destruction of your Constitutional rights, then, you will be graciously accorded the right to convince California judges that you’re not a recent purchaser of a weapon (and too bad, so sad for you if you are, I guess) and/or that the frowns you displayed upon having your rights violated did not “threaten” some statist or other. Moreover, one might ask: how successful do you think the statute’s victims are likely to be given that at their hearings they will find themselves confronted by the same state that gleefully trampled their First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourth Amendment rights in the first place? ***** If this passes, then in California anyone who feels threatened can file a form to have your guns forcibly confiscated, and you have no representation in the decision. And merely purchasing a firearm can be used as reason to confiscate your firearms. For example, someone like Cdnpoli of this thread can file a form claiming he feels threatened and voila! you get a visit from the cops - probably a SWAT raid in the middle of the night.
California's attempt to end-run the recent SCOTUS ruling...it was to be expected here's a kibble: http://news.yahoo.com/hands-off-those-gun-laws-judges-052221573--politics.html Hands Off Those Gun Laws, Judges By Eric Segall June 1, 2014 6:45 AM The Daily Beast ohhhhhhh, I bet the peaceniks are downright pissy about this They have toiled so long to delete the BoR.............but alas, I have no pity for those who would deprive me of any of my Rights
I don't see how this proposed bill expands significantly (or at all) on existing provisions. E.g., you could tell the local police I threatened to shoot you and sign a complaint to that effect. The police will then take some level of action against me, possibly beginning with searching my premises and confiscating for safeguard any firearms I might own. But, as the police assuredly will advise you, when this goes to court you'd better be able to prove the complaints you've made against me or be ready to defend against a costly litigation. So it seems completing the form specified in this proposed bill is no different from formalizing a criminal complaint against an individual.
there's at least 6 million gunowners in CA. so how will they imprison more than 1 % of them, hmm? CA has about 200k prison beds and guess what? all are ALREADY full. this law will go nowhere, it's just liberal hate being spewed, and that's all it is.
