Democrat pushes secret gun confiscation in Ca.

The rest of us can expect this to migrate eastward as do most of such liberal mandates originating on the left coast.

Regards,
hm
 
SO, I guess they forgot to explain to California what the 4th Amendment was about. They seem to think Due Process is not applicable.


California Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) is pushing to expand firearm confiscations by allowing co-workers and others to file a complaint that sets the “secret” confiscation process in motion.

The confiscations are tied to Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs), which were passed by CA Democrats following Elliot Rodger’s May 23, 2014 Santa Barbara attack. GVROs were touted as a vehicle through which families could petition a court for the seizure of guns from a family member. With order in hand, police could confiscate firearms from the family member without notice.

The GVROs were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown (D) on October 1, 2014 and became effective January 1, 2016. Assemblyman Ting is now pushing AB 2607 to expand GVROs so co-workers, employers, teachers, and others, can petition a court to have the “secret” confiscations ordered.

In an April 27 press release, the Firearms Policy Coalition observed:

[Ting’s] bill massively expands a controversial law that has only been in place for 4 months. At present, current law permits family members and peace officers to petition a court, in secret, in order to restrain an individual from possessing firearms. AB 2607 compounds this measure by adding, to the list of qualified petitioners, employers, coworkers, mental health workers, and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school.

This would add thousands of people (including complete strangers) to the list of people who could petition a court to restrain a person from possessing firearms, triggering a warrant and armed law enforcement raids—without trial, conviction, or opportunity to defend oneself before a court.

Expanding the “secret” confiscation process to include teachers will have a chilling effect on gun owners who may not agree with a professor’s point of view at the university, but refuse to speak up for fear of having their gun rights suspended. In the same way, gun owners with treatable mental health problems may be tempted to stay away from caregivers in order to insure the uninterrupted continuation of their right to keep and bear arms.
 
Someone, a total stranger, could report a California resident and get the police to show up and take someone's guns.

TELL ME YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THIS LIBTARD AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS SITE THAT STILL THINKS VOTING FOR DEMS IN CALIFORNIA IS A GOOD IDEA?????
 
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZTELL ME YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THIS LIBTARD AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS SITE THAT STILL THINKS VOTING FOR DEMS IN CALIFORNIA IS A GOOD IDEA?????



woodless does.
 
if not, he will when the libtard neighbors report him and they come take the guns away without him being able to defend himself or know who was the accuser because of an approved secret court.

None of this is in keeping with any portion of what the founders had in mind. Completely smacks of communism.
 
Actually my sister threatened to pull that on me because I was pushing for an audit to bank records when she had control of my father's money and was ripping us (my siblings) blind. She threatened me by saying that she was going to report me as a threat. Nobody who knows me has ever heard me shoot off my mouth with any association to using a gun for bodily harm, it is one thing I've seen too many people do in the heat of a moment and next thing you know the sheriffs have confiscated their guns and told them to take it up with a judge.

I took the proactive stance and contacted the police and district attorney, had she proceeded she might have found herself being prosecuted for making fraudulent claims, my mother warned her and told her she was not going to be happy with the outcome if she made false allegations like that.

Because I was not aware of this impending addition I am writing letters to all state assembly and senate members. From what I can see this is not a bill that will be likely to pass, as hard as it is to believe there is a strong contingent of democrats along with republicans that oppose this kind of over reach. That said there is also a surprising number of republicans that support idiotic bills, if it were not for democrats siding with pro gun positions we wouldn't even have guns in California. The original bill that did go through that enables family members to file actions actually has more protections in place than is indicated by articles that don't fully explain what the mechanism is, how it is applied, and steps designed to insure it isn't abused in a fraudulent manner. It is not as simple as a disgruntled family member getting at someone they are annoyed with and initiating gun confiscation, it takes supporting corroboration that there is indeed a risk. Most states have the ability to seize guns when someone makes threats that they will use a gun to settle matters, we all know that this is a mistake that will have bad outcomes.

In the first place, and this is an important distinction, this action is tied to people that already have a restraining order in response to their behavior. This county will not issue restraining orders if there is weak evidence of the need, and even when there is an RO issued it's another step to prove that there is reason to confiscate guns. Judges in this county seem to be opposed to readily issuing such orders.

And I completely agree that this new bill is trying to expand the existing bill way too far. If the house follows it's normal patterns it will be blocked. We do have politicians on both sides of the aisle that are sensibly pro gun. Unfortunately once liberals start going for something they don't quit. Both sides have a tendency toward that characteristic.
 
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZThe only way to stop the loss of your rights is to STOP electing the socialist that are doing it.



that is the part he and all the other liberals do not understand. it is sooooo simple. but they wear blinders and can not see it. woodless will vote for hillary just as sure as the sun rises in the east. he can not help it. he is part of the problem.
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruActually my sister threatened to pull that on me because I was pushing for an audit to bank records when she had control of my father's money and was ripping us (my siblings) blind. She threatened me by saying that she was going to report me as a threat. Nobody who knows me has ever heard me shoot off my mouth with any association to using a gun for bodily harm, it is one thing I've seen too many people do in the heat of a moment and next thing you know the sheriffs have confiscated their guns and told them to take it up with a judge.

I took the proactive stance and contacted the police and district attorney, had she proceeded she might have found herself being prosecuted for making fraudulent claims, my mother warned her and told her she was not going to be happy with the outcome if she made false allegations like that.

Because I was not aware of this impending addition I am writing letters to all state assembly and senate members. From what I can see this is not a bill that will be likely to pass, as hard as it is to believe there is a strong contingent of democrats along with republicans that oppose this kind of over reach. That said there is also a surprising number of republicans that support idiotic bills, if it were not for democrats siding with pro gun positions we wouldn't even have guns in California. The original bill that did go through that enables family members to file actions actually has more protections in place than is indicated by articles that don't fully explain what the mechanism is, how it is applied, and steps designed to insure it isn't abused in a fraudulent manner. It is not as simple as a disgruntled family member getting at someone they are annoyed with and initiating gun confiscation, it takes supporting corroboration that there is indeed a risk. Most states have the ability to seize guns when someone makes threats that they will use a gun to settle matters, we all know that this is a mistake that will have bad outcomes.

In the first place, and this is an important distinction, this action is tied to people that already have a restraining order in response to their behavior. This county will not issue restraining orders if there is weak evidence of the need, and even when there is an RO issued it's another step to prove that there is reason to confiscate guns. Judges in this county seem to be opposed to readily issuing such orders.

And I completely agree that this new bill is trying to expand the existing bill way too far. If the house follows it's normal patterns it will be blocked. We do have politicians on both sides of the aisle that are sensibly pro gun. Unfortunately once liberals start going for something they don't quit. Both sides have a tendency toward that characteristic.

And yet you vote for, proselytize for, and defend the very people that are doing this.

We are still waiting for you to explain this phenomenon woodless. Please explain how you can be a gun owner, and vote for these people.

We will wait.
 
If mixed with water, and churned, they can be sprayed on the fields of that said farmer in the fall for great crops in the spring.
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruActually my sister threatened to pull that on me because I was pushing for an audit to bank records when she had control of my father's money and was ripping us (my siblings) blind. She threatened me by saying that she was going to report me as a threat. Nobody who knows me has ever heard me shoot off my mouth with any association to using a gun for bodily harm, it is one thing I've seen too many people do in the heat of a moment and next thing you know the sheriffs have confiscated their guns and told them to take it up with a judge.

I took the proactive stance and contacted the police and district attorney, had she proceeded she might have found herself being prosecuted for making fraudulent claims, my mother warned her and told her she was not going to be happy with the outcome if she made false allegations like that.

Because I was not aware of this impending addition I am writing letters to all state assembly and senate members. From what I can see this is not a bill that will be likely to pass, as hard as it is to believe there is a strong contingent of democrats along with republicans that oppose this kind of over reach. That said there is also a surprising number of republicans that support idiotic bills, if it were not for democrats siding with pro gun positions we wouldn't even have guns in California. The original bill that did go through that enables family members to file actions actually has more protections in place than is indicated by articles that don't fully explain what the mechanism is, how it is applied, and steps designed to insure it isn't abused in a fraudulent manner. It is not as simple as a disgruntled family member getting at someone they are annoyed with and initiating gun confiscation, it takes supporting corroboration that there is indeed a risk. Most states have the ability to seize guns when someone makes threats that they will use a gun to settle matters, we all know that this is a mistake that will have bad outcomes.

In the first place, and this is an important distinction, this action is tied to people that already have a restraining order in response to their behavior. This county will not issue restraining orders if there is weak evidence of the need, and even when there is an RO issued it's another step to prove that there is reason to confiscate guns. Judges in this county seem to be opposed to readily issuing such orders.

And I completely agree that this new bill is trying to expand the existing bill way too far. If the house follows it's normal patterns it will be blocked. We do have politicians on both sides of the aisle that are sensibly pro gun. Unfortunately once liberals start going for something they don't quit. Both sides have a tendency toward that characteristic.


Good to know and thanks for the insight. Doesn't surprise me though that this starts in California.
 
Back
Top