Calif. bill would let authorities temporarily remove guns
By Kimberly Kindy, Washington Post
On Wednesday, in response to the Isla Vista shootings, a bill was introduced in the California Legislature that would give families, neighbors, friends and law enforcement the ability to appeal to a judge to temporarily remove firearms while a court determines a person’s competency.
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, who introduced Assembly Bill 1014, said it would function like a temporary restraining order, providing people who were the subject of the court action with due process rights to make their case to keep their firearms. If they did not prevail, they could also appeal to the court to have them returned at a later date, after the court deems the person to no longer be a threat to themselves or to others.
The bill would not give the court or authorities the ability to remove other weapons, like knives, which were used by Rodger to kill his two roommates as well as a college friend who was visiting the two young men.
“This is a common sense tool that could be used by a family member, a roommate or a concerned friend who saw clear warning signals that a person was a clear threat of violence to themselves or others,” Skinner said in an interview.
The legal language for the bill was drafted immediately after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School last year that left 20 children and six adult staff members dead. It was set aside, in favor of a package of other bills that seemed to have greater support at the time.
What about knives and cars? He used all 3 to injure and kill people.
@tahoeadvocate- You are parroting the Gun Industry’s political lobby-the NRA. Stop it.
I agrees about the emotional hysteria directed toward firearms after any of these incidents. Mass killings aren’t new – the 1st recorded incident in the now U.S. was in the 1700s. A new law is not the answer, especially the proposed one. Nothing is “temporary” where the government is concerned & California’s push to outlaw all firearms is well known.
Today, with the Brady Act & subsequent legislation, there is a means to remove firearms from certain individuals through due legal process. The VA, however, can do this WITHOUT due legal process – only an administrative ruling by a government bureaucrat. Note the “mental defective” reference. That means you don’t need to be considered dangerous, just impaired. Somebody who has suffered a stroke could fall into this category or an older person who needs help managing their affairs.
The list of “prohibited” persons is below. By the way, if a person falls into any of these categories, ALL individuals living under the same roof are also stripped of their Constitutional rights even though they would otherwise NOT be prohibited – guilt by association.
These categories include any person:
•Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
•convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
•who is a fugitive from justice;
•who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
•who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
•who is an illegal alien;
•who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
•who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
•who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
•who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).
GOOD, take the disgusting weapons away and melt them down and make something usefull out of the metal. GUNS SUCK, and so do the owners that think their right to own these ugly things trump the right of a innocent persons life.
“This is a common sense tool that could be used by a family member, a roommate or a concerned friend who saw clear warning signals that a person was a clear threat of violence to themselves or others.”
Indeed.
We are talking about weapons, not cars, thermometers, cell phones or knives. Guns are weapons that kill; not tools. As the 2nd Amendment says, A well regulated Militia.
This proposed law will permit any person to call you a threat and have legally owned firearms seized from law abiding citizens without proof of being a legitimate threat to anyone. It will waste valuable time of officers that are there for emergency purposes along with clogging up court calenders.And the fact is; we already have gun law incorporated in any restraining order. If a restraining order is issued against you, you are not allowed to own or posess any firearms. And people intent on inflicting death on others will always find a way, generally paying no attention to any laws. Boston Marathon bombers used powder from fireworks, shrapnel. Timothy McVeigh, fuel and fertilizer. 911 terrorists used jetliners. Enough history, A useful suggestion; require a “Gaurantor” or co-signer at point of sale on any firearm. For intance a family member, spouse, friend that could attest to the buyers mental stability. My guess is if a person has any mental/social issues it will be difficult to convince anyone to sign on their behalf. Maybe consider a limit on number of firearms can be one handgun per person, per household.