Californias 'gun violence restraining order'

[aztek]

SACRAMENTO Calif. (Reuters) - People who fear a close relative may commit gun violence will be able to petition a judge to temporarily remove the person's firearms in California, under a bill signed into law on Tuesday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

"The new 'Gun Violence Restraining Order' law will give families and law enforcement a needed tool to reduce the risk of mass shootings and gun violence both in the home and on our streets," said Nick and Amanda Wilcox, legislative co-chairs of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Brown also signed a bill on Tuesday requiring BB guns and pellet guns to be brightly colored or otherwise marked so that law enforcement officers do not mistake them for deadly firearms.

The bill was introduced after a 13-year-old Northern California boy was shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy while carrying a pellet gun that looked like an assault weapon.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-governor-signs-gun-violence-restraining-order-law-000947234.html

of course, just like any gun control law passed in usa it will make a diference..... NOT.

they can't take a gun they do not know about,

Edited October 1, 2014 by aztek

[Rafterman]

Instead of taking their guns, why not simply have them committed for psychiatric evaluation? If someone is contemplating such a killing spree, the issue isn't the gun, it's the mental stability of the individual. Unstable folks can do all kinds of horrible things without a gun even entering the picture.

Of course, mental health advocates would say such a measure would be turning back the clock 100 years to the time when folks could get people committed for pretty much anything.

[spartan max2]

I would agree with this bill if they did what raft man suggest. Have to have a clinical diagnoses after someone accuses you. No diagnoses then they can take your gun.

But at the same time I today's world they could pro ably diagnosis you with anything so it could be a slippery slopem

[Bama13]

Then of course there is the 2nd Amendment.

[aztek]

Instead of taking their guns, why not simply have them committed for psychiatric evaluation? If someone is contemplating such a killing spree, the issue isn't the gun, it's the mental stability of the individual. Unstable folks can do all kinds of horrible things without a gun even entering the picture.

Of course, mental health advocates would say such a measure would be turning back the clock 100 years to the time when folks could get people committed for pretty much anything.

going after mental health is going against medical cartel. in related news Mother Faces Jail For Giving Her Son Marijuana That Stopped His Seizures

[Rafterman]

On the upside, at least it was limited to relatives. I'm assuming that a spouse involved in a divorce proceeding wouldn't qualify as a close relative in that case.

From the linked article, I found this interesting:

The law also expanded the definition of a BB gun in California to include firearms that shoot pellets larger than 6 millimeters.

Anybody have any idea what this might mean? I was also under the impression that once "fire" was introduced to the definition then you had a firearm and it as no longer considered a BB gun/Pellet gun.

[aztek]

i guess .17 wrm is a bb gun than according to CA law.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On the upside, at least it was limited to relatives. I'm assuming that a spouse involved in a divorce proceeding wouldn't qualify as a close relative in that case.

From the linked article, I found this interesting:

The law also expanded the definition of a BB gun in California to include firearms that shoot pellets larger than 6 millimeters.

Anybody have any idea what this might mean? I was also under the impression that once "fire" was introduced to the definition then you had a firearm and it as no longer considered a BB gun/Pellet gun.

So Nerf Guns then.

[Wickian]

I would agree with this bill if they did what raft man suggest. Have to have a clinical diagnoses after someone accuses you. No diagnoses then they can take your gun.

But at the same time I today's world they could pro ably diagnosis you with anything so it could be a slippery slopem

A desire to keep your gun and exercise your 2nd amendment right could have you labeled as a right-wing gun-nut and thus unfit to own a weapon.

[Wickian]

On the upside, at least it was limited to relatives. I'm assuming that a spouse involved in a divorce proceeding wouldn't qualify as a close relative in that case.

From the linked article, I found this interesting:

The law also expanded the definition of a BB gun in California to include firearms that shoot pellets larger than 6 millimeters.

Anybody have any idea what this might mean? I was also under the impression that once "fire" was introduced to the definition then you had a firearm and it as no longer considered a BB gun/Pellet gun.

It's to prevent accidents that have happened in the past where realistic looking paintball/BB/Pellet guns have lead strangers and cops to mistake a person as being armed and resulted in cop calls, unwarranted arrests and sometimes even death-by-overzealous-cop when the teenager doesn't think he's doing anything wrong by not immediately complying when yelled at to "drop the gun" since he isn't carrying one in his mind.

I see nothing wrong with that particular part of the law, an orange barrel cap or other such things are logical to differentiate the toys from weapons.

[aztek]

I see nothing wrong with that particular part of the law, an orange barrel cap or other such things are logical to differentiate the toys from weapons.

when 15y.o. with airsoft gun was shot dead, the part that had orange cap was broken off, what a coincedence

[Rafterman]

It's to prevent accidents that have happened in the past where realistic looking paintball/BB/Pellet guns have lead strangers and cops to mistake a person as being armed and resulted in cop calls, unwarranted arrests and sometimes even death-by-overzealous-cop when the teenager doesn't think he's doing anything wrong by not immediately complying when yelled at to "drop the gun" since he isn't carrying one in his mind.

I see nothing wrong with that particular part of the law, an orange barrel cap or other such things are logical to differentiate the toys from weapons.

I get that part.

I'm asking about the "firearms that shoot pellets larger than 6mm". I always thought BB Guns and Pellet rifles were classified that way because they used compressed air or a spring to launch the projectile. Anything classified as a "firearm" is called that because it uses gunpowder. If it's a firearm (i.e. goes boom), why would they want it classified as a BB Gun?

Edited October 2, 2014 by Rafterman

[aztek]

I get that part.

I'm asking about the "firearms that shoot pellets larger than 6mm". I always thought BB Guns and Pellet rifles were classified that way because they used compressed air or a spring to launch the projectile. Anything classified as a "firearm" is called that because it uses gunpowder. If it's a firearm (i.e. goes boom), why would they want it classified as a BB Gun?

you do not really expect reporters to always have a clue about things they wright, do you????

[Rafterman]

you do not really expect reporters to always have a clue about things they wright, do you????

Yeah, I considered that as well after I wrote that. Not only reporters, but also politicians. I'm surprised they didn't call them "BB Assault Rifles".

[Beany]

Instead of taking their guns, why not simply have them committed for psychiatric evaluation? If someone is contemplating such a killing spree, the issue isn't the gun, it's the mental stability of the individual. Unstable folks can do all kinds of horrible things without a gun even entering the picture.

Of course, mental health advocates would say such a measure would be turning back the clock 100 years to the time when folks could get people committed for pretty much anything.

My mom held a loaded gun on me for a couple of hours when I was a toddler. She was mentally ill, I would say that while her mental illness was an issue, so was having easy access to a weapon. After that incident, there were never any weapons kept in our house. Here in CA a person can't be committed unless they are a danger to themselves or others, which is usually difficult to predict. My mom was planning on burning down her neighbors house because she believed they were communist spies zapping her with an x-ray gun. I alerted the police, they said there was nothing they could do. So yes, keeping weapons away from the mentally ill is important. It's not a universal panacea, but it helps. Strange that it's easier to keep weapons out of their hands than it is to force them to get help.

[Rafterman]

My mom held a loaded gun on me for a couple of hours when I was a toddler. She was mentally ill, I would say that while her mental illness was an issue, so was having easy access to a weapon. After that incident, there were never any weapons kept in our house. Here in CA a person can't be committed unless they are a danger to themselves or others, which is usually difficult to predict. My mom was planning on burning down her neighbors house because she believed they were communist spies zapping her with an x-ray gun. I alerted the police, they said there was nothing they could do. So yes, keeping weapons away from the mentally ill is important. It's not a universal panacea, but it helps. Strange that it's easier to keep weapons out of their hands than it is to force them to get help.

I would argue that if there is enough concern to take their firearms, then they are a danger to themselves and others.

As to parents harming their young children, I think we'd find that firearms were involved in a very (perhaps even insignificant) percentage of cases.

Again, I hope this new ruling is an honest attempt to address mental health issues and not simply an anti-gun smokescreen.

[Beany]

I would argue that if there is enough concern to take their firearms, then they are a danger to themselves and others.

As to parents harming their young children, I think we'd find that firearms were involved in a very (perhaps even insignificant) percentage of cases.

Again, I hope this new ruling is an honest attempt to address mental health issues and not simply an anti-gun smokescreen.

I like your argument about firearms, but law enforcement doesn't see it that way. Having lived with someone with a mental illness, I'm 100% behind keeping them away from guns. Here in California Reagan, when he was governor, closed almost all the mental health facilities and many of the patients ended up on the streets. That's still the case today, almost no mental health clinics and no treatments available. Ideally, people would receive treatment and care, and be supervised, so that any danger to the community would be diminished. Mentally ill people just shouldn't own guns, due to their diminished capacity.

[Bama13]

I like your argument about firearms, but law enforcement doesn't see it that way. Having lived with someone with a mental illness, I'm 100% behind keeping them away from guns. Here in California Reagan, when he was governor, closed almost all the mental health facilities and many of the patients ended up on the streets. That's still the case today, almost no mental health clinics and no treatments available. Ideally, people would receive treatment and care, and be supervised, so that any danger to the community would be diminished. Mentally ill people just shouldn't own guns, due to their diminished capacity.

So mentally ill people do not have the right to self-defense? Hmm...

[aztek]

apperantly not.

now, if such complaint comes, what will happen;

a, a person that made complaint is investigated. could be that someone in hosehold may want to get some one from same household in trobble.

b a person that was complained about, is investigated. the person of interest may be really a danger to themselves and others, or see above.

c all guns from the house removed first, than (if at all) investigation will be conducted.

Edited October 6, 2014 by aztek

[FLOMBIE]

So mentally ill people do not have the right to self-defense? Hmm...

Wait, a right to defend yourself or a right to bear arms?

[aztek]

good point actually, as much as i and i'm sure other pro gun people would hate the idea, but yet right to defend yourself, is not the same as right to bear arms.

i wonder if a household has guns that belong to person A that was complained about, and also guns of person B the one that complained, will all guns be removed, or just the person's A.

Edited October 6, 2014 by aztek

[spartan max2]

Wait, a right to defend yourself or a right to bear arms?

I count it as the same because it equalizes.

If your old a women or outnumbered a gun evens the field for you to defend yourself.so not letting them have that damages their ability to self defense.

Not that I disagree with this law. I just want it changed alittel

[Bama13]

Wait, a right to defend yourself or a right to bear arms?

A gun is your best option for self defense.

[Rafterman]

So mentally ill people do not have the right to self-defense? Hmm...

With any right, your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.

If someone is truly a danger to themselves and others, then, no, they do not have a right to have a firearm until such time as it is shown that they are no longer a threat.

In the case of someone like Adam Lanza, he should not have had access to firearms. And, frankly, law enforcement should have the legal authority with the right checks and balances in place to remove firearms from someone like him. Not permanently mind you and there has to be a method of recourse (we are talking about Constitutionally protected rights here after all), but actions should be able to be taken against someone who is an imminent threat to themselves and others.

[aztek]

In the case of someone like Adam Lanza, he should not have had access to firearms. And, frankly, law enforcement should have the legal authority with the right checks and balances in place to remove firearms from someone like him. Not permanently mind you and there has to be a method of recourse (we are talking about Constitutionally protected rights here after all), but actions should be able to be taken against someone who is an imminent threat to themselves and others.

the problem is lanza did not have any firearms regestered to him. all guns belonged to his mother, that was mentaly sound.

now imagine someone in school thinks your son is mentaly unhealthy, (while your son may be perfectly fine, and the complainer is the one that is nuts), and since he mentioned once that you have guns, so cops come to your house and take all YOUR guns away.

Edited October 6, 2014 by aztek