AB-1014 Gun violence restraining orders

[Phaeton80]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1014, as amended, Skinner. Gun violence restraining orders.

(1) Existing law regulates the sale, transfer, possession, and ownership of firearms, including prohibiting specified persons from owning or possessing firearms. Existing law, among other things, prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from owning or possessing a firearm while that order is in effect and if prohibited by that order.

This bill would establish a procedure to obtain a gun violence restraining order and, when applicable, a firearm seizure warrant, when a person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing a firearm. The bill would establish the requirements for obtaining a gun violence restraining order and a firearm seizure warrant and would require, not later than 14 days after the execution of a gun violence restraining order, and, when applicable, a firearm seizure warrant, a hearing to determine whether a person who is subject to the order may, among other things, own or possess a firearm, or whether the seized firearm should be returned.

If it is determined that the person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms, this bill would require law enforcement to retain the firearm for a period not to exceed one year, would make ownership or possession, the purchase or receipt, or attempted purchase or receipt of a firearm by that person a misdemeanor for a period up to one year, and would require the court to notify the Department of Justice, as specified. By creating a new crime and by requiring new duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to request a renewal of a gun violence restraining order if the agency has probable cause to believe that a person subject to that restraining order continues to pose a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing a firearm. This bill would additionally authorize a judge, upon his or her own motion, or upon request of another person, to issue a renewal of a gun violence restraining order, as specified.

(2) Existing law requires specified law enforcement officers to take temporary custody of any firearm or deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a lawful search when present at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or physical assault.

This bill would apply the requirements described above to law enforcement officers serving a gun violence restraining order.

(3) Existing law requires the Department of Justice to request public and private mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions to submit to the department information necessary to identify persons who are admitted to a specified facility because the person is a danger to himself, herself, or others, to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm. Existing law requires the department to only use the information for certain specified purposes.

This bill would require the department to use the above-described information to determine the eligibility of a person who is the subject to either a gun violence restraining order or a firearm seizure warrant to acquire, carry, or possess firearms, destructive devices, or explosives.

(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

..Was to be expected, given the numerous, endless 'events'. Opinions welcome.

[Bama13]

..Was to be expected, given the numerous, endless 'events'. Opinions welcome.

1) It is unconstitutional (it violates the 2nd amendment).

2) See #1.

[aztek]

don't we have similar laws already?? i think we do, again great effort for make nothing look like something.

not to mention in most cases if cops take your gun, you wont get it back, and if you do it will be broken, seen it happened, a friend of mine left guns at his local pcnt. due to move, for years he was fighting to get them back, he commited no crime, when he got them back, they were all destroyed.

[+DieChecker]

..Was to be expected, given the numerous, endless 'events'. Opinions welcome.

Wow. Someone can basically file a restraining order and depending on what Judge gets it on his desk, you just lost your right to OWN a weapon, much less carry one.

In my opinion a judge would have to have Felony level reasons to do this. Meaning, you'd have to already be a felon, or awaiting charges that are a high level felony, or have a history of violence, or mental imbalance, that was extensive, but un-prosecuted, before you should have this put on you.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1) It is unconstitutional (it violates the 2nd amendment).

2) See #1.

Than what the hell will stop the shootings?

Doing a "bad" something might actually be better then doing the "constitutionally right" thing in this case.

[aztek]

Than what the hell will stop the shootings?

good question, but new gun restrictive laws wont do a single thing.

[Bama13]

Than what the hell will stop the shootings?

Doing a "bad" something might actually be better then doing the "constitutionally right" thing in this case.

Nothing. If making something against the law stopped it from happening then we wouldn't have murders, robberies, rapes, etc. If I thought that new laws would actually stop the shootings I might support them but they won't, just like none of the dozens/hundreds/more laws we have now have stopped them.

[Rafterman]

Wow. Someone can basically file a restraining order and depending on what Judge gets it on his desk, you just lost your right to OWN a weapon, much less carry one.

In my opinion a judge would have to have Felony level reasons to do this. Meaning, you'd have to already be a felon, or awaiting charges that are a high level felony, or have a history of violence, or mental imbalance, that was extensive, but un-prosecuted, before you should have this put on you.

Considering that restraining orders are part and parcel of a good number of divorce proceedings, can you imagine if an attorney had the opportunity to request a "gun violence restraining order"?

[+DieChecker]

The problem as I see it, is that this does not just protect the person with the restraining order, but prevents the person hit with the restraining order from protecting themselves with a gun from the millions of other people around them.

[Phaeton80]

Than what the hell will stop the shootings?

Doing a "bad" something might actually be better then doing the "constitutionally right" thing in this case.

Question is, what has changed (since ~ the 90'ies) that might have caused this irratic behaviour, this crazy trend?

Possible causes:

* normalisation of psycho-active perscription drug use, (force) fed to our children if they exemplify any behaviour that is deemed 'undesirable' (example; energetic kids will be forced to take 'medicine' [read: psychactive prescription drugs] for their 'ADD disorder') enmasse;

* further cultivation of the individualisation in society - rife with disfunctional families; violence, selfishness and promiscuity are promoted as cool by media outlets (music, movies, games) which - logically - is ingraned in society more and more.

Possible solutions:

* end the ridiculous, massive and pervasive prescription (psychactive) drug use, especially when the brain is still developing (no one will even try to mention this given big pharma influence though);

* activate laws that would prohibit individuals who have committed violent crimes or have been incarcerated on account of psychological issues to acquire fire arms;

* hire two or three guards for any given school and arm them appriopriately, get as much citizens as possible to wear conceiled firearms legally in every State;

* use the machinations in place to condition people to reactivate ethics and morals as much as possible, make a conscious and long- term effort to protect the family unit.

In my opion, the problem here is not related to guns or gunlaws (or any other tool - which guns are), this is a (rather complex) societal problem.

These events are symptoms of an increasingly sick society, trying to resolve this situation by attacking the second amendment is highly illogical and will not result in anything resembling a real solution. Quite the opposite rather. In my opinion.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Phaeton80

[Rafterman]

Than what the hell will stop the shootings?

Doing a "bad" something might actually be better then doing the "constitutionally right" thing in this case.

What stops violent behavior anywhere? Nothing.

There have been several stabbing and arson deaths in the little town where I work. We also had a NY State Trooper intentionally hit and killed with a car two weeks ago.

[aztek]

What stops violent behavior anywhere?

a well placed bullet

[+DieChecker]

Is it just me, or did others grow up with stories out of the Wild West, where things were solved with a gun? It is NOT a new thing people. Americans have been acting the same as we do now for 200 years.

[Phaeton80]

[questionmark]

Is it just me, or did others grow up with stories out of the Wild West, where things were solved with a gun? It is NOT a new thing people. Americans have been acting the same as we do now for 200 years.

Not quite, history shows that there were many less guns in the Wild West as what we suppose. The myth of the wild west, created by dime book authors and later continued by Hollywood and TV, is what we talk about guns resolving problems. Yes, that happened, but much less than popular myth has it.

[aztek]

i said the same thing few times over the years, about wild west legends and myths, no one beleived me, well may they will believe you more.

Edited June 12, 2014 by aztek

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Nothing. If making something against the law stopped it from happening then we wouldn't have murders, robberies, rapes, etc. If I thought that new laws would actually stop the shootings I might support them but they won't, just like none of the dozens/hundreds/more laws we have now have stopped them.

Do nothing.

DO NOTHING.

What a brave step forward.

It is better to try something and fail then be appalled that nothing and changed.

[ninjadude]

Many gun nuts seem ok with the high number of their fellow citizens slaughtered.

[+DieChecker]

Many gun nuts seem ok with the high number of their fellow citizens slaughtered.

I'm fine with it.

The number is low enough that I think there are much bigger fish to fry.

[Phaeton80]

Do nothing.

DO NOTHING.

What a brave step forward.

It is better to try something and fail then be appalled that nothing and changed.

So you think the source of this specific problem actually is the availability of fire- arms?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So you think the source of this specific problem actually is the availability of fire- arms?

No, I honestly have no idea what the source of the problem is, but sometimes you have to stop the bleeding before you can find the cause.

Make guns harder to own.

Look at the facts of the Second Amendment. There's a HUGE difference between a musket held by a militiaman and an assault rifle held by a weekend warrior in Walmart.

Will that change anything? Stuffed if I know. Well, doing something like seems to have prevented spree killings in Oz after the one in Port Arthur. If it works on the small scale (Oz) maybe it'll work on the large scale (America).

[preacherman76]

Many gun nuts seem ok with the high number of their fellow citizens slaughtered.

Many anti gun nuts cant seem to understand that if you take the guns, the real slaughter begins. Like every place in this country where they are restricted.

And now that 0bama has said Australia is the model, you can bet your ass blood will be spilt at the next inch they try to take.

[preacherman76]

No, I honestly have no idea what the source of the problem is, but sometimes you have to stop the bleeding before you can find the cause.

Make guns harder to own.

Look at the facts of the Second Amendment. There's a HUGE difference between a musket held by a militiaman and an assault rifle held by a weekend warrior in Walmart.

Will that change anything? Stuffed if I know. Well, doing something like seems to have prevented spree killings in Oz after the one in Port Arthur. If it works on the small scale (Oz) maybe it'll work on the large scale (America).

Why so we can be like London where you are 5 times more likely to be murdered then any place in the US with little gun restriction? At least then when criminals murder you, it wont be with a gun, right??

[Bama13]

Do nothing.

DO NOTHING.

What a brave step forward.

It is better to try something and fail then be appalled that nothing and changed.

Oh yes, let's do something even though it won't work. Brilliant. Doing nothing beats the hell out of doing something that is wrong. All these laws do is make is harder for law abiding citizens to get firearms. Criminals don't care about breaking the law. Like throwing water on an electrical fire sometimes doing something actually makes matters worse.

[preacherman76]

Oh yes, let's do something even though it won't work. Brilliant. Doing nothing beats the hell out of doing something that is wrong. All these laws do is make is harder for law abiding citizens to get firearms. Criminals don't care about breaking the law. Like throwing water on an electrical fire sometimes doing something actually makes matters worse.

Very true. Besides, I know I want to do something. I want to take away restrictions in places where people cant own guns. Like every other place that has, crime goes down. Id also like to see security guards and teachers willing to be trained to carry fire arms at work as well.