Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

AB-1014 Gun violence restraining orders

ab1014 legislation law gunlaw gun constitution bill

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#1    Phaeton80

Phaeton80

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam

  • "Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.."

Posted 11 June 2014 - 07:08 PM

Quote


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.legis...201320140AB1014


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


#2    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 11 June 2014 - 07:47 PM

View PostPhaeton80, on 11 June 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

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

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

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#3    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,098 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 11 June 2014 - 08:14 PM

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.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#4    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 June 2014 - 08:25 PM

View PostPhaeton80, on 11 June 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

..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.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#5    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,775 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 12 June 2014 - 08:21 AM

View PostBama13, on 11 June 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

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.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#6    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,098 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 12 June 2014 - 12:37 PM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 12 June 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Than what the hell will stop the shootings?

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

RESIDENT TROLL.

#7    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 12 June 2014 - 01:59 PM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 12 June 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

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.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#8    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 12 June 2014 - 02:19 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 June 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

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"?

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#9    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 12 June 2014 - 04:29 PM

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.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#10    Phaeton80

Phaeton80

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam

  • "Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.."

Posted 12 June 2014 - 04:57 PM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 12 June 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

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 by Phaeton80, 12 June 2014 - 05:06 PM.


#11    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:15 PM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 12 June 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

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.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#12    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,098 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:18 PM

View PostRafterman, on 12 June 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

What stops violent behavior anywhere?  
a well placed bullet

RESIDENT TROLL.

#13    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 12 June 2014 - 08:13 PM

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.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#14    Phaeton80

Phaeton80

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam

  • "Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.."

Posted 12 June 2014 - 08:18 PM




#15    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 12 June 2014 - 08:24 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 12 June 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

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.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me





Also tagged with ab1014, legislation, law, gunlaw, gun, constitution, bill

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users