Yesterday, Dave Workman discussed a new gun law in California that lets family members obtain restraining orders that temporarily prohibit gun ownership for relatives who “they believe” might commit a violent act.
That law, which is set to go into effect on January 1, will also let authorities seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there’s potential for violence, the Washington Times reported Tuesday.
The Times added:
Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that allowing that person to possess a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”
Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?
“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” said Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”
“This must be what Barack Obama had in mind when he spoke of ‘common sense’ measures to control gun violence, Ben Bowles wrote at Liberty Unyielding.
The law is in response to a May 2014 shooting in which Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree at UCSB.
Rodger left behind a manifesto, titled “My Twisted World,” which he emailed to a dozen acquaintances and family members. The document explained essentially that his intent was to punish women for rejecting him and sexually active men for living a more enjoyable life than his.
It was obviously, Roger’s manifesto and a YouTube video he uploaded before embarking on his killing spree that California lawmakers had in mind when they drafted legislation that refers to “potential for violence.”
The problem with this language is that is overly broad and its application is seldom timely. Rodger, for example, made his manifesto available to his chosen recipients after it was already too late to stop him.
Second Amendment advocates say the law isn’t needed and could cause more problems than it’s designed to prevent.
“We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy,” said Sam Paredes, the executive director of Gun Owners of California.
If legislators were honest, however, they would call it what it really is — another effort to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. “If,” however, is a mighty big word…
- New gun laws take effect in Texas, California on Jan. 1
- HR-4269: A bill to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited
- Every Mass Shooting in the US Since the 1950s Except Two Occurred in Gun Free Zones
- Rutgers professor blames UCSB killings on white privilege
- Sheriff warns of second American revolution if gun confiscation laws pass