Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I asked you a question I didn't make a statement. If you don't want to answer it just say so but my questions are certainly relevent to this conversation. It is however telling that you think that if the person who is petitioned against doesn't get their gun confiscated then hey, no big deal right? Or did I not understand you correctly?Non sequitur fallacy.Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? How about placed under surveillance? Had your privacy invaded unlawfully?Wrong.CA ADVANCES BILL TO ALLOW BOSSES, CO-WORKERS TO FILE GUN SEIZURE ORDERS
The California Assembly on Monday advanced a bill to add school faculty, employers and co-workers to the list of people who can ask a judge to take away someone’s guns.
The measure, AB 61, passed the Assembly in a Democrat-heavy 54-16 vote and now heads to the state Senate. It would greatly expand who can file for a Gun Violence Restraining Order in the state under California’s so-called “red flag law.”
Adopted in 2014, the current law allows the seizure of firearms– for up to 21 days– from an otherwise legal gun owner who is believed to pose a “significant danger.” This initial order could be extended for as long as a year if the situation warrants while filing a false petition is a misdemeanor offense. As it stands, just law enforcement and immediate family can seek such an order. AB 61 would expand this to include school employees such as guidance counselors and teachers as well as the employers and co-workers of a subject.
Second Amendment groups such as the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of California, who have long felt the orders were a dangerous pathway to gun confiscation without delivering any promise of treatment for someone in legitimate crisis, are opposed to the expansion.
According to the state Department of Justice, GVROs have been issued 614 times from 2016 to the end of 2018.
Oh, look -- just as I've said, a Red Flag law getting "adjusted" so that anyone can declare any gun owner a threat and have his/her weapons confiscated.
Because, naturally, anyone who owns firearms is a threat, right?
Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean his gun will be confiscated.
Speaking of ridiculous lies, you shouldn't tell them.This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.CA ADVANCES BILL TO ALLOW BOSSES, CO-WORKERS TO FILE GUN SEIZURE ORDERS
The California Assembly on Monday advanced a bill to add school faculty, employers and co-workers to the list of people who can ask a judge to take away someone’s guns.
The measure, AB 61, passed the Assembly in a Democrat-heavy 54-16 vote and now heads to the state Senate. It would greatly expand who can file for a Gun Violence Restraining Order in the state under California’s so-called “red flag law.”
Adopted in 2014, the current law allows the seizure of firearms– for up to 21 days– from an otherwise legal gun owner who is believed to pose a “significant danger.” This initial order could be extended for as long as a year if the situation warrants while filing a false petition is a misdemeanor offense. As it stands, just law enforcement and immediate family can seek such an order. AB 61 would expand this to include school employees such as guidance counselors and teachers as well as the employers and co-workers of a subject.
Second Amendment groups such as the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of California, who have long felt the orders were a dangerous pathway to gun confiscation without delivering any promise of treatment for someone in legitimate crisis, are opposed to the expansion.
According to the state Department of Justice, GVROs have been issued 614 times from 2016 to the end of 2018.
Oh, look -- just as I've said, a Red Flag law getting "adjusted" so that anyone can declare any gun owner a threat and have his/her weapons confiscated.
Because, naturally, anyone who owns firearms is a threat, right?
They (the Democrats) promised us (gun owners) they would never "come for our guns". Now the enemy is at the gate. So we must ask ourselves, who is the enemy of the American People? I fear the day when mandatory surrender of all firearms is passed into federal law. That'll be the day we surrender, one handloaded round at a time.
Democrats don't want to take anyone's guns, the notion is a ridiculous lie.
No one believes the right's ridiculous lies and demogogery.
Oh, shut up, you self-important stuffed shirt.The thread premise is a lie, nothing but rightwing demagoguery, completely devoid of fact or evidence.
This is also factually wrong, judges issue orders to authorize the temporary sequestering firearms, not bosses and co-workers.CA ADVANCES BILL TO ALLOW BOSSES, CO-WORKERS TO FILE GUN SEIZURE ORDERS
The California Assembly on Monday advanced a bill to add school faculty, employers and co-workers to the list of people who can ask a judge to take away someone’s guns.
The measure, AB 61, passed the Assembly in a Democrat-heavy 54-16 vote and now heads to the state Senate. It would greatly expand who can file for a Gun Violence Restraining Order in the state under California’s so-called “red flag law.”
Adopted in 2014, the current law allows the seizure of firearms– for up to 21 days– from an otherwise legal gun owner who is believed to pose a “significant danger.” This initial order could be extended for as long as a year if the situation warrants while filing a false petition is a misdemeanor offense. As it stands, just law enforcement and immediate family can seek such an order. AB 61 would expand this to include school employees such as guidance counselors and teachers as well as the employers and co-workers of a subject.
Second Amendment groups such as the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of California, who have long felt the orders were a dangerous pathway to gun confiscation without delivering any promise of treatment for someone in legitimate crisis, are opposed to the expansion.
According to the state Department of Justice, GVROs have been issued 614 times from 2016 to the end of 2018.
Oh, look -- just as I've said, a Red Flag law getting "adjusted" so that anyone can declare any gun owner a threat and have his/her weapons confiscated.
Because, naturally, anyone who owns firearms is a threat, right?
So the judge is able to telepathically determine whether the person is a threat or not? No investigation involved, no looking into the gun owner's background, no intrusions and violation of their privacy all for something that is NOT a crime? Something that is in fact protected by the U.S. Contstitution?This is also factually wrong, judges issue orders to authorize the temporary sequestering firearms, not bosses and co-workers.
And if a judge determines that there is insufficient evidence to order the temporary sequestering of firearms, then there is no adverse action taken against the gun owner, regardless of the desire of the boss or co- worker.
