California Bill Would Permit Secret Seizure of Firearms, Based on a Single Complaint

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Octoldit, Jul 3, 2016.

  1. Octoldit
    Offline

    Octoldit VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Thanks Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +363
    By Rachel Blevins -
    [​IMG]
    Photo: AFP/RT
    The California state Senate sees their share of interesting and controversial legislation proposals. One of the most recent bills, Assembly Bill No. 1014, is one which, if passed, would permit the secret seizure of a California state resident’s guns, after just one complaint that they pose a risk of committing an act of violence.

    California Assembly members Das Williams, a Democrat from Carpinteria, and Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley, first introduced the legislation last year. Favor of the bill increased after the Isla Vista shooting rampage on May 23, when the shooter’s mother claimed she had raised concerns about her son’s mental state, but no action had been taken.

    Even if no crime had been committed, the bill states that it would permit a court to issue an “ex parte gun violence restraining order,” along with a firearm seizure warrant based solely on the “reckless use, display, or brandishing” of firearms, or on the “recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.

    According to the bill, the petition for a restraining order on ownership of firearms can be filed by “An immediate family member, licensed therapist, or licensed health care provider,” and any individual who knowingly files a false petition “with the intent to harass” will be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs, but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more,” argued Skinner. “Parents, like the mother who tried to intervene, deserve an effective tool they can act on to help prevent these tragedies.”

    The President of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Brandon Coombs, wrote a letter in opposition of the bill, stating, “Good intentions do not make a law constitutional and this bill is plainly unconstitutional.”

    Coombs took issue with the fact that the bill would allow individuals to be stripped of their firearms, without notice, based only on the allegations of another individual. “People cannot be denied their constitutional right to acquire and possess firearms based on secret proceedings,” wrote Coombs.

    The Berkeley City Council also wrote a letter, however, it was in favor of the bill. They compared it to existing laws in Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas that allow “for the removal of firearms from individuals who are at risk for committing acts of violence,” and argued that it would give “families and law enforcement with new legal tools for temporarily restricting the ability of individuals who pose a significant risk of personal injury to themselves or others to possess firearms.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) was among the organizations opposing the bill. Charles H. Cunningham, the Director of State and Local Affairs for the NRA, wrote a letteron behalf of the association. He called the bill, “one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties ever introduced in the California legislature.”

    One of Cunningham’s major issues with the bill was with the fact that anyone would have the right to file for a restraining order and to obtain a restraining order against someone they “think” shouldn’t own a firearm.

    Cunningham pointed out that, “a disgruntled neighbor, a former employee, an ex-girlfriend or any other scorned or vindictive individual,” would be given the right to “the deprivation of a law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as well as his or her Fourth Amendment right to be free from improper searches and seizures.”

    Another part of the bill Cunningham disagreed with was the fact that it “affords lawful gun owners no opportunity to be heard before their firearms are confiscated.

    “The idea that police officers will be legally obligated to treat citizens who, in many cases, aren’t even accused of a crime as dangerous, armed individuals is a new and disturbing innovation in the law,” wrote Cunningham.

    Source: California Bill Would Permit Secret Seizure of Firearms, Based on a Single Complaint
    LINK: www.octoldit.info/communism
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Dale Smith
    Offline

    Dale Smith Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    14,068
    Thanks Received:
    3,087
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Ratings:
    +17,447

    Do not contract with this corporate "gubermint". They do not pass laws because they are a corporate entity thus they pass acts, statutes and codes. They can only "contract" with your legal fiction which is your ALL CAPS name....your strawman as it were. They can only enforce these acts, statutes and codes by your implied consent.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    42,415
    Thanks Received:
    9,156
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +25,161
    “California Bill Would Permit Secret Seizure of Firearms, Based on a Single Complaint”

    Wrong, this is a lie.

    “Police or immediate family members must persuade a judge to sign off on what is called a gun violence restraining order, which lasts up to 21 days, but can be extended.”

    New California Law Lowers the Bar for Gun Seizures

    There’s already a thread on this where the lie propagated by this thread was debunked.

    Firearms cannot be sequestered absent a court order, where a neutral magistrate will determine if such an action is warranted, affording the gun owner his comprehensive due process rights.

    It’s also a lie to say the firearm will be ‘confiscated,’ given the fact the firearm will be returned to the owner.
     
  4. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    72,397
    Thanks Received:
    6,076
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +20,604
    Another lying gun nut making the rest of us gun owners look like foolish fools.
     
  5. LenKeis
    Offline

    LenKeis Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    41
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +60
    When you understand how to rebut the presumption of consent and properly take control over your ens legis [strawman] then you can shut down the gun grabbing government traitors in their treasonous tracks by enforcing the state constitution on them.

    I quickly reviewed the Constitution of California of 1879 and found to two clauses that could be used:

    From Article I.

    Sec.3
    (4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7. - See more at: Constitution of the State of California 1879 - CONS Art. 1, § 3 | FindLaw

    Sec. 6.  Slavery is prohibited.  Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.

    I'm sure I could find many more if I looked deeply enough.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. LenKeis
    Offline

    LenKeis Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    41
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +60
    What you sited as the correct information is in fact a violation of the constitutionally protected right of lawful due process. A magistrate signing a court order is NOT lawful due process.
     

Share This Page