(courtesy lgoa.org)

Press release from the Liberal Gun Owners Association (LGOA):

OAKLAND – The Liberal Gun Owners Association (LGOA) called upon California Governor Jerry Brown to veto AB 1014 (Skinner), a bill that establishes a “gun restraining order” in response to the Isla Vista shooting. “This unconstitutional, unaffordable, unproven and unworkable bill could cause the very tragedies it is meant to prevent,” said LGOA President Eric Wooten. “Thirty years of a failed war on drugs should have taught us that instead of punishing people for their human frailties, we have a duty to help them.” AB 1014 provides . . .

an enormous disincentive for gun owners (or those merely considering gun ownership) to seek professional or familial help by criminalizing mental and substance-abuse problems, forcing Californians to choose between their right to confidential medical treatment and their other civil liberties.

AB1014 is modeled on a Connecticut law that was in place before the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place. That law couldn’t prevent that tragedy and may have contributed the self-imposed isolation of the Lanza family.

“Half of the Isla Vista murder victims didn’t die from gunfire. The only thing that would have stopped that event from happening was for a troubled young man to get the treatment he so obviously needed long before he committed those murders,” said Wooten. “This bill makes troubled gun owners more isolated, exacerbating the problem it is meant to address.”

The Liberal Gun Owners Association (LGOA) is a California nonprofit advocating for the rights of gun owners, from a leftist perspective. For more information, see LGOA.org or our affiliated comrades at theliberalgunclub.org.

# # #

———————-
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 558-3160
September 1, 2014

RE: AB 1014 (Skinner)
Position: OPPOSE

Dear Governor Brown,

You have the well-earned reputation for deliberative and farsighted leadership, and I firmly believe if you consider the larger ramifications of AB 1014 (Skinner), you will veto this dangerous bill.

In addition to being unconstitutional, unaffordable, unproven and unworkable, this bill could cause the very tragedies it is meant to prevent.

AB 1014 provides an enormous disincentive for gun owners (or those merely considering gun ownership) to seek professional or familial help by criminalizing mental and substance-abuse problems, thereby pushing further into darkness those who need help the most.

This bill forces citizens to choose between their right to confidential medical treatment and their other civil liberties. Thirty years of a failed war on drugs should have taught us that instead of punishing people for their human frailties, we have a duty to help them.

AB1014 is modeled on Connecticut law that was in place before the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place. Maybe that law didn’t cause the Lanzas to become the isolated household of gun owners they were, but it certainly didn’t get them the help they so obviously needed. It also failed to take guns out of the hands of a dangerous individual.

The proponents of AB 1014 will tell you that it is meant to stop another tragedy like the one that occurred in Isla Vista, but half of those murder victims didn’t die from gunfire. The only thing that would have stopped that event from happening was for a troubled young man to get the treatment he so obviously needed long before he committed those murders.

The financial impact this bill will have on an already over-burdened court system is no minor issue either.

Despite recent funding improvements, domestic-violence cases and restraining orders are still suffering because of an overworked court system. Long lines, court employees unable to help victims complete complicated forms, processing delays and elimination of court reporters have all adversely affected these cases.

This bill adds significant burdens to the court system without any additional funding, meaning it could further jeopardize the safety of domestic-violence victims.

Instead of focusing efforts on the chronic root causes of social ills, AB1014 is a giant step backward for both civil liberties and mental-health policy.

We strongly urge you to veto this dangerous bill.

Recommended For You

42 Responses to Liberal Gun Owners to Gov. Brown: Veto Gun Violence Restraining Order Bill

    • Not yet. And there is hope that Governor Moonbeam will veto it. Check this from yesterday’s Huffington Post, which never met a gun control bill it didn’t like. Until this one:

      The bill has made it to Governor Brown’s desk but I’m a little worried about it in its current form. The reason is that it’s weak in one critical area. Properly designed laws – particularly additions to the penal code – constrain the span of that law. Specifically, they should pay close attention to preventing unintended misuses of that law. AB 1014 pays lip service to the worry that a relative may try to falsely accuse a person or convince a relative to do so. It creates a misdemeanor penalty for doing but it’s one that has no teeth. There’s no specified penalty. Well there is, a falsely accusing police officer could be found guilty and that would end their career. Prosecutors have total discretion to ignore abuses and the judge could do nothing more than wag a finger at you. That tells me it was placed there with too little thought. The sparse paragraph sticks out of an otherwise highly detailed piece of legislation designed to facilitate rapid, clean up the mess later, action should a mentally ill person burble at the tipping point of active violence.

      • Here’s a thought: if this passes, why not file a restraining order on the governor for infringing on our 2A rights?

        • It’s limited to family. Some had that idea and the limitation of family was added.

    • It has passed both houses. Gov. Brown has 30 days to sign or veto the bills presented to him.
      Let’s not forget SB199, and SB808 also passed.

  1. Coming soon to a state near you, pushed by an unholy alliance of feminists and gun control advocates.

    Expect to hear a lot of “if you’re against this measure to protect women you’re a misogynist” twaddle.

  2. “Dear Governor Brown,
    You have the well-earned reputation for deliberative and farsighted leadership…”

    Too bad I don’t have any boots to wear. It’s getting deep!

  3. Good for them. Sadly, they will probably be ignored since they are too few and can’t move many democrats off their reflexive anti gun religion.

  4. We can hope all we want, but I think Moonbeam will be grabbing for his pen like a horny virgin looking for a dollar at the nudie bar.

  5. While this is a gun rights issue, it’s an even bigger civil rights issue.

    If this becomes law, any jerk with an ax to grind can report you and you will have your rights denied with but the mere facade of due process. In the process of a divorce or neighborly dispute, this legal mechanism will be “weaponized” against people.

    Juxtapose this reality with the fact a crazy person can tell their therapist “I want to kill people” and that threat isn’t specific enough for the therapist to flag them (elliot roger). If they wanted to do something sensible they should relax the privacy restrictions on the therapists. But they don’t want to do something sensible, they want to attack gun rights.

  6. After badmouthing Democrats in another thread, I gotta give these guys a compliment. Their objection is well stated. Good luck to them, and to California.

    • The problem is also that liberal progressives vote for anti-gun Democrats in the first place. I appreciate their pro-gun efforts, but not their anti-gun votes.

      • That is THE true problem with CA politics. The sheeple low information voters have little to no clue, and mostly don’t care about the long term ramifications of their voting decisions. Fashionable ‘popularity’ and ‘what’s in it for me’ sets their standards for choosing how to vote. If it doesn’t affect them personally, they probably won’t even show up at the polls, which you would think would help us pro gunners, but there are just so many unthinking Democrat voters in this state, it’s a huge hurdle to overcome.

        Then add to that the way too many apathetic pro-gunners that exist amongst us; it’s like the sheeple mentality is contagious.

      • Yep, there are plenty of Democrat citizens who are reliably pro-gun rights in their views, but Democrat politicians cannot be counted on on this issue, even the ones who claim to be pro-gun. It’s a major reason I’ll never vote for any Democrat for the rest of my life.

  7. I am pretty sure he does not want to alienate countless registered democrats as well as republicans since that would mean that he would face bipartisan efforts to remove him.

  8. the bigger question is whether there is an indiviudal disclosure requirement outside of the gun context. . . . ie, on a job application “Have you ever been the subject of a Gun Violence Restraining Order”? Oh we can have fun with the civil liberties crap storm that opens up (employers using the fact that one was made against you as a basis to deny a job regardless of whether it was found credible or upheld).

    • Wouldn’t kill the bill though. They would ask for a 15 year stay to ‘preserve status quo’ and then mandate that businesses can’t ask about it.

  9. Jerry M. Brown isn’t totally illogical these days, and has shown his willingness to veto ineffectual or totally unreasonable anti-gun measures in the past.

    This bill is problematic and I’m sure Brown recognizes the failings of Democrat Skinner’s idea of an anti-gun wet dream.

    • Skinner, like De Leon, are both incompetent at crafting real legislation. Their rabid demand for further legislation on everything in this state has caused the plethora of issues we currently face. Their lack of gun knowledge is quite mind numbing. They are dictated what to write. They can’t even defend their bills properly.

      • After Brown, if Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris ascend to the governorship, idiots like DeLeon and Skinner won’t have to worry much about such minor inconveniences as defending their anti-gun bills.

      • +1. Here is DeLeon trying to explain: (h/t Guns.com) and see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0

        “In his attempt to rally support for his soon-to-be-dead bill, De Leon points out some of the more notable features of the one-of-a-kind rifle.

        “This is a ‘ghost gun.’ This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty, magazine, clip, in half a second,” he said.”

  10. I’m glad that every member of the Liberal Gun Owners Sewing Circle signed this letter. I’m sure it will move the needle.

    Let’s face it: in a state where Kevin de Moron is the next president of the state senate, anything stupid — like this gun restraining order bill — is not only possible, but expected.

    • Yes, it does sometime affect how people, even us damn liburals, vote.

      My RTKBA is what the political scientist types call a ‘high salience’ issue — meaning that even if I agree with a politician on every other issue, I’m likely to vote against him or her if we differ on second amendment issues.

      Of course, it’s not just gun laws that have me fed up with the California legislature. There’s a long list of issues.

      Let me put it this way:

      I was a red-diaper baby. I’m — at least in principle — a dedicated Marxist. I own a copy of Mao’s little red book, and my Che Guevara t-shirt is worn non-ironically. It’s almost certain that I am to the left of you and almost anyone you know.

      So what could possibly make me vote for a Republican? The California Democratic party.

  11. As I understand it this bill is probably unconstitutional and will probably be proven so if it passes. All someone would need to do to perform a search without a warrant is to have anyone accuse someone of harassing them or stalking them. After that it the police could search the accussed’s home without a warrant. Will never stand up in a higher court IMO. So ,why go the expense of having the State fight it out in the first place? Also, if overturned in the future, any arrests made using this law would likely also be overturned. Because of that the law sounds like complete trash. What idiot lawyer came up with this travesty?

  12. I’m reminded of the KPBS radio show interview with RF and Assywmn Skinner. In the preface to that, she claimed she had been working on the bill for months before, to get more LEO training for how to handle the mentally ill –

    (remember that Santa Barbara County Sheriffs had visited Elliot Rodgers at the request of his mother, to do a welfare check, and left, both without checking the NICs that would have shown two recent handgun purchases, or the interior of his apartment- and Rodgers confessed in one of his later youtubes that they “would have found him” out if they did).

    and more funding for the grossly inadequate by number and quality of mental health facilities in California. Right now, the best the cops can do is drop someone at the emergency room and hope the attending physician writes up a 5150 hold, whereupon that person can be hospitalized for 72 hours.

    Otherwise, the mentally ill without support live under bridges, in alleys like LA Skid Row, or in wooded gullies and canyons where they are preyed upon by other mentally ill, and criminals.

    The comments on the KPBS forum initially showed the same kinds of concerns by listeners who identifed themselves as social workers, therapists, law enforcement.

    Heres that comment section, now, with top comments- scroll down to one by RL Ctoo:
    http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201405290900

    So, All that “months of work by Assywmn Skinner for LEO and facility funding”, went by the wayside as more glory grabbing Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, and Skinners bill turned into another poorly crafted gun-grab masquerading as help to the mentally ill.

  13. Whats really outrageous about Sacramento is these fools dont even care who they hurt, in their quest for more glory,

    neither the mentally ill who WONT be served by this,
    nor the law-abiding whose due process will be lost by abuse of the restraining orders,
    nor the cops and courts whose time will be tied up even more,
    handling the seizures and resulting appeals and procedural mess this will create.

    The CA legislature is THE DEFINITION of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

  14. So if California’s governor signs this bill and some spurned ex turns homicidal against an armed ex they can get the government to help them with a court order to disarm their intended victim?

    Aren’t the anti’s the ones always talking about how we shouldn’t be helping all those “homicidal ex’s”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *