Isla Vista Victims’ Families Celebrate California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order

Richard Martinez is the father of Christopher Michaels-Martinez. After spree-killer Elliot Rodger shot and killed his son at the Isla Vista, California Deli Mart, his father famously told the media “Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. When will enough people say, ‘Stop this madness; we don’t have to live like this?’ Too many have died. We should say to ourselves: ‘Not one more.'” “Not one more” became a rallying cry for civilian disarmament advocates, who rammed through CA’s new Gun Violence Restraining Order. Under the new law, family members can convince a judge to order police to confiscate their relative’s firearms – without the gun owners’ prior knowledge. In a ceremony to celebrate the box-fresh disarmament directive, Mr. Martinez inadvertently highlighted the bill’s vast potential for abuse . . .

People need to understand that his law is now available to people and if friends have concerns they should contact the immediate family members who have the potential to invoke this procedure.

Uh, what? If people have concerns that someone is a danger to themselves or other innocent life they should contact the police. Who, by the way, have – and already had – the ability to take a dangerous or suicidal individual into 72-hour protective custody, separating that individual from ANY potential weapon AND potential victims. [Note: Rodger killed as many people with edged weapons as he did with firearms.] According to statute 5150:

If someone is placed on a 72-hour hold (also known as a “5150”) as a danger to themselves or others and admitted to a facility for treatment, they are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms for five years from the date of admission to the facility. (California Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 8100 – 8108)

So why did California need the Gun Violence Restraining Order? Especially when the new process denies Americans their right to due process, opening-up the certainty of abuse by disgruntled family members and spouses (false or misleading testimony to the ruling judge is a misdemeanor)? Why indeed.

Saying that, no less than four policemen visited Elliot Rodger before he went postal, after his parents expressed concerns about his mental state. But my main point remains. Strangers asking family members to disarm their relatives. What could possibly go wrong?

comments

  1. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    …without gun owners prior knowledge…

    So tell me, when the po po come roping down on someone who has guns, how do you think that is going to end ? Does self-fulfilling prophesy ring a bell ?

    I will like to see how much farther the moronic laws of slave states can go.

    1. avatar Frank Masotti says:

      Ironically you say slave states. The first gun laws in this country were enacted to prevent free slaves from owning guns. The Southern states did not want free slaves from coming back and shooting their former owners, or something like that. So it CAN be said if you are for gun control you are historically for slavery. In my humble opinion.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      ++ two things haven’t changed since their invention, 1) Human Nature and 2) Physics. Where there is human interaction between two or more people (nearly unavoidable in the Universe) Noone can protect you from anyone else at the individual level (not even in Federal Prison). It is not just WRONG it is WRONGFUL for someone to claim otherwise, especially while asking you to give up your means of doing so for yourself, and/or asking for the expenditure of your efforts and treasure to aid them in doing so. [Loosely Paraphrased] TERMS, J.M.Thomas R., 2012

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        When forming interactive societies one maxim maintains the balance of individuals when
        commingled pairs form larger groups.
        That maxim is simply:

        ‘I WILL NOT PAY TO RAISE-UP AN ARMY AGAINST MYSELF’.

        Again, society, though pluralistic in speech, exists singularly between individuals, a “pair” of people.
        However, people exist in great numbers, in groups, both vastly divided and in close proximity. Because of both human and natural factors, people can be compelled to live and work together. However, they cannot be caused to exist long together outside of societal agreement, no matter the compunction. Obvious examples of this can easily be found throughout human history when there is widespread natural disaster, or persistent catastrophic loss of basic “human need” resources.
        The basic societal unit is defined by illimitably sustainable conflict, the equal pressure applied between individuals (again, a “pair”) and the abandonment of the idea peace [1] [as an obtainable permanent relief from vigilance against threat] [2].

        Carl Von Clausewitz, in his treatise “On War” wrote that peace should only be sought, and can only be relied upon, when it was certain that the other party would never resort to arms. The full presentation on societal agreement is spelled out in slightly greater detail in the essay “Society” [3].
        Although human interaction is full of compromise [one frequently may have to support the personally distasteful to obtain that which is personally acceptable or required] an individual cannot be expected to compromise to the point at which they become compromised. Meaning, that it is ignorance of human nature to assume that a person will, without great twist of truth or physical compulsion, surrender their personal objectives sought in forming a societal agreement [4].
        Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
        Guards for their future security” [5].

        It is hoped that this is the case. Although, it can be more factually substantiated that members of a society are more likely to continue in comingled pairs when it is believed, by one party, that the other is in concurrence (or will quickly and inconsequentially return to concurrence). It can therefore be logically inferred that what is contradictory to a society or at the very least indebted to the support of (by) the self-supported tenets of society, while covert is a minority, and that which is self-supportive is silent until it is believed that it is threatened by nonmutually supportive societal pressure (is in the majority).

        It is dangerously and abruptly the cause of the dissolution of society to find that this is not the case , i.e., that the other party was unsupportive, and that in fact the other party was intentionally furthering the notion of mutual compliance in an attempt to obfuscate subversive efforts in opposition to it.

        More plainly, the weak, the lazy and the intentionally contradictory are often the most brazen in their efforts to lessen the requirements of societal agreement[s] (personal responsibility) [6] whereas the supportive members of societies or “societal agreement[s],” wear their bones of it and silently uphold the ideal as a goal that protects and emboldens the collective march towards it.

        Thereby it is more easily shown that anti-social (un-self-sustaining societal values) can briefly exist in the eddy of societal steadfastness, until it is eradicated in direct violence [even actual violence] in the abandonment of a society.

        It can also be more factually substantiated that when, even when, these subversive currents reach a stature that they are able to dissolve a society, (societies), they are eventually in-turn dissolved thru their own inability to support societies and viable value[s]. After which, self-supporting
        societies again surface through man’s (mankind’s) compilative inductive grasp of it as TRUTH. (TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pg. 35 – 36)

    3. avatar John says:

      I would also like to see. I’m just glad that I extricated myself, my income, and my tax dollars from CA far ahead of this latest idiotic demonstration of the incompetence of government.

  2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    My home state has gone full retard. If there was ever any possibility before, it’s gone. I’ll never live in CA again.

    1. avatar Pencotron says:

      +1 It’s great to visit……but that’s it.

      1. avatar dph says:

        It is not even that great of a place to visit anymore. Too many people and no water. I afraid that even more of the anti’s from Cali are going to be headed north and we’ve got enough problems here already.

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Texas reckons 1k CA refugees A WEEK are emigrating to The Lone Star State. Toyota bailed for TX. Other big companies too. Now, all we need is open carry.

        2. avatar Jim R says:

          @Robert: The problem with that is all those Californians bring their California ideals with them, often not realizing that’s what caused them to leave in the first place. Sure they’ll complain “The taxes were too high” or whatever but soon enough they’ll be in town council meetings saying “There oughta be a law against” or “You should pay for…” and before you know it, Texas turns into California.

        3. avatar publius2 says:

          Yup. Between Gov Brown welcoming all illegal immigrants, LA and San Fran signing on as sanctuary cities, and CA consistently coming in as bottom 2 or 3 states to do business by CEOs, soon there wont be taxpayers left to cover the tax takers.

          Even Tesla relocated, despite an all out effort by gun-grabber and glory mongering CA Senate President Darryl Steinberg:
          http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_26468256/mercury-news-editorial-tesla-decision-is-call-action

        4. avatar Taylor TX says:

          @Jim R

          Like rats off a sinking ship…

          For those who are still fighting the good fight in CA, much respect.

        5. avatar Deadeye says:

          Yes and turn Texas into the very same thing they just ran away from.

        6. avatar heavybarrel73 says:

          I’m looking to come north too! But I’m no anti so don’t worry lol.

        7. avatar Avid Reader says:

          Case in point for Californication: Colorado.

          I rest my case.

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        “A great place to visit” WITHOUT YOUR GUNS!

  3. avatar Frank says:

    They’ll complain when the SWAT team shows up, kicks in the door and kills someone while attempting to confiscate cousin Billy’s Mosins or estranged husband Ed’s wheel guns. Early stage totalitarians love the idea of introducing a police solution until they see what police solutions look like.

    1. avatar PPGMD says:

      To them gun owners are subhuman or mentally ill for actually wanting to own a gun. So they don’t care.

      1. avatar Perplexed Pistolero says:

        To say nothing of wanting to own more than one.

  4. avatar Bob92 says:

    Yep, this will wind its way through the courts for the next 4 years until it is ruled unconstitutional. Before that happens, the leftists will have an identical law weaving its way through the leftist legislature to be made into law so they can have another four years of this madness.

  5. avatar Rokurota says:

    “Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA.”

    WHEN WILL SOMEONE ARREST WAYNE LA PIERRE SO JUSTICE CAN PREVAIL?!

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      “Craven”?

      Martinez must have been looking at himself in the mirror when he was practicing making that statement.

    2. avatar Perplexed Pistolero says:

      +1000 sarcasm points good sir. As for craven, irresponsible politicians, I can think of a few names-De Leon, Yee, Rendon, Steinberg, Block, Skinner….

  6. avatar Kelly in GA says:

    Leland Yee would be proud.

  7. avatar Billy the crib says:

    My understanding that no one knew Eliot Rodger actually owned any guns, so go exactly would this law have prevented him from shooting people?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      More importantly, how would this law have stopped Mr. Rodgers from slicing, dicing, and chopping people and driving over them with his car? Oh, wait …

      1. avatar IdahoPete says:

        Yeah, funny how the Dem/media pukes forgot to mention that he killed his three roommates WITH A KNIFE.

    2. avatar Perplexed Pistolero says:

      Unfortunately (in more ways than one), they did know. For handguns purchased legally in California-like his-they have to be registered. If memory serves, this goes back to all handguns transferred (new or used) after 1998. He would have also had to have a Handgun Safety Card as well.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#3

        “Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age. As part of the DROS process, the purchaser must present “clear evidence of identity and age” which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver’s License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable.”

        “Purchasers of handguns must provide proof of California residency, such as a utility bill, residential lease, property deed, or government-issued identification (other than a drivers license or other DMV-issued identification), and either (1) possess a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with their recently purchased handgun or (2) qualify for an HSC exemption.”
        (Pen. Code, § § 26800-26850.)

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Yes, but I believe his family claimed to not know he had any guns. And since this new law can only be invoked by family members, it would have done no good whatsoever. And as Robert points out in the article, if the police knew he had guns (almost 100% certain they did), they already had a procedure to take them away, which they elected not to use.

        There may be a case one could point to where this law might have prevented violence, but Eliot Rodger sure ain’t it.

        1. avatar Billy the crib says:

          Bingo

  8. avatar v v ind says:

    Richard Martinez can now sleep easy knowing that ‘not one more’ person will be lost to gun violence because of this common sense gun law

    1. avatar Mark says:

      +1. Now we can sit back & watch the violence stop instantly in California, and all it took was just one more law. Murder has always been illegal in California, but what the mentally-unbalanced *really* needed was to make murder with a gun even * more* illegal-er.

      One gun in 30 days, mandatory background checks for any sale or transfer, 10 round mags, bans on “assault weapons”, a “safe handgun” roster, a ten-day “cooling off” period (even if you already own a gun), “may issue” ccw permits that are so restrictive even ghandi coundn’t carry a piece, and a warrantless tacticool goon-squad seizing weapons (often based on erronious 30-year-old “conviction” data)..

      None of that was enough.. but now, Californians are “safe”.. sleep well, snowflakes, the California prison-industrial complex is protecting you – and you only had to surrender a few “common sense” civil liberties, that no “law abiding” gun owner could possibly object to.

      1. avatar dlj95118 says:

        …well-worded. I’ve saved your post for future discussion with the antis in my circle.

    2. avatar IdahoPete says:

      And he can bask in the gratitude of all the ex- spouses/hookups/friends who now have a wonderfully legal method of screwing their ex-whatevers. “Honest, officer, he has lots of guns and he has threatened to kill me/himself!”

  9. avatar T.G. says:

    Because if I’m a mentally ill person who was contemplating killing someone, having my family throw me under the bus and have all my firearms confiscated isn’t going to make me even more likely to commit a crime with anything I can find?

  10. avatar DetroitMan says:

    When the police come for your guns, will they take your kitchen knives and car too? As I recall, little Elliot killed and maimed more people with those terrifying weapons than he did with guns.

    But hey, don’t let common sense get in the way of a good law. We had to do something, right?

  11. avatar Another Robert says:

    I gather the “advantage” to this law is that it requires no medical examination/diagnosis as would a 72-hour “hold” for an emergency examination?

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Exactly – your guns (and ammo) go away instantly (and btw, many departments *never* give back ammo they seize & any pre-ban mags they seize can be destroyed as a “public nuisance”).

      What may be the silliest part of the law is that a 5150 eval isn’t required under the law, so your disarmed “nutball” who is suspected of being a “threat to public safety” is still on the streets & able to acquire new weapons – like pressure cookers, knives & bmw’s.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        He’s not only still on the street, he’s now furious that someone in his family ratted him out and called him a nutcase. So that should end well…

    2. avatar BDub says:

      Considering most people are probably only one degree or so away from knowing a cop, it would seem that a police program designed to induce people to act on this law and facilitate widespread confiscations is inevitable. How convenient.

  12. avatar Accur81 says:

    I’ll assume anyone coming into my home, who throws a flash bang into my son’s crib, or who attempts to blind me with bright lights in the wee hours of the morning, to be an event combatant. Additionally, I will not participate in an unwarranted confiscation order.

    There’s a big difference between bat-shit crazy and the tall tales of a pissed off ex-lover. This bill does nothing to differentiate between the two. It merely gives more power to the State, under the guise of public safety. I’m not sure who I despise more – statist politicians or idiotic voters. A wise man once said “You are all equally worthless.”

    The rant isn’t over, but the motivation to move has definitely increased. I hope Scott Walker wins the next election, because I’d definitely like to keep the WI option open.

    Hope y’all can see the consequences of celebrating illegal immigration, preventing voter ID, and electing Democrats.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Not to be a jerk but any sympathy I had for Martinez has completely evaporated. “Nobodies coming for your guns”. I had an ex-wife who lied about me. I’m very lucky she didn’t wreck my life. I get tired as an NRA member of being blamed for every lunatic’s transgressions. And please don’t point out the young
    Rodger used knives. The left will ban kitchen knives. And cars…

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I lost all sympathy for him when he danced in his own child’s blood to blame the NRA for the actions of a lunatic.

  14. avatar DisThunder says:

    I sure hope they can use their fancy new laws to keep ISIS members away from their machetes, or La Eme members from their Latin American surplus real AKs. For a couple days at least.

    1. avatar Julio says:

      They should apply this new law to have the “guns” removed from these two (I refuse to call them men). After all, their victims are disarmed and tracking them with GPS ankle braclets instead of keeping them locked up hasn’t worked. What other options are left within the CA “Justice” system?
      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/men-wearing-gps-devices-indicted-for-killings/ar-BB76jsz

  15. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I think Dianne Feinstein is a danger to herself andn others. Who do I call? Do they make house calls in DC?

  16. avatar NV says:

    I would have been f’ed by this a few years ago. I say that if you are not a felon or truly a danger to yourself or others (5150) don’t ever give up your guns. Shoot if you have too. It’s come to that level now.

    When my guns were taken, I ‘vontuntarily’ surrendered them. Of course, we know what would’ve happened if I didn’t. It took over seven months to get them back. I had to pay $25 and submit a paper background check to the DOJ which took another month.

    I got them back with a few scratches and a broken site but I did get my am a back maybe only because the guns were taken by the sheriffs department I worked for.

    California is now a De Facto totalitarian state.

  17. avatar publius2 says:

    One last time: this is yet another example of Sacramento Demcratz pandering to the lowest common denominator in the progtard culture, and writing bad law that will have unintended consequences.

    As AB1014s author, departing environiwit and radical leftist Assywmn Nancy Skinner claimed in her backgrounder to the local PBS outlet that setup RF, oops, I mean hosted him in a “debate” post Isla Harbor, ‘she had been working for months to get more funding for LEO training, and mental health facilities’.

    All well and good, and per comments about the issue by callers, who identified themselves as mental health pro’s and social workers, it was much needed, as the existing 5150 process is confusing and time consuming, and a lack of training or experience may have led the multiple Santa Barbara Sheriffs to miss the cues, or take steps to access Elliot Rodgers apartment, or simply review the CA DOJ NICS info to see he’d recently purchased two handguns. Which as Rodgers himself admitted in subsequent YouTube posts, would have caused him to admit to his ‘anger’.

    This is not to point fingers at SBSO. Only they know the training and decisions of the responding officers, and to each, I would extend sympathy, because I am sure they will ask themselves, ‘what if’ for years to come…

    Back to the training point. CA LEOs get 6 hours at the academy, on the 5150 process. Thats it. Along with everything else in the boot camp like process. There is another 40 hours of POST training, but I read that few get that, because of time and $ expense.

    Now, back to the California Legislature, Assywmn Skinner, Williams, and Steinberg, who jumped on the bandwagon for glory. Did they work to fix the real problem; the mentally ill person, and traing, and money?

    No. They invented ANOTHER poorly written, overlapping, confusing bit of law that WILL b abused in Family Law and Probate Court, by divorce lawyers already abusing restraining orders against spouses to drag out the process for more fees, and ambulance chasers looking to put Crazy Grampa into conservatorship, and an institution, so they can sell his guns, by greedy heirs….

    And these courts are massively overworked and underfunded, and where is the extra money now to train the LEOs on the two confusing laws? Or for the mental health facilities to safely house the patient, after the 72 hours, so they dont have to go back to living on the streets?

    Who wins on this? Well, who gives the most money to Sacramento pols, after the teachers unions, at number one, and priso guards union, at number two…yep, you guessed it trial attorneys. Read the book DivorceCorp to get the idea.

    Leland Yee waz a piker, and an idiot. The real money in the CA Democratic Party has nothing to do with “The People”. Its all about Power, and Corruption. And you will never read about it in the local or national StateRunMedia™ because its all part of “the Narrative” ie the coordinated agitprop they are part of, in the Democrat/Left/Progressivev2.0 echo chamber.

  18. avatar publius2 says:

    I don’t blame Mr Martinez. I sympathize with him, and can only imagine his pain.He is a man. A grieving father who has lost his only child. Naturally he is going to do something, anything, to somehow make sense of it, and DO SOMETHING.

    Read this for some info on his background:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/father-of-victim-in-santa-barbara-shootings-to-politicians-i-dont-care-about-your-sympathy/2014/05/27/8a030d10-e5ad-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

    So I don’t hold him responsible for this travesty of justice, as this new law is, already, and undoubtedly will become, more obviously over time. I hold the politicians responsible in Sacramento, in the State Senare, but in particular I am deeply disappointed in Gov Jerry Brown. He is a savvy lawyer, and knows better, or should know, just how this wil unfold. I can’t imagine what he took for this, but either way this is a stain on his legacy, and yet another tawdry example, a minor milestone of the long decline from respectability and competence that CA good governance was known fir, in his father’s day.

    The Golden State is living off the rotten few remaining eggs of the goose, that is dying.

    1. avatar MrVigs says:

      Isn’t it ironic that he blames the NRA for the death of his son? The same NRA that fights for our RKBA. The same right that would’ve allowed his son to carry a handgun to defend himself. Should’ve been a DGU.

  19. avatar Anonymous says:

    “If it can save one life, one family from that agony, it will be worth it,” Democratic state Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, said during debate on the measure.

    Because if it can save one life – we should do it.

    We should ban cars and roads too – that will save a lot of lives.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Or why not ban illegal immigration after all more then 20,000 are people are killed every year by their actions…

  20. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Isn’t taking due process illegal according to the constitution?

    Sounds like a law ripe for legal challenge!

    We have to get ahead of these fools in fantasy land, their heads no longer work right.

    1. avatar Bob92 says:

      They know it is unconstitutional, bit they also know it will take a few years to move through the courts. By that time, they will have another law they can put in its place.

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    Congratulations to the young murderer’s father, who has now managed to avoid any responsibility for the acts of his malicious offspring by blaming the law. Bravo!

    Congratulations also to the victim’s father, a criminal defense lawyer who (if he’s any good at it) has without a doubt helped put murderers back on the street and never cared until the victim was one of his own. Bravo!

    Congratulations finally to the cops who, as always, managed to dodge all responsibility for their own malfeasance. Bravo!

    Leland Yee must be proud of all of you.

  22. avatar Bob92 says:

    I wonder how many people that want this law overturned who have family members who work for the government will file complaints to disarm them. It would be interesting to see how fast these fascists try to amend this unconstitutional law to give their minions an exception to the law.

  23. avatar Kyle says:

    Does this law permanently disarm a person, or just temporarily have the guns taken away from you until the state has determined that you are not a threat? Unfortunately, I can understand many of these people being okay with this law, as they probably do not see it as “anti-gun,” they just see it as a way to balance public safety with gun rights.

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      AB-1014 is supposed to allow the seizure of firearms, and then there should be a court date within 30 days. Now as soon as they get backed up and it turns into 90, or a year, we will see another case before the court.
      We will also see a case when we see the first miss use of said law. Some spouse decides to mess with the other during a divorce, and once it is proven false the judge better throw the book at the reporter, or there will be hell to pay. If it becomes a slap on the wrist than we will see it abused heavily. At that point there is a good chance of getting it tossed due to abuse. This was part of the issue we had with the law. The penalties for abuse need to be strict and well defined which they are not.
      People also continually forget we already have laws in place which essentially due the same thing already. They are rarely acted upon though.

  24. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    hhhmm I noticed that this doesn’t cover the confiscation of sharp objects. I mean considering that he killed more people with a sharp object than a gun, wouldn’t it make sense to seize his Henckels collection?
    And yes out of the seven cops involved with the visit to his home not one actually checked if he had guns, even though the CA DOJ has a cross check for mental records, and guns.
    People think this is some sort of cure all, when it isn’t. And when it fails, like the APPS program has, my guess is they will throw more money at it.

  25. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

    Sweet. Gun problem solved. One down, 49 to go.

  26. avatar Dave357 says:

    California is clearly moving towards becoming another NJ/MA/NY when it comes to gun laws. To be sure, it will take them a few more years to dismantle state pre-emption and probably introduce FOID cards, but they will get there sooner or later.

    One good thing is that Calguns has a lot more fight in it than anything I can think of on the East Coast, but the unfriendly courts will eventually strangle them on the more important issues even if they do score some victories here and there.

  27. avatar Dennis says:

    So if crazy guy (it is almost always a guy) with guns is threatening himself or others and his family members fail to report him, how much liability is the family going to be forced to assume, either legally or civilly when he goes bat$h1t at his school?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email