MO, KS Legislators Propose CA-Style Gun Violence Restraining Orders

Screen Shot 2015-01-30 at 2.46.29 PM

Reader Andy A. writes:

In a move that affirms what is often said in the comments section and proves that states like California and Connecticut are the canaries in the gun control coal mine, a pair of lawmakers in Kansas and Missouri plan to propose laws similar to California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law. That allows police to confiscate the weapons of someone deemed “dangerous” by their family or others without due process. They appear to have looked to the Golden State as a template. Note that one of the legislators has a D following of her name the other an R after hers, thus proving that . . .

the letter after a legislator’s party isn’t an indication of their stance on the Second Amendment.

The only saving grace at this point is that both legislatures have passed laws upholding the Second Amendment in the past, so I suspect these bills won’t gain much traction. Still, stay tuned.

comments

  1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Can we get a bad politician and legislation restraining order?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      WE already have that. It’s called the second amendment.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Shh! They’ll install panic buttons and some of our own people will throw tantrums, hissing out cutesy derogatory names for fellow gun owners. In other words, don’t upset the children. 😀

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          I wonder what they think a panic button will do against a 175 grain boat tail hollowpoint fired from a half mile away.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          For them, it’s all about feeling safe and not actually about being safe. If they wanted real safety then they’d stop being tyrants.

    2. avatar Doug says:

      Why is it that the woman pictured looks like such a stereotypical goofy liberal? Do they all come out of alien giant bean-pods or something?

      1. avatar Cory says:

        My thoughts exactly.

        1. avatar LordGopu says:

          lol as I saw the pic while scrolling down the main page I thought to myself “oh great another post about democrats trying to pass stupid laws”. They really all do look the same.

  2. avatar Foster says:

    Hopefully voters will remember next voting cycle.

    1. avatar smackdabonurass says:

      Joking?

      I hope you don’t actually think voting will accomplish anything at this late stage of tyranny. The only hope we have left is civil disobedience (a la Bundy ranch) and jury nullification.

      For proof simply reference the continued existence of the patient affordable care act, the midterms had nor will have no effect on it.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1

        I recently did an informal education session with a group of 15~20 year olds over the topic of jury nullification.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          I think this may be the absolute best possible course of action for us moving forward. It takes very little resources and all the gun grabber money in the world cannot undo our inherent sense of justice. All people need is a few minutes of exposure to the most basic concepts of Common Law and the entire reason for juries.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          We occupied a government building along with a hippie circle of progressives (it was originally their rodeo). Undoubtedly the two groups had different foundational expectations and understanding of justice. However, in the evenings quite a few young progressives sought us out to ask questions about bearing arms. In addition to bearing arms (racist roots and racist reasons for the continuation of gun control in the modern day), we spoke much about jury nullification. It was shocking how little they were taught about that powerful and essential tool of justice. I’m not delusional enough to expect that it will make any radical change in their progressive values anytime soon. But, I do believe that good seed was sown that, for those who can one day break through from their dysfunctional “progressive” thinking, will sprout and bear positive fruit in the fight for true individual Liberty. Seed that doesn’t probably wasn’t sown in fertile ground to begin with and all of the reasoning in the world wouldn’t have reached them. They were all young and honestly eager to hear the message so there is at least a little hope for positive change, IMHO.

      2. avatar gregory says:

        If you believe what you say then lead by example. What are you waiting for? Arm yourself and go forth and be civily disobedient or shut your pie hole.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I know your comment wasn’t directly to me but for the record I am actively involved in acts of civil disobedience, both in organized groups and individually. We’re also openly armed while doing so. We all now wear body cameras and some live stream for our protection. It’s not just progressives engaged in trying to effect change through such actions these days. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to consider joining or forming a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Liberty activism group in your area.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      If voting could actually change anything, then it would be illegal.

  3. avatar FedUp says:

    Note that one of the legislators has a D following of her name the other an R after hers, thus proving that . . .

    …The R party has long outlived its usefulness. The D party serves a statist/nanny constituency, the R party exists only to attempt to serve the R party, but has done itself a huge disservice by making it obsolete.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Both parties are statist and dangerous to individual liberty.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        This, exactly. Both parties have a statist agenda, and neither wants you to have true freedom.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Generally, D or R only indicate a different flavor of the same bullshit.

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      Politics is simple. Democrats suck, Republicans blow.

      I might have that backwards.

      1. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

        ….and suck and blow can both be purchased (and lobbied)

  4. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Legislation disarming people will continue to be a major problem as long as shall not be infringed is allowed to be diluted and twisted by government. A steadfast hardline stance in favor of the individual right to bear arms is the only barricade to these assaults on individual rights.

    Shall not be infringed.

    1. avatar czp09jrs says:

      Well put….I agree

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Imagine that: government willing to trample our Fourth Amendment right to due process AND our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And here is another nasty little secret: these proposals also violate our Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. That’s right, government asserts that someone is insane and that accused person must speak out on their own behalf to prove that they are not insane. Wait, what’s that? That person is also guilty until proven innocent? Why not overturn the longstanding Common Law bedrock principle of innocent until proven guilty as well?

      This proves yet another maxim that we have stated over and over on this forum: a government that is willing to trample one right is happy to trample on all of them.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        So true. I often sit and wonder why, among those who see the truth, so many people still just wring their hands or delude themselves into thinking that everything will be alright with the next round of voting. Then, I realize that some of them actually prefer living like this rather than the more challenging, sometimes tumultuous life of a free people. In other words, scratch the surface and they are statists of some degree. The remainder, IMHO, are simply too cowardly to be free. If those whose eyes were truly open to America’s present day reality were to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty, not ceasing until the task was completely finished, this mess would be cleaned up in short order. More likely than not, my lifetime will have run its course before that ever happens; if ever at all.

        People are so concerned about rocking the boat that it will sink before they realize what happened.

        Let them install panic buttons. They’ll have to experience far worse from the public than they did in Texas recently for this wrecked machinery to be repaired.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          ” I often … wonder why … so many people … [think] that everything will be alright with the next round of voting.”

          What do we say about insanity … something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

  5. avatar George says:

    Part of their theme. Hitting Washington State, too.

    Look for it at a legislature near you.

  6. avatar Paul53 says:

    Yep, if we make enough laws, criminals will obey them

  7. avatar ST says:

    We face stiff times ahead , folks.

    This “gun violence restraining order” business is trouble.

    Trouble because opposing it goes beyond “gun control”. If a politician says they’re against magazine restrictions, its a standalone issue. If they oppose domestic-violence related gun laws, come next election the ads will say ” Politician Hates WOMEN!”

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      …and if they had a spine they would say FU! because it is about due process….period! That someone can take away your property (see police seizures) before you go to court, before you have committed a crime simply “because” someone feels like it is the issue. The “hate [insert-group-here]” or “racist” BS is because politicians have zero spine and do not know how to talk about the issues. If people were educated about the fact that they are being duped they would ignore the bogus insults. This how the left wins, by name calling and nobody responding but simply running away. This is because they care more about their jobs than the truth.

  8. avatar Pascal says:

    From this links

    “The pair are founding members of the American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention , which aims to find bipartisan ways to stop gun violence.”

    See above, follow the money. It is never about the people, it is about the money, power or control. We The People are always last in the priority list.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Aha–and the “R” legislator is, I believe, the single “R” member of that “bi-partisan” group. Could be wrong, at the state level there are plenty of gun-muggle R’s.

  9. avatar Mr.120 says:

    So if I want to get some one’s property stolen or if I feel people shouldn’t own guns all I have to do is convenience a judge to get a restraining order or order of protection? Wow didn’t see that coming , with the current rules on the books that do not require the return of property once seized(once seized always seized), I don’t think so.

    OH, no I’m afraid that John Doe will hurt him self or others we need a order of protection to take his guns.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      California’s law does not work that way, for one, and for two, it complies with due process requirements. As to the former, only close family relatives–as defined by statute–can request such an order, and as to the latter, evidence under penalty of perjury must be presented to a judge, and it is a judge who issues the preliminary order. To say that this lacks due process is no different than saying that all warrants issued by judges violate due process, and I can tell you that any such argument will not fly. A full blown evidentiary hearing is required within 21 days before a long term (up to one year) order may be issued. All procedural due process requires is a judicial proceeding in which the defendant may introduce evidence and from which an appeal lies.

  10. avatar CV76 says:

    Communists are everywhere. Stalin would be proud.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Reds are buried in Communist plots…”

      (Mad magazine in the mid 1970s)

  11. avatar DGM says:

    “Note that one of the legislators has a D following of her name the other an R after hers, thus proving that . . . the letter after a legislator’s party ISN’T AN INDICATION OF THEIR STANCE ON…” Isn’t an indication of their stance on anything.
    You have the Liberal/Left Wing/Democrats representing the left butt cheek and then you have the Conservative/Right Wing/Republicans representing the right butt cheek. Two cheeks of the same @ss that produce the same $#it sold to us in different colors (red and blue respectively).

  12. avatar Brian says:

    I don’t know how this will fare in Kansas, but it has less than zero chance here in Mo.

    1. avatar jeremy says:

      The proposed Kansas law requires a conviction before any confiscation occurs.

      And has no provision for gun violence restraining orders.

      It is already illegal for a felon to possess a firearm so not sure if this extends that to misdemeanor stalkers or what.

      Either way it won’t pass as Kansas is much more gun friendly than say Texas. We have open carry / bar carry / drop your kid off at school carry / shall issue / and cant be charged with a crime for carrying past most gunbuster signs unless there are real security measures in place.

  13. avatar Christian says:

    “the letter after a legislator’s party isn’t an indication of their stance on the Second Amendment. [Unless it’s a D.]”

    FIFY 🙂

  14. avatar Frank says:

    But they keep trying. We have to win every time where they only have to win once.

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      You’ve got that backwards. Gun control is a culture war. I have NEVER seen a pro-gun person turned into an anti, but antis (mostly fence sitters) are persuaded (permanently) to join our side all the time

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        It’s not the people, it’s the laws. Once a law is passed we lose most likely permanently. Just look at I-594 in Washington. Unless people grow a pair in the legislature, Washington is saddled with that monstrosity for a long time if not permanently.

        1. avatar Mlloyd says:

          I doubt it. I suspect it’s going to be chipped at. The dummies that voted for it are starting to come around to the realization that they got taken for a ride on that little issue.

      2. avatar Scott P says:

        You would be surprised. Look at the article written here a few weeks back where a bunch of hipsters who went to a public range had the person in the group who came up with the plan to go shooting and said he liked guns change his mind after the affair becoming a defacto anti.

        Then you have those who caused their own accidents hurting a loved one to become hardcore anti’s overnight to repent for what they did.

        These are only but a few examples but trust me there are plenty of idiots who switch from pro-2a to anti either out of stupidity, ignorance, repentance, or trying to be a good little lemming.

  15. avatar tdiinva says:

    Anybody can propose a bill but it doesn’t mean it has a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere. Kansas and Missouri will not be passing California type legislation.

  16. avatar JoshuaS says:

    Actually the letter is an indication, it just isn’t proof

    Bill (D) versus Rob (R)

    Do those letters give an indication as to, e.g., who is pro-life? Who supports the ACA? Who is more pro-gun control?

    Of course they do. Now there are Democrats for Life, and their are pro-choice Republicans. There are a few anti-gun control Democrats, and some pro-gun control Republicans (though even there, the “pro-gun Dems” tend to be softer in that direction and the ¨pro-gun control¨ GOP tend not to be the fanatical types). But as far as generalizations go, one party is many times better on this issue

  17. avatar LongBeach says:

    Why don’t you guys in MO and KS just move? get to a free state! Get away from places where legislation like this is even mentioned!

    1. avatar JWM says:

      Run and hide little piggies. CA will find you.

  18. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Dear God… What the heck is that thing in the title pic?

    1. avatar Mlloyd says:

      That thing with the pit bull chain around her neck? She’s hot!
      I’d hit it………with a my truck!

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Easy there, Shug.

  19. avatar Paul53 says:

    Somebody has to say it. Great pic taken just as someone goosed Ms Newman! There. I said it and I’m proud!

  20. avatar Gearmoe says:

    Beware of female politicians. They’ve been known to side with irrational emotionally driven groups. Truth isn’t popular so don’t write this down to remember.

  21. avatar Dennis says:

    Am I the only one that thinks she looks silly in that photo?

  22. avatar Preston B. says:

    R or D after their name doesn’t mean anything when both parties are funded by the same banks and other corporations. It’s time to vote Libertarian.

    1. avatar David P. says:

      It’s time to vote for the libertarian party of today. We must also remain vigilant that they do not morph like the others.

      1. avatar Preston B. says:

        Absolutely, always question the party you’re voting for.

  23. A bill just went out for co-sponsors in Delaware disguised as a “Domestic Violence” gun bill that is very draconian. I am looking forward to seeing it defeated.

  24. avatar L, John says:

    This has to stop. Every time idiot politicians even propose this kind of craziness I am compelled to buy another gun. It’s driving me into bankruptcy. I suppose I could just get off the grid and stop paying attention. Nah. That wouldn’t be any fun at all.

    1. Ironically, one of the biggest reasons for a large increase of firearm ownership in America is the last few years of anti-gun legislation.

  25. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The headline for the story on the linked news video:
    New Ideas Designed to Save Lives from Gun Violence.

    How naive. A more accurate title is:
    Yet Another Way to Infringe on Multiple Rights of People Who Own Firearms.

  26. avatar iCONOCLAST says:

    That woman’s face is putting me off my breakfast.

  27. avatar Mike says:

    I always wondered what happened to Sally Jesse Raphael. Now, I know.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Good catch.

  28. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Whether this exact proposal has any chance of becoming law or passes Constitutional muster remains to be seen. Very likely neither. Whether it would be useless is already clear, as we already know that banning bad guys from possessing firearms at best only temporarily removes the firearms from the bad guy, but does nothing to remove the bad from the bad guy. It’s the bad that’s the real problem. Just as water will seek its own level and natures abhors a vacuum, evil will find an outlet.

    However, what is also clear, is that when the next batcrap crazy man with a long and well documented history of psychosis shoots up some place, TTAG and Friends will be right there to demand why he was allowed to walk the streets in the first place. However, TTAG and Friends are flat out opposed to doing anything proactively about the crazies. Hell, many here are in favor of restoring firearms rights to felons, a group with a not insignificant amount of overlap with the crazies.

    I know, I know: “They’ve paid their debt to society!”, and “Hey, we’re talking about NONVIOLENT felons!”, and “Felony inflation means YOU could easily be a felon right now and not even know it!” Got it. Whatevs, as the kids say.

    And still we do nothing about the crazies. And still we whine about rights while providing antis with a steady stream of murderous crazies to exploit in their disarmament agenda. And the band played on……

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Since every state has some type of law that allows police or medical professionals to involuntarily detain persons (for various lengths of time) who present a an immediate threat of harm to themselves or others, based on nothing but an affidavit of probable cause, these laws most likely pass constitutional muster. That said, i agree with the rest of your comment. How many times have we read of someone who kills him/herself, but not until killing off the rest of the family. Shouldn’t there be some sort of a remedy, even if temporary, to take away firearms–as long as due process is accorded?

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        I think you’re right in that it comes down to due proces. The objection raised about the new CA law, in excess of existing laws, is that it lowers the standards for what constitutes due process, and makes much more difficult the ability of a defendant to, well, defend themselves.

        In such a context, “as long as due process is preserved”, when it will be in name only, starts to look a lot like “separate but equal”, which in practice never was.

        And that’s the crux of the problem: antis will embrace and pervert a legitimate legal process, so they can push their anti-civil rights agenda. Meanwhile, pro-freedom fighters will eschew and deride a legitimate legal process, so they can claim moral superiority in their pro-civil rights agenda.

        The result is more crazies walking the streets, more deaths at their hands, and greater momentum for infringing on our rights.

    2. avatar j says:

      Your confusing mental health issues (which definitely exist) with a “gun” problem (which does not exist). I’m not a doctor, these “crazies” are a problem for the medical profession/psychologists to find a solution for (without infringing on any citizen’s natural birthrights)

  29. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Don’t you love the naming of this garbage? I mean, a “gun violence restraining order”? Aren’t we all legally restrained from gun violence? Haven’t we been for hundreds or thousands of years? A more realistic name would be “Unconstitutional gun confiscation without legitimate cause or any due process law”.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The primary focus of laws such as these are suicidal individuals, not felons, cons or other miscreants. For reasons I cannot fathom, suicides are invariably categorized by the gun banners as “gun violence victims.”

  30. avatar Noah says:

    And this shows that 2A advocates cannot simply abandon anti-2A states because it is a “lost cause.” Moving to a pro-2A state doesn’t solve the issue, either. The worst gun owners do to their own is abandon those behind enemy lines who are willing to fight.

    The fight to advocate for the 2A should be fought in every state, regardless of how extreme the political differences…

  31. avatar TomSTL says:

    Did anyone else notice the reference to the legislators being “anti-gun violence advocates” at the end of the article. So they are violence advocates. They are anti gun. It seemed pretty accuracy to me.

  32. avatar Pg2 says:

    Too funny, a “D” or an “R” only means which rhetoric they use. End result of either is always the same.

  33. avatar GS650G says:

    Isn’t having a constitution supposed to prevent these sort of things?

  34. avatar Tominator says:

    Again, we refuse to learn from history. Our homeless problem was brought on by the Kennedy’s and the ACLU arguing in court against ‘putting people away’ for a mental condition without very complicated legal steps.

    The Dems then blamed Reagan for closing all the state run mental health institutions. Because of the courts, the beds were empty.

    If then it is illegal to incarcerate a mentally unstable person against their will, then how would you confiscate a firearm because of a restraining order that might be bogus to begin with?

    I will continue to vote Republican thank you. My job requires obedience to very strict laws. Many of them are useless, but to vote independent or libertarian makes you part of the problem.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      but to vote independent or libertarian makes you part of the problem.

      That depends upon how one defines “the problem.” For those of us who see statism as the problem, anyone blindly voting republican is part of that problem because, by and large, republican politicians tend to be statist as well. For me, I would generally vote for a republican over a democrat. I can’t think of any reason I would ever vote for a democrat actually. However, I would vote for a libertarian in a heartbeat over either statist party affiliate (D or R). As for independent… that’s a toss up for me and it really depends upon what they claim to stand for and their overall character. In a libertarian versus independent vote, with all things being equal, I would likely vote libertarian because I would like it to become a major party or get rid of the party system all together.

  35. avatar j says:

    Both proposals are (or will be) DOA

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