Previous Post
Next Post

California AB 1014 has passed out of Committee, heading for a full vote in the California legislature. The bill would create “Gun Violence Prevention Orders” that would allow police to “proactively” confiscate firearms and hold them for one-year (renewable) based on accusations from immediate family, law enforcement or licensed mental health professionals – without due process. Yes, a judge would rule on it, but without representation from the accused – until after confiscation. “The bill would permit the restrained person to request a hearing on the order, and, if it is found at the hearing that the order is not supported by good cause, would require the court to dissolve the order.” A false accusation would be a misdemeanor. This is as bad as it gets. I hope.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Are we REALLY surprised? California folk are just throwing away rights like it’s going out of style.

      • Weed???? We don’t even have that! To tell Californians to move will NOT stop this it will only tell the DEMS that if they fight, the gun owners will run. Texas is starting to slowly see anti gun views in Austin. This is NOT a CA problem. This is an American problem.

      • Not really. Washington has weed, and it has guns, decent carry laws, a lower crime rate than most and a measurable amount of common sense. California has glorified “decriminalization,” smugness, hubris, a messiah complex and closet bigots.

    • NO we are not Benny. We have a super majority of democrats in both houses and thanks to the “entitlement” vote we cannot dislodge these low life commies. Please do not label “all Californians” as not deserving of 2A freedoms. There is a large multitude of us who diligently fight these repressive laws. We will never give up fighting for our rights as long as we have a breath in our body. Statements like “Cali people don’t deserve guns” is inflammatory and ignorant.

    • We are fighting it tooth and nail and it WILL get challenged in court.
      We are on the front here in California, it’s tough but we need support from the NRA so I hope everyone is a member.

  2. OK, any mental health professionals or law enforcement in the audience, please fill out a form for every politician who voted in favor of this bill. They are obviously dangerously unstable, and should be disarmed for their own good. This should hopefully include whatever security measures they have, as well.

    • They don’t own or need guns, as they have legions of taxpayer funded armed personnel willing and able to kill for them.

      • Can we determine if knowingly working for a lunatic is, in itself, an act of insanity? Because if so, we can disarm the tax funded goon squads by saying, in official terms, that they really do have to be crazy to take that job.

        • If we do that, every current and former cop / soldier / federal agent will go in a psych ward. I kind of like that idea….

  3. Any type of protection order is issued without the presence (or a lot of times, even the knowledge) of the accused. One of those instances where you spend more money proving your innocence than they spend proving you culpable.

    See nothing but disaster if this is passed – oh, Moonbeam will knock this one out of the park to satisfy his minions, but it will have to hit something like the Ninth, or the Supremes before it’s negated. Until then, good luck, Left Coasters!

    • Pick yer blue state.
      Could’ve happened anywhere. The fruits & nuts just thought of it first.

    • I’m surprised IL or MD didn’t think of it first. As bad as our gun laws are, we don’t require a firearms specific ID card as a prerequisite to owning a gun, like IL’s FOID system.

      • I was so fed up with the MD bull I just moved to WV. Took my Taxes with me. You want freedom fix the system you have or move to one that works. If you CA folks move…… leave your librul bull in CA you already ruined Colorado and working on AZ.

  4. Can people file a gun violence protection order against a law enforcement officer who was involved in a shooting?

  5. Wow, I’ve never seen such a group of people that are so ready, willing and able to throw away their civil rights. Very sad.

    • Lol, it’s not their civil rights, they’re mine!

      Seriously though, there isn’t a single gun control bill that HASN’T gotten through this committee, I listen in on as many of them as I can, the DEMs in it are the majority voice and no matter the opposing argument they pass them. Some of the things that pass that AREN’T firearms related make me wonder if they got their kool-aid dosage boosted up that morning. There really is no point to this committee in California anymore, they are DEM controlled in such a fashion that they will send it to the floor if their party wants it.

      • If guns didn’t exist, Cali politicians would have to invent them just to have something to be against.

        • No they would have to deal with the real issues that people don’t like such as immigration. We cant have them looking bad now can we?

  6. If you think that this is the worst thing that the Cali antigun moonbats can come up with, you’re not paying attention.

    I know that it’s bad karma for me to root for the drought to continue so I’m not gonna do it, but it is nevertheless tempting.

  7. It would appear a majority of the members of the California state legislature are graduates of the Wile E. Coyote school of problem solving.

    • Maybe like Wile E Coyote, they will grab the box that says “ACME” thinking it will help make their dreams come true, but get burned instead. I hope for the peoples sake, this dies somehow fast!

      I don’t even want to set foot in the state, just to pass through.

    • Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Due process doesn’t need to be in advance — it can be after the event, like a trial. The key questions are: how much and what type of process is actually due, and when.

  8. I hate to see it but I say that it has to get really, really bad in a hurry for some to see that shall not be infringed is the only line that can hold over generations.

    Turn up that heat and let’s see how many frogs jump!

    If you live in California, you have my condolences. If you choose to stay and fight against these infringements, I support you. If you choose to bail out to more free territory, I support your decision.

    • I “live” here? Oh crikey! I thought I was imprisoned here….but thanks for your sympathy.

  9. This is just a head shaker. Why doesn’t California just succeed from the union, so they can be as communist as it spears they want to be?

  10. This never would of stopped people like the Oslo Bomber or this kid if he was smarter. If they know they are crazy, or aware people would view them as being crazy, they are just going to stay away from people or the system that would stop them. They will hide it and wait for the right moment in time to act out their horrible ideas.

    They will take their time to get everything they need legally. Even if it takes years. It will be impossible to stop these people.

    No laws or system of health care will be able to stop these kinds of people in this current age of mankind. Technology and access to all kinds of knowledge is advancing at a rate that it will be impossible for anyone to stop all the people who could possibly accomplish a horrible act of any kind that kills massive amounts of people.

    I wish we could but as good as humankind can be there will always be a set of individuals who are evil bent on doing terrible things.

  11. I know people are intent on staying and fighting, but I’d rather see the California POTG’s start moving to gun friendly states and help offset the migrating moonbats. Go to places where your vote and voice actually will be heard.

  12. I recall reading just before RF debated Ms Skinner on the PBS station in SF, that Assemblywoman Skinnner had supposedly been working on this for months, to create more training for LEOs and money funding for mental health.

    I dont see anything remotely like that in the text, other than a brief entry about excepting mental health professionals and attorneys from the terms of this legislation.

    IANAL so I will have to read up on this via Calguns, NRA, and SAF legal beagles.

    But if all this becomes is expanded capability for the State to arbitrarily seize guns, without due process, without any effort to improve the real problem – mental health treatment, and help to LEOs to evaluate the people they meet on the street, and get them to that help,

    then all it is, is really just a despicable and crass political stunt, and another power move by the Democratic party that controls all three parts of the CA government. Even Moonbeam should be ashamed.

    We appear to be on the way to a hard bottom, before we wake up from the denial of the drug of power the Progtards are drunk upon. I really doubt the criminals and mentally impaired care much about this bill, or any of the parts it approves, and I dont believe this is going to solve much, other than say after the fact, “well, we did what we could to stop the gun-bullies”, by pandering pols to their left wing supporters, and the frightened Fakebook Mommies in the wealthy suburbs.

    • “IANAL so I will have to read up on this via Calguns, NRA, and SAF legal beagles.

      I read the law a couple of weeks back and, at that time, it seemed to say “anyone” could make the accusation and seek the GVRO against ANYONE else. The text of the posted article says that is now limited to “… immediate family, law enforcement or licensed mental health professionals ” So, if you can determine the text of the law is changed to those specified sources and post your findings that would be great to get clarified. NOT to imply it makes anything about this egregious “political trickery” any better. It does make a difference in what we might write to Governor Brown when we abjectly beg him to veto it. If it is changed, he will probably be more likely to sign it, however.

      I already ranted against this thing a few weeks back and am in no mood to repeat myself. I expected it to pass the Committee reading though, owing to its dominance by the Democommiecrats here, and have little doubt it will be sent to Governor Brown. So it goes.

      Thanks for anything you can come-up with, ric2.

      • Thanks, DerryM, I am flattered that you ask, but really, no false humility-

        IANAL and there are a lot smarter folk than I, with their fingers on the pulse,
        watching and talking in the Calguns Forums, here-

        where you can subscribe to a thread and get updates when comments are posted- and of course the caveat applies-

        like any internet forum, you have a lot of opinions, lawyers who know what they are talking about, and wannabe others who dont, and everything in between, including regular guys like me lurking trying to figure it all out.

        There are a lot of good archived threads and useful info on a wide range of other gun useful topics, including what you can and cant do with a gun, hunting, buying and selling, carrying, in the car, what to do for this and that.

        Frankly, I dont know what I’d do if I didnt have this resource, except pull my hair out, and probably get in trouble for some dumb mistake using basic common-sense and trying to read the laws.

        As confusing as they are written here in CA, and frequently mis-applied by local LEOs, who are sometimes and confused as the layman on some things- like where can you carry a pistol while hunging-

        that its practically a setup, otherwise, to operate without the info, especially for someone transferring in as military from another state, or a guy who hunts elsewhere, thinking it should be about the same in CA.

        An even more efficient and pointed resource, for anyone dedicated to 2A rights both CA state or US national who wants to make a real political difference, for remember- “as CA goes so goes the nation…” is this:

        Cal Guns Foundation, here:

        where you will get better information about how to be effective, when the time comes to pitch in on letters, contributions, with clear goals and objectives, and specific targets, by proven leadership that has a track record of making things happen. And CGF partners in collaboration on the right places to fight and spend money, with both NRA and SAF brains and money to leverage as needed, without wasting time in the unproductive food fights like some other state orgs or ego oriented citizen groups can fall into, sadly.

        • Thanks, ric2! I will read through the Cal Guns threads and see what I can figure out! Look like a resource I should be following as a Cal Gun owner anyway.

  13. From the discussions here earlier, I understand that Texas already has a similar law on the books–and it dies not seem to be an issue. Care to comment Robert? Wasn’t this raised in your PBS interview with Skinner?

    And just a couple of things. To get one of these orders, the applicant has to file an affidavit under penalty of perjury. To satisfy due process, the affidavit must be served on the victim at the time of the service of any order issued by a court. On the other hand, I have little doubt that a court will issue such orders if there is any reasonable cause to believe the truth of the affidavit–which is a standard of proof less than a preponderance of the evidence. Hearings must be held within a week if requested. And while it is rue that ANYONE can request one of these orders, I really don’t see them as being treated any differently than domestic violence temporary restraining orders–which are an often confronted issue on the courts. If the affiant does not show, or the curt does not believe the affiant, the order will be lifted. But even if lifted, since the arms are in the possession of a LEA, California law requires that the owner get a letter from the DOJ authorizing the return of weapons.

    • From the discussions here earlier, I understand that Texas already has a similar law on the books–and it dies not seem to be an issue.

      In comments I raised the same point and asked if it was true of Texas. I never saw a response from anyone on it. I’m glad that you raised it again here.

    • I know that in Texas we have emergency commitments ( a 72-hour period for observation and testing), but I am unaware of any law like this proposal specifically targeting firearms for confiscation without even an accompanying short-term “commitment”. Would be interested in hearing if there is such, it would be a surprise to me.

      • CA has a similar 72 hour commitment process-
        that is separate from a restraining order seizing guns.

        I believe the problem with the 72 hour commitment is the issue is vague enough that mental health people dont have the power to ask for it, until the person does something that is provably a danger to themselves or others,

        and the LEOs responding dont have the training to evaluate or act upon someone like Elliot Rodgers.

        Forgive me if I am over simplifying- but this bill is going at it bass-ackwards- seizing guns, rather than addressing the person and their problems.

        What makes this so ridiculous and disrespectful of the real need for mental health reform, which affects millions,

        is the politicians are completely mis-using the facts, and ignoring how Rodgers used a knife to kill people, and his car, and only killed himself in the end with the gun.

      • Here n CA, having an Involuntary 72 hour “5150” psychiatric evaluation intake is ineligible for firearms purchase for five years (enforced via DOJ database, evidently).
        I have NO problem with someone alerting the Police that they fear an individual known to them owns a firearm and is an immanent threat to self or others. I like the Doctors’ ability to red-flag an individual, frankly. On the other hand, I expect THREE topics addressed clearly in the Bill before I would consider it:
        1) Clear LAWS for tracking the firearms, and legally binding laws requiring swift return of any and all firearms confiscated as a result of any laws resulting from this Bill. Some municipalities make it a year-long, expensive process to get illegally confiscated firearms released.

        2) Clear LAWS making frivolous or malicious claims very expensive. This proposed system is the equivalent of a 911 system, and there are steep fines or jail-time for frivolous/malicious use of the 911 system.

        3) Clear LAWS to track, and a system to challenge, a Doctors ‘red flag’. A second opinion should be required – by a licensed Psychologist. This law should protect the Doctor(s) from legal action if follow-up evaluation fails to support the confiscation. Exemption from legal action should be a consideration if a Dr misses the signs and lets a dangerous person get through the net – the danger signs should be obvious (to a layman like me) but I understand some psychopaths might fool a Dr. The LAWS should specifically exclude the Providers legal departments/Policy makers from interfering with these LAWS.

        • Under this law you’re guilty until proven innocent. Without need for a hearing.

          The only way id consider this is if the decision was made by a grand jury of my peers and felt a need for such action based on evidence of a need for such ation. Not some state pawn.

          At least that would be in the spirit of the constitution. not an outright dismission of it.

    • Mark N, you make a reasonable point, but with respect, you do so with the comparison between Texas and California, as if they are the same,

      ie, presuming the enforcement of the law is somehow separate from the political climate in both- which is very different. We already see that CA State AG has essentially obstructed the rule of law in the 9ths decision on Peruta,

      and in the Legislature, the history of gun bills floated willy-nilly, to the point of having most shot down in committee by the Democratic controlled Assembly and Senate, and the majority of those passed vetoed by the Democratic Governor, shows that the progtard left does not vote the will of the people, nor does it respect the legislative process itself, nor even the Executives restraint upon it.

      I dont think its too much to conclude this is a very different political environment than Texas, and the over the top desperation exhibited nationally by gun-grabbers, in spite of growing support for 2A by the citizens in polls, and the continuing fail in the gun-grabbers PR campaigns, shows the Progtard Elites are out of touch here in CA, and simply dont care. They are doubling down, while they can…”to enact the progressive agenda they have been waiting 30 years for”-
      and I believe you mentioned knowledge of SoCal politics- you may recall and guess that here I am quoting San Diego Chairwoman of the Democratic Club- Francine Busby, on the justification to support former Congressional Rep “Filthy” Bob Filner for Mayor, despite clear warning by other senior Dem women about his known groping history.

      Its not the same issue, of course, but it illustrates clearly the mindset and exactly how the Progtards will “eat their young” to get and hold power.

      • I didn’t compare California and Texas because I don’t know what the Texas law is on the subject, just that it was brought up that Texas (and I think Massachusetts) have laws similar to this proposal. Further, the political climate as to passing bills is certainly relevant, as there is a large Democrat majority in both houses of the Legislature, but otherwise it is irrelevant, as Kamal Harris does not “enforce” this proposed law, nor do the police. Police authority is provided under Welfare & Institutions code section 5150 et seq., which allows (but does not mandate) that a police officer may take a person into custody if he reasonably believes that that person presents a risk of harm to himself or others, and transport him/her to a mental health facility for an involuntary “72 hour evaluation and treatment”. Average citizens have no such powers to commit an individual to an institution, nor can they reasonably be given such powers. Citizens cannot compel the police to act. This bill is intended to at least allow people (such as Rodger’s parents, notwithstanding the fact they appeared to have no knowledge of his ownership of firearms) to “take away the guns” under similar circumstances. Obviously the law can be subject to abuse–and great expense–to the target of such an order, but so can TROs that are issued in family court (i.e., as a way of punishing one’s ex or soon-to-be ex). This is why I asked if any Texas readers or Robert have some information concerning the Texas aw, as that may give us some indication of what may happen in California.

        • Thanks for clarifying.

          Like I said, IANAL, so I defer to those with greater experience in the law-
          and if I read the status report correctly, this is now in front of the CA Senate, and will undoubtedly go thru changes in committee there, before being trued up and sent to the Governor, so it can change in many ways, including just fixing the 5150 process.

          So right now is the time to speak up, call, write a letter, give money to CalGunsFoundation because a well run group can influence best in such a short time, and they have a proven track record, along with the NRA, of getting moderate pols to listen to facts, and take the money.

        • I could write a dissertation on 5159, but it would be off topic. As to the remainder of your last comment, rlc2, the bill is ALREADY out of committee(s) and headed to a vote on the Senate floor. I am unclear at the moment as to whether the bill if/when passed will have to be returned to the Assembly (house of origin) as it has been amended several times in the Senate, or will go straight to the governor’s desk after passage. (I think it goes back to the Assembly, just not sure.)

  14. Here is the Calguns forum post that includes three ways to help, as a group:

    Scroll down to poster number 3, Attorney Dave Duringer, who with a 5 member group of other CA attorneys researched gun trusts, that you can use- not like the NFA trusts, but a simple addendum or separate trust like your living trust, to hold guns in the name of, to avoid sudden seizure for a threat like a crazy GF, or progtard FAKEBOOK nazi. Something like $99 for an insurance policy, to avoid having to fight to get your guns back, a year later. I suppose there would be details as to who you name as trustee, storage, etc- but thats just details, small in comparison to the alternative.

    Do I think it will come to that? I really dont know, and I certainly hope not, but frankly- after reading the rage and viscious threats by the left, towards simple 2A constitutional rights believers, only a fool would preclude considering that anything is possible here in KKKalifornia, with POTUS prettiest State AG pandering to Uncle Lelands known associates and enabler in Sacramento and San Francisco…

    • The issue is that, of course, the order if issued under this proposed law would prohibit possession of firearms. The victim of an order would have to have a forewarning of the service of such an order to get them out of his/her possession before the arrival of the police, or they will be seized, irrespective of the “actual” owner.

  15. Not even remotely surprised by this. The unfortunate thing is that it’s all in southern California. Northern California (true northern California; the Bay Area is central California, despite what locals will tell you or the common vernacular) is as red as anywhere, and the folks up there value their rights quite a bit. But with all the massive population centers in So-Cal, it hurts everyone. And people from So-Cal are about as vain, stupid, and spineless as humans can get. They throw their rights away like it’s going out of style and couldn’t be bothered to take 5 goddamn minutes to actually thing because “Oh my god that would mean I would have less time to spend buying make-up and getting spray tans and worrying about how I look and spending $200 on name brand jeans that will only last a month!”

    This is from a former CA resident, by the way. Born and raised in the Bay Area (to a right-leaning family; a significant minority in that area), moved to a group home outside of Redding (in Nor-Cal) for a year and a half, then moved to Southwest Colorado (still one of the better states for gun rights, despite our recent losses).

    • Jake, with respect to your opinion, not everyone in SoCal is vain and stupid, and while that probably helps to reinforce your reasons for leaving, and make you feel superior, thats ok because thats natural human nature,

      but you are just plain wrong.
      I could cite facts all day, but the easiest is the most obvious, post Sandy Hook, including the 8 foot tall pile of letters and the 65,000 petitions to the Governor, thanks to CalGuns leadership, that resulted in the majority of the knee jerk litigation dying in committee, and the majority of those making it to the Governors desk being vetoed.

      You also overlook the long patient effort underway, starting with the hiring of Gura, Clements, and others in a strategically coordinated legal effort, supported by by NRA and SAF to change bad law, that is working here, and having an impact nationwide, most recently with the Peruta decision.

      Is it over, no- of course not. Are we in a culture war for another decade- probably. But the tide IS changing, nationally, judging by the polls, the pushback in various states, the CCW laws becoming more rational, and politics reflecting the changes, including in the GOP, with wins by grassroots TeaParty candidates, including on important issues like 2A rights.

      And you insult the many many gun-rights believers in CA who ARE manning up, without whom nothing would be happening, and it would be a LOT worse than it is right now.

    • Orange County is mostly Republican. I used to be one until I became an independent. Still, you’re going to have lots of gun control in a state dominated by Democrats, even if you’re one of those people who thinks there is no difference between the parties.

      • As is San Diego County, even though the Progtards are battling mightily to change that, in local city councils and the County Supervisors, bit by bit.

        When that happens, one of the last refuges of sane, fiscally responsible local government is gone, and it will be time to go elsewhere, sadly.

        At some point its just math, and like Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is you run out of other peoples money. We are about 5 years from that point, IHMO, depending on immigration and the economy- both of which are poised to swing very badly in the wrong direction, and then the math just cant be faked any more, even in Sacramento’s la-la land of fudgery and smoke and mirrors.

        • One more PS: and this is by way of apology also to Jake- who I might have been a little hard on, because I do understand where he is coming from by leaving- you would be a fool not to have a plan B, if the fight for 2a rights- plan a, doesnt work.

          Here is a much better commentary than I could write, by someone over at CalGuns forum- and as the out-migration of the productive class is continuing, its a sign of a trend of thinking by many long-time Californians, that I completely agree with, and as an import for 30+ years, I have no loyalty whatsoever to staying here, if leadership in Sacramento stays as completely delusional and counterproductive as it has been the last decade…its only math.

  16. The bill is basically CA law already, unless the governor pulls a ninth inning veto.

    It’s also law already for the rest of America. It’s called the Lautenberg Act, and means your spouse can decide with a phone call whether or not you’ll own guns for the rest of your life.

    • Whoa! hold on there. Lautenberg requires a prior felony (at the time of conviction – reduced may not count in the jurisdiction that you live in)

      • Or a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. Still, Lautenberg requires a conviction, an accusation may or may not be enough to warrant seizure of firearms. In California, a domestic violence restraining order gives a gun owner 24 hours to dispose of his firearms, whether by turning them into the police for “safe” keeping or by transferring them to a friend or relative or sale.

        • Is the recipient of the restraining order also going to have to surrender all knives, hatchets, axes, hammers, screwdrivers, baseball bats, sharp pointy objects, etc. for the duration of the order?

          Or are guns the only objects in California capable of causing bodily harm?

        • Obviously not Rick, but they do contain enforceable stay away orders, which can occasionally be helpful. Up here in the small communities of Far Northern California (State of Jefferson), the police have no tolerance for domestic violence (of which there is a fair amount due to alcohol abuse,meth, a bad economy, and a lack of employment).

  17. When

    O P E R A T I O N – C A L I F O R N I A – F R E E D O M


    Do you think it will be with “hearts and minds” or “shock and awe”? ; P

    Will it get divided up into three pieces like Iraq?

  18. Anyone outing these people? If you’s-all are chucking security, it oughta-be all y’all.

  19. Sometimes it helps to see who works where, and recent changes- we know the ambitious CA AG Harris is known as “a vocal proponent for gun control her entire career”, per Wikipedia.

    After the Uncle Leland gun-running scandal in SF and Sacramento, things went pretty quiet- after a brief buzz, the investigative journalists at SFGate were off reporting on chicken coops and so on. Reminded me a bit of Obamas off-the-record-caught-on-mic comments to Brady, “to do something under the radar after the election…(F&F anyone?) and his comment in a private fund-raising party in wealthy SF, for folks similar probably solicited by Ms Harris brother in law, a local attorney bundling campaign contributions, who ended up with the #3 job in US DOJ, about “bitter clingers”.

    Here is a description from the Calguns Foundation of a new lawsuit by a trade group of FFLs against the CA AG’s 180 degree switch from exempting FFLs from the “one handgun every 30 days rule” that used to apply,
    to CA AG Harris’ executive decision to apply same restriction to FFLs now, in other words- applying her Executive Action to unilaterally violate the law as written, and as enforced by her own office earlier. law.

    The former Deputy AG who wrote the memo in 2005, Allison Merilees, now works for Assywoman Skinner, the author of AB1014. Coincidence? Who knows?

    Dont be too quick to dismiss the nitwits like Ghost Gun DeLeon, and think things are not being coordinated behind the scenes, at the top, is all I am saying.

    We the little people are not being served, by Those Who Know Whats Best for Us, in Sacramento. But then, we have known that for some time…

    • PS: Here is Assywymn Skinners profile:

      I was giving her the benefit of the doubt going into the debate with RF, on that PBS show, but I see the predictable progtard background-
      Bezerkly, Divest South Africa, Save the Earth, Carbon Tax, Climategate, etc.

      Call me cynical, but I dont think Ms Skinner is sympathetic to individual rights, but is rather a committed collectivist, and even though her constituents in East Bay and Oakland probably OUGHT to be armed,
      she would really rather you weren’t.

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…
      except in Oakland, where they dont come at all…

      • Yes indeed, Oakland residents do need to be armed, but cannot get CCWs. And Ms. Skinner, progressive dingbat that she is, proposed a law last session that would have given Oakland a carve out from the state pre-emption of gun laws, just so that Oakland could ban guns. It actually passed, as I recall, but got vetoed by the sensible governor (who submitted an amicus brief in Heller or McDonald in favor of the plaintiffs when he was AG)

  20. After the cops take all the guns you know they have to take all the ammo too… Even if the judge reverses the order (like that could ever happen) you might get your guns back… but they don’t return ammo… so that massive stockpile you HAD becomes property of the state… care to guess which costs you more… legal fees or ammo losses? (IF you could actually prevail) All because someone didn’t think you should have a gun, opinion that differs, any excuse they can think up, you lose your ass!

  21. In China, when they banned weapons, those banned used farm implements and created a deadly form of hand-to-hand combat. In Germany, they banned guns and people started really whooping up on each others with knives. In Australia they’ve resorted to wombat throwing.

    Get crackin’ on your brand of work-around freeks

    In California, the proliferation of dangerous bodily fluids/diseases/behaviors are protected, so you can’t go “taste the rainbow” that’s taken.

  22. I’m guessing they (Dems) are going-for-broke while they can because they see a god-smack coming next November and then a month of Novembers. You can see it across the board, lots of different issues. They tried the “re-set” button, next they can watch it tried on them.

    • Any chances for a “god smack in November” pretty much went out the window with that circus act in Mississippi last week. (GOP Senate runoff election Cochran v. McDaniel)

      I’ve got a feeling the fallout from that CF is just starting.

  23. false accusations need to be a felony and those making said accusations should be on the hook for their legal fees and the legal fees of the previously accused had to expend to clear their name plus any damage for lost use of weapons.

    • Yep. What ambitious and over-worked prosecutor of the progtard flavor is going to take on a misdemeanor false claim, hard enough to prove, especially if defended by some lawyer for the poor down-trodded victimhood claiming perpetrator.

      No, this is not a credible deterrent, for in the real world, it would not even go to court, just plead out to a citation, community service at best.

      Meanwhile the falsely accused gun-owner gets to spend days and $1000s getting their firearm back, and will never get their reputation back if it hit the news. I suspect what one Calguns poster said is true- this is more dirty-tricks tools for Family Court divorce lawyers.

      In the meantime- how about those mentally ill? Not getting the treatment they need? LEOs can’t help them, except to drop them off at the Emergency Room, hoping the docs can prescribe something, maybe a transfer to be dumped in 72 hour hold, at best, or in jail or prison at worst, to be preyed upon there,
      then back on the streets, living under bridges, in the bushes,
      being preyed upon by gangsters and other felons.

      Richard Martinez and the StateRunMedia and Assywmn Skinner and Senator Feinstein must be so proud – they sure showed the NRA who is boss here in CA!

  24. This is why I am moving to Oregon at the end of the year. I refuse to live in this socialist wannabe state.

    • Wannabe? I refute that term, California Statists are on the cutting edge of socialism/communism. They were wannabes in the 80s, they have already graduated to full fledged socialism mixed with a huge dose of the stupids as a chaser 😉

  25. We have known that this would sail through the tyrannical Legislature, that is a given. The mentally handicapped that the mouth breathers have elected to run this asylum have never met a piece of anti-gun legislation that they didn’t like. Our only hope is that Brown will veto it. It is obviously unconstitutional and Brown knows that it will end up in court and will be defeated in court. Believe it or not, even though he has passed some terrible gun laws, he has vetoed others that he knew overstepped.

    • Yes, it probably would be overturned in court… several years and boo-coo $$ down the road. Meanwhile, it would be in effect and trashing gun owner rights.

      And when/if it’s overturned, the Legislature would simply enact an almost-but-not-quite-identical bill and the process would start over. (See Chicago city council.)

      Brown et al just look at that as “the cost of doing business.”

  26. They will extend this ability to co-workers, neighbors, ex girlfriends, and ultimately total strangers who don’t like the socks you wear.
    Count on it.

  27. Such a law would never survive a strict scrutiny test. But the problem is that the judge or court it goes to probably won’t apply strict scrutiny.

  28. This would not have happened if the PEOPLE of CA would GET OFF THEIR ASS AND VOTE! 24.3% voter turn out in the primary, and Kamala Harris wins by a landslide. Seems all the anti gunners know how to vote right? WAAA WAAA you cant do this to us they all say, but seriously you have the right to vote and don’t use it to protect your rights.

  29. Brown is likely to veto this IMO. And to all of you calling him out on being “moonbeam” or whatever: If every politician in the country was Jerry Brown we would be far,far better off than we are now. Dude is everything you would ever want from a public official (except agreeing with you 100% of the time) and he still gets called out constantly? He is pretty much the last honest man. And not politics “honest” , more like Matt Dillon honest.

    • I agree with you. I got respect for Governor Brown when he vetoed the worst of the Gun Control Bills the Legislature Loonies passed in 2013, and am hoping he will do the same for AB1014 and SB53 this year.
      Anyway we all better write him as soon as we know the Legislature has passed this round of bills. I like the Matt Dillon analogy. Good call. Now if we could just get Brown to dump the damned “Bullet Train”….

    • If he’s honest but thinks these gun bills are fine, then there’s a problem though. So it will depend on whether he vetoes them or not.

  30. OK it is time for me to get out of this state its just going to keep getting worse they are one step closer to a full confiscation of all guns.

  31. You think this is the worst? Then you aren’t creative. There was some great writer/engineer who said that the best book/engine hadn’t been written/made yet when asked about what he thought the greatest book/engine was. Sadly I can’t remember who it was.

  32. Slippery slope is a myth propagated by the paranoid. Nobody will ever be punished prior to be proven guilty . . . until now.

  33. Ask Sgammo the top 3-5 states they sell to if you think CA doesn’t have gun owners here.

  34. Other issues aside, who wants to join the pool of how long it would take to schedule that hearing to get one’s guns back in California?

    6 months? A year?

    • Really? It is often said all trends start in CA, laughing from your seemingly safe vantage point at this time is a little naive.

  35. MA, like NY and Cal, and many others likely to follow, are pulling civilization backwards 1000+ years to medieval times, where only the king and his men had the right to bear arms. But in today’s Orwellian doublespeak world, this is “progressive”.

    • “But in today’s Orwellian doublespeak world, this is “progressive”.”

      This. Never trust a progressive. They’re leftists with no honor, no loyalty, no courage and no respect for common people.

  36. I have no sympathy. If the people of CA are stupid enough to elect politicians that vote like this, they deserve what they get.

  37. The very first accusation should be against the sheriffs, the local heads of the FBI, Marshal Service, DEA and the Chief of Police and all of his immediate subordinates. Fill the dockets of the judges with all the good guys to make a point. This law is moronic.

  38. Maybe you should do something about it, it’s apparent voting is not working! Do something, use force! Cali people don’t deserve guns!

  39. I read the bill and at the bottom there is a section talking about how after the one year period expires they still cannot have a gun or ammunition for 5 years?! Am I reading that right? So they let the order terminate but as a final act of vengeance they still keep you under their thumb for another 5 years. Nice.

  40. I am neither mentally ill nor am I a criminal! Merced County has been denying it’s citizens their Second Amendment rights for years! In June, 2010, my then wife called 911 and made false domestic violence accusations against me. She told the Merced County Sheriff Department that I had threatened her with a shotgun. I had filed for divorce from her just 6 weeks earlier because I discovered her stealing LARGE sums of money from our joint bank accounts. I was arrested and forced from my home by three Deputies at gunpoint. The next three years was a NIGHTMARE! They used these false domestic violence charges to steal my entire life savings, to steal my newer large home, 95 percent of my belongings, ruin my good government career, and force me to pay her a fortune in spousal support (while she worked, rented my large home to her Father and lives with another man in his nice home). After a horrible and very expensive court battle for the next three years I was completely vindicated against two D.V. felony charges and one misdemeanor. The State of California and Merced County has wrongfully prosecuted me! To add insult to injury, it is now October, 2014 and the California Department of Justice and Merced County Sheriff Department REFUSE to return my two firearms that they STOLE from my bedroom. In 2013, I testified as the Defendant that I never even touched a gun on the day of the domestic violence accusation and right before being forced from my home I was casually talking to the lady across the street (who happens to be a retired Nurse). My neighbor attempted to tell the three Sheriff Deputies that I had no gun that day but they continued to arrest me, force me from my home and ruin my life! My two guns are still in the Merced County Sheriff Department Property Room as I am to this day DENIED my Second Amendment rights in Merced County! I was contacted by the Merced County Under-Sheriff six months ago and told TOO BAD! I was also told that I would have to go back to court and this time fight for my Second Amendment rights to be restored. Furthermore, when I was arrested they took DNA and put it in the State DNA Database. Now that they realize I am innocent I’m supposed to fight them again in court to have that removed too? Merced County and California are unlawfully denying me my Constitutional Rights! This A.B. 2014 is just another free ticket to deny good, honest, hard working, law abiding citizens their Constitution Rights based on simply an accusation (even if it is false) made by another person. The Government Officials in California need to STOP denying our citizens the rights to protect themselves. Our forefathers created the Second Amendment for a good reason!

Comments are closed.