California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO) allows immediate family members to petition a court to have their relative’s firearms confiscated. Ex parte (without the accused being present). If a judge rules “there is a substantial likelihood that the subject poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm” the judge may order the family member’s firearms confiscated. For 21 days initially. Then up to a year. Renewable. Assemblyman Phil Ting wasn’t satisfied . . .
Mr. Ting wants to revise/expand the GVRO law via a new bill AB-2607.
This bill would also authorize an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the last 6 months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.
If the bill becomes law, just about anyone who opposes gun ownership — or has some other grudge against a gun owner — could file for a GVRO. The bar for “a danger of harm” would [continue to] be set extremely low; no judge wants to be “that guy” (a judge who denied a GVRO prior to a firearms-related crime). And penalties for a false report are minor.
AB-2607 has been referred to the Pubic Safety Committee where, hopefully, it will die. But the fact that the Bill exists at all shows us that the slippery slope argument against gun control is a thing. Allow one infringement on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and others follow.
Interestingly, the following text is also on the bill, though struck through.
Existing law, as set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the California Constitution, establishes certain fundamental personal rights, including, among others, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches, the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to due process of law before being deprived of life, liberty, or property, the right to a trial by a jury, and the right of a defendant in a criminal case to a speedy public trial.
I wonder how that got there . . .
The only answer I can find for gun owners in CA is to not tell anyone you own guns, not even your family.
I think Mr. Ting would say that would be a bad ting to do.
Ultimately that plays into their hands. It freezes conversation and education on the topic, and if and when a 2nd party finds out you own guns, it becomes surprise information, which carries additional urgency and alarm as a result, therefor more likely to trigger a GVRO.
Out of California you don’t say? There is no such thing as due process apparently in the great state of California the same as there isn’t a first or second amendment right. I would like to say keep fighting the good fight but I don’t know if I would have that resolve if I had been born there. I would most likely pack my bags for a neighboring state that doesnt treat me like a subject.
It’s not just the guns and gun rights. The economy is tanking, hard. As a California resident I had only jobs based outside of California for nearly 3 years before moving to Washington. They haven’t built water storage for 40 years in a drought prone area. It’s hard to stay and fight when you have no money to donate to any organizations.
It’s a beautiful state and I’ll miss it, but I can support myself in WA.
A beautiful state indeed it is a shame that it has been destroyed by faulty policy focusing on equity of outcome rather than equity of opportunity. Gun rights get a large portion of my attention because of my identification as an active gun owner but you are absolutely correct regarding the state of the economy there as well. The leftist haven of California, not only for legislation but also economic policy, has led to predictable outcomes and left the majority of the population in shambles.
It’s the same level of idiocy regarding power generation and supply in the state as well. They essentially banned any form of power production via state EPA regulations and were buying power from out of state. Now their crying that they don’t have enough power and that it costs too much. It’s the height of liberal arrogance that they strut around about how clean they are and yet have to buy “dirty” power from other states (and waste even more of it through transmission losses).
Of course the whole country is myopically short sighted when it comes to power. When are swallowing the green power nonsense hook line and sinker even though the “renewables” haven’t even been able to keep up with the growth in energy requirements, much less replace the base requirements we already have. And we are the only nuclear power that doesn’t recycle our nuclear waste, we just store it on site (everyone else uses at least a partially closed cycle)
In Kalifornia it is “DO” Process
Can we just extend Trump’s wall up the left coast to Canada?
the land of fruits and nuts’ eastern border, maybe?
that would be the safest thing to do, IMO. Though, you really need to examine the counties that want to become The State of Jefferson and leave them on the Nevada side of the wall.
The northern rural CA counties are seriously embarrassed by what goes on in Sacramento and below. Same with the south eastern Oregon counties in regards to Salem and Portland.
And in Washington, it’s everywhere east of the Cascades. We want nothing to do with those Starbuck’s swillin’, granola-eatin’, Birkenstock-wearin’, Whole Foods-eatin’ Seattleites and their crappy weather and horrible traffic jams.
“But the fact that the Bill exists at all shows us that the slippery slope argument against gun control is a thing”
The fact that the bill exists shows anti gunners are never satisfied. Infringement now, Infringement tomorrow, Infringement forever. Might as well print the Second Amendment on toilet paper.
The struck portion is even more revealing.
“This bill would also authorize an employer, a coworker,…”
I said it right here in TTAG a number of months back, get into an argument with someone at work, and they will use that to make you a prohibited person.
This is my shocked face…
It bears repetition:
If you concede that the government has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the opinion of the very government(s) the Second Amendment was intended to protect us against, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, HOW WILL YOU KEEP YOUR NAME OFF OF THAT LIST?
Once there is a list then it is just a matter of time, everyone other than LEO, military, and the rich and connected will be on the list and will not be allowed to have arms.
They will add neighbors and even eventually any person can TRO at any time. The courts will be busy, so they will have to fast track this to a website you can GVRO your enemies from a smartphone.
I like the struck out section at the bottom too (can’t do strikeout text on my phone)
SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would ensure that California’s public safety system is fair and just.
This is yet another reason that Hillary in the White House would be a complete disaster, as she would never nominate a single judge who respects the Constitution. The anti-gun left is so fixated on guns that they would happily flush the entire Bill of Rights down the toilet just to spite gun owners. They have no concept of what might be next, the encryption on their iPhone? They would say never, but they are fools if they think that!
Sad to say but at this point the only protection from this kind of nonsense is provided by SCOTUS and those protections are about to disappear. The House and Senate have the power to cut off funding to anything in CA that they want as a big stick to force the CA legislature to abandon this foolishness, but Congress is made up of invertebrates.
“If the bill becomes law, just about anyone who opposes gun ownership — or has some other grudge against a gun owner — could file for a GVRO.”
I thought of this immediately as I read the headline. That would be one heck of a Pandor’s box. And as Geoff PR listed above, think of the potential for abuse at the work place. You get a promotion and the other guy does not so he requests a Gun Violence Restraining Order. A supervisor reprimands an underling so the underling requests a Gun Violence Restraining Order. Some employee hits on another employee who rejects their advances, etc. The possibilities are near endless. Of course that is probably by design.
More Cali BS. What’s with the bowtie? Pee Wee Herman’s Playhouse?
Pee Wee morals as well.
Uncle Lelands immoral nephew. Someone should check Ting’s Tong connections, and maybe foreign campaign donations.
Yes, I was about to say that Leland Yee was currently unavailable for comment.
Big government strikes again. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is completely OK and voter ID is promoted as some sort of insurmountable obstacle. Liberal progressives will do anything to cement their power and push their control measures upon us. If this continues, living peaceably in such a system will not be possible.
If you want to own guns move out of the Communist People’s Republic of Commiefornia.
It’s simple. If you stay in that country you choose to live with their oppressive laws.
It’s not a seperate country. Civil rights are not dependent on your zip code. Leave CA to the New Klan and you endorse the destruction of your rights and your country.
It probably will soon be its own country or part of the United Soviet Socialist States.
America as we knew it is already dead, as a practical matter. It’s on life support and exists only in a persistent vegetative state.
The only future that does not descend into a bankrupt, totalitarian regime, is peaceful dissolution of the union within the next ten to twenty years. If America does not divide formally, amicably and equitably into the three to five countries that are already at irreconcilable odds with each other within it, then the future is apocalyptic.
The only other outcomes are either an increasingly authoritarian and violent central government struggling to impose its arbitrary will on an unconsenting populace, or else numerous breakaway pockets comprised of bits of states, whole states, or alliances of states, in perpetual revolution against the federal government.
Entire countries have been known to endure for decades in the throes of continuous separatist/terrorist activity, only delaying and exacerbating the inevitable. My fervent hope is that reasonable, national leaders emerge who will head off that hellscape through peaceful, constitutional measures that allow the People to dissolve the outdated political bands which have connected them.
In the name of “common sense gun safety” they’ve brought out the tear gas, fire hoses and attack dogs.
We need a president with the balls to send federal troops into the states like CA and restore civil rights to the people.
Mr. Ting is apparently the new face of the klan.
There is NO chance that this bill will not make it out of the Public Safety Committee. the last bill heard by that committee was to ban 80% lowers, a bill so bad that the Chairman stopped the proceedings (when it appeared how truly ridiculous the bill was, since a block of aluminum or a shovel could be an “unfinished receiver) and “recommended” to its author that it be amended and resubmitted. It then passed–although to date the Legislative info site has yet to be updated to reflect what the amendment was (if any). the bill then passed on to the next committee. As with all committees, the democrats have a majority, none of whom it would seem has seen a gun bill they disapproved of, and all votes are along party lines. Further, despite the fact that these committees are made up of only a few members of the assembly (and should be considering the interests of the entire state), those who sit on them refuse to take any mailed, e-mailed, or phoned in comments from the public unless that person resides in that legislators district. The game is fixed. Everything shall come to pass. Only the governor stands between the POG and Armageddon.
So maybe the GVRO’s weren’t such a non-issue after all, huh? I realize in and of itself, the GVRO law wasn’t quite as bad as RF and some others (including myself) made it out to be sometimes–but man, this is a quantum leap in abuse potential, and it happened almost before the ink was good and dry on the first iteration. Next up: neighbors authorized to file GVRO’s on neighbors, bar owners on regular patrons, lawyers on clients, former clients, people that their clients believe may present a danger to them because of pending or potential litigation?
Legalized public SWATTING of someone you have an issue with- just invent the accusation and voila!
Concur – no chance that Public Safety will block it.
As to Gipson’s amendments to 1673, FPC emails
“These changes now apply the same standards he is applying to unfinished lowers to ALL firearms components.
Firearms components could include triggers, sears, hammers, bolts, bolt carriers, firing pins, sights, trunnions, buffers, springs, muzzle breaks and barrels. Each of these firearms “components “ or anything that is subjectively identifiable as a “component of a functional firearm”, including any piece of metal or polymer, would have to each be registered separately as unique and discrete “firearms” in California.”
And that amendment passed the Committee.
” …including any piece of metal or polymer, would have to each be registered separately as unique and discrete “firearms” in California.””
Plumbing supply stores, Home Depot and the ilk will require background checks.
Once that thing inevitably becomes law, the only way to fight it will be to *demand* it be enforced uniformly.
IOW, don’t hold your breath…
So could employees at Facebook, Twitter, or whatever file these GVRO against the CEOs bodyguards?
It is a pretty dim bright spot but starting to disarm all the billionaires guards might be fun to watch.
Everyone has to deal with politics at work, but to soon have to censor your speech to exclude talking about one of the most fundamental human rights, ie. choosing the most appropriate method of securing your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, from your coworkers, and employer is bull stuff. (you know what I meant)
Nothing seems to get into the hollow ovoid cranium of any Democrats, that EVERYONE has a right to choose the most appropriate manner in which they keep their lives/family’s lives secure, their property, their person secure from harm. No gun is going to stop you from being ambushed unawares by a concerted effort from a determined assailant, but at the very least, with adequate training, and a firearm, you stand a better chance of evening the odds against you.
There’s too many self-righteous pricks in this state for it to survive, between the erasing of gun rights, to the sanctuary cities, to the ….ahhh what the hell, screw it. I’m go fishin. Ah, wait, I need a license for that too. God dammit!
“Mr. Ting wants to revise/expand the GVRO law via a new bill AB-2607.”
This, people is another example of the Left’s political strategy of ‘Nudge’, where little tiny (and not so tiny) ‘pushes’ are made to reach your end political goal, total civilian disarmament.
If you haven’t yet read ‘Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals’ by Saul Alinsky, I highly recommend you do so.
TTAG management, an article on that book alone (Hell, you can do an article easily on each of the ‘Rules’) I believe would be well worth TTAG’s while.
Perhaps Johannes Pausen or Ralph may be good candidates to write one…
Below is a synopsis of the ’12 Rules’:
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
“* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)”
POTG, *this* right here is one of the most potent weapons we have in fighting that abortion of the law.
If they made that proverbial bed, force them to lay in it…
This has endless possibilities….
Why is the penalty for false reporting not the same as the penalty the person they falsely accused faced?
Submit a false report, go to jail for 21 days initially. Then you get a trial, where if you’re found guilty of falsely reporting someone, you go to jail for a year.
Seems fair to me; seek to deprive someone of their rights falsely using the state as your weapon, the state takes all of your rights in return.
The one stalwart defender of the 2nd Amendment in California, Assembly Member Melissa Melendez, introduced last year a bill much like what you propose – it increased the punishment for a false report from a misdemeanor to a felony. (AB-225)
That bill died in the Public Safety Committee.
Eck. Good enough reason to be self-employed. Fight the power guys. And I thought Illinois sucked (it does)…
Just more proof California needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Umm report all of your public servants and their body guards the day this bill passes… They work for you the people.
CA, the blueprint for a future America.
Yeah, “AB-2607 has been referred to the PUBIC Safety Committee” is where it probably belongs
There needs to be a legislation restraining order for crap like this.
Interesting too that when you see people trying to legislate your due process away (which is bad in itself), it never includes penalties for malicious reporting or compensation of some kind to the wronged party.
But no one is trying to your guns away.
Proposed law is well past anything here in Australia. TRO here needs a complaint to police, evidence of threat then signing by magistrate or judge.
If you loose at hearing and it becomes permanent order you mostly but not always lose firearm permit. Specialist lawyer required.
“….if a judge rules….”
That’s what “the rule of law” means. And why publicly funded indoctrination institutions can’t stop singing the praises of that particular idiom for idiots.
To borrow a phrase from the last air disaster…
Bang Ting Ow
… Note, this is not to mean ill intent…
Hello, FBI folks.
So we can also file against all the public figures who have armed bodyguards….. See, it works both ways, you little whining, politically over correct stupid libtart.
Well, it’s not like we didn’t see this coming as far back as when the original GVRO was proposed. Disgusting.
I’d like to say this sort of BS is limited to California where the demographics support it but I don’t see that happening.
The only thing you need to know about this crock of bovine fecal matter is the words “ex parte”. Once you know what that means you find out that you’re not a citizen anymore. You’re, and I am, a subject now. I guess it’s line em’ up time.
The easy answer to this is to just file these damned things on everyone. Break the system.