CA Moving Towards Allowing Co-Workers, Bosses to Seek Red Flag Orders

California red flag law

Bigstock

California continues to look less and less like America and more and more like a socialist cesspool. The formerly Golden State’s legislators just voted 54-16 for a massive expansion of Cali’s so-called “Gun Violence Restraining Order.”

The expansion of the law would allow an individual’s co-workers and supervisors to seek a “Red Flag” order, stripping the respondent’s Second Amendment rights without due process.

As if violating Second Amendment rights without due process isn’t egregious enough, the penalty for filing a false or vexatious report in California is only a misdemeanor. And expanding the measure to allow co-workers and supervisors to seek these orders opens these up to wholesale abuse.

Who among us hasn’t had a co-worker upset with us at one time or another in our working career? Add in some legal recreational marijuana and all bets are off where gun rights are concerned.

Under the new bill, teachers and school employees may also seek the orders against an individual. So moms and dads better be good girls and boys if they’re not happy with the performance of their kids’ school and/or teacher(s). Get on the wrong side of an educator and a parent could lose the right to keep and bear arms for up to three weeks until they hire an attorney and contest the order.

Currently, only immediate family members and law enforcement can seek trigger red flag confiscation orders in California. Or anyone who’s lived in your house in the last six months, such as an ex-girlfriend or -boyfriend. Or a renter.

Legislators there obviously want to open the confiscation process up to everyone and their dog by including school staff, co-workers and supervisors.

And Cali makes it easy to go about applying for one of these orders. They have a handy website laying out the process. You don’t even have to leave the comfort of your own home to file a report. Police may be able to do it for you. Convenience is great, isn’t it?

2. Call the police and let them know you are concerned about someone who is a threat to themselves or others. Law enforcement can ask for an emergency order in certain cases and may be able to get one for you.

We’ve covered what to do if police show up at your house to execute a Red Flag order. As well as how to prepare for one. Furthermore, how a Red Flag order is not a hill to die upon if cops do show up.

Obviously, this expansion of the law poses a serious risk to gun owners throughout California. Know the law and what to do if you get a knock on your door.

comments

  1. avatar Defens says:

    Can they prosecute a violation of a California state law, if you use their website from out of state? I could potentially see massive abuse of this law to Red Flag the legislators who pass it, by out-of-state activists.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Though judges will almost certainly stamp red flag orders by default as a norm, somehow I seriously doubt they will approve such orders against politically connected leftists in CA. Meanwhile, whereas I doubt false accusors will face meaningful consequences in general, I would think an accusor of a politically connected leftist will have much greater odds of facing consequences.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      NO. The persons authorized by statute to seek such orders are (1) close family relatives resident int he same house; (b) the police. This bill would add to that list teachers of the subject person and co-workers. Not just anyone has what is called “standing” to seek such orders. This really limits the potential for abuse. The real issue is teachers who report students for making guns out of their fingers or PB&Js. On the other hand, the vast majority of students cannot legally purchase firearms.

      1. “Heresay ” is NOT Due Process!
        _______________________________________

        Proposed 25 September 1789
        Ratified 15 December 1791

        No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        Bill of Rights
        Trials and Takings

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Your point?

          The BOR is so compromised that it isn’t even funny. People who think the 5th actually prevents government from compelling testimony against the person testifying isn’t paying attention. Such trashing of the BOR has endorsement of the SC. Now what?

          The bias of the federal courts is that the modus operandi is to find any means possible to avoid reaching a constitutional question. Otherwise, laws violating the constitution are that are overturned by the feds are based on analysis of the details of the violation, not the comparison of the law to the plain language of the constitution. Courts do not protect the constitution, or our constitutionally protected rights. Federal courts protect against use of the constitution to establish inviolable safeguards of our natural, human and civil rights.

          Two court mandated principles are germane: “Compelling government interest”; “Transactional immunity”.

        2. Sam I am @ Thank you for allowing everyone the brief gaze through the Liberal Looking glass…As a “Non-Firearms owner” I will continue to press home my full support for our Constitutional-Bill of Rights…And if all else fails, there should be plenty of firearms available…For if there is another civil war in America for our very Freedoms and Liberties…Then in theory, I should be able to just open the window to my home and reach out into the street…There should be lots of weapons amongst the bodies of the fallen….

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Thank you for allowing everyone the brief gaze through the Liberal Looking glass…”

          Pointing out the reality of the day is not a “Liberal Looking glass”. It is of little tactical value to present theory in the midst of a battle. If the theory behind the constitution had political/legal power today, we wouldn’t be where we are, today.

          Ever wondered why it is futile to show up in court with a copy of the constitution, and declare that as your entire defense? “Reasonableness” was enshrined by Marbury v. Madison. The genie is out of the bottle, and we have to deal with it as it is. If all we have left is waiting at the window with out musket and powder, then we are beyond recovery.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yep. Sam I Am isn’t necessarily approving of what IS these days. He’s just pointing it out. Don’t shoot the messenger, so to speak.

          ““Reasonableness” was enshrined by Marbury v. Madison. The genie is out of the bottle, and we have to deal with it as it is.”

          Spot on.

          “If all we have left is waiting at the window with out musket and powder, then we are beyond recovery.”

          I you meant to write “with OUR musket and powder” then I disagree. I think the American people have been too long without taking up “musket and powder”. Rebellion and revolution were written into the fabric of the Republic and Thomas Jefferson wrote as much. A government that no longer follows the Constitution, the only legitimate thing giving it power, is no longer proper government. It has become an occupying force that will ultimately only be driven out by force.

      2. Proposed 25 September 1789
        Ratified 15 December 1791

        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

        Bill of Rights
        Speedy Trial

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Speedy Trial”

          1. It is almost always in the interest of a defendant to delay trial as long as possible
          2. Judges are not the friends of defendants; no matter the frivolous excuse, judges will almost always allow the state to delay when it disadvantages a defendant

      3. Proposed 25 September 1789
        Ratified 15 December 1791

        In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

        Bill of Rights
        Trial by Jury

      4. Proposed 25 September 1789
        Ratified 15 December 1791

        Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

        Bill of Rights
        Cruel and Unusual

      5. Proposed 25 September 1789
        Ratified 15 December 1791

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        Bill of Rights
        Unenumerated Rights

      6. Proposed 13 June 1866
        Ratified 9 July 1868

        1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

        3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

        5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

        Adaption of the 14th
        Due Process

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          All these quotes from the constituiton are not a plan of action. They may be somewhat interesting as all curios and relics of the past are, but nothing more. The constituiton was not reality after Marbury v. Madison. The fight is today, not 1791.

          If the constitution really mattered, all a judge would need to do is look at a circumstance/law, compare it to the words of the constitution, and render a decision. The original idea was that the constituiton is the standard, and judgements would begin there. For over 100 years, the standard has been to look as a law/action, then find if it is possible to render a decision on some element other than comparison of the law/action to the constitution.

          “Oh, do come along, Bond”

        2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

          Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” ”

          And where is the power to determine what is repugnant? The Legislature that created and commissioned the court system? No. M v. M declared the SC and inferior courts established by the Congress shall determine what is repugnant. There is nothing in M v. M that delcares individuals are sovereign to determine that which is repugnant. This means the Legislature, upon which the very existence of courts of law depend for life, as representatives of “we the people”, is not empowered to determine which law is constitutional, or unconstitutional. “We the people” is a collective for individuals. If “We”, the entirety of “the people” are not permitted to determine what is, is not, constitutional, then individuals are not endowed with such power. Then, who holds that power?

          The SC declared that since the Legislature cannot determine constitutionally, it must be logical that such power must be vested somewhere. M v. M essentially states that such power cannot vest in the Executive. Therefore it be only logical (Blackstone, under the influence of thought that no leader – king – is absolute) that such power resides in the Judicial. The logic of that is the statement, ” Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” is meaningless outside SC determinations. Essentially, contrary to the desire of the founders, we are actually RULED by an oligarchy of nine humans.

      7. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Not just anyone has what is called “standing” to seek such orders.”

        We do not have information regarding the precise forms that can be completed online. Thus, the concern is that people from anywhere can file the claims, by the thousands, posing as “permitted people”, overwhelming the police in verifying the source(s) of the online submissions. So the question is, “What are the safeguards that will prevent fraudulent claims?”

  2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    This violates quite a few enumerated rights. Besides the obvious, it will stifle free speech. If these laws pass, nobody can ever discuss firearms at work again, or even express a view favorable to right to own firearms, without risking persecution via a weaponized criminal justice system.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Like the communist taught their workers: Hear something, see something? Say something!

  3. avatar Rich Turyn says:

    That has nothing to do with socialism. And it has to get past a court staff and a judge who is likely to be a gunowner.

    1. avatar LibertyToaf says:

      Re: “That has nothing to do with socialism.”

      Very true–i
      t is closer to communism where you are encouraged to monitor and rat out your neighbors…

      1. avatar enuf says:

        False. None of this fits within Socialism or Communism as defined by Karl Marx, which is the only definition that is factual and correct. Any claims otherwise are utter nonsense written by people who do not comprehend those two concepts.

        Both of which are bad, evil in fact. But Marx supported private ownership of arms. Including canons. Being anti-gun was not among his crimes against humanity.

        Anti-Gun laws are examples of Hoplophobia and a clear loss of Reason, not Socialism or Communism.

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          Can you name a Communist country that allows it’s citizens to freely own firearms? Didn’t think so. The further to the left a country goes the fewer freedoms you have, from firearms to speech the left is totalitarian by its nature.

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Marx thought the workers, farmers, and other “little people” would naturally and overwhelmingly see things his way. When it became clear that they did not, Marxists changed their thinking on some issues.

        3. avatar Someone says:

          Communism, or its pre-stage socialism can’t be pushed down American’s throat until they are rendered defenseless.
          Everywhere communists grabbed the power, even if that was done by violent and bloody revolution as Marx wanted, they always disarmed the population. -“The Glorious Socialistic Revolution has won, comrades! You don’t need weapons anymore. Give them up (or be considered the enemy of the people and treated as such).”
          https://images.app.goo.gl/am8UnzP5yErmR6nv9

          And that is the reason leftists push gun control. They couldn’t care less about criminals and mass murderers. Public safety is just useful pretense for gun grabber’s agenda. Don’t get fooled.

        4. avatar User1 says:

          Communism came before Marx. The concept has been around for longer than we can imagine. I won’t get into the religious origins.

          Every intelligent person can deduce that statism leads to confiscation of weapons from the citizens that don’t work for the state.

          To achieve communism you must disarm those that do not respect the central planning and social engineering, otherwise you cannot achieve your goals. Some humans don’t want to be another person’s worker. Some humans want their own beliefs and reject others. It only takes one person to screw up the utopia and usually there is one person that takes control of it all.

          I don’t like when higher education people stick to some single definition of what a specific ideology is or isn’t based on a person’s definition of something. They refuse to go deeper to see the concept for what it is because the manipulator’s definition is supreme.

          Fascism is statism. Socialism is statism. Communism is statism. They are all variations of state control over the people, they are methods of tyranny. Some societies require certain strategies/methods to achieve central control of the people and to suppress liberty. The actions tell us more than a definition written by some central planner.

          Arguing what is “true” communism is a distraction, which is usually intentional.

        5. avatar Mad says:

          Do you like being an imbecil it is the very definition of communism pol pot Cambodia Mao China Stalin Russia millions murdered so puke your stupidity or wake up

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Do you like being an imbecil it is the very definition of communism…”

          Hard to deride anti-gunners for ignoring technical terms, while castigating someone who points to the object truth about Marxism. We want the constituiton to be interpreted in light of the meaning of words in the late 18th century. Why should someone who points out that original Marxist terms are being twisted today be disrespected for point that out.

          That someone is using our favorite rubric to point out the use of a twisted version of a fact doesn’t make the original concept invalid. We are fond of pointing out that “public safety” does not justify restricting gun ownership. Declaring that perversions of Marxist thought do not describe original Marxist thought should be recognized for what it is: being accurate in our language.

        7. avatar Dn says:

          Enuf, you are wrong on marx’s position AND in history AND on the big picture.

          Communism and socialism are closest to fascism. These are the three most “Statist” political organizing systems in the history of modern world. In stated organizing principles, and in practice, they rely, as a core aspect of monopoly of violence held by — and only by — the state and its governing and enforcement bodies.

          Even liberal gun owners forums, where people have differing opinions from conservatives on say abortion, LGBQ ossified, or climate change; the socialists and Marxist spouting morons get chased off because it is NONSENSE to assert socialist, national socialist (fascist), or communists support the individual and his or her rights in any way – and they sure as heck never support empowering citizens with the means to deter or challenge statism

      2. You mean “Block Wardens”…

    2. avatar Ing says:

      It has everything to do with authoritarianism. And virtually all of our government authoritarians are also …wait for it… socialists. Progressive Marxists, if you prefer.

      Court staff have no say in the matter. Judges do. And if you think California judges are kindly disposed toward gun owners, I’ve also got beachfront in Arizona to sell you.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        There is no such thing as a Progressive Marxist. Nor can a Marxist be anti-gun and still be a Marxist.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          No true Marxist……….will ever exist?

        2. avatar Jason says:

          “…No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).”

          Thanks for providing a current example of the widespread breakdown of rational thought. 👍

  4. avatar mrvco says:

    Joseph Stalin would be proud!

    Red Flag Orders will be the new ‘SWATting’.

  5. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    There’s no shortage of lunatic liberals who should be the targets of these restraining orders. You all know the type – car covered in bumper stickers, the people who tell you everywhere, all the time, about every little political thing on their mind. The shrieking, overweight academic females who “fight oppression” and other imaginary issues who give everyone and everything a piece of their mind.

    Drop a dime on these people. This is one liberal policy idea that they’re going to grow to reconsider very quickly, because as everyone over the age of 40 knows, the vast preponderance of violent nutburgers are on the left. And they’ll be plenty violent and unhinged with the LEO’s make contact with them – which will justify the order.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Umm.. Have you seen places like Portland? Things don’t work that way.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Do a quick search for “restraining order” and “Portland” and you’ll see that they have a veritable cottage industry in restraining orders in Portlandia.

        1. avatar Bob Jones says:

          Portardia

  6. avatar User1 says:

    Red flag orders is simply gun confiscation, period. It’s a way to trick simpletons into giving that power to the government without noticing that the government intends to confiscate everything from everyone that doesn’t work for them.

    Once they get the power to confiscate, which about 16 states have now, they amend the law to give them more power. You let the vampire into your homes. Now you’re screwed. Good luck trying to get rid of it. I’m sure the supreme court will side against the government and “public safety” if they hear a case.

    Just to let people see what kind of men they hire to be police in California. Do you think these kinds of men won’t serve you a side of mag dump when they come a no knocking?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Looks like some everyday government sanctioned gang-bangers.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        I heard the attorney wouldn’t file charges against the cops if at least one of them was fired. One was fired and the other is on paid vacation (from what I gather).

        Guess what attorney is going to be given a permission slip to carry a gun? Won’t be the first time…

        These are the people that have control of the justice system. These are the attorneys, judges and law enforcement that will decide what person to confiscate guns from and how they are going to do that. I hear that area was more Republican leaning of a county. Imagine the Democrat heavy areas.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yup. I really hope POTG wake the hell up. Government has gone most tyrannical. The Hour of the Time.

    2. avatar User1 says:

      Oh yeah! I forgot… The NRA told Republicans gun confiscation is okay, but let them write the laws.

      That’s how the National Rifle Association protects the U.S. Constitution and the American people.

    3. avatar Political gristle says:

      Those monsters pumped that guy full of lead,
      He had a co2 pellet gun. Never had a chance to surrender, the second the jack boots showed up started their multiple mag dumps THROUGH the windshield while driving.
      The guy was dead the motherfuckers kept shooting him.
      Why are cops hated again?

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Why are cops hated again?

        Because they are white heterosexual males.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Most cops are good people.

          Problem is that when cops do bad things they are protected by unions, by prosecutors, by their own command structure and by other cops. That’s what ruins it for all those good cops, the protecting of bad apples.

        2. avatar User1 says:

          @enuf

          I don’t believe that is the case with modern “law enforcement.” I haven’t seen much experiences where cops do a great job being a peace officer. Even the better cops are bad cops because of what you explained.

          If you are a good cop and you do not “rat out” bad cops, you are no longer a good cop or person. If you allow bad cops to commit crimes or do bad things in your presence, even against a criminal, you are not a good cop or person. That’s not guilty by association, that’s guilty by inaction.

          Good cops usually don’t get promoted or respected by the rest of the department. They are considered traitors and people don’t want to work with them. You are going against the brotherhood, the fraternity, if you start opening your mouth and getting people in trouble. They will put you in shitty positions or tasks to try to get you to quit. You will be shunned and they will talk behind your back.

        3. Thank you liberal TROLL for the usual mentally deranged identity politics…

    4. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      That would be the very definition of “criminal negligence”! As well as the definition of an “Authoritarian Police-State” where any thing goes! This format of environmental living is incompatible with a U.S. Citizens Constitutional-Bill of Rights!

      1. Sorry , add in ” reckless endangerment!”

  7. avatar Political gristle says:

    take a Bump stock turn-in FOIA request, find addresses of gun owners, then call in an ERPO.
    Oh, yeah antifa and prog-la-dites aren’t going to let that golden opportunity to punish conservative gun owners pass.
    Extremely dangerous precident.
    You can be erpo’d by any one for any reason, most judges will approve, because
    ” just in case”

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You cannot just “call it in.” YOU have to execute a declaration under penalty of perjury that the facts you state are true. Further, not just any one can seek such orders.

      1. “Heresay” is NOT Due Process!

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” Further, not just any one can seek such orders.”

        That is the essance of the questions. Can I, sitting here in BF Idaho go online and declare myself to be a former member (in the last six months) of the household, and create a completely fake claim that is then acted upon by police? What are the safeguards to prevent such? (information that wasn’t in the original article)

      3. avatar Dn says:

        Mark you are completely wrong. the real world perjury jeopardy for people exploiting this to harass gun owners is ZERO.
        Perjury requires a prosecutor taking a purjury case, a trial, a jury, and a beyond a reasonable doubt finding.

        Secondly hearsay is allowed. You can NEVER be prosecuted for being quoted in hearsay. If I say “Jon threatened to use a gun” and then “Bill” testifies in court that I did say that, that hearsay is admissible in red flag cases— but no one can be prosecuted for purjury in that case even is a complete lie. Why? I did not say it under oath. Only Bill was under oath. And he is not lying in testifying what I said.

        Also No one gets prosecuted for protective order cases — that is why the major prestigious law journals have noted an estimated 80% are baseless harassment. We have been letting that 80% slide because up til now losing involves just being prohibited from going to the persons house or calling or writing them.
        Once we start denying bill of rights liberties based on this easy to abuse system we have a big problem

      4. avatar Dn says:

        You are fucking wrong. Hearsay is allowed in the declaration and you can NOT be effectively prosecuted for perjury relating hearsay even under oath.

        If I testify that John Doe told me that it seems you own a gun and look depressed, who has committed perjury? Answer: no one

  8. avatar Sam I Am says:

    As noted often before….authorities do not need to sweep entire neighborhoods, kicking-in doors and confiscating firearms, while facing unsympathetic neighboring gun owners screaming, “Molon Labe”. A few red flag incidents here and there will send the intended message. Eventually, the chill settles in as permafrost.

    1. avatar Political gristle says:

      BINGO! 100,000,000%
      ((In the minds of the sheep the police are executing an ERPO confiscation From a criminal, the police don’t make mistakes so they deserve it.))

    2. Yes, obviously it would be expanded to “political dissidence/rebels/ political opposition” to strip that group of chartered constitutional rights…This stuff was done before during the Medieval Dark Ages….During the civil/ religious upheaval in Britain, Civil War: Catholics vs the Protestants…Where one religious group got the other written out of English common law…Stripping them of any rights to bear arms, property, etc…The religious group and monarchy could inflict to do anything they wanted to the other group… up to including mass murder and rape…

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        There is nothing new under the sun.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Of course. That’s the point.

  9. avatar Someone says:

    Okay, show of hands – who didn’t expect this? Next stop, your home state.
    California is moving towards the progressive’s goal: total civilian disarmament.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      California has been on that road for decades. And it already has a red flag law from two years ago, but only resident relatives and the police can apply for orders. Further, the standard of proof at the formal hearing after a temporary order is issued requires “clear and convincing evidence” to extend the order beyond two or three weeks. At that hearing, the defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel, to call witnesses, to be represented by counsel, and to cross-examine the witnesses against him/her. Last but not least, the law allows the defendant to sell or safely store in someone else’s possession his/her firearms as long as the defendant does not have access.

      1. THAT’S NOT how Due Process works…..

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “THAT’S NOT how Due Process works…..”

          It is exactly how “due process works”. If there is a law, and a written process/procedure for how to apply the law, courts will normally defer to the written process. Once the SC declared that “civilian asset forfeiture” was permissible because there was a “compelling government interest” in controlling crime, “due process” became whatever is justified under the heading of “public safety”, “crime reduction”, “war on drugs” (or whatever). When it is expedient to foster the political views of a judge, “due process” might be declared invalid.

  10. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Only an idiot would truly believe these laws are going to pass Constitutional muster, but in the mean time expect more people to get SWATted with the latest tool of the anti-gun left. There should be jail time for politicians who propose and vote for this stuff.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      I read that California has had gun confiscation powers since 2014. No supreme court case yet.

      The supreme court has said you have an individual right to own guns but the government has the right and duty to protect the public from unusual weapons. Gun confiscation orders are meant to protect the public, to promote the general welfare of society, including the person they remove the guns from.

      1. Yes, thank you” Soy-infused, Liberal SJW TROLL” for making the case regarding” Authoritarianism and Tyranny” It has been on the rise for sometime in the USA…

    2. Death Penalty would be better….”Eye for an eye…A tooth for tooth!”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ”Eye for an eye…A tooth for tooth!”

        These are limits to recompense, not a charge to/for revenge. If someone wrongs you, you are justified to recover for you exact loss (or less, if you choose), but are not justified to demand more than what was taken from you.

        1. Did CNN and MSNBC close its comment section down…?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Did CNN and MSNBC close its comment section down…?”

          “Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord; I will repay.” Meanwhile, we are restricted to recovering our loss, and nothing more (well, except for the court-sponsored lotteries).

  11. avatar Darkman says:

    As legal firearms owners in California continue to allow themselves to slowly be pushed toward the Abyss of Oppression. I seriously wonder if they will ever Stand and Fight for Their Rights. There seems to be a Hope and Pray mentality when it comes to how they perceive this assault. Hoping beyond Hope that the Courts will save them. Which has been proven to be a Fool’s Gambit. Expecting Someone Else to do what is Their Duty to Do. It is obvious that those in power in California have no respect for the Constitution/Bill of Rights. As well as No Fear of the People and Rights they continue to Oppress. The choice’s seems clear. Either stay and continue to be Oppressed. Leave for a state that protects Your Rights. Or Remove those who Oppress Your Rights by Any Means Necessary. Choice #1 Seems to be the course being taken by Most Californians. Choice #2 While difficult has been taken by a few people. Choice #3 being the hardest and requiring the most courage seems to be beyond the scope of understanding for Legal Firearms Owners. Yet all one has to do is study the history of oppression and realize that the use of force has been the only clear path to Freedom. Each person will have to decide how they want to live their lives. Their are no guarantees that the choice made will result in the desired objectives. One thing is for sure doing nothing will result in continued Oppression. Just remember those who Choose and Fight for Freedom. Aspire to a Cause Greater than Themselves. This holds True for not only Californians but for all People who desire to be Free from Oppression. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  12. avatar barnbwt says:

    The concept of weaponizing immature, brainwashed children to keep their more-mature (and potentially politically dangerous) parents in line through tip lines was a prominent feature of life in Oceana. Co-workers, employers, anyone really, could turn you in or be turned in themselves, at any moment, their entire lives. The paranoia made it impossible for the people to self-associate outside of the mandatory groupings that supported Big Brother, and challenge his regime. That aspect of the story was borrowed from the history surrounding the Great Terror in France, where mass, paranoid, and arbitrary political executions were found to be an effective tool for maintaining power in the hands of a tyrannical administration.

    I would say anyone with a clue needs to leave while they still allow you to (they *will* try to seize peoples’ real estate assets as an ‘exit-tax’ before this is all said & done), but I am convinced more each day that anyone with a clue would have long since fled already, and the only ones remaining are dangerously infected with same terrible ideas, but merely to lesser degrees than the current (increasing) average.

  13. avatar SurfGW says:

    User1 has it right. GVROs have been in effect since 2014 and withstood court challenges because Heller required government to regulate firearms responsibly.
    The chance of a court finding this law unconstitutional is close to zero. Your plans need to focus on not advertising your gun ownership because that makes you a target.
    Many lawyers are already asking for GVROs in any family law as a condition to show “good faith”.
    The smartest thing I ever did is get rid of my guns.

  14. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    “….Furthermore, how a Red Flag order is not a hill to die upon if cops do show up….”

    What is?

    1. avatar User1 says:

      The hill without guns or maybe a hill of guns?

      People who love government don’t want you to attack government. Attacking government, regardless of the wrongs they are doing, is considered terrorism in their minds. Some of these people have family in, or they are part of, the government. They love the women and men in government uniforms, they want them to come home happy and safe, which means everyone has to follow orders all the time regardless.

      The Jewish people were given an opportunity to leave Germany, some of them took it, others stayed. The ones that remained did what the government told them, they followed the orders of their government, they didn’t want any trouble. They would try to deal with the problems without fighting. They didn’t want to upset the populace further. They were sure their rights would be respected as long as they complied with the law.

      No one can tell you when it’s your time to fight. That is a personal decision because it’s your life. You draw or redraw that line for yourself. Usually the universal line is drawn behind enemy lines.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Question pointed toward John Boch.

        But everyone must answer for themselves at some point.

        1. Hell, my “[email protected] ” faith in TTAG has been waning since the last group of “RED FLAG LAW” articles. If they weren’t the solution, they became part of the problem! They didn’t offer anything of significant value the preservation of the Second Amendment or a Bill of Rights!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Hell, my “[email protected] ” faith in TTAG has been waning since the last group of “RED FLAG LAW” articles.”

          So, TTFN?

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Exactly. Well stated.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    For once I’m OK with being self-employed. Haven’t been “employed” in a full-time job since 1993…would that the idiot’s in Aurora,ILL had ratted out the criminal factory shooter-instead of calling him in to fire him😩

  16. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Boch must be British.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Isn’t he a proud European-American Christian male who worked for Trump’s campaign or administration?

  17. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Didn’t they do that in Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union? If the people out there let this kind of undemocratic garbage they will deserve what they get. How about getting people to turn in their state legislators and mayoral bodyguards? And we can’t forget those who guard the leftist movie “stars”. These clowns know most of the philosophical arguments against such horse hockey which is why they need an example of how far it can go. This kind of crap means a burglar could possibly get your guns taken away because you accosted him in YOUR house. Any boss who does this should be sued. Check with the NLRB and local unions re such nonsense.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    “Add in some legal recreational marijuana and all bets are off where gun rights are concerned.”

    Does this upset the TTAG marijuana drug legalization crowd? I call this “a slip of truth” that will be denied at a later date. Amazing how California boycotts Alabama over sex toys or North Carolina over bathroom access. They will be wearing with PRIDE their strap on dildos, well fitted for public attire at the next parade. Or in Austin Texas.

  19. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Screw the wall with Mexico, the wall should be built along the ca border…Measles are one thing, but spreading mental disease is another….

  20. avatar UncleK says:

    This amounts to legalized swatting!

  21. Excerpt from TTAG ;

    We’ve covered what to do if police show up at your house to execute a Red Flag order. As well as how to prepare for one. Furthermore, how a Red Flag order is not a hill to die upon if cops do show up.

    Obviously, this expansion of the law poses a serious risk to gun owners throughout California. Know the law and what to do if you get a knock on your door.
    ____________________________________________
    I Still have heard of any real constructive ideas 💡from TTAG to combat obviously “unconstitutional attacks and infringements ” against the U.S. voters/taxpayers/citizens caused by “RED FLAG LAWS ” (Heresay reports…) Better would be a nationwide defense that everyone can contribute to start legal actions against various state entities that are making an “end run around the Bill of rights”. I’ve been steadily losing my interest in TTAG. When the best advice is to surrender to “Authoritarianism”! That’s something the French would do! What happened to all the “Molon Labe ” against an ever encroaching police-state?! Eventually, it WON’T be worth posting here if TTAG CAN’T get it’s “Brain trust ” in gear and come up with more positive, proactive [email protected] defenses…

  22. Edit Button= HAVEN’T.

  23. avatar Mad says:

    Gun confiscation is on its way to you many will die I am glad I know Jesus.because when they come and hose me down I will forever be with the Lord

  24. avatar Joe says:

    Seeing is how this IS Mexifornia this article is referring to, what is to stop the now-disarmed-without-due-process individual from simply taking cash, and buying whatever weapon he/she wants at the border? After all, the border with Mexico is wide open. That person can merely buy what he wants, and to hell with the Red Flag laws. After all, this law just made him a criminal without any due process. He may as well take advantage of the fact, and now buy what he could not purchase legally before as a law abiding citizen. Sounds terrible, but since when is a Red Flag law-or any other gun control law-going to stop anyone other than the law abiding?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “what is to stop the now-disarmed-without-due-process individual from simply taking cash, and buying whatever weapon he/she wants at the border? ”

      Great observation. In the instance, being jailed will pose difficulties (allegedly the protagonist comitted criminal acts). If it were just a red flag confiscation, a border transaction is unstoppable.

      1. avatar Political gristle says:

        Anecdotal musings:
        I’m sure the drug cartels would be more than happy to supply the u.s. with real automatic assault rifles and grenades.
        It’s ironic the authoritarians would take the legally owned semi auto sporting rifles, only to force people to obtain automatic assault weapons and grenades, Creating the exact scenario they’re trying to stop

        What’s that saying; “there’s nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose”.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m sure the drug cartels would be more than happy to supply the u.s. with real automatic assault rifles and grenades.”

          Given we are discussing Californication, it is doubtful a transaction at the border would be necessary; deals on wheels.

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