Previous Post
Next Post


Assembly woman Nancy Skinner [above] felt so bad about the UCSB murders that she decided to introduce California AB 1014. After sitting with her through a marathon committee hearing last year, I can say with confidence that Nancy knows virtually nothing about firearms. But after reading this legislation, it’s clear she knows even less about the judicial system, due process or the mental health system . . .

Let me be clear here. I am all for enabling family, friends, and mental health professionals work within the bounds of the law to save people from harming themselves or others. We already have psychological holds and other intervention programs. We could clearly use some changes in order to properly define possible issues so real action can be taken while upholding and preserving patients’ rights. Mental health professionals need to be involved in assessing the situation on a case-by-case basis.

Skinner’s proposed law, however, does anything but that. A few highlights:

18101. (a) Any person may submit an application to the court, on a form designed by the Judicial Council, setting forth the facts and circumstances necessitating that a gun violence restraining order be issued. A gun violence restraining order shall be issued to prohibit a named person from possessing a firearm if an affidavit, signed by the applicant under oath, and any additional information provided to the court demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, the named person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms.

On the surface this sounds reasonable enough – except that anyone can file such claims. This will leave the door wide open to rampant false claims. There’s no I repeat no provision for punishment of the accuser for false claims. I’m sure many of you who have filed for divorce have been hit by the false restraining order ploy. It is not much of a stretch to think that this new law would be used the same way. And worse.

18102. (3) A recent violation of an emergency protective order pursuant to Section 646.91 or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code.

This attaches the new law to restraining orders. Forget the fact we already have a federal law which covers this; another one will apparently work twice as well. So if your soon-to-be ex decides to really put the screws to you, there’s a good chance you’ll get a knock at your front door.

(5) A conviction for any offense listed in Section 29805.

The current list of misdemeanor violations usually carry a prohibition of 10 years under state law. Ever been in a bar fight? Ever had to defend yourself using fisticuffs, and then wound up getting arrested anyway? I’m not sure why they are tying this to something which already carries a prohibition. This includes burglary, sex crimes, and even many fraud charges, which is a non violent offense.

Section 29805 also references penal code 26100. Basically if you ever get a misdemeanor violation for improperly storing your firearm in your vehicle, you wind up on this list as well. None of this has anything to do with mental health.

(1) The reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the named person.

Considering that brandishing or displaying a firearm in public is already a crime, unless there’s actually something you can claim with evidence, like a conviction, this makes no sense. All those folks who might have gotten caught printing while carrying concealed now fall under this new law. They did nothing wrong other than pick a shirt one size to small.

What constitutes display or reckless use? That’s open to interpretation. Which means it’s open to abuse. Never mind that, again, it has nothing to do with anyone’s mental state. Unless you subscribe to the idea that simply owning a firearm is a mental issue, then this shouldn’t be in the bill.

Under the same section we have two more inclusions.

(3) Any prior arrest of the named person for a felony offense.

Notice section 3 does not say conviction, but arrest. It doesn’t even say arrest with formal charges. How many people are arrested under suspicion, but later released or acquitted altogether? Even if you are proven innocent, you’d be a covered person under this law. Where is the due process in that?

(6) Evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the named person.

Let’s leave hard drug use out of it, since if you do use illicit drugs you will have lied on your 4473 and thus broken the law to begin with. Let’s say you’re an alcoholic. You go home, have some drinks. You do this daily. You never drink and drive. You have no alcohol-related offenses. You would still fall under the new law. The fact is, if someone wants to drink themselves to death, but isn’t a threat to others, it’s none of the state’s business.

(7) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.

If you own a gun, and perhaps purchase one every six months on average, this certainly isn’t grounds for alarm. Unless the new law is passed. Notice the language specifies “deadly weapons.” If I buy some rocks or an axe, does that count too? The UCSB killer was reported to have purchased his firearms over a period of time so as not raise any alarm. Again what does this have to do with mental health?

18105. (a) If the location to be searched during the execution of a firearm seizure warrant is jointly occupied by multiple parties and a firearm is located during the execution of the seizure warrant, and it is determined that the firearm is owned by a person other than the person named in the firearm seizure warrant, the firearm shall not be seized if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The firearm is stored in a manner that the person named in the firearm seizure warrant does not have access to or control of the firearm.
(2) There is no evidence of unlawful possession of the firearm by the owner.
(b) If the location to be searched during the execution of a firearm seizure warrant is jointly occupied by multiple parties and a gun safe is located, and it is determined that the gun safe is owned by a person other than the person named in the firearm seizure warrant, the contents of the gun safe shall not be searched except in the owner’s presence, or with his or her consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained.

If by chance your roommate is nuts, you should keep all your firearms locked away. I think this goes without saying. But let’s say you have your firearms out for regular cleaning or you’re getting ready for a range day, when the police come a-knocking. Does the new law mean those firearms will be taken too? It certainly sounds like it.

18106. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (e), not later than 14 days after the execution of a gun violence restraining order and, when applicable, a firearm seizure warrant, the court that issued the order and, when applicable, the seizure warrant, or another court in that same jurisdiction, shall hold a hearing to determine whether the person who is the subject of the order may have under his or her custody or control, own, purchase, possess, or receive firearms and, when applicable, whether any seized firearms should be returned to the person named in the warrant.

This gives a ray of false hope that at least you will get your day in court. However, what happens if you fell victim to section 18105 and now you want your guns back? At this point you have no recourse since the hearing is for the named person, not you. Also what happens if you can’t afford an attorney? Clearly you deserve representation in court. The district attorney has an army behind them. Where is your support?

18250. If any of the following persons is at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or a physical assault, or is serving a protective order as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, or is serving a gun violence restraining order as defined in Section 18100, that person shall take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search as necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other persons present:

This clearly states that law enforcement can confiscate anything that is in plain site. So those expensive Wusthof kitchen knives, perhaps a nice EDC you got for Christmas. Even a nice set of Fiskars scissors that you use for quilting could all be seized. This widens the swath of confiscation and seizure which the police can implement once inside your door.

Section 8105.
(3) To determine the eligibility of a person to acquire, carry, or possess firearms, destructive devices, or explosives who is the subject of a criminal investigation, or who is the subject of an investigation into the issuance of either a gun violence restraining order or a firearm seizure warrant, as defined in Section 18100 of the Penal Code, if a part of the criminal investigation involves the acquisition, carrying, or possession of firearms, explosives, or destructive devices by that person.

According to this portion of the bill, you are guilty until proven innocent. While traditionally this section deals with mental patients with known histories, all it takes is being the person of interest in an investigation to get you disarmed. You might even be an innocent bystander to the search and wind up being ensnared in it all. At which point your lawyer fees will be high In the meantime you will have your property seized. How many won’t be able to afford to fight a long legal battle? How many will simply part with their property, becoming victim to an overreaching nanny state, driven by subjective enforcement of the laws?

So there you have it folks. The bad and bad of the situation here in California.

What is being deemed as a potential life saver in regards to mental health intervention in reality cuts a huge swath through numerous areas in which many will be ensnared. And when this fails to stop the next person unhinged and determined to cause carnage, then what? We will want to ban something else, or perhaps go for gold and ban guns, and knives altogether.

One final note: this bill does not involve mental health professionals. This is a judicial proceeding with no doctors involved what so ever. If this doesn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand up than you are not paying attention.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. No adversary hearing? I don’t think it will pass constitutional muster. What they are obviously trying to do is expand the criminally-based prohibitions on firearms ownership without having to deal with that highly inconvenient “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a criminal conviction.

    • Yes, and while it spends 10 years wending its way through the court system, thousands of people will lose their property and their rights, permanently.

      • Hey, I say fight fire with fire. If this stupid bill passes, go and file affidavit against all politicians *and* their security personnel. If they truly believe that guns necessarily cause violence, then they should really thank you.

        • Now that is an interesting idea! Man that would put a kink in their step! Being on the receiving end is annoying as we all know. I wonder how they will feel if it is turned around on them for once.

        • Thanks for this – it helps alleviate the sinking, “What’s the use?” feeling in the pit of my stomach that the main article gives me. It’s something I could actually _do_!

          Of course, the preferable course would be that this insane bill doesn’t even make it out of committee, but it’s awfully nice to know that there is, in fact, recourse if it does pass.


      • Not necessarily. Treat it as a “taking”, not as a Second Amendment issue. There has to be one sane judge in the state who passed Con Law 101. This is so obviously wrong, not even an adversary hearing. If it got any farther than the first challenge federal district court, then Cali is well and truly a totally lost cause.

    • There are a lot of laws on the books in California, and elsewhere, that quite clearly don’t pass Constitutional muster. Hardly any of those laws have even been challenged, and fewer still have been over-turned and repealed if challenged successfully. Even worse, is that even if the State loses, it either thumbs it nose at the courts and keeps it anyway or simply replaces it with an even worse law that stays on the books forever.

      The concept of “Due Process” is now largely just an illusion we like to wrap ourselves in to sleep better at night.

      You can thank Bush and Obama’s phony “War on Terror” for that, and also in part the failed “War on Drugs”.

      • Hyperventilation is fine but that you don’t want a war with the Islamist doesn’t change that they are at war with you/us/the civilized world.

        • The solution to Islomafacism is *not* to blow up due process. All that does is give more power to the state to go after gun owners, among others.

    • The anti’s are just looking for a way to bypass defined Constitutional rights. I’m not a lawyer but on the surface it would seem that if you can come up with a way to bypass one then you have come up with a way to bypass them all. Having done that you have no defined rights, the Constitution has been dissolved, there is no longer a United States. That is the price to be paid to eliminate guns.

    • She can help help it you hater. Lucky there is feminism so that she has access to the mainstream of society.

    • She’s not meaningfully different from anyone else elected by an electorate raised on over a century of pervasive, publicly funded indoctrination.

      As retarded as this bill is (redundant, I know), I do like that anyone can file a complaint. Of course it’s completely insane, but it is at least better than only those more equal getting to file them.

      • Do you really believe that the fact that anyone can file will mean equality? Look at who gets the carry permits in “May Issue” states and counties. Are you rich? Are you powerful? Are you kidding me?

        • Nope. I don’t believe it for a second. it’s just as believable as anything coming from the mouths of politicians. Everything everyone of them ever has, is, or ever will, say, is pure lie. With every single exception purely coincidental.

  2. Why didn’t the NPR segment cover ANY specifics like this?! They just threw softball questions the whole time. I am so tired of all this. Can we please just when the PR campaign already?

    • Threw softballs and tried to goad RF into saying “my rights trump your dead kid.”

  3. Just another day in that foreign tyranny knows as California. Is anyone really surprised?

    If it passes (and even for California, that’s a stretch, since a 4th grader’s knowledge of the law and Constitution could rip this thing to shreds), how about filing some restraining orders against Skinner and any bodyguards she employs, along with every other leftist politician in the state? Apparently, anyone can file them without any kind of proof and they immediately go into effect. Or, just file them against everyone and clog the system. Or, be a good American and ignore them, since you have a duty to disobey unconstitutional laws.

    And to think, there was a time when I thought people who didn’t follow laws were the bad guys. Was I ever that young?

    On the plus side, staggeringly oppressive laws like this help push the state and the country into rock bottom, where hopefully the previously complacent masses will wake up.

    • Since Feinstein and Pelosi are bat-shit crazy, as publicly proven time over time, and their goons have to be just as crazy to work for those crones, is there a fill-in pdf document I could download?

    • How about filing a complaint against the chief of police and the cops in your town? Aren’t they potentially dangerous persons?

      This is the kind of crap we have come to expect form the enlightened, progressive legislators in the PRCa.

      I am SO glad I escaped that socialist dictatorship.

  4. At some point in time (and I think that has already been passed long ago) everyone in California who objects to this nonsense should probably get up and move away.

    I know, I know, jobs, family commitments, etc but it is more than time for folks to leave California.

    The only other situation to compare this to is the plight of the Jews in pre-war Nazi Germany. Many of the finest families in Germany decided to stick things out until the Germans came to their senses and ended up being placed in box cars headed for the “resettlement areas”.

    I don’t think the libs in California are going to commit another genocidal revival directed at Conservatives but they are well on their way towards making sure any form of liberty is going to be squashed out of sight.

    • They (your politicians) are intent on redefining liberty as our Socialist Governments have done in the UK, it will be based around equality of outcome (no person can do better in life than the laziest ba$tard has done), flexibility over property rights (whats yours belongs to the state if they want it) and freedom of society not the individual (freedom from thought), non judgmental (no such thing as evil people) and excruciatingly politically correct (you wont like group think much) oh and non racist too (you will all be regarded as terrorists to avoid offending 2% of your population) as an example local councils using RIPA (RIPA is anti terrorist law permitting unconstitutional surveillance of the general population) to check you are putting your recycling in the right bin.

      I kid you not, Enjoy!

      • I think you mean “freedom of thought”. Freedom from thought would be a little bit…different.

        • no, he meant freedom FROM thought. as in, the freedom to not have to think, since big brother will do it for you. very tongue in cheek, understated, subtle, UK style humor. great line.

          and, in all of this, he is absolutely correct. except he forgot to add (somewhere) “for the children” to legitimize the whole endeavor.

    • Actually the regular people of CA should rise up, take over and make the jerks leave instead. California was great, once. Now it’s a state-sized version of a rich entitled brat (like Elliot Rodger!) who feels they should be calling the shots, even though they never did anything personally to earn that position.

    • Bud, that is exactly what I did. I lived in arguably one of the most wonderful places on earth in a coastal redwood forest. Surf in the morning, snowboard in the afternoon. It was awesome.

      Except for stupid, stupid, stupid laws. I owned a small business. 55% of the business income was handed straight over to Big Brother for one thing or another, and that number doesn’t include sales tax. The rat race that you have to run to survive in that state is not worth the redwoods, mountains, surf and snow.

      And guess what? Kansas is fantastic! Sure, its flat. I get to keep most of what I earn though, I only hold down one job, and I can shoot guns out in the country to my heart’s content. With all my friends. And none of them think I’m scary. In fact, every household I know owns at least one gun out here.

      And wall mount whitetail deer are everywhere. Its a different kind of heaven, but it sure beats a socialist California hell.

    • If you are in the PRC and are thinking about moving out of the state please move to Washington, Oregon, or any other state with the exception of Montana. No offense, but I’m gonna stereotype you pretty hard for even having lived in the PRC for any amount of time. People who spend any amount of time there are *tainted* by the extreme levels of left wing BS out there.

      No I know this makes me sound like a ragging A-hole and well maybe I am, but telling me you spent 1+ years in CA, is like telling me you spent a year in Chernobyl. Now don’t get me wrong I know people and are friends with people from CA, but invariably no matter what side of the fence they say their on politically I ALWAYS wind up hearing about how they have some idea about what they would change in MT to make everything so much better and it usually starts with guns; which I’m not ok with. Again so I’m clear I don’t dislike people from CA, just the toxic, radioactive idea’s that come spewing forth from their brainwashed minds.

  5. Since there is no penalty for a false claim, she should be the first named person affidavidt filed.

  6. He only killed two people with by shooting them. He also ran over a bicyclist with his car

  7. This is just smoke and mirrors, to make it look like the politicians are actually trying to solve the “problems”. Forget trying to make existing laws work better, we need new laws!

    Our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights are coming under attack and no one is noticing.

  8. Another bad one is in the works in Massachusetts if the house speaker gets his way.


    Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will host a public hearing for Speaker DeLeo’s

    new bill on Tuesday June 3rd, at 12:00 PM at the State House in the Gardner Auditorium.

    Bill summary:

    Full text of bill:

    If you live in Massachusetts please write, email, and CALL you legislators while you still can to try to curtail this nonsense.

  9. RF probably couldn’t cover this because he didn’t have the text of the law. He had Nancy Skinner’s verbal assurance that “due process” is included within the law, and that the restrained individual could petition for redress. As RF mentioned, any judge given a restraining order will likely sign it “in the interest of safety” or “out of an abundance of caution.”

    So the nuts and bolts if this bill is that anyone could get a restraining order against anyone else for virtually any reason which would cause their guns to be confiscated.

    • Exactly. So be sure to file against any and every Police Officer that has a chip on their shoulder, abuses their authority; and any officers that have shot anyones dogs in their own house or yard and file. Because you’re in fear for yours and your dog’s life. But most important, if you’re in a bad relationship GTF out of it, early asap on good terms, then cut ties. Non-of that back and forth stuff. Further if you love guns, you have no business being married or in a relationship with a woman who isn’t passionate about how wrong this “for the children lie” is. At least if your babe is a shooter herself, she’ll she’s likely not so insecure as to be so dramatic, additionally she’ll remember she’s got some toys to lose as well should she ever even think of playing the game. Because I’m telling you the number one abusers of such a law be ex wives, and ex girlfriends – or those soon to be; and make no mistake,and “their’ friends.too.

  10. You’d do better without resorting to hyperbole. Printing isn’t reckless brandishing and no, I’ve never been arrested for a bar fight. The vast majority of people haven’t. It’s a bad bill, but we don’t need to make our side sound ridiculous.

    • I don’t think you understand the potential for abuse in this bill – or exactly how vengeful an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife can be.

      • Ignore him. He’s a leftist plant trying to make us look bad by scoffing at legitimate concerns and being the poster child of gun grabber “common sense.” Go look at his responses in other threads, it’s his MO.

    • I didn’t read hyperbole; I read exactly the sort of hellish scenarios that urban elite law enforcement is infamous for creating.

  11. If it passes, can we file a restraining order against notorious gun-runner Leland Yee?

  12. Basically, if someone doesn’t like your face, they could use one of these to take everything you own since everything and anything can be a “deadly weapon”.

  13. This legitimately scares me. You will fear everyone, neighbors, friends, wives, your own kids

  14. What I find amazing is how fast this bill was introduced. It only took about 2 days after the shooting to write it up and introduce it. Thats including the day of, when the incident is still being sorted & investigated. I’ve never seen them work this fast….I’m going to assume this bill was already written and set aside for just the right moment to “occur”…

    • In my experience, most professionals of almost any type keep a few “in-case-of” proposals for stuff they’re interested in, ready to go in case they run into a happy circumstance where it might be useful. In the case of a marketing-type, it might be a new idea for an ad campaign they can pitch in the elevator. For a biochemist, perhaps it’s a concept for a new DNA sequencer they can bounce off a program sponsor they run into at the airport. For an EE, maybe a new graphics chip.

      In this case … it’s easy to suspect someone had this more or less prepped and ready to deploy, with some fill-in-the-blanks for preamble and name of the tragedy.

      Given how ugly this thing is, and how sloppily written it appears to be, I’d give it about an even chance that it was in fact put together in a couple of days.

      Of course, an advantage of such an ugly, all-encompassing bill is that there’s a lot of stuff that can be removed in the spirit of “compromise.” (Anyone know the emoticon for spiting in disgust?)

  15. In the future, if you ever decide you want to kill someone, just be sure to file a Gun Restraining Order ahead of time….. that way you will be sure they are unarmed! 🙂 Thank you, Nancy Skinner, for making the job of homicidal maniacs easier! Before, they would need to worry about their on-the-job safety – what, with all those crazy gun owners out there, life was just a living hell for them….. they couldn’t get any work done! Oh, how they have suffered an injustice – but NOW! , thanks to you, they can all breath easier! You also have all the heart-felt support of violent wronged EXs and rapists everywhere. Way to go! Nancy Skinner, YOU are a true philanthropist!

    Brilliant law!

    I also think that the law opens up a loophole for the government to commit illegal search and seizures in/of your home. Once they use this to come into your home at any time, day or night, they can just look around anywhere for anything they might consider contraband, in order to charge you with possession.

    I’m glad I don’t live in a state run by retards, in which the retards write the health related bills, or in a state as retarded as DC, the state that has the highest “Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter” rate in the nation – despite being 31 times smaller than Florida, and outlawing concealed & open carry!!! Hmmm, yes, DC, you did good there! I really do think you helped the people with those laws……. and by people, I mean criminals…. you were trying to help the criminals……right???

    • Uh, DC isn’t a state.

      And how in the world would this bill allow illegal searches?

      • Someone files for a “Gun Violence Restraining Order,” it’s approved, then they can enter your house day or night whenever they want and search it for whatever they want – despite not having a warrant to search your home for any other contraband that they really want to search for (not to search for guns). It’s like breaking in, then having someone call it in, and the cops then respond to the “emergency” by entering the home to deal with it. Once the cops are in your home, you can’t stop them from looking around, and anything they “just happen to find” can be taken or used against you.

        • It would also be futile to explain to lizzrd that something being made into law does not in any way mean it’s right, ethical, or even lawful in the eyes of the Constitution (not that he cares about that, as professed by him in another post). Apparently, according to him, if slavery was made lawful again, that’s fine because it’s law.

    • *Correction: in the last paragraph I did not mean that Florida was 31 times greater than the overall state of DC, I meant it’s population was (and still has half the murder rate of DC).

      • jon, let’s be honest: outer f**king elbonia is 31 times greater than DC. at this point, DC has NO redeeming features. to (sorta) quote my esteemed colleague Sir Alec Guinness in his seminal role as Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, ““Washington, DC. you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. we must be cautious.”

        we should relocate our landmarks to some other place.

        • I get what your saying, but when I corrected myself on saying “31 times greater” I meant in size, not in character or value…. another misleading mistake on my part.

  16. So if I get upset at my neighbour because his dog is defecating on my lawn, he could file a gun violence restraining order or threathen to do so when I confront (talk) to him about his dog?

    Not going to get abused at all, the law that is.

  17. In reality this thing is so poorly written, it may never get to a vote.
    If it does the State Legislature will likely pass AB1014, and the best action for California gun owners is to mount a massive campaign to get Governor Brown to Veto it. Last year he vetoed two of the worst gun control acts because he recognized they were excessive and unjust. Even though this is an election year, Brown is so far ahead of any Republican, Libertarian, or other lesser party candidate, he pretty much cannot lose in November. So, reasonable, logical respectful letters, faxes and phone calls to Brown have a good chance of persuading him to Veto it.
    In the meantime, if it passes and Governor Brown does not veto it, make your lists of named persons, fellow Californians…you know who to be sure to include…spite can be a beautiful thing…

  18. I’m actually a bit surprised they have the … not sure what the right anatomical reference here is … to introduce something like this so soon after the Leland Yee scandal-that-wasn’t. (I think it’s a scandal, but I’ve not heard too much about it since it broke, so…?)

    Then again, I moved out of California about two years back for a better job, and I know my general outlook has shifted considerably since then.

  19. (c) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the magistrate may consider any of the following:

    (7) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.

    So the act of buying a gun is supposed to serve as evidence you should not be allowed to own guns? What sort of psychotic nonsense is that?

    • Think about this: the judge only needs to decide you are at risk of harming yourself or others under the standard burden of proof for a civil matter “a preponderance of the evidence” (i.e. more than 50% of the evidence submitted). Add all of those people who say you are are more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or commit suicide when you own a gun. Add the fact that recent purchase of a weapon is a red flag.

      Wouldn’t be hard to issue a ton of those things with liberal judges and a vocal anti gun community.

  20. I think that an important point has been missed unless it’s somewhere in all of these replies. If you look at the wording “the gun safe shall not be searched except in the owner’s presence, or with his or her consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained.” it implies that the gun safe CAN be searched in the owner’s presence, without their consent and without a valid search warrant via careful use of the word (or careless depending on intent) “OR”.

  21. Great tool to give criminals. You want to commit a violent crime or rob somebody you know to be lawfully protecting themselves via the 2nd Amendment? Just make a false claim, wait for firearm seizure, and go ahead with your planned act knowing your chances of armed resistance is nil.

    I listened to the radio debate, and what really gets me is these libtards concoct these asinine laws to prevent violent crimes, and firmly believe so with every ounce of their low functioning brains. Then, as in the radio debate, a LEO charged who’s daily job is to ensure the safety of society clearly states the proposed law will be ineffective, the pol dismisses this without a thought.

    • I don’t think exploitation by criminals against their intended targets of future violence is a big concern, since it does not seem to allow anonymous applications. I doubt a criminal would want to officially connect himself in any way to his target in the eyes of the legal system.

      It’s more likely the restraining order itself would be the weapon – for purposes of harassment and defamation, for revenge or for extortion, etc.

  22. (7) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.

    Am I reading this one wrong, or does it basically say that, “if you recently bought a gun (or basically anything else), we think you’re dangerous and that’s our excuse for taking all of your guns (and everything else)”?

  23. The criminals can just troll the public notice section of the papers to find out who’s who among the recently disarmed.

  24. Well, as if there wasn’t enough bad stuff already mentioned–I see that any “magistrate” can issue the original order. I dunno about Cali, but in general, “magistrates” can cover a lot of folks, many in purely political positions with no professional or educational requirements to speak of. In Texas, mayors of small towns and Justices of the Peace are among those deemed “magistrates”, which positions do not require so much as a high-school diploma to hold.

  25. What Representative Skinner proposes puts us into the Realm of Cuba, Soviet, Nazi block captains and Maoist denunciation.

  26. No “burden of proof” on the accuser other than their sworn affidavit.
    No objective adjudication of the claim.
    No opportunity for a defense.
    No return of improperly seized property.
    Plenty of potential opportunity for abuse.

    Yep, we have a real winner here.

    Just who elects these idiots anyway? Are K-8 kids voting now?

  27. “Any person” may file? So someone from a different state could file for an order on, say, a Democrat Congresswoman or Senator?

  28. One can’t be arrested on suspicion of a crime, but only upon probable cause that one comitted a crime. You can be detained, Terry v. Ohio, by a law enforcement officer based on reasonable suspicion that a crime, was, is, or will be comitted, but that is not an arrest.

  29. At a minimum, should we at least bury (or cremate) the dead first before drafting “firearm control” laws? Or, does the bloody shirt need to be fresh, for the children of course?

  30. This is just a back door confiscation program. No due process. No constitutional protections. Just one person complaining about you and, all of a sudden, your civil rights go flying out the window as the government enforces a duly authorized restraining order. And what’s to stop some government authority to act as an agent provocateur and encourage neighbor to turn against neighbor to disarm law abiding gun owners. I guess she forgot her oath to protect the Constitution.

      • Wouldn’t simply using a public pay-phone be a lot cheaper??…..

        ….. but I’m pretty sure you can’t just call it in. From what I’ve read, you need to file one on paper, meaning there is no anonymity there.

  31. As we were planning our escape from the crumbling state of CA, I looked at a list of things I wanted from our next (and last) state residence, one of them was gun rights.

    I ran across an article naming the states that made the ATF nervous and our current home of West Virginia was named on the list by that agency and the FBI, as more or less ‘lawless’ places (their definition) in regards to firearm availability and gun rights.

    Despite my decades long Libertarian membership, I have to admit that the Dems who control most everything here are firmly on our side and nearly each brief legislative session new laws are passed further strengthening protections of the 2nd Amendment.
    Additionally, an organization called the WV Citizens Defense League has been successful kick-starting expanded protection.

    They also have a ranking of state and federal office holders and candidates showing who NOT to vote for:

    At least pols here are aware that WE are aware of their attitude toward gun rights.

    I don’t care if Mexico eventually takes back California ’cause it ain’t worth spit anymore.

Comments are closed.