California "gun violence restraining order" -another erosion of our second amendment.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-governor-signs-gun-violence-retraining-order-law-222148667.html

With good intentions to save lives, California may have violated the Constitution.

Take guns away from people that family members are fearful of... by a judge's order.

That's all well and good, but what happens to the now-defenseless guy when an armed thug is beating down his door?

California's on an extra dose of stupid lately.

I wonder why the govt never offers to disarm?

Lets look at this law:

The law will allow law enforcement officials, family members and some others to seek a gun restraining order from a judge. That order would authorize officials to temporarily seize any firearm owned by someone deemed potentially violent ( BY WHO, what standards) , who would also be placed on a list of people prohibited from purchasing weapons

This needs to go to supreme court, its not constitutional.

It HAS good intentions, but will concerns from a family member alone allow for a judge to take someone's guns away? There has to be other factors... mental illness (Schizophrenia, wild mood swings, etc) of the gun owner, documented threats of domestic violence, and the like.

You can't take a gun away from somebody because his uncle says he shouldn't have a gun.

Guns don't  kill people...bullets kill people....

Eric wrote:

It HAS good intentions, but will concerns from a family member alone allow for a judge to take someone's guns away?  There has to be other factors... mental illness (Schizophrenia, wild mood swings, etc) of the gun owner, documented threats of domestic violence, and the like.

You can't take a gun away from somebody because his uncle says he shouldn't have a gun.

No, but they can in California if a law enforcement officer says you shouldn't.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

Okay, I will share with the class. This is a very sensitive subject for me. Some of you know that on Christmas Day in 2010 two of my aunts were murdered by a schizophrenic that had gone off his meds and in 1997 my uncle shot himself. There have been several violent tragedies in my family, but those two events forever changed the topography of my family.

This is people's constitutional rights we're talking about and we should remember that we only revoke gun ownership rights from convicted felons. Before my uncle shot himself, he was pretty depressed. On several occasions my dad went up to his house and took all his firearms. He was PISSED and he told my dad that he had no f-ing right, that he was a dirty bastard, that he hated him, etc. But my dad didn't care, he just wanted to look out for his family. That's how it should be handled in my opinion... within family and friends. But you don't go legally messing with someone's constitutional rights. 

It will be interesting to see how California applies this new law.

As a libertarian I think people should be free. I don't see the problem with convicts that have served their time having guns. Nor do I see a problem with people committing suicide with a gun as long as they don't miss or make a mess. Guns drugs knives rocks sticks axes.....WTH.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

As a libertarian I think people should be free. I don't see the problem with convicts that have served their time having guns. Nor do I see a problem with people committing suicide with a gun as long as they don't miss or make a mess. Guns drugs knives rocks sticks axes.....WTH.

I agree with you, T. A person who has served there time has served their time. And I have learned in my lifetime that if someone wants to kill themselves, they're going to kill themselves, gun or no gun. It sucks, but it is what it is.

However, the piece of shit that murdered my aunts is in a psychiatric hospital. I have an idea for a better place for him, but I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on where that waste of skin belongs, just as I'm sure they do about my above opinions.

I would never have allowed insanity in as a defense....If you kill someone on purpose or by accident while committing a crime, you die. I really don't care if they are nuts...most murderers are to some degree.

POS should be taking a dirt nap. I'm sure people will say that I am wrong, cruel, mean, insensitive, but I do not care. I would kill him myself for what he did. He does not deserve to breathe.

I would say that his being terminated would be justice. The problem is once he's dead he can't be punished further. Maybe he should have to do hard time manual labor  to repay his victims family till he's physically ruined, then put him down. Pay him a dollar an hour to break rocks till his bones give out.

No amount of anything in the universe could repay my cousins and their children for the losses they have endured at that animal's hands. They feel that justice would be served for their mothers if he was put down. "An eye for an eye..."