New California law allows families to ask for ‘gun violence restraining orders’

[cui bono]

Reuters
30 Sep 2014

People who fear a close relative may commit gun violence will be able to petition a judge to temporarily remove the person’s firearms in California, under a bill signed into law on Tuesday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

The legislation – the first such measure in the United States – was introduced after police near Santa Barbara said they were unable to confiscate weapons from a man who later went on a rampage and killed six people, despite concern from his family he was in poor mental health and might become violent.

Under the so-called gun violence restraining order in the court system, immediate family members and law enforcement agencies could ask a judge to order guns temporarily removed from certain individuals.

...

“The new ‘Gun Violence Restraining Order’ law will give families and law enforcement a needed tool to reduce the risk of mass shootings and gun violence both in the home and on our streets,” said Nick and Amanda Wilcox, legislative co-chairs of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The law has wide support from law enforcement agencies and is based on an existing measure that temporarily blocks people with domestic violence restraining orders from owning a gun.

more...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/new-california-law-allows-families-to-ask-for-gun-violence-restraining-orders/

[Calista241]

1. Hmm. Not sure what to think about this.

Do we have any other rights someone can file a petition to take away?

[cui bono]

3. Can't people be institutionalized without their consent?

Or at least held for observation if they are determined to be a danger to themselves or others?

[Straw Man]

4. Yes, with evaluation from a mental health professional.

The bar has to be higher than merely petitioning a judge. There has to be some sort of corroboration or this is going to become a harassment tool in any deteriorating marriage where one or both parties own firearms.

[cui bono]

5. Okay, how about regular restraining orders? They take away one's right to go certain places,

entire areas, just because another person petitioned a judge/court. Personally, I think taking away a gun is less egregious than that.

[NYC_SKP]

15. TROs keep people apart or keep a person away from a certain place or places.

TRO's do NOT take away a person's possession or take away a persons means of defending their family or selves.

It's like comparing apples to elephants.

Still, absent other means, I think it's a tool that, used fairly, can do some good.

[Tumbulu]

2. Thank goodness, let's hope other states file suit soon!

It should be federal, actually.

[mwrguy]

6. Absolutely.

[pablo_marmol]

7. Potential for abuse here.

I had a serious run in with a family member once. To make a long story short, this person directed an extremely malicious false accusation toward me -- and naturally I responded with extreme anger, as nearly anyone would. Eventually this person threatened me with a restraining order based not on any threat I made -- as I didn't make any -- but on my angry responses to their repeated malicious lies. If the order had been granted I would have been unable to work, as I'm an armed guard.

I'd be very interested in the nuts and bolts of how this will be administered, and what remedies would be available to those injured by dishonest/vindictive RO's.

[cui bono]

8. What about regular restraining orders?

They have existed for a long time.

[pablo_marmol]

11. Not sure what you're getting at. What about regular RO's?

The subject here are RO's which take firearms away from people.

I don't have an issue with regular RO's as long as they aren't used as weapons in a dishonorable manner.

[cui bono]

12. I know what the subject is, I posted the OP!

I'm just trying to have a discussion.

It's the same concept but you're just taking something different away. One instance is taking a gun away, the other is taking away areas where one can go to/be in. I threw it out there for comparison's sake and to add it to the discussion since we already have those and they've been around and there doesn't seem to be any problem with having them. The same abuse can be done with those as they are granted by the court.

I guess I don't have a problem with a gun being taken away. I don't think it's much different than taking away one's right to go into a certain area. If anything it seems that a regular restraining order is more egregious.

[Straw Man]

20. On the subject.

I don't think it's much different than taking away one's right to go into a certain area. If anything it seems that a regular restraining order is more egregious.

You're very wrong. As has been mentioned above, taking property is much more intrusive than barring movement to areas that one is unlikely to frequent anyway, i.e. ex-spouse's home and place of work. Furthermore, this statute could be used maliciously, to disarm a potential victim or to remove one's ability to earn a living, for example.

[pablo_marmol]

21. Thank you. You essentially explained the source of my confusion with the comparison. NT

[Trillo]

9. Seems like it could be a good idea, but

how much will it cost them to have it returned when the temporary time for confiscation has elapsed? What safeguards are there that a dysfunctional family won't make spurious claims simply to harass a disliked family member?

[cui bono]

10. Or on the flip side... what if when the gun is returned the person who gets their gun back

so so angry they go and shoot the person who got the restraining order?

[Duckhunter935]

14. So they should never have their

property returned is your position. "Temporarily" is the key word here and it should be. How long is it and will the person get the weapons back on expiration or will the cops find another excuse to hold them?

I do not have an issue with it as long as there are checks and balances in the system to prevent abuse and to ensure BOTH sides are properly heard and represented and it is temporary.

[cui bono]

18. Where did I say that?

I'm merely bringing up things for discussion.

[Eleanors38]

17. TROs are issued through due process. In the case of

taking away one's firearms, I would think that a credible case must be made in court that the subject of the TRO poses a threat with his/guns. IOW, should someone who is barred from a diner because of his/her propensity to perform pas du chats while loudly passing gas have firearms confiscated, too?

I'm not sure how this law could have prevented the mass killing in question if a TRO with due process is still required. Besides, the killer did half of the victims with knives.

The Brady group is GOP-founded, GOP-led.

[Centrist1984]

22. Brady group?

Not saying it is wrong, but why do you say that the Brady group is GOP-funded and led? Why would the GOP-fund it when it seeks to get Democrats elected? (from my understanding of it anyway)?

[Eleanors38]

23. The group was founded by James Brady's wife Sarah.

Last edited Wed Oct 8, 2014, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

James Brady was Ronald Reagan's press secretary. Successive directors of the Brady Campaign have been Republican. One of their big donors is Sylvester Stallone, who despite backing gun control, was issued licenses for three handguns in "may issue" California. He is Republican. The head of Brady remarked in 2008 that it was a tough decision about who to back for president.

Edit: Add one century.

[oneshooter]

24. 1908??? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. What if...

...rain water was beer? Would we need a law stating how long one could remain outdoors, head back and mouth open?

[ileus]

13. How many of us here would call in our republican uncle.

[aikoaiko]

16. I like that there is due process and its temporary.

I hope there are provisions for punishing those who abuse this law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. How about penalties for those who use it maliciously?