View Full Version : Gov. Jerry Brown signs California gun restriction
... and another emotional, knee jerk reaction from the progressive libs, picking away bit by bit at the 2nd Amendment.
:mad:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.
The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Supporters had said such a measure could have prevented the attacks, winning out over critics who said it would erode gun rights.
Law enforcement authorities in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas can seek a judge's order allowing them to seize guns from people they deem to be a danger.
The new California law gives law enforcement the same option and extends it to family members.
It continues California's efforts to lead the nation in preventing firearm injury and death, said Amanda Wilcox, an advocate for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, whose daughter was a victim of gun violence.
The greatest effect might be in preventing suicides or intervening where there is a history of domestic violence, she said.
"It's hard to know how much it will be used or how much it will prevent," Wilcox said. "It only takes avoiding one loss for this to be worth it."
Lawmakers approved the bill by Democratic Assembly members Nancy Skinner of Berkeley and Das Williams of Santa Barbara amid pleas that they act after the May 23 attack in which six people were fatally stabbed or shot and 13 others wounded in the community of Isla Vista.
Relatives of the victims and other supporters of the bill said the parents of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger were thwarted in their attempts to seek help for their troubled son before the rampage.
Weeks earlier, his parents had his therapist contact Santa Barbara County mental health officials. Sheriff's deputies talked to Rodger but never entered his apartment or checked to see if he owned guns.
They decided he was not a threat to himself or others and took no further action.
Rodger later wrote that had deputies searched his room, they might have found guns that police said he used to shoot three people after stabbing to death three others. Rodger killed himself while being pursued by police.
Under the California bill, whoever seeks the restraining order would have to sign an affidavit under oath. If they lie, they could be charged with a misdemeanor.
A court hearing would be held within 14 days after the restraining order is granted to give the gun owner a chance to argue there is no danger.
Republican lawmakers and some Democrats voted against the measure, known as AB1014.
In Rodger's case, there is no evidence his parents or anyone treating him knew he had weapons. That prompted Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to introduce a related bill that would require law enforcement to develop policies that encourage officers to search the state's database of gun purchases as part of routine welfare checks. That bill, SB505, also was signed by the governor.
Brown's signing of the bills "helped to honor the life of my son, Christopher, and so many others killed by senseless gun violence," said Richard Martinez, father of Isla Vista shooting victim Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez and an advocate for the group Everytown for Gun Safety.
"Nothing we can do will bring back Christopher, but I'm confident this new law will help save lives and prevent other families from experiencing this same kind of tragedy. States around the country should be exploring this life-saving measure," he said in a statement about the restraining order legislation.
Currently in California, authorities can seize legally purchased guns only from people convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, people subject to a domestic violence restraining order, or those who are determined to be mentally unstable.
The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups opposed the restraining order legislation.
"Our concern is not so much what they intended to do; our concern is with the method they put in place to address people with mental or emotional issues," said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. "We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy."
http://news.yahoo.com/gov-jerry-brown-signs-california-gun-restriction-195626557.html
I've slept on an apartment floor, refusing to leave, while waiting for "danger to himself or others" paperwork to go through. It wasn't a pleasant experience but preferable to going to another young vet's funeral. I've been to two.
I'm sensitive to 2A "nose of the camel" arguments but sometimes people are just out of control and have to be restrained. Witnessing a manic episode in a young man with bipolar disorder will change your mind on getting firearms..and axes and softball bats and ice picks...out of some folk's hands, and quickly.
I know it's not a popular position here, but there you go.
My biggest problem with the gun grabbers' agenda is that it makes it difficult to support common sense proposals, knowing it's just a stratagem for the next phase.
Although it may not be a popular position with the NRA, I'm not too adverse to the idea of being able to petition the courts to review and, if necessary, remove the weapons from my proverbial "crazy uncles" grasp.
Richard
The Reaper
09-30-2014, 22:02
Although it may not be a popular position with the NRA, I'm not too adverse to the idea of being able to petition the courts to review and, if necessary, remove the weapons from my proverbial "crazy uncles" grasp.
Richard
What do you think they should do with his weapons if he returns to normal?
Should we take away his right to vote at the same time?
His drivers license?
How about his First and Fifth Amendment rights?
Should he be allowed to buy gasoline?
TR
Here's an idea...
When people commit a violent crime, put them in jail.
...a REAL fucking jail, not one thta has internet and cable TV and a nicer gym than some army units have access to and food that is better than what service members are served while deployed
Put motherfuckers in a no-shit raped in the ass stabbed in the liver with an ice pick escape from new york jail cell
Or we could just put people on house arrest because they look guilty and continue to pass feel good legislation that doesn't stop crime...
...as long as we only do it to middle aged, middle class white males. Otherwise it would be profiling.
Here's an idea...
When people commit a violent crime, put them in jail.
...a REAL fucking jail, not one thta has internet and cable TV and a nicer gym than some army units have access to and food that is better than what service members are served while deployed
Put motherfuckers in a no-shit raped in the ass stabbed in the liver with an ice pick escape from new york jail cell
Or we could just put people on house arrest because they look guilty and continue to pass feel good legislation that doesn't stop crime...
...as long as we only do it to middle aged, middle class white males. Otherwise it would be profiling.
Enough of your in sensitivities and intolerance.
Criminals are people too. We need to give them skills to re-enter society with so that they don't continue down the criminal path.
Enough of your in sensitivities and intolerance.
Criminals are people too. We need to give them skills to re-enter society with so that they don't continue down the criminal path.
You're right. I apologize.
Criminals are people too. We need to give them skills to re-enter society with so that they don't continue down the criminal path.
Too bad there aren't any shop classes left ....
:munchin
So those who vote Republican, don't agree with man made global warming and believe in the right to own guns are crazy.
Knock, Knock, Knock. I'm here to take the crazy person's guns.
Ah, forgot to include all those with PTSD.
Once a law or program is passed it will end up where the powers that be want it to.
doctom54
10-01-2014, 13:19
So those who vote Republican, don't agree with man made global warming and believe in the right to own guns are crazy.
Knock, Knock, Knock. I'm here to take the crazy person's guns.
Ah, forgot to include all those with PTSD.
Once a law or program is passed it will end up where the powers that be want it to.
I concur. Once a law is passed it means whatever the "powers" want it to mean. Plus the reverse is also true. They can choose to NOT enforce a law just because they dont agree with it.
mojaveman
10-01-2014, 19:25
"who appears to pose a threat"?
I'm very curious as to what can be interpreted as posing a threat.
Yelling at your wife? Getting mad and kicking something? Talking trash about a politician? Having a few too many beers?
I'm just waiting for the national "We told you so" law to pass. Thats the one that will eventually sneak up on everyone who says "that could never happen in America"
...the law that makes the duck hunters realize that gun control wasn't about keeping rednecks from owning an AR-15
...the law that puts Bill Maher in jail because he said he wouldn't turn in his (hypocritically owned) firearms
...the one that puts people in jail for speaking out against the gubmint
Probably nothing to worry about though because that could never happen here in America...
...we're all to well informed to not see it coming.
DIYPatriot
10-02-2014, 07:46
...the law that puts Bill Maher in jail because he said he would turn in his (hypocritically owned) firearms
I remember hearing about that interview (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-owns-a-gun-but-he-doesnt-love-it-that-would-be-sick/). He said he doesn't love guns. He merely views them as antibiotics - good to have in case of an emergency. Maybe one day he'll take his gun orally. Too bad he doesn't view guns as enemas, though.
Team Sergeant
10-02-2014, 09:27
Too bad there aren't any shop classes left ....
:munchin
The inmates have dumped the "shop classes" in favor of "jihad" classes.
Now most inmates are looking to "better" themselves through islam & sharia law.
Beheading 101 is also being taught, advanced classes include VBIED's and IED placement.
Badger52
10-02-2014, 15:33
This will be Lautenberg on steroids, with spouses tip-toeing on eggshells as soon as their cranky half or other relative realizes all they have to do is "see something say something sign something." This cuts both ways.
Due process? "We made a law; that IS the due process."
Paved with good intentions indeed.
In a continuation of the destruction of the United States Constitution, Gov. Moonbat signed several "jack booted" bills into law.
I truly feel sorry for the freedom loving people, now stuck behind "enemy lines" ...
Gov. Brown signs 6 stringent gun bills, vetoes others
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Jerry Brown signed six stringent gun-control measures Friday that will require people to turn in high-capacity magazines and mandate background checks for ammunition sales, as California Democrats seek to strengthen gun laws that are already among the strictest in the nation.
Brown vetoed five other bills, including requirement to register homemade firearms and report lost or stolen weapons to authorities.
The Democratic governor's action is consistent with his mixed record on gun control. Some of the enacted bills duplicate provisions of a November ballot measure by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Some of the vetoed measures also appear in Newsom's initiative.
"My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners," Brown wrote in a one-sentence message to lawmakers.
Gun control measures have long been popular with the Democratic lawmakers who control the California Senate and Assembly. But they stepped up their push this year following the December shooting in San Bernardino by a couple who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group.
The bills angered Republicans and gun-rights advocates who say Democrats are trampling on 2nd Amendment rights, creating new restrictions that won't cut off the flow of guns to people intent on using them for nefarious purposes.
"On the eve of Independence Day, independence and freedom and liberty in California has been chopped down at the knees and kicked between the legs," Sam Paredes, executive director of the advocacy group Gun Owners of California.
Lawsuits challenging the new laws are likely once they take effect next year, Paredes said.
Brown's action will require people who own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to give them up. It extends a 1999 law that made it illegal to buy a high-capacity magazine or to bring one into the state but allowed people who already owned them to keep them.
In another attempt to slow reloading, the governor signed a bill outlawing new weapons that have a device known as a bullet button. Gun makers developed bullet buttons to get around a California's assault weapons ban, which prohibited new rifles with magazines that can be detached without the aid of tools. A bullet buttons allows a shooter to quickly dislodge the magazine using the tip of a bullet or other small tool.
People will be allowed to keep weapons they already own with bullet buttons, which are often referred to as "California compliant."
Brown also endorsed a bill making another attempt at regulating ammunition sales after a law passed in 2009 was struck down by a Fresno County judge who said it was too vague. The new bill will require ammo sellers to be licensed and buyers to undergo background checks. Transactions will be recorded.
He also opted to require a background check before a gun can be loaned to someone who isn't a family member.
"Strong gun laws work... What we're doing in California is a better job of keeping guns out of dangerous hands," said Amanda Wilcox, a spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, whose daughter was killed by a shooter using a high-capacity magazine.
The governor vetoed a measure that would have expanded a six-month-old program that allows courts to temporarily restrict gun ownership rights for people suspected of being dangerous.
He also decided against restricting all firearm purchases to one per month, a limitation that currently applies only to handguns
One bill he vetoed would have asked voters to strengthen penalties for stealing a gun, because he said voters will already be deciding it through Newsom's initiative. Newsom's ballot measure also will ask voters to require reporting of lost and stolen firearms - an idea Brown rejected Friday and has rejected at least twice before.
"I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not; it is not likely that this bill would change that," he wrote in a veto message.
Newsom's initiative has put a spotlight on the lieutenant governor as he campaigns for governor in the 2018 election. He's been at loggerheads with Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, who tried unsuccessfully to convince Newsom to drop the ballot measures in favor of legislative action.
Brown's vetoes protected Newsom's initiative from becoming moot.
"The governor took swift action today and voters will have a chance to go even further in November, if they choose, with the lieutenant governor's initiative," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for Brown.
http://abc7.com/news/gov-brown-signs-stringent-gun-bills-vetoes-others/1410013/
"My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,"
Bull.
Shit.
I didn't see anything about increasing penalties for people caught with illegally obtained firearms in their possession, nor for people who are prohibited by previous criminal convictions and are caught with firearms in their possession.
I didn't see anything about increasing penalties for people caught using a firearm during commission of a crime, or who use a firearm to commit murder or who use a firearm to commit a mass shooting.
I didn't see anything about increasing penalties for people who steal a firearm or who are caught with a stolen firearm in their possession.
No, the ONLY thing I see is increased restrictions on law abiding citizens who are protected by a 2nd Amendment right that Komunist Kalifornia refuses to acknowledge.
I send my condolences to the citizens of Komunist Kalifornia.
PS. FUCK Komunist Governor Jerry Brown square in the ass. I can only hope that when he passes from the earth, it will be a direct result of his retarded legislation.
Team Sergeant
07-01-2016, 15:29
The Socialist ruling elite demands that only they and their own SS Troops have weapons, all others can eat shitte.
Now if I were a gun or ammo manufacturer I would not allow another round or gun to be sent to Communist Kalif.
I wonder if Richard will return to Texas?
The beauty of a law like this is that it will fail to make a substantial dent in actual criminal use of firearms, which obviously points to the fact that those out of control border states are to blame for all the gun-related crime in CA. This obviously means that those border states must enact unconstitutional gun laws as well to keep CA safe. Then, those states have borders too, so...
...It's twelve o'clock, America - another day closer to victory.
The Reaper
07-01-2016, 20:45
Good time to buy PVC pipe manufacturer stocks.
TR
GratefulCitizen
07-01-2016, 23:07
There's a market for those weapons here in Free America (Arizona).
Sell 'em to us while you can!
(Better yet, just move...)
Bracholi
07-02-2016, 09:06
I didn't see anything about increasing penalties for people caught with illegally obtained firearms in their possession, nor for people who are prohibited by previous criminal convictions and are caught with firearms in their possession.
.
Increased penalties for violent offenses and a justice system which actually serves to reform them would solve a lot of problems overnight. On the flip side, I have personally met reformed criminals whom don't deserve to permanently have their constitutional rights rescinded [by the way, honest question; From where in the constitution does the government gain it's rights and power to disenfranchise a felon of their constitutionally protected rights?] Isn't there some age old wisdom [might even be Biblical] about how we treat the least of us reflecting in how someone [the Almighty] will treat us? Thinking about this from a pure logical standpoint... If we were to actually start only releasing those whom were actually rehabilitated enough to be considered US Citizens again rather than a sub-class of individuals considered too dangerous to have their full rights reinstated... would those same folks not have the most enemies from their past to actually necessitate responsible gun ownership? Just my 2 cents.
Sorry I'm more of a solutions person. I can't hate our evil overlords without having to hate half of the country whom seem to keep electing them. I'll leave the hatred to the other side and attempt to educate with information and education about the varying degrees of rationalization and the different priorities which while we all ultimately share to some degree (sanctity of life, fair treatment, justice, integrity) which allow so many rational beings to arrive at such vehement odds with one another.
mojaveman
07-02-2016, 20:48
(Better yet, just move...)
Sounds good to me. I'm think I'm going to start looking for a job in the Phoenix area.
Just today I was at Bass Pro Shops talking to one of the managers in the firearms department who is also a Vietnam Veteran and he basically told me that they will stop selling ammo if the law goes through. :(