« | »

CA Bill Would Stop ‘Violence Prone’ From Buying Guns

From the New York Times:

After Attack Near Campus, California Weighs Gun Bill

By JENNIFER MEDINA | May 28, 2014

LOS ANGELES — Just days after a 22-year-old killed six college students and himself near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, state lawmakers are championing legislation that would permit law enforcement officials and private individuals to seek a restraining order from a judge that would keep people with a potential propensity for violence from buying or owning a gun. The process would be similar to the one currently used for restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.

Who is going to decide who is violence prone? By the way, Elliot Rodger didn’t have a record of being violent. He claimed he used to be beaten up. In any case, how long will it be before this ‘restraining order’ gets used against returning combat veterans and Tea Party supporters and other well known violent people?

The legislation is being introduced this week in response to the attack on Friday by Elliot O. Rodger, who was able to buy three guns and go on a rampage despite warnings from his family and mental health professionals that he was unstable and possibly dangerous. It is unclear, however, if the measures contained in the bills could have prevented his actions if they had been law…

After seeing some of his YouTube videos, his step-mother reported Elliot to the police. They went around to his apartment and questioned him. What else could have been done? And, lest we forget, Rodger passed three different background checks when he bought his guns.

But California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, could go even further. The legislation, known as a gun violence restraining order, would allow people to notify courts or law enforcement officials if they are concerned that a family member or friend is at risk of committing violence. Gun control advocates have recently started pushing for such restraining orders in statehouses across the nation, expanding on similar laws that have passed in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas…

But even in California, with an overwhelmingly Democratic majority in both houses of the Legislature, it could prove difficult to get the bill passed and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. In addition to expected opposition from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates, the bill is also likely to face challenges from those concerned about limiting civil liberties of those dealing with mental illness.

Maybe it’s the ‘civil liberties of those with real mental illnesses that need to be addressed. We used to removed them from society. But now we are told they are just part of the gorgeous mosaic. So now everyone has to be treated like they are a psychopath.

Backers of the California legislation say that the law would work in much the same way domestic violence restraining orders do — with a petitioner directly requesting a restraining order from the courts, or asking law enforcement officials to do so. A judge would be required to have a full hearing to decide whether to grant the restraining order within seven days and then rule on the length of time it would be in effect. Law enforcement officials would then be able to temporarily seize any firearms the person owned and place him or her on a list of people prohibited from purchasing weapons.

Nancy Skinner, a Democratic assemblywoman from Berkeley and the author of the legislation, said she had been working to shape the legislation for months, but the attack on Friday gave urgency to the effort, particularly because Mr. Rodger’s mother had alerted the authorities about her son a month earlier.

Berkeley? Say no more.

“We’ve heard that she was very aware about her son’s well-being, and so concerned that she asked the police to go to him,” Ms. Skinner said. “She should have been able to go to law enforcement and say, ‘Here’s the evidence and — sadly — my son is a threat and could create violence.’ Knowing that in this case a parent tried to intervene and didn’t really have an effective tool is tragic.” …

Again, what would be done different?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, May 29th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “CA Bill Would Stop ‘Violence Prone’ From Buying Guns”

  1. Here is the legislation translated from legaleze into English.

    If you are willing to defend yourself, your family, or those who can’t defend themselves, you shouldn’t own a gun.

    Next, we have to outlaw kinves, sharp sticks, blunt objects, anything pointy, anything heavy, and nobody should EVER be allowed to make a fist (unless they’re posing for a “workers unite” poster or are a democrat).

  2. How about outlawing SSRI killer-programming Meds?

    No? Is that because of Big Pharma lobbying dollars?

  3. BillK

    I think we all know where this is going, right?

    The mere act of attempting to purchase a firearm shows that you are, in fact violence prone as pacifists would have no need to own a firearm, Q.E.D.

  4. Rusty Shackleford

    The thought-experiment that socialists always fail so miserably on is, “At what point, is there enough control?”

    Control over what people say—?
    Control over what people do—?
    Control over what people drive—?
    Where they go—-?
    When they go—?
    Who can and who can’t?

    At what point is it enough?

    Don’t let people have guns. (because guns kill people)
    Then what will be the next weapon-of-choice? (I hear in Nigeria, it’s the machete)
    “Then don’t let people have machetes.”
    Hammers?

    “Oh….no….not hammers, either, unless you get permission from the government”

    “What if I want to build a deck?”

    “Are you using wood?”

    “Yes, what else would I use?”

    “Oh…that would be right out; You’d have to use recycled materials.”

    “But I like wood.”

    “No…no wood, killing trees kills mother gaia.”

    “I’m thinking of killing something right now; Can you guess what that is?”
    ————————————-
    So where does the control stop?

    Even if the socialists wet-dream of complete control over everyone were to happen, they wouldn’t think it to be enough. (See old Soviet Union)

    People are both variable and sometimes unpredictable. One-size-fits-all DOESN’T WORK you commies. Get off it and go pound sand!




« Front Page | To Top
« | »