California seize Some guns as SOME owners lose right to own guns.

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
I did my best with the title, going off of what the article was titled which I was posting about.

When you say a domestic violence charge, do you mean an actual charge in court for domestic violence or just a restraining order? Because apparently, if I understood the article correctly, California is doing it off of just a restraining order.

No worries on the title, Ambrosia. I was just going for accuracy based on the story. (Which could certainly have used some more specifics. :) )


Speaking only from past official experience here in SIllinois -- There are different specifics available to be included in/with a restraining order, stemming from why it was issued, and other facts of the events leading up to it. Some restraining orders can be down to "you will not be in this place at these times of day." Some are "you will not be within 500 feet of this person, period." Restraining orders can include orders for officers to confiscate any known (or discovered) weapons -- if the reason for the restraining order involved brandishing of weapons, for example.
 

Ambrosia

Grand Duchess
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
26,893
Reaction score
7,269
Location
In the Castle, of course.
Wow. I didn't realize restraining orders could be so varied. It makes sense, though.

Thanks, Williebee! :)
 

Windcutter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
2,181
Reaction score
135
Some restraining orders are bullshit. Anyone can take out a restraining order (in some states) against anyone else. YMMV. I have an older brother who was pretty fucking abusive with more than one restraining order (one was against our baby brother) just because every now and then my older brother wanted to prove a point to differnet people he was pissed at. So I fear abusive manupilation of the restraining order clause could result in just plain scewing around with utterly innocent people. (Consider also the restraining order plot point from the movie Pacific Heights.)
This.

But the general program makes a lot of sense, and I say this as a person who was infamously pro-gun ownership in another thread.
 

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
I thought there were restrictions about restraining orders. Like, why was the order requested in the first place, against whom, is it really necessary, etc. If they were that easy to get, the guys at Stormfront wouldn't have anything to complain about.
 

Ambrosia

Grand Duchess
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
26,893
Reaction score
7,269
Location
In the Castle, of course.
Restraining orders are easy to get here. I personally know two different women who went to the police station and filed for restraining orders against their ex's to keep them away from their kids because they were pissed at them. All they had to tell the police was they were afraid for their safety and the ex was violent. Their spouses weren't violent, but they got the restraining orders anyway. There is no burden of proof for the restraining orders I have witnessed here. Perhaps there are different levels, I don't know.

This is why having the restraining order be one of the reasons for being on the list in California is troubling to me. It makes sense though. Because a spouse or ex that is violent can go back and hurt or kill the person who has finally gotten away from them. And that has indeed happened. Better safe than sorry? Restraining orders don't last indefinitely, right? Perhaps the ban on being able to have a gun in those instances doesn't either, but I wouldn't bet on it. I really would like more information on exactly what California is doing than is in the article.

I disagree with the justification for taking away the right to bear arms from those who have been involuntarily confined for mental illness reasons. A person can be involuntarily held for up to 72 hours while a dr determines if that person is a danger to their self or others. Perhaps the person is grieving the loss of a loved one. In that situation the person may be out of their mind with grief and will come out of it and be fine. Just because a person is held involuntarily does not mean they are a danger to society.

It also disturbed me that the husband's guns were confiscated when he wasn't on the list. Where does that stop? Could the guns of extended family be confiscated because the person on the list might get access to them? That is a slippery slope to me. And wrong, imo.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I think a slippery slope argument can be made for anything. But using it to give a violent felon, delusional psychiatric patient or abusive spouse the right to have a gun is going to far. One of the most common times for an abused spouse to be murdered is when they take out a restraining order. So maybe a few men who have made violent threats will be without guns for a year or two when they would not have acted on the threats. On the flip side a few women might not be killed.
 

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
It also disturbed me that the husband's guns were confiscated when he wasn't on the list. Where does that stop? Could the guns of extended family be confiscated because the person on the list might get access to them? That is a slippery slope to me. And wrong, imo.

Perhaps a restriction could be that there can only be one gun per household, and none where unstable or dangerous people live. If I recall correctly, Adam Lanza just grabbed the guns from his mom's arsenal.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
So dangerously homicidal people get access to just one gun? That seems a slightly inadequate solution. As with Ms Lanza, the gun doesn't refuse to shoot its owner.
 

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
So dangerously homicidal people get access to just one gun? That seems a slightly inadequate solution. As with Ms Lanza, the gun doesn't refuse to shoot its owner.

Nope. Household-Without-Dangerously-Homicidal People, one gun. Household-With-Dangerously-Homicidal-People, no gun.
 

Ambrosia

Grand Duchess
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
26,893
Reaction score
7,269
Location
In the Castle, of course.
Vein Glory, I didn't mention felons. Nor was what I posted saying delusional psych patients should have guns. Nor abusive spouses. I very specifically mentioned incidences of when I have personally witnessed restraining orders used for vindictiveness, not because the spouse was abusive. I am sure the two times I have witnessed it in recent years were not the only times it is true. I do find a problem with the wide brush stroke the government of California is using to take away guns from people who were legal gun holders until deemed "dangerous".

And, why can't the people who live with these people who can not have access to guns use a gun safe which only they have the combination to? If the guns and ammo are locked up then that would keep the guns out of the other person's hands. Confiscating guns from individuals who are legal gun owners and who have done nothing to have their guns confiscated or their rights removed is indeed a slippery slope, imo.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Perhaps a restriction could be that there can only be one gun per household, and none where unstable or dangerous people live. If I recall correctly, Adam Lanza just grabbed the guns from his mom's arsenal.

So dangerously homicidal people get access to just one gun? That seems a slightly inadequate solution. As with Ms Lanza, the gun doesn't refuse to shoot its owner.

It also doesn't seem very fair to people who have perfectly good reasons to have multiple guns, such as for hunting different kinds of game.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Vein Glory, I didn't mention felons. Nor was what I posted saying delusional psych patients should have guns. Nor abusive spouses. I very specifically mentioned incidences of when I have personally witnessed restraining orders used for vindictiveness, not because the spouse was abusive. I am sure the two times I have witnessed it in recent years were not the only times it is true. I do find a problem with the wide brush stroke the government of California is using to take away guns from people who were legal gun holders until deemed "dangerous".

And, why can't the people who live with these people who can not have access to guns use a gun safe which only they have the combination to? If the guns and ammo are locked up then that would keep the guns out of the other person's hands. Confiscating guns from individuals who are legal gun owners and who have done nothing to have their guns confiscated or their rights removed is indeed a slippery slope, imo.

I could possibly get behind the other person in thehoysehold being able to keep their gun if (and only if) they are legally responsible if said gun is used in a crime or even found in the hands of the person it legally allowed have it.

And honestly, that's a huge if. If someone is too dangerous to have a gun, I'd worry they would coerce or kill the owner for access to the weapons, the way we saw with Adam Lanza.
 

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
... why don't they just take away our guns and give us pea shooters -- to add insult to injury.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
One thing about a one-time felon (at least, a non-violent one) is that if adjudication is withheld, you keep all your rights, voting, gun-owning, etc.

And generally, at least around here, first-time felons get adjudication withheld. There's no conviction. So basically you get another chance at a normal life.

Two felonies? Probably not, though it is possible you could even get another chance. Pay a lawyer lots of money, show yourself reformed, etc. (Again, speaking of non-violent felonies here.)

The question in my mind is, what are the odds that a person convicted of a violent felony actually registered his gun(s) in the first place? I would imagine that the only way most violent felons will ever have their guns confiscated is if they get caught with them.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
They also will seize the legally held fire arms from anyone who lives with a person who is on the list.
So if I my gun is confiscated because I live with a mentally ill person, if I move away from them will I get my gun back? Or do I just get the right to go buy another gun? Or what?
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
The question in my mind is, what are the odds that a person convicted of a violent felony actually registered his gun(s) in the first place? I would imagine that the only way most violent felons will ever have their guns confiscated is if they get caught with them.
Wait! You mean felons actually buy unregistered guns, then fail to register them with the local gendarmes? Why, that should be illegal! Of course, as soon as they eliminate the "gun show loophole," it will be illegal for them to buy a gun from Vinnie the Juicer outa his trunk down behind the pool hall without legally recording the sale, so I guess that'll solve the problem once and for all -- Vinnie being such an upstanding citizen and all. Whew! Thank Dog the politicians solved that one! :rolleyes:
So if I my gun is confiscated because I live with a mentally ill person, if I move away from them will I get my gun back? Or do I just get the right to go buy another gun? Or what?
It's like country music, Ben. Play it backwards and you get your gun back, your truck back, your dog back, and your girlfriend comes back too.
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
Wait! You mean felons actually buy unregistered guns, then fail to register them with the local gendarmes? Why, that should be illegal! Of course, as soon as they eliminate the "gun show loophole," it will be illegal for them to buy a gun from Vinnie the Juicer outa his trunk down behind the pool hall without legally recording the sale, so I guess that'll solve the problem once and for all -- Vinnie being such an upstanding citizen and all. Whew! Thank Dog the politicians solved that one! :rolleyes:
And if there's any suspicion that a felon has a gun, they can be searched and jailed. As opposed to now where they can wave the gun around all they want and no one can do jack shit about it until that violent thug finally decides to pull the trigger. Oh, and it's likely that person will also squeal on their dealer if they're caught, so you get two for the price of one.

Or we can do it your way, where felons can buy as many semi-automatics as they can carry and just hope old man Johnson down the road is a good enough shot to stop them if/when they turn those guns on other people.
 
Last edited:

CrastersBabies

Burninator!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
Well, there go all the "I'll shoot any fascist tyrant who tries to take my guns away from me" bluffs. And God, the comments are pure butthurt-filled comedy gold.

I love this. The butthurt part. (The other part is good, too.)

And LOL at the "Well, criminals will still get guns" argument. On that reasoning alone, let's make cocaine and crack legal (people will still get it). Let's also let murderers go. (They'll still FIND A WAY TO KILL someone with or without a gun.)

Let's also free child molesters and rapists. I mean, the law is CLEAR. Do NOT RAPE. But, people up and do it anyway.
 

Ambrosia

Grand Duchess
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
26,893
Reaction score
7,269
Location
In the Castle, of course.
And if there's any suspicion that a felon has a gun, they can be searched and jailed. As opposed to now where they can wave the gun around all they want and no one can do jack shit about it until that violent thug finally decides to pull the trigger. Oh, and it's likely that person will also squeal on their dealer if they're caught, so you get two for the price of one.

Or we can do it your way, where felons can buy as many semi-automatics as they can carry and just hope old man Johnson down the road is a good enough shot to stop them if/when they turn those guns on other people.
Is it not a part of a felon's release from prison that they are required not to own firearms? I thought that was already part of the law.
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
Considering that they added it to this, I don't think it is. Or at least, it isn't a universal rule. I just looked it up and found this:

Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.

While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestratedby the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

This gradual pulling back of what many Americans have unquestioningly assumed was a blanket prohibition has drawn relatively little public notice. Indeed, state law enforcement agencies have scant information, if any, on which felons are getting their gun rights back, let alone how many have gone on to commit new crimes.

While many states continue to make it very difficult for felons to get their gun rights back — and federal felons are out of luck without a presidential pardon — many other jurisdictions are far more lenient, The Times found. In some, restoration is automatic for nonviolent felons as soon as they complete their sentences. In others, the decision is left up to judges, but the standards are generally vague, the process often perfunctory. In some states, even violent felons face a relatively low bar, with no waiting period before they can apply.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/u...to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, it's left up to the states, many of whom don't seem too bothered by the idea of a known violent felon getting renewed, easy access to guns.