It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Proposes 10-Year Gun Ban On Those Deemed By Family To Be A “Threat”

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Something many people are not aware of is a California law that makes it possible for guns to be confiscated from owners based on a court order called a "gun violence protection order".

It apparently is in effect for one year from the time of the order.

Now we have a politician that wants that one year ban extended to 10 years !!

Do other States/Cities have this kind of "law" ?

Is this accurate?


California Proposes 10-Year Gun Ban On Those Deemed By Family To Be A “Threat”

(slightly biased article...)


Under current California law, if a friend or family member claims that someone is a threat to himself or others, a “gun violence protection order” can be issued by the court against that person, and that person would have his firearms confiscated. He wouldn’t be allowed to possess any guns for a year after the protection order was given.

Under a law proposed by state senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), that one-year ban on gun possession would be extended to ten years. And for good measure, she threw in a provision that bans any transfer of firearms from one person to a family member without a proper background check. A father giving his son his shotgun would require a background check from a licensed dealer. Otherwise, they’d both be in violation.





posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What a great way to enact retribution within one's family. Seriously, what safeguards are in place to prohibit a pissed-off family member from skewing the protocols to exact revenge on a relative? To be clear, I do not want anyone, by word or deed, that is a threat to themselves or others to possess a firearm until that threat passes(if possible). But overreach is just that, and the criteria and means must be narrow in scope to eliminate the possibility of misuse or misdiagnosis.

In many states, only a trained Mental Health Professional or physician has the ability to triage and interpret if a person falls in this category, and rightfully so. The problem I have with the length extended to 10 years is situations change, and with intervention and treatment a person seen as a danger at this time might be totally different in the near future. I also have a problem with government entities confiscating personal property if no laws have been violated, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
little by little
drip by drip....



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
can't we just vote California off the island, like in Survivor?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
In theory this would make sense. Keep guns away from dangerous people. That's a sentence that we can all agree on. It's the people that are dangerous, not the guns, but guns are a great killing tool.

In application, this falls short. who decides who is a threat? There's the rub.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
If ever affected by this "law" just take it to the SC and cite the 2nd, 4th & 6th...

Possibly more if had the inclination to check.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I live in AZ where we love our guns.

Unfortunately I still have to travel to LA every now and again. But I DGAF what their guns laws are. LA is a cesspool so I still bring a weapon when I go. Just not one With a high capacity mag.

I would love to see Arizona politicians try and introduce a bill like this here. They would get strung up and the vultures would pick the bones clean by morning.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Only in California or what I like to call it 'The Land of Bad Ideas'.

Why anyone would choose to live in fascist California is beyond my comprehension.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Under a law proposed by state senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), that one-year ban on gun possession would be extended to ten years.


Proposed... seems like a key word.

I would disagree with this btw.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

In theory, it's a good idea. Imagine an abusive husband and a messy divorce. Threats etc would call for something like this.


But a counter would be to arm the wife!

We just can't look at how a law might be used, we have to look at how it might be abused.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

In theory its a terrible idea. No one in the world is more petty and mean spirited than family while fighting. I mean, if we assume that most families are that idyllic suburban couple with 2.5 kids and college degrees...maybe. But the reality is that the majority of our population is what you see on COPS.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Horrible idea. You would think they would make the family get counseling before they would enact a gun ban. Though I'm SURE if you ban guns they would NEVER try to kill with a knife/hammer/bat...and even if they ban it, anyone with the mindset to kill with a gun can get one.....they are not treating the issue...they are trying to rectify the issue by restrictions...

Have more laws ever kept anyone from harm?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Well, this is a dangerous precedent to set.

I hope the people of California shut this down.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
most fatal gunshot shooters in California only do it once unless they have severe mental issues



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
If ever affected by this "law" just take it to the SC and cite the 2nd, 4th & 6th...

Possibly more if had the inclination to check.

many parts of the constitution are from another era, and out of time.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
If ever affected by this "law" just take it to the SC and cite the 2nd, 4th & 6th...

Possibly more if had the inclination to check.

many parts of the constitution are from another era, and out of time.


Id be interesting in you providing a couple of examples. If in a new thread, even better. But this would be an interesting piece to hear/read an opinion on (one which my own bias will likely not buy, but interesting nonetheless).



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
"Why, no your Honor, I'm not disputing the fact that I ran the red light. I decided to appear in court today to bring up another matter. You see, as Officer Smith was writing the ticket we had a brief conversation. It was mostly him asking questions and me answering, but I felt like we became fast friends. And as his friend, I have concerns about the state of his mental health. Therefore, in accordance with California law, I would like for you to relieve him of his firearms. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone concerned. Thank you."



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Taking away a mentally unstable persons guns won't stop them from killing...if anything it would probably set them over the edge and create an even worse outcome.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Proposed... seems like a key word.



Yes indeed.




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Danke

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hey! I tried to see it for another point of view!

But I guess you both are right.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join