Posted on Jan 7, 2016
California gun law will allow families to petition for gun-restraining orders
2.59K
4
6
0
0
0
Imagine how this will play out..."California will become the first state to allow citizens to petition a court to temporarily seize family members' guns if they fear a danger to themselves or others. "
California gun law will allow families to petition for gun-restraining orders
Posted from csmonitor.com
Gun Control
Law
PTSD
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
I'm going to "double-dip" on this topic because it is so important. This "take" is entirely different from my other comment...
The problem with California's new law will be similar to the problem of dealing with an elderly parent who won't quit driving even though you fear they might hurt themselves or someone else. I experienced this with my father. When I asked a doctor if my father should quit driving (would provide me with a note to take to the DMV) he refused to respond. Without his support I couldn't get my father to stop. Then my father had a minor accident (no other vehicle involved) but the officer who responded took my father's license away and said that he would have to apply to the DMV to get it back. My father needed a doctor's note certifying that he was competent to drive. Again, the doctor refused.
Therein lies the problem. If a doctor responds either way, they are responsible. The best they thing they can do to avoid responsibility is to refuse to participate in the decision.
Now apply that same reasoning to gun ownership. The family petitions the court to remove the guns on the basis of their "fear". The court won't return the guns until a competent authority can be found to "take responsibility" for returning the guns. Fat chance of that happening, right?
The problem with California's new law will be similar to the problem of dealing with an elderly parent who won't quit driving even though you fear they might hurt themselves or someone else. I experienced this with my father. When I asked a doctor if my father should quit driving (would provide me with a note to take to the DMV) he refused to respond. Without his support I couldn't get my father to stop. Then my father had a minor accident (no other vehicle involved) but the officer who responded took my father's license away and said that he would have to apply to the DMV to get it back. My father needed a doctor's note certifying that he was competent to drive. Again, the doctor refused.
Therein lies the problem. If a doctor responds either way, they are responsible. The best they thing they can do to avoid responsibility is to refuse to participate in the decision.
Now apply that same reasoning to gun ownership. The family petitions the court to remove the guns on the basis of their "fear". The court won't return the guns until a competent authority can be found to "take responsibility" for returning the guns. Fat chance of that happening, right?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Here we go again. So let's assume a family fears that a member may be a danger to themselves or others. What is the appropriate response? Of course, take away the guns. After all, a gun may leap out of its drawer or gun safe or display case and begin attacking family members while all the knives and cudgels in the home remain passively in their accustomed places. Only California would lead the way with this bit of insanity.
If a family fears that a member may be a danger to themselves or others, they should petition that the person be evaluated, committed temporarily if necessary. However, to strip them of their constitutional rights without a competency hearing is a violation of due process. Oh, but they will receive a competency hearing when the family petitions to have the weapons confiscated? Well, then what's the change in the law? Or is this just about confiscation?
If a family fears that a member may be a danger to themselves or others, they should petition that the person be evaluated, committed temporarily if necessary. However, to strip them of their constitutional rights without a competency hearing is a violation of due process. Oh, but they will receive a competency hearing when the family petitions to have the weapons confiscated? Well, then what's the change in the law? Or is this just about confiscation?
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
CPT Jack Durish, yes, based upon the word of one person against another. Make a report based on your perceived fears and officers will be allowed to seize your weapons (erring on the side of safety, right?). Then you convince a judge why you are mentally competent and not a threat to self or others--forever documented.
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
CPT Jack Durish, so let's continue that logic: I should be able to report a person's alcoholism and the government can seize his car(s); a person chain smokes so the government can seize his smokes and fire-starters; the government can also seize Charlie Sheen's penis. Now there's a visual...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google