California can restrain your guns now too...

View · by **ZardozCZ** on Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:13 pm

http://time.com/3450797/california-gun- ... order-law/

Didn't news of The Constitution ever get that far west?

View · by **tman** on Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:56 pm

In the surface it looks Constitutional to me.

Family members file a petition, and a judge decides.

View · by **farmerj** on Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:23 pm

just another hoop one could jump through. This being a bit more direct that having to first declaring them a danger to self or others.

View · by **jgalt** on Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:03 pm

From the article:

“If it can save one life, one family from that agony, it will be worth it,” said Democratic California Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, during the bill’s debate.

And if it costs any lives, well **** 'em. Right?

View · by **Randygmn** on Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:55 am

What pisses me off is that this law was written in response to Eliot Roger's killing spree. The thing is, though, this law wodnt have even stopped him because no one knew he owned any firearms.

Lots of thirsty trees of Liberty out there, folks.

View · by **Nougat** on Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:46 am

The new law was introduced after Santa Barbara police in May were legally unable to confiscate the weapons of a man who later went on a shooting spree that killed six people, despite his family’s having expressed concerns to authorities that he would become violent.

if time can't even get it right(English) that is, how can we expect the masses to even know what they are voting about?
I think just one of the underlined things needs to be there?

wait how does stuff like enter legislation(is that the right word)? are people notified?
I suppose they will be told of the law when it is decided to be used against specific targets?

how come they can arrest that storage shed kid but not someone they believe is planning to just shoot people? its not like taking someones firearms will remove their intent to cause harm, gas for instance is easy to get? as long as they can be ''disarmed'' everyone will be safe because guns are the only things harming anyone lately, I guess right?

View · by **Randygmn** on Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:10 am

Nougat wrote:The new law was introduced after Santa Barbara police in May were legally unable to confiscate the weapons of a man who later went on a shooting spree that killed six people, despite his family’s having expressed concerns to authorities that he would become violent.

if time can't even get it right(English) that is, how can we expect the masses to even know what they are voting about?
I think just one of the underlined things needs to be there?

wait how does stuff like enter legislation(is that the right word)? are people notified?
I suppose they will be told of the law when it is decided to be used against specific targets?

how come they can arrest that storage shed kid but not someone they believe is planning to just shoot people? its not like taking someones firearms will remove their intent to cause harm, gas for instance is easy to get? as long as they can be ''disarmed'' everyone will be safe because guns are the only things harming anyone lately, I guess right?

Herein lies the bullish!t. No one knew that Rogers owned firearms. Even those that drafted the law have admitted this law wouldn't have prevented those murders. But, they have to appear like they are doing something, anything, to placate the liberal, scumbag base. And so, here we are. No different than the AWB. does nothing to actually stop violent crime.

View · by **Bearcatrp** on Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:40 am

If someone wants to kill, they will do it, one way or another. Passing laws like this is just a waste of time and stating they knew passing such a law wouldn't have stopped the guy due to not knowing he had weapons was plain stupid. They already identified the problem. Until laws are changed to allow doctors to notify police of a patient that is dangerous to the community, mass murders will continue.

View · by **Lumpy** on Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:57 am

Now watch all the people going to a judge claiming they are "fearful" because a gun-owning relative of theirs is "obsessed" with firearms. :roll:

Kinda like the days when your uptight middle-class parents could get you committed because you dropped out of business school, grew your hair and beard, indulged in the occasional joint, and became a hippie.

View · by **Randygmn** on Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:49 am

Lumpy wrote:Now watch all the people going to a judge claiming they are "fearful" because a gun-owning relative of theirs is "obsessed" with firearms.

Kinda like the days when your uptight middle-class parents could get you committed because you dropped out of business school, grew your hair and beard, indulged in the occasional joint, and became a hippie.

Seems reminiscent of how things were once handled in Salem.

View · by **jgalt** on Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:40 pm

Randygmn wrote:
Lumpy wrote:Now watch all the people going to a judge claiming they are "fearful" because a gun-owning relative of theirs is "obsessed" with firearms.

Kinda like the days when your uptight middle-class parents could get you committed because you dropped out of business school, grew your hair and beard, indulged in the occasional joint, and became a hippie.

Seems reminiscent of how things were once handled in Salem.

Hey now - those witches received due process, so don't be saying anything bad about Salem...

8-)