California law allows family members to request that a judge confiscate firearms

[Ironchew]

New California Law Lets Families Request Guns Be Seized From Dangerous Relatives

Law enforcement authorities in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas can seek a judge's order allowing them to seize guns from people they deem to be a danger.

The new California law gives law enforcement the same option and extends it to family members.

An interesting victory for gun control. It's peanuts compared to the requirements other first-world nations have in place, but maybe we can start identifying irresponsible gun owners before they kill people. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about this law is that said potentially-dangerous gun owner would know a family member ratted on him for two weeks before the guns are taken away. I don't like the implications of such a loophole.

The legislation is imperfect, but firearms confiscation is a sorely-needed enforcement.

(And yes, of course the NRA opposed its passage.)

inb4 [muh gunz/bill of rights]

[Eiki-mun]

I am pleased.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I believe gun ownership is a right, but I also believe that rights end at the point where they genuinely harm others.  Therefore, I'd say I'm in favor of this.

[chitoryu12]

This sounds like a massive violation of due process.

Edit: Also, the hearing after the fact is not a criminal case. Therefore there's no Constitutional right to counsel, jury trial, confrontation, subpoena power, public trial, presumption of innocence, burden of proof on the State, proof beyond a reasonable doubt...it's legally not that different from forfeitures. "Oh, this large amount of cash? Prove to a jaded judge that you didn't get it from illegal activity. Also you have no right to a public defender. No, I don't care if you can't afford an attorney."

The new law is not only a violation of due process, but also ripe for abuse. It's the typical "We have to do SOMETHING!" legislation made by panicky people who don't properly understand the subject that will likely be worthless in actually preventing what it sets out to do while causing problems for innocent people.

Here's a fun fact: Elliot Rodgers had kept the existence of his guns hidden from the police and his parents. This new law would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the most recent infamous mass shooting. It also would have done nothing to prevent Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, or the Harris & Klebold; none of these people were publicly known to be armed and few or no people had raised complaints about their behavior that would have resulted in them being arrested or stopped in any manner.

As usual, rather than combating the poor state of mental health and poor enforcement of existing laws in our nation we're attempting to use shotgun-like legislation that restricts everybody's rights in the hope that criminals and psychopaths will be caught up in it. And then when it inevitably fails to make an impact, even more laws get introduced to try and make up for it...

[dpareja]

As usual, rather than combating the poor state of mental health and poor enforcement of existing laws in our nation we're attempting to use shotgun-like legislation that restricts everybody's rights in the hope that criminals and psychopaths will be caught up in it. And then when it inevitably fails to make an impact, even more laws get introduced to try and make up for it...

Because nobody has the balls to introduce the one law that would make a difference, that retired Justice John Paul Stevens said needed to be introduced: adding "while serving in the militia" to the Second Amendment.

[RavynousHunter]

MUH GUNS!

/thread

[Askold]

Someone on the net was already whining about this and how "the americans are losing" but aren't the winners also americans? I mean it is just a bunch of US citizens vs another bunch of US citizens?

[Sylvana]

As usual, rather than combating the poor state of mental health and poor enforcement of existing laws in our nation we're attempting to use shotgun-like legislation that restricts everybody's rights in the hope that criminals and psychopaths will be caught up in it. And then when it inevitably fails to make an impact, even more laws get introduced to try and make up for it...

OR, this isn't targeted at preventing mass shootings, but preventing domestic abuse from possibly becoming lethal. There are many cases of domestic violence that ends in a lethal shooting, or abusive partners who threaten their partner with a firearm to maintain control. This kind of law can perhaps help those victims to protect themselves, or friends and family to protect possible victims. (and before anyone says they should just leave their abusive partner, domestic violence is way more complex and that is not always an option. ) However, as Ironchew mentioned, the two weeks with a potentially dangerous gun wielding person who knows you ratted them out is a huge problem.

The biggest problem is that guns in America are basically worshiped, rational laws and rational enforcement is always met with this hugely outrageous cries from the pro-gun crowd. Who are completely protected by the idiocy of having a protection for guns in the constitution. So guns are kept in this permanent untouchable holy status. Its crazy.

[Damen]

As usual, rather than combating the poor state of mental health and poor enforcement of existing laws in our nation we're attempting to use shotgun-like legislation that restricts everybody's rights in the hope that criminals and psychopaths will be caught up in it. And then when it inevitably fails to make an impact, even more laws get introduced to try and make up for it...

Because nobody has the balls to introduce the one law that would make a difference, that retired Justice John Paul Stevens said needed to be introduced: adding "while serving in the militia" to the Second Amendment.

Except that you could add in those words and it would change precisely fuck all because the Militia Act of 1903 defines the unorganized militia as every able bodied person between the ages of 17 and 45.

As for this bill, I'm not opposed to the idea but I am opposed to the bill as written and passed. I'm just glad it got amended because in its original form it allowed anyone to take out a restrainig order on anyone else.

But the two things I dislike the most is the fact that the standards of proof are completely up to the judge which allows for completely arbitrary rulings and there are little if any penalties for filing a false report.

[dpareja]

As usual, rather than combating the poor state of mental health and poor enforcement of existing laws in our nation we're attempting to use shotgun-like legislation that restricts everybody's rights in the hope that criminals and psychopaths will be caught up in it. And then when it inevitably fails to make an impact, even more laws get introduced to try and make up for it...

Because nobody has the balls to introduce the one law that would make a difference, that retired Justice John Paul Stevens said needed to be introduced: adding "while serving in the militia" to the Second Amendment.

Except that you could add in those words and it would change precisely fuck all because the Militia Act of 1903 defines the unorganized militia as every able bodied person between the ages of 17 and 45.

I didn't know about that law. In that case, you also amend that one appropriately.

[Art Vandelay]

I have to say, I really can't see this actually helping matters. The basic approach is allow everyone to have guns, few to no questions asked, and hope you somehow find out about the nutters before they kill anyone. That's fucking stupid, there's really no other way to put it. Of course, as Sylvana pointed out, guns are positively deified in the States, so gun control that's actually effective will likely never happen. Isn't it just wonderful when culture trumps logic?

[RavynousHunter]

I have to say, I really can't see this actually helping matters. The basic approach is allow everyone to have guns, few to no questions asked, and hope you somehow find out about the nutters before they kill anyone. That's fucking stupid, there's really no other way to put it. Of course, as Sylvana pointed out, guns are positively deified in the States, so gun control that's actually effective will likely never happen. Isn't it just wonderful when culture trumps logic?

The same could be said for many other cultures, as well, like the morality codes in Singapore.  People are stupid when it comes to their culture.

[Art Vandelay]

I have to say, I really can't see this actually helping matters. The basic approach is allow everyone to have guns, few to no questions asked, and hope you somehow find out about the nutters before they kill anyone. That's fucking stupid, there's really no other way to put it. Of course, as Sylvana pointed out, guns are positively deified in the States, so gun control that's actually effective will likely never happen. Isn't it just wonderful when culture trumps logic?

The same could be said for many other cultures, as well, like the morality codes in Singapore.  People are stupid when it comes to their culture.

Most definitely. America doesn't have a monopoly on cultural stupidity by any stretch of the imagination.

[chitoryu12]

I have to say, I really can't see this actually helping matters. The basic approach is allow everyone to have guns, few to no questions asked, and hope you somehow find out about the nutters before they kill anyone. That's fucking stupid, there's really no other way to put it. Of course, as Sylvana pointed out, guns are positively deified in the States, so gun control that's actually effective will likely never happen. Isn't it just wonderful when culture trumps logic?

Again, it's easy to say "We have to do something!" and flail around. It's harder to actually implement anything that would help. Crime and murder in the United States is a matter of culture, poor mental health, and mistreatment of criminals that involves demonizing and intentionally destroying the futures of anyone who commits a crime in a misguided effort to "deter" criminals that only contributes more money to private prisons.

If gun control laws actually provided a benefit, you would be able to see the benefit after its implementation. The fact of the matter is that you really don't, and looking at crime rates (most prominently violent crimes, and especially murders) for various nations and comparing them to the timing of gun control legislation makes it quite apparent that they're doing little or nothing to help. When I get the chance to sit down and make a proper chart detailing it, I'm going to do exactly that.

This is usually the point where people point to Australia as the ideal. What always gets ignored is that Australia had a rather low crime rate for its size up until a sudden, seemingly random spike that was used by politicians as a means to push further gun control legislation. When the atypical spike went away, they attributed it to their new legislation. Any statistician would immediately be suspicious of this, especially since the sudden and convenient drop doesn't match the results of implementing legislation in other nations.

Either way, I find it rather disturbing that people are so willing to accept and even compliment new laws that violate due process in an effort to suspend individuals' constitutional rights. It is, in fact, possible to do bad things with good intentions. This is one of them.

[chitoryu12]

Something I CAN do right now is provide a link to this study published in the The American Journal of Economics and Sociology in the late 90s.

The tl;dr of this is that there is only a very slight relationship between gun control legislation and firearm deaths (and the legislation usually results in the gun violence being shifted to other avenues like stabbings), while the socioeconomic connection is much greater and more clear. The money spent on things like the Brady Campaign (which was the main topic at the time this study was published) would be much better spent on social programs.