CA Legislature to consider 10-year ban on individuals PERCEIVED to be a threat

[old lady new shooter]

Not sure whether this belongs in legal or activism, might depend on whether other members here believe this is a true threat, as opposed to some kind of posturing on the part of the anti legislators.

Breitbart is reporting that "On August 19 the California legislature will take up a new gun control measure, Senate Bill 347–a bill designed to expand the reasons for which California residents can face a 10-year ban on gun possession." (http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/08/18/gun-control-ca-legislature-to-consider-10-year-ban/)

Apparently there already exists here something called a "gun violence protection order" which prohibits gun ownership for a period of one year to an individual "whose families, friends, or co-workers believe they are a threat to themselves or others". That's already pretty scary, along the lines of some of the discussion in the Cornyn thread... the article doesn't mention anything about professional psychiatric assessments, judicial determinations, or appeals. The new proposal is to extend the one-year period to TEN YEARS.

To me this sounds scary, maybe some people here think it's too far over the top to get passed so we shouldn't worry. I'd be interested to hear everyone's opinion.

 

[Lord Teapot]

i'd hope there is some standard of evidence, but since we're talking about california....


i truly wish products had a made-in sticker that included state, that part needs to fall off and die.

 

[calaverasslim]

To far over the top?

I have not seen anything coming out of CA. legislature that would be considered "To Far Over the Top".

 

[fastbolt]

If someone wants to wade through the details of CA AB-1014, on the types of Gun Violence Restraining Orders, here's a link to the bill's text, including a history of it. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

As you work your way through the narrative text, you'll find this section under Chapter 5. Offenses

18200. Every person who files a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 18150) or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18170), knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Last I heard, this new law goes into effect on Jan 2016.

While I was involved in handling a lot of cases involving TRO's & RO's for the last several years of my career, this new type of GVRO occurred after I retired, and I've only followed its development now and again. I probably ought to touch base with a former partner to find out what further developments have occurred within the courts and LE agencies who are going to have to deal with them.

Bottom line, though, is that the whole process of the types of new GVRO's involves recognized due process.

 

[danez71]

CA Legislature to consider 10-year ban on individuals PERCEIVED to be a threat

I think that's a bit misleading.

Where did you get the "PRECEIVED to be a threat" part?


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB347

(broken up to make the wall of text more readable)

Existing law generally prohibits a person who has been convicted of certain specified misdemeanors from possessing a firearm within 10 years of the conviction.

Under existing law, a violation of this prohibition is a crime, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine.

This bill would add to the list of misdemeanors, the conviction for which is subject to the above prohibition on possessing a firearm within 10 years of the conviction,

misdemeanor offenses of violating the 10-year prohibition on possessing a firearm specified above

and petty theft of a firearm, and convictions on or after January 1, 2016,

for the misdemeanor offenses of transferring a handgun without a firearms license, selling or giving possession of ammunition to a minor,

selling handgun ammunition to a person under 21 years of age,

possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm,

furnishing ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing ammunition,

carrying ammunition onto school grounds,

receiving stolen property consisting of a firearm,

carrying a loaded or concealed weapon if the person has been previously convicted of a crime against a person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, or if the firearm is not registered.

The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

 

[Librarian]

And since it came up at Calguns today,

carrying a loaded or concealed weapon if the person has been previously convicted of a crime against a person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, or if the firearm is not registered.

does not quite mean what it looks like.

Penal Code for carrying concealed without CCW specifies that is a misdemeanor, but not one that provides the 10-year prohibition. However, one subsection specifies that

concealed gun + ammo for it + gun not recorded in the state's Automated Firearms System as belonging to the person carrying when apprehended

can be treated either as a felony or a misdemeanor, and convictions under those subsections would be added to the 10-year prohibition. Near identical language is at both the 'concealed in public' and 'loaded in public' sections.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Quote:
18200. Every person who files a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 18150) or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18170), knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

KNOWING the information to be false or with the intent to harass, ok that's clear, but what if the person in question just makes the accuser feel nervous for some reason? The accuser wouldn't be requesting the order out of malice, but that still wouldn't mean taking away the person's 2nd amendment rights would be justified.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Where did you get the "PRECEIVED to be a threat" part?

The article said the law prohibits gun ownership for a period of one year to an individual "whose families, friends, or co-workers believe they are a threat to themselves or others". That appears to be a different criterion than conviction of the misdemeanors you list.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The article said the law prohibits gun ownership for a period of one year to an individual "whose families, friends, or co-workers believe they are a threat to themselves or others". That appears to be a different criterion than conviction of the misdemeanors you list.

Nope, you're reading it out of context.

The parties involved must believe....before they can petition for the order. That is what gives them standing to be protected. The prohibition doesn't come into effect until there is a court hearing

what if the person in question just makes the accuser feel nervous for some reason? The accuser wouldn't be requesting the order out of malice, but that still wouldn't mean taking away the person's 2nd amendment rights would be justified.

That's why they have a hearing...to determine if there are sufficient grounds to issue the court order. It is usually issued on a combination of credibility and ability

 

[old lady new shooter]

Nope, you're reading it out of context.

The parties involved must believe....before they can petition for the order. That is what gives them standing to be protected. The prohibition doesn't come into effect until there is a court hearing


That's why they have a hearing...to determine if there are sufficient grounds to issue the court order

"court hearing", the magic words, thank you. Nothing about court hearings was mentioned in the article.

 

[danez71]

^^^^

Yea.... the article wasn't well written very well.

 

[steelerdude99]

Add to this thread the federal legislation introduced by Feinstein and Boxer that says that ALL states MUST setup "Gun violence restraining orders". In essence... gun owners must now defend their rights against crimes that they have NOT committed. Successful defense more than likely involves hiring a lawyer to speak on your behalf.

chuck

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=767752&page=10

from thread "Here's Comes The New Firearm Legislation 2015 Version"

Well good old Feinstein and Boxer are at it again. Introduced today, SB1977 would penalize states that do not have 'gun violence restraining orders' on the books. The bill also sets up how when and where they are to be used and includes a means of seizing firearms from a person who is subject to an order.

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation

 

[9mmepiphany]

In essence... gun owners must now defend their rights against crimes that they have NOT committed.

I'm not sure what it is like in VA..your local laws and court rulings should spell it out.

In CA courts...at least in my experience working in that court...you would have had to committed some act to have a Restraining Order, other than a temporary one, granted by the court.

Whether you employ a lawyer depends on your ability to present your case clearly and the value you place on that defense. I've seen both situations prevail in court

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Always weary of these kind of laws (specifically when the focus in on guns not mental health itself). However, Florida's Baker Act is a model case that gets people help and had a lot of due process safeguards.

Mike

 

[BSA1]

In CA courts...at least in my experience working in that court...you would have had to committed some act to have a Restraining Order, other than a temporary one, granted by the court.

In some cases the mere accusation is sufficient to restrict possession of a firearm.

I know a lawyer that specializes in divorce cases that almost always files for a restraining order against the husband at the same time he submits the divorce petition to the Court.

It doesn't matter to him if a actual threat exists against his client. He makes more money by making the divorce nastier and dragging it out longer. From what I have read some States apparently restrict possession of firearms while a restraining order is in effect.

Whether you employ a lawyer depends on your ability to present your case clearly and the value you place on that defense.

Add and having enough money to afford a good attorney through the entire case.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

By the same line of reasoning, they could themselves be considered a threat in other states. Wouldn't this be justification to put themselves on their own list?

 

[9mmepiphany]

In some cases the mere accusation is sufficient to restrict possession of a firearm.

That is why the Respondent is entitled to a hearing prior to adoption of the Petitioners petition