Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-04-2018, 7:32 AM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 777
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 2019 AB 61 Ting - Gun violence restraining orders.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...=201920200AB61

Another bill like the one that was vetoed earlier this year - gives a significant group of people the ability to file a petition to deny gun rights to anyone they feel is a threat. At this time, there is no penalty for the person who requests it.

Last edited by Markinsac; 12-04-2018 at 8:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-04-2018, 9:51 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,838
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So you file complaint because some one in the neighborhood is running a commercial business out of their garage with employees parking Monday-Friday all over the neighborhood. Next thing you know your house is being raided and your firearms are confiscated because firearms owners are now quasi-criminals. All the illegal business owner has to say is they were threatened. Pretty much the crap that landlords have to deal with deadbeat tenants.

Landlords are greedy scum so now it takes more than 6 months to evict a deadbeat.

Gun Owners are bad people, so they are targets and no longer have any rights at all, talk about a slippery slope.

Whats not to love about a law without any protections from false accusations.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Markinsac View Post
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...=201920200AB61

Another bill like the one that was vetoed earlier this year - gives a significant group of people the ability to file a petition to deny gun rights to anyone they feel is a threat. At this time, there is no penalty for the person who requests it.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-04-2018, 9:56 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,102
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

AB-2888 was the bill that was vetoed last year, which was also authored by Ting. As far as I can tell, this bill is exactly the same text.

Under current law, these people can request a GVRO:
  • an immediate family member member
  • a law enforcement officer

If this law passes, it would add:
  • an employer
  • a coworker
  • an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months


Current law (and this bill doesn't change it) requires an affidavit made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement taken under oath pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 18155.
So, "theoretically" one could be charged with perjury if they lie when requesting a GVRO, but in practice it would likely go unpunished, as is usually the case with perjury violations (see this article, "Why is Perjury So Rarely Prosecuted?").

As a result of SB-1200 last year, GVRO's are free to request/obtain, and a court is required to hold a hearing within 21 days of a temporary GVRO being issued to see if it should become a 1-year order.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 12-04-2018 at 12:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-04-2018, 10:51 AM
GreggieBoy's Avatar
GreggieBoy GreggieBoy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 625
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Reading it, it is same bill as last year.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-04-2018, 2:56 PM
Two Nuggets Two Nuggets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,078
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreggieBoy View Post
Reading it, it is same bill as last year.
Same bill, different Governor to sign.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-04-2018, 3:31 PM
AregularGuy's Avatar
AregularGuy AregularGuy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Oakland
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

There will be a lot of recycled bills this year. They will be falling all over themselves to re-submit them, changing nothing in the originals. This is low hanging fruit and takes NO work on their part. We are royally screwed I fear.
__________________
FOR SALE:
Parachute. Used once, never opened. Small stain. Best offer.

“Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, ‘Thank God, I’m still alive.’ But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.” – Sen. Barbara Boxer


NRA Patron Member
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-04-2018, 4:48 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,993
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More importantly, each of these bills now becomes a placeholder in the legislative game. The authors have a bargaining chip for future favors to either amend or gut the bill to carry other issues or to hold it in committees to allow other legislation to pass through.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-04-2018, 5:18 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,952
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
So you file complaint because some one in the neighborhood is running a commercial business out of their garage with employees parking Monday-Friday all over the neighborhood. Next thing you know your house is being raided and your firearms are confiscated because firearms owners are now quasi-criminals. All the illegal business owner has to say is they were threatened. Pretty much the crap that landlords have to deal with deadbeat tenants.

Landlords are greedy scum so now it takes more than 6 months to evict a deadbeat.

Gun Owners are bad people, so they are targets and no longer have any rights at all, talk about a slippery slope.

Whats not to love about a law without any protections from false accusations.
Funny you bring this up because this is EXACTLY down to the dotted "t" and crossed "i" what my wife and I are faced with right now.

You wouldn't happen to by my next door neighbor by any chance?



=8-/
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2018, 5:51 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can someone still take a person to civil court for wrongfully using an GRSO?
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2018, 6:56 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,102
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Can someone still take a person to civil court for wrongfully using an GRSO?
You can take someone to court for whatever you want to. The result of doing so is unknown, of course, and largely determined by who appointed the judge presiding over your case.

I would think that if you presented a good case, it would be possible in some courts to win a settlement for the costs and hassle you had to endure. But of course, as a gun owner you'll be looked down on by most CA judges.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-04-2018, 7:02 PM
LongLiveTheRepublic LongLiveTheRepublic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 51
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

It will undoubtedly get passed when it gets to Newscum's desk. He's probably salivating as we speak. Just have to be careful about who you let know you about your guns. Don't tell coworkers, liberal family members, teachers, employers, basically don't tell anyone.. What they don't know makes them feel "safe" in their "gun free" state.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-04-2018, 7:28 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,116
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongLiveTheRepublic View Post
It will undoubtedly get passed when it gets to Newscum's desk. He's probably salivating as we speak. Just have to be careful about who you let know you about your guns. Don't tell coworkers, liberal family members, teachers, employers, basically don't tell anyone.. What they don't know makes them feel "safe" in their "gun free" state.
You are the enemy. Those people will rat you out to the Man if you happen to piss them off.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2018, 7:38 PM
LongLiveTheRepublic LongLiveTheRepublic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 51
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
You are the enemy. Those people will rat you out to the Man if you happen to piss them off.
You'd be surprised how fast Californian liberals turn on you when they find out you're republican. That's why I just smile and nod when they talk politics. You could be best buddies and then suddenly you're the spawn of Satan when you say you vote republican lol.

The republican party isn't perfect, but they're the best bet we have to protecting our border and our constitutional rights.

The blues just want to keep writing laws to remove what little rights that are still left in this country.

But now I'm getting off topic.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-04-2018, 9:04 PM
Allhailflintlocks Allhailflintlocks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 194
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markinsac View Post
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...=201920200AB61

Another bill like the one that was vetoed earlier this year - gives a significant group of people the ability to file a petition to deny gun rights to anyone they feel is a threat. At this time, there is no penalty for the person who requests it.
So what happens when every LEO, DOJ official, prison guard, armed security, and body guard has a petition filed against them? If owning a gun is a threat then anyone carrying a gun is a threat and needs to be disarmed.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-2018, 6:02 AM
mjmagee67's Avatar
mjmagee67 mjmagee67 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Free America, Idaho.
Posts: 2,631
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allhailflintlocks View Post
So what happens when every LEO, DOJ official, prison guard, armed security, and body guard has a petition filed against them? If owning a gun is a threat then anyone carrying a gun is a threat and needs to be disarmed.
As a retired LEO I even find that funny....get the names of all of the Capital Security officers and file a GVRO on every single one of them........

But be warned that it is a crime to file a false report against a LEO. I don't know if a GVRO would be covered under that law.
__________________
If you want change you have to put in your 2 cents, you can't just sit on the sidelines and whine.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-05-2018, 7:12 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,993
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmagee67 View Post
As a retired LEO I even find that funny....get the names of all of the Capital Security officers and file a GVRO on every single one of them........

But be warned that it is a crime to file a false report against a LEO. I don't know if a GVRO would be covered under that law.
The bill doesn’t empower the general public...
Quote:
18150. (a) (1) An immediate family member member, an employer, a coworker, an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months, or a law enforcement officer may file a petition....
On the plus side, it’s a petition, not a report.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:58 AM
mjmagee67's Avatar
mjmagee67 mjmagee67 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Free America, Idaho.
Posts: 2,631
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The bill doesn’t empower the general public...
On the plus side, it’s a petition, not a report.
OK a pro A2 Capital employee.....

On second thought nevermind...
__________________
If you want change you have to put in your 2 cents, you can't just sit on the sidelines and whine.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:06 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,102
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I think Capitol security staff are CHP, aren't they? But I guess they all get their paychecks from the same State pocketbook. Which brings up a good point - it's interesting that "co-worker" isn't defined. If you're a contractor at a business, is anyone there your co-worker? If you are a janitor at a state courthouse in San Diego, is Newsom your co-worker? If you're a USDA produce inspector, is the POTUS your co-worker?
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 12-05-2018 at 11:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:17 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I think Capitol security staff are CHP, aren't they? But I guess they all get their paychecks from the same State pocketbook. Which brings up a good point - it's interesting that "co-worker" isn't defined. If you're a contractor at a business, is anyone there your co-worker? If you are a janitor at a state courthouse in San Diego, is Newsom your co-worker? If you're a USDA produce inspector, is the POTUS your co-worker?
Without it defined, I would assume it means anyone you share an office space with. Meaning, fired employee's could go after their bosses etc. etc. I think a contractor would fit in to this as well. I think if you work at the capitol any person that "works" there would count including the governor.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:22 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,102
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Seems to me like this bill is ripe for abuse by the State of California and every other leftist company and organization, to make it a standard operating procedure to obtain a GVRO against every terminated employee, on the grounds that "terminated employees pose an elevated risk of workplace violence," and providing a Mother Jones article as their evidence.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 12-05-2018 at 11:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:36 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,993
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CHP provides facility and grounds security. They also provide personal security for Constitutional officers. The Sgts-at-Arms provide security for Legislators. A couple of years ago, one of them was involved in cocaine and a shootout.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-05-2018, 2:27 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I think Capitol security staff are CHP, aren't they?
Yes - California State Police merged with CHP in 1995. https://www.chp.ca.gov/home/about-us...e-state-police
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-05-2018, 8:21 PM
Allhailflintlocks Allhailflintlocks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 194
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let's see, state capitol security personnel are paid with tax dollars - my tax dollars. That makes me their employer. Hey! I can petition away!

This is really for Newsome's safety. We all know how guns can sneak out at night and commit all sorts of "gun violence" on their very own. Best to ban them from Sacramento before one decides to "gun violence" Newsome.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-06-2018, 5:48 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 10,149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How many of us have total pissant, worthless co-workers that would do anything to screw with us?
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-06-2018, 7:51 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 13,321
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Current law (and this bill doesn't change it) requires an affidavit made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement taken under oath pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 18155.
So, "theoretically" one could be charged with perjury if they lie when requesting a GVRO, but in practice it would likely go unpunished, as is usually the case with perjury violations (see this article, "Why is Perjury So Rarely Prosecuted?").
All of our State Legislators and other elected officials are 'under oath' to support and defend the Constitution of The United States.

How has that worked out for us? There are no consequences for failing 'under oath' these days.
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:53 AM
sevendayweekend's Avatar
sevendayweekend sevendayweekend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 830
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Does an accuser need proof that someone actually owns a gun before requesting a gvro? Or can they go after non gun owners as well in an attempt to screw with people?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-06-2018, 1:32 PM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,327
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sevendayweekend View Post
Does an accuser need proof that someone actually owns a gun before requesting a gvro? Or can they go after non gun owners as well in an attempt to screw with people?
Before Newsom leaves office, I'm sure it will be a crime to simply think about guns.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-06-2018, 1:50 PM
Highlander21's Avatar
Highlander21 Highlander21 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Newsom has dyslexia

Im sure hell sign it without reading it.
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-16-2018, 9:51 AM
daninger4995's Avatar
daninger4995 daninger4995 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
Newsom has dyslexia

Im sure hell sign it without reading it.

That guy will sign any gun bill that comes across his desk without reading it so long as it restricts our rights further.

This bill is scary. I will not be telling anyone I am a gun owner if this passes.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:30 AM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongLiveTheRepublic View Post
It will undoubtedly get passed when it gets to Newscum's desk. He's probably salivating as we speak. Just have to be careful about who you let know you about your guns. Don't tell coworkers, liberal family members, teachers, employers, basically don't tell anyone.. What they don't know makes them feel "safe" in their "gun free" state.
Or the questionnaire Kaiser and other hospitals hand out to their patients when they come in for medical treatment..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:47 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 9,677
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Based on what I have seen with the Family Court in regards to a conservatorship (I got to see the whole bogus mess with family members), nothing will be done about perjury and/or false reports. The courts don't seem to want to do anything about perjury, even when there is absolute proof unless there is political motives (see Mueller). Even when it is clear that the petition is bogus, they won't do anything about it because of the claim "they meant well", even when it is clear that they didn't. Then there is the issue of having to prove your side rather than the other side to prove what they are claiming. The process can take a long time due to delays as well, it seems like any new hearing date is at least 3-4 months out. The end result seems to be having to pay a lot for lawyers and not being able to do anything about it unless the person does it multiple times. I suspect it will be exactly the same with the red flag laws. They will claim that they can't help it if it takes months instead of weeks to have the hearing and that it is in the best interest of the community. Yes, people could spend more money and sue about the time, but they would need to have money and that lawsuit will take months, so the end result is no improvement.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:01 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,993
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevendayweekend View Post
Does an accuser need proof that someone actually owns a gun before requesting a gvro? Or can they go after non gun owners as well in an attempt to screw with people?
Quote:
(b) A court may issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order if the petition, supported by an affidavit made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement taken pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 18155, and any additional information provided to the court shows that there is a substantial likelihood that both of the following are true:
(1) The subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by considering the factors listed in Section 18155.
(2) An ex parte gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:18 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,993
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

While I truly dislike this over-reach of statute, no one has brought to the discussions what the court SHALL consider in determining whether grounds exist for the GVRO issuance. Those review requirements are laid out in detail in PC 18155.
While the court has to have a reason for issuance, one would have to work really hard or be inordinately stupid to meet the evaluation criteria.
Quote:
(b) (1) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the court shall consider all evidence of the following:
(A) A recent threat of violence or act of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward another.
(B) A recent threat of violence or act of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward himself or herself.
(C) A violation of an emergency protective order issued pursuant to Section 646.91 or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition.
(D) A recent violation of an unexpired protective order issued pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 10 of the Family Code, Section 136.2, Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(E) A conviction for any offense listed in Section 29805.
(F) A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward himself, herself, or another.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:25 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 9,677
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
While I truly dislike this over-reach of statute, no one has brought to the discussions what the court SHALL consider in determining whether grounds exist for the GVRO issuance. Those review requirements are laid out in detail in PC 18155.
While the court has to have a reason for issuance, one would have to work really hard or be inordinately stupid to meet the evaluation criteria.
(A) is an easy one since the people submitting the petition says that the person made verbal threats. Since there isn't a requirement that there is proof, such as a recording, it is all hearsay. Get another person to "confirm" such statements, then they are good to go. It doesn't define what a real threat of violence actually is. Consider all of the liberal threats towards Trump and other Republicans and that type of thing might be good enough, especially if the person is a conservative and the judge is liberal even through the person really never intends to actually do anything.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-16-2018, 1:53 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 791
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
While I truly dislike this over-reach of statute, no one has brought to the discussions what the court SHALL consider in determining whether grounds exist for the GVRO issuance. Those review requirements are laid out in detail in PC 18155.
While the court has to have a reason for issuance, one would have to work really hard or be inordinately stupid to meet the evaluation criteria.
At the stage these shall be considered, though, there’s not an opportunity for exculpatory evidence to be presented by the accused, and no reason to believe anyone present would bring forward such evidence on the accused’s behalf. So this is just the “shall issue a GVRO” section. You’ll note it’s followed by a “may issue GVRO” section that has this doozy:

Quote:
(2) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the court may consider any other evidence of an increased risk for violence, including, but not limited to, evidence of any of the following:
...
(G) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.
Buying ammo is codified here as evidence of an increased risk for violence.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-16-2018, 7:11 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,029
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreggieBoy View Post
Reading it, it is same bill as last year.
No it's not... you see, this one has the luxury of being "pre-approved".





.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:25 PM
2Aallday 2Aallday is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 243
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Buying ammo is codified here as evidence of an increased risk for violence.
How is this not guilty until proven innocent?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:30 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.