CA Law Allowing Police to Seize Guns Without Notice for Potential Violence

[Las Vegas]

I voted No in that referendum (marriage is a religious institution, just expand civil partnership and related laws on inheritance etc instead) but I accepted the 65% Yes vote. At least I had a say.

Back on point - my stance: this law apparently breaches 2nd amendment (imo), it also is open to abuse and, even if a judge decides, they are already tied up with enough shit - just delegate the initial judgment to some independent body or, better, scrap the law. You cannot trust one person to say "he should not have x" without proof and then deprive a person of x. It happens with kids, now with guns. I'd fucking fight this to the death (well, argue vehemently) because it means someone who you may not meet or argue before chooses your entitlement to a constitutional right. How fucked is that?

Lots.

[SF1900]

I seriously doubt it. What if the guy has no family? Does that mean he can't be crazy enough not to own a gun?

Good point.

We shall see how this law pans out. 

[BIG ACH]

But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?

[SF1900]

But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?

I guess that is part of the issue. As long as you dont come up as having a criminal record or mental health record, you can buy a gun, even if you are crazy, for whatever reason.

[SquidVicious]

I guess that is part of the issue. As long as you dont come up as having a criminal record or mental health record, you can buy a gun, even if you are crazy, for whatever reason.

Just look at 240! The guy is absolutely nuts. He once challenged a pro bodybuilder to a duel, supports black teens roaming through white neighborhoods, and at one time supported Wayne Demilia's new bodybuilding organization. Does anyone honestly believe he should be able to own a gun (or two)?

[SF1900]

Just look at 240! The guy is absolutely nuts. He once challenged a pro bodybuilder to a duel, supports black teens roaming through white neighborhoods, and at one time supported Wayne Demilia's new bodybuilding organization. Does anyone honestly believe he should be able to own a gun (or two)?

Anyone who supported Wayne Demilias new bbing organization should not be able to even own a bibi gun!

[SquidVicious]

Anyone who supported Wayne Demilias new bbing organization should not be able to even own a bibi gun!

X2. I wonder how many political contributions 240 has made to this man's campaign. Talk about buying influence!

[El Diablo Blanco]

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Strange how states rights only seem to apply when it comes to guns.

Looks like a 2nd and 4th amendment violation

States have way too much power. Makes this country vastly different state by state.

[Kazan]

States have way too much power. Makes this country vastly different state by state.

That's the point. The federal government was never intended to have full power.

[Disgusted]

But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?

Then they shouldn't have one I would think.

[Las Vegas]

But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?

Says who, exactly?

[Lustral]

If anyone has the attention span, here is what is needed to commit someone to involuntary mental healthcare (ie mental imprisonment)...

Basically - anybody, just don't be a cop or committee member who decides such matters committing a family member. Just make sure you saw them in the last 2 days....

9.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) and (6) and section 12 , where it is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner by any of the following:

(a) the spouse or a relative of the person,

(b) an authorised officer,

(c) a member of the Garda Síochána, or

(d) subject to the provisions of subsection (2), any other person.

(2) The following persons shall be disqualified for making an application in respect of a person—

(a) a person under the age of 18 years,

(b) an authorised officer or a member of the Garda Síochána who is a relative of the person or of the spouse of the person,

(c) a member of the governing body, or the staff, or the person in charge, of the approved centre concerned,

(d) any person with an interest in the payments (if any) to be made in respect of the taking care of the person concerned in the approved centre concerned,

(e) any registered medical practitioner who provides a regular medical service at the approved centre concerned,

(f) the spouse, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of any of the persons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs (b) to (e), whether of the whole blood, of the half blood or by affinity.

(3) An application shall be made in a form specified by the Commission.

(4) A person shall not make an application unless he or she has observed the person the subject of the application not more than 48 hours before the date of the making of the application.

(5) Where an application is made under subsection (1)(d), the application shall contain a statement of the reasons why it is so made, of the connection of the applicant with the person to whom the application relates, and of the circumstances in which the application is made.

(6) A person who, for the purposes of or in relation to an application, makes any statement which is to his or her knowledge false or misleading in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.

(7) In paragraph (c) of subsection (2), the reference to a member of the governing body of the approved centre concerned does not include a reference to a member of a health board.

( In this section—

“authorised officer” means an officer of a health board who is of a prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by this section;

“spouse”, in relation to a person, does not include a spouse of a person who is living separately and apart from the person or in respect of whom an application or order has been made under the Domestic Violence Act, 1996 .

[Las Vegas]

If anyone has the attention span, here is what is needed to commit someone to involuntary mental healthcare (ie mental imprisonment)...

Basically - anybody, just don't be a cop or committee member who decides such matters committing a family member. Just make sure you saw them in the last 2 days....

Ireland, for anyone keeping the score.

[Lustral]

Ireland, for anyone keeping the score.

I have represented people committed under this Act... it is a gross violation of liberty. Think how you would feel if, say, you'd a bad day, had a few drinks and cursed on way to home from work - anyone could say "that guy is crazy" and have you committed. What's more, if involuntarily committed it affects your ability to travel...

[_aj_]

States have way too much power. Makes this country vastly different state by state.

SMH. Did you really just say that?

[Lustral]

SMH. Did you really just say that?

AJ, what is wrong with the EU? As a follow on, what is wrong with the "European project" of integration among European countries?

[_aj_]

AJ, what is wrong with the EU? As a follow on, what is wrong with the "European project" of integration among European countries?

You can't integrate countries of vastly different cultures and mores. Also, you can have an single currency without a single economic policy. Otherwise, Greece.

[Lustral]

You can't integrate countries of vastly different cultures and mores. Also, you can have an single currency without a single economic policy. Otherwise, Greece.

Would tax policy not mean too much power then? Like state taxes? As for single currency, that would require further federalisation and assimilitating states (nations).

I think the EU is great as an economic market and for freedom of movement/capital/services... but also agree - countries differ - massively. That said, do you not see massive differences in the USA (say Wyoming v New York) yet they both have the same federal laws and neither can defy those, when one is half wilderness, the other mostly urban...

Off topic...

[Las Vegas]

I have represented people committed under this Act... it is a gross violation of liberty. Think how you would feel if, say, you'd a bad day, had a few drinks and cursed on way to home from work - anyone could say "that guy is crazy" and have you committed. What's more, if involuntarily committed it affects your ability to travel...

Yes, trying to take the whims or notions of possible idiots and pass it off as g2g.  Cheap shit.  Fucked up.  Wrong as it comes.

[_aj_]

Would tax policy not mean too much power then? Like state taxes? As for single currency, that would require further federalisation and assimilitating states (nations).

I think the EU is great as an economic market and for freedom of movement/capital/services... but also agree - countries differ - massively. That said, do you not see massive differences in the USA (say Wyoming v New York) yet they both have the same federal laws and neither can defy those, when one is half wilderness, the other mostly urban...

Off topic...

Same basic culture. Same language.

[Las Vegas]

I'd say the problem with the "joining" of countries is the fact that we know how power corrupts.  

How do you do it without having a cabal of liars and thieves taking control of vast numbers of people?  Isn't that exactly what's happening, now?

[Lustral]

Same basic culture. Same language.

Same language, except about 15% plus have another language as first language (and many states have majority spanish speakers in cities)...

I'm just pointing out that overarching principles to govern differing states/nations is fine in principle. Once you intervene too much, you ruin that notion and destroy culture. Can you fly the Confederate flag now? Nope. Can you trade freely to other states/nations? Yes.

Whether this transgresses 2nd amendment is what is at issue; I think it does, but don't dismiss the necessity of overarching laws and the balance to be made with state/national sovereignty.