So the confiscation begins.................

[EyeCarry]

Wake up.

In fact we were years ahead of California: The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Law - Judge uses "new law" to take guns from Carmel man [Updated]

And didn't something like this happen here in Bloomington a few years back? It was some guy in a parking garage over looking a bar downtown. I believe that he had his taken away.
Man wants guns back that Bloomington police seized - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[femurphy77]

"So this is how liberty dies". . . .

 

[yepthatsme]

"So this is how liberty dies". . . .

Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

 

[87iroc]

Then move the hell out. Let the makers leave the tax base of the takers. Starve the ravenous beast to death. It's happening already.

They already are.

 

[kawtech87]

"So this is how liberty dies". . . .

Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

More like, with thunderous applause in the name of social justice.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Then move the hell out. Let the makers leave the tax base of the takers. Starve the ravenous beast to death. It's happening already.

Bad idea. They did that. Many have moved to Nevada and Colorado, and now both sway left. They're doing their best to take Texas, too.

Trump wants to put up a wall- I say put it on the border between America and California. Put another one around Chicago, and yet another around the New England states (Sorry, Cygnus)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[halfmileharry]

Bad idea. They did that. Many have moved to Nevada and Colorado, and now both sway left. They're doing their best to take Texas, too.

Trump wants to put up a wall- I say put it on the border between America and California. Put another one around Chicago, and yet another around the New England states (Sorry, Cygnus)

Blessings,
Bill

I see I'm not the only one noticing this. Blessings Bill and good job on keeping your eyes open.

 

[SSGSAD]

I see I'm not the only one noticing this. Blessings Bill and good job on keeping your eyes open.

No, I have been noticing too .....

Someone, on the radio said, When you move to a NEW State, you shouldn't be allowed to vote for 5 years .....

 

[KG1]

Bad idea. They did that. Many have moved to Nevada and Colorado, and now both sway left. They're doing their best to take Texas, too.

Trump wants to put up a wall- I say put it on the border between America and California. Put another one around Chicago, and yet another around the New England states (Sorry, Cygnus)

Blessings,
Bill

They **** up the state they came from and then move to get away from it only to do the same in another state. They are like parasites jumping from one host they infected and destroyed and then begin the process of infecting another.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I'm about to Denny this **** up...
Kirk mentioned Indiana having a similar law... all the hub-bub about this, I decided to read through it.
Perhaps Kirk (or other legaleeze experts can chime in on my cut and paste below.
It appears only Family Members or LEO can report and file (I realize this doesn't discount ex spouses)
My main concern is one criteria appears to be recent acquiring of firearms. I'd like to think our justice system wouldn't single that one fact out, however the criteria does state it as being reasonable cause.

The bill (in it's amending entirety) can be found here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

CHAPTER 3. Ex Parte Gun Violence Restraining Order

18150.

(a) (1) An immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “immediate family member” has the same meaning as in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 422.4.
^I've not found this, but am taking it at 'face value' as immediate family member. Again, it wouldn't discount a vindictive ex spouse
(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 paragraph (2) of 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 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.
(c) An affidavit supporting a petition for the issuance of an ex parte gun violence restraining order shall set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the petition, or the reason for believing that they exist.
(d) An ex parte order under this chapter shall be issued or denied on the same day that the petition is submitted to the court, unless the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective review, in which case the order shall be issued or denied on the next day of judicial business in sufficient time for the order to be filed that day with the clerk of the court.

18155.

(a) (1) The court, before issuing an ex parte gun violence restraining order, shall examine on oath, the petitioner and any witness the petitioner may produce.
(2) In lieu of examining the petitioner and any witness the petitioner may produce, the court may require the petitioner and any witness to submit a written affidavit signed under oath.
(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.
^Appears to deal with Felony type crimes as related to firearms. (ie 1+yr sentence, 1k+ damages)
(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.
(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:
(A) The unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the subject of the petition.
(B) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the subject of the petition against another person.
(C) Any prior arrest of the subject of the petition for a felony offense.
(D) Any history of a violation by the subject of the petition 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.
(E) Any history of a violation by the subject of the petition of a 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.
(F) Documentary evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports and records of convictions, of either recent criminal offenses by the subject of the petition that involve controlled substances or alcohol or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the subject of the petition.
(G) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.
^ Yeah that's the ANY part I don't like ^

(3) For the purposes of this subdivision, “recent” means within the six months prior to the date the petition was filed.

(c) If the court determines that there grounds to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order exist, it shall issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order that prohibits the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition, and expires no later than 21 days from the date of the order.

*Not sure where 3 A & B went

 

[Bfish]

It won't be all at once. It would get out of hand quickly. It will go something like this:

Those suspected of being mentally ill.
Ever more strict criteria for criminals.
No more future sales.
No one over 75.
No one without a particular license with a training requirement.
Only veterans and LEO can own.
Only LEO can own.
No one can own a personal firearm.

All of these will be accompanied by crises making the restrictions common sense.

This is basically how I see it also... I sure hope not but you just never know. I feel like it'll have to be slow, at least the way things stand now.

 

[Bill of Rights]

IIRC, they include persons with whom one has been in a relationship, whether married or not, as "family". That kinda changes it up a smidgen.

I'm about to Denny this **** up...
Kirk mentioned Indiana having a similar law... all the hub-bub about this, I decided to read through it.
Perhaps Kirk (or other legaleeze experts can chime in on my cut and paste below.
It appears only Family Members or LEO can report and file (I realize this doesn't discount ex spouses)
My main concern is one criteria appears to be recent acquiring of firearms. I'd like to think our justice system wouldn't single that one fact out, however the criteria does state it as being reasonable cause.

The bill (in it's amending entirety) can be found here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014


*Not sure where 3 A & B went

 

[RobbyMaQ]

IIRC, they include persons with whom one has been in a relationship, whether married or not, as "family". That kinda changes it up a smidgen.

If there's been a change to the bill stating such, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've not found such in the bill/law.
"(a) (1) An immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition."

 

[Bill of Rights]

I didn't research this bill. I'm referring to the CA definition of "immediate family" applicable to this bill.... I thought I remembered that they included that in the definition of family, but could be wrong.

If there's been a change to the bill stating such, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've not found such in the bill/law.
"(a) (1) An immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition."

 

[SSGSAD]

Ok, hypothetical sit..... say you and your wife, seperate, she goes home, across state line, can she call ?????

(you are still M, or D is not final yet) .....

 

[Bill of Rights]

I found these two definitions of the term in that section of their law:

"Immediate family” means spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, or son-in-law.

"immediate family” means an individual’s spouse and minor dependent children and any other person over which the individual has legal control.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ok, hypothetical sit..... say you and your wife, seperate, she goes home, across state line, can she call ?????

(you are still M, or D is not final yet) .....

She can call, but unless you're in CA, their LEOs can't really do anything about it, and CA law won't really apply to you.

Interesting note: In medicine, the abbreviation "CA" is usually taken to mean "cancer".

Just sayin'...

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

Eyewitness News Investigates: Flaws Within California's Gun

 

[BogWalker]

Eyewitness News Investigates: Flaws Within California's Gun

That loaded question the nurse asked. Similar idiocy about got my brother kicked out of school with the question "If you were going to kill yourself, how would you do it?". No way to answer that without them checking you off as suicidal.

We've been saying for years the antis were going to try and use the mental health system to eliminate arms ownership. California has proven it as a distinct possibility ripe for abuse.

 

[Mgderf]

That loaded question the nurse asked. Similar idiocy about got my brother kicked out of school with the question "If you were going to kill yourself, how would you do it?"...

By continuing to listen to your incessant dribble!


That, would be my answer...