New confiscatory CA gun law as of 2016

Posted on Thursday, December 31, 2015 by BZ

The DailyCaller.com seems to think so. As does the WashingtonTimes.com.

I have some very salient comments to add after these pull quotes.

California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1

by Andrew Blake

Gun control legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there is potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

DailyCaller.com wrote:

AB1014 was passed last year in the wake of 2014’s Isla Vista shooting, where teenager Elliot Rodger went on a rampage near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, killing six people along with himself.

Further:

The new law is intended to stop such a situation from re-occurring. Under the law, a judge has the power to grant a restraining order telling police to seize a person’s guns, based solely on accounts from family members or police that the person is poses an imminent danger to others. The restraining order can be granted without the affected person knowing it exists or being allowed time to contest it.

Once granted, police can use the restraining order to confiscate all of a person’s guns and ammunition, and the person is also barred from buying or possessing guns and ammo for the duration of the order. A full court hearing must then be heard within three weeks. At that hearing, a judge will be able to extend the restraining order for an entire year.

My interjection:

That is not unprecedented in Fornicalia. As a peace officer, if I made a detention under 5150 W&I and determined that someone fell under those parameters, I could legally confiscate their guns on that call.

5150(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service.

When I made a commitment under 5150 W&I, I was legally bound to inquire about firearms in the affected household and then book them for safekeeping when they were brought to my attention. My failure to do that would have resulted in my receipt of discipline, at minimum. Once the commitment was accepted, should that occur, the firearms per Cal DOJ were not to be returned for a period of five years. One can petition the local court in which the guns or deadly weapons were confiscated. California section 5250 W&I (Welfare & Institutions code) deals with firearms following a 5150 W&I hold being placed. I was very careful when placing said holds and sometimes refused to make them against the wishes of family members — who could have an agenda.

In the new instance, however, under AB 1014, weapons can be confiscated in lieu of a 5150 hold and the injection of law enforcement in an emergency situation. I only found myself involved, as a law enforcement officer, in an emergency call. Here is the very important caveat:

Practically, this means once you are his with the restraining order you will never own a firearm again for the rest of your life and the ones the police take from you will never be returned. Is any California judge going to lift the restraining order and take the risk that at some later point you may be involved in a shooting of some kind? No.

So, do you, the subject of such an action have the right to be notified that such an allegation has been made against you? Do you have to right to contest their application? Can you contest the ability of the state, without anything approaching probably cause, to have you hauled in for “mental evaluation?” (Why is it that totalitarian regimes invariably use the mental health system to deal with dissidents and non-conformists?) Nope.

How will you find out? When a SWAT team shows up at your door to take your weapons and cart you off for a mental health evaluation.

Beware. It is, after all, Fornicalia. And there is a reason I call it that.

More is coming, America.

In 2016.

Obama will issue his imperial executive gun orders in just a few more days.

P.S.

After I installed Ad-Blocker software on my confuser, Life got so much better for me when I went to various sites. My computer would scream in pain as it found itself stymied by advertisements on various sites. The Daily Caller site was one of the worst. Now I can actually link DailyCaller without crashing my confuser.

On the cusp of banning firearms in Fornicalia?

Posted on Monday, February 23, 2015 by BZ

Yes. One federal judge could make all the difference in the world.

From FoxNews.com:

Gun rights groups await judge’s ruling on California’s ‘microstamping’ law

by Malia Zimmerman

California’s gun laws are among the nation’s strictest, but a looming decision in a federal lawsuit could effectively ban handguns altogether in the Golden State, according to plaintiffs who want a judge to toss out a state law requiring all new handguns to be equipped with technology that “stamps” each shell casing with a traceable mark.

The problem with the “microstamping” law, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 but only took effect in 2013, is that it relies on an unworkable technology, according to gun manufacturers and attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation. If guns without the technology can’t be sold in California, and gun manufacturers can’t implement the technology, the law is, for practical purposes, a handgun ban that violates the Second Amendment, goes the argument.

Thanks Arnold, you blubbering, steroid-ridden baboon. And all with an (R) at the back of your name, as in (R)apist, for screwing over our Second Amendment.

“This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market,” said Alan Gura, the lead attorney in Pena v. Lindley, filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation against the Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. “The evidence submitted by the manufacturers shows this is science fiction and there is not a practical way to implement the law.

It’s the same reason Ronnie Barrett refuses to sell or service his .50 caliber BMG rifles any more in California, whether they are held by private owners or law enforcement agencies. Ruger has already stopped selling semi-automatic handguns in Fornicalia.

Since the law took effect in 2013, no manufacturer has made a new firearm that complies with the requirement.Two major manufacturers, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., announced last year they would stop selling new firearms in the California market, and blamed the microstamping law. The technology has been demonstrated, but gunmakers say requirements that each new model, or even modification, must be re-tested for compliance makes the entire scheme unworkable.

When you, as a Leftist, hate guns, fear guns, and detest the thought of them in the hands of private citizens, you do your very best to eliminate them by any means possible.

This all dovetails. Why is there a push to control the internet? To silence DC pushback on various Leftist plans. Why is there a continuing and unrelenting tsunami to take guns from American citizens? Because, as with the internet, when you silence citizens you eliminate pushback. How do you guarantee the average citizen cannot “push back” against the government? You eliminate the Second Amendment.

Because when you eliminate the Second Amendment you will, by extension, help to eliminate the First Amendment.

Then you truly do have Serfs, Proles and Groundlings in the United States of America.

The Second Amendment doesn’t exist to protect hunters. If you believe that, you are a complete fool.

The Second Amendment exists to keep the individual citizen safe from the over-reaching powers of an oppressive government. And to guarantee free speech.

See anything like that recently?

California Gun Waiting Period Laws Ruled Unconstitutional

Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2014 by BZ

From the CalGunsFoundation.org:

Federal court decides 10-day waiting period laws violate Second Amendment rights

ROSEVILLE, CA, and BELLEVUE, WA / August 25, 2014 – California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.

In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”

“This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be happier with how this case turned out.”

Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.

“We are happy that Second Amendment rights are being acknowledged and protected by our courts,” said Donald Kilmer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “This case is one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty. I am elated that we were able to successfully vindicate the rights of our clients.”

One win. Just one.

And on a federal level, no less.

Smith & Wesson, Sturm Ruger & Co leave Fornicalia:

Posted on Saturday, February 1, 2014 by BZ

(thanks for the h/t, Ron)

S&W Bolts California

California lawmakers may not be able to outright ban firearms, but they’re adding enough regulatory hurdles to make it nearly impossible for gun manufacturers to continue doing business.

Smith & Wesson is following the footsteps of Sturm, Ruger & Co. in ending California sales thanks to a bill requiring microstamping — tiny engraving of information such as make, model and serial number — on all new semiautomatic weapons and shell casings.

S&W pointed out that “a number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.”

Therefore, “Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms.”

We applaud S&W for not caving to draconian gun control measures and for rejecting decrees from those who won’t honor their oaths of office.

Concur.

To the detriment of Fornicalians, but one in the “win” column for S&W and Ruger. A reason that Barrett no longer sells their .50 caliber rifle to Fornicalia LE agencies, and refuses to service same: Fornicalia’s Draconian gun laws.

Washington Navy yard: the AR-15 that wasn’t

Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 by BZ

Prompting the illustrious Diane Feinstein to gleep this load of verbal poop directly following:

“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough?” asked Feinstein. “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Except: there was NO “assault rifle” used by the shooter, 34-year-old Aaron Alexis, a black civilian private I.T. contractor who was honorably discharged from the US Navy, at the Washington Navy Yard.

Repeat: NO “assault rifle” was utilized by the shooter. Instead, it was a shotgun and two handguns.

The heinous AR-15 was demagogued once again. The AMM (American Media Maggots) fixated on the so-called “assault rifle.” This is nothing more than what I would term “Outcome Based Journalism,” or OBJ.

Piers Morgan blames all on the AR-15 or “assault rifle.”

Despite that, it was Open Season again on firearms and assault rifles in particular. Fornicalia is reacting with nothing but restrictions, to include the definition of an “assault rifle” being any long gun with a detachable magazine.

One of the most restrictive states is soon to become infinitely more restrictive. I’m lucky because I’m a cop. But those who may actually wish to protect themselves via a firearm in Fornicalia? Good damned luck.

But the DC mayor weighing in on the real reason for the yard shooting? Leftists opine on their purple skies, because they are blithering idiots:

It’s the Republicans’ fault because of the sequester. Despite the fact that Alexis was a liberal and voted for Obama and that his job status had changed. Middle class families today make less than middle class families in 1989. In adjusted dollars, families make less. Thank you kindly, Mr Barack Hussein Obama, the Solver of All, the Stagnator of All, the Racist of All. For blacks, their earnings have decreased by 18%. Under Obama.

Let’s step back for a moment, shall we, and attempt to insert some logic here — logic that Leftists simply don’t want to address or face. What or who was Aaron Alexis?

Because this event could be placed into the category of “mass killing.”

Even USA Today thinks mass killings are overblown.

In the past 30 years, there have been roughly 500+ persons attributed to so-called “mass killings,” defined as events resulting in a minimum of four persons killed.

In that same amount of time, 30 years, there have been roughly 590,000 persons murdered in the United States of America.

And but upon that fact the current administration would wish to strike out the entire Second Amendment, via a statistic that is miniscule upon miniscule.

That’s like having a $590,000 budget, but predicating all of your decisions based upon a $500 variable.

The issue at hand, truly, is the mental state of Aaron Alexis.

People have indicated that Alexis exhibited mental issues since the age of 20.

As a distraction, Obama is proffering “squirrel.”

In the meantime, this is the issue:

Distraction upon distraction upon distraction.

P.S.
This was a black shooter. Did anyone consider the application of a so-called “hate crime” to this person?

Right. Didn’t think so.

Bloviating Zeppelin

Right thinking from a Left brain.

Tag Archives: California gun laws