Beginning January 1, gun regulations in California will give authorities the right to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines the potential for violence exists.
After a shooting rampage perpetrated by Elliot Rodger in May 2014, the bill was proposed as an “emergency restraining order” option for families concerned their loved ones may act out violent urges — if they persuade a judge that loved one’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing a personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having it in his or her custody or control.”
In other words, 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.
You read that right — a government-imposed time out. Now go sit in the corner, and think about what you did.
“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” Moore continued. “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.” Because, as everyone knows, mental health professionals — like police — are infallible.
Rodger was 22 years old when he launched a series of attacks around Isla Vista near the campus of University of California, Santa Barbara that left six people dead and 14 injured before he turned one of his guns on himself. All the weapons he used — three handguns and two knives — had been legally purchased. Mere minutes before carrying out his plan, Rodger uploaded a video to YouTube and circulated a 107,000-word manifesto.
How this law answers that attack on Isla Vista — with the attacker offering nothing in the way of an advance red flag about the carnage that was about to unfold — is anyone’s guess.
Even UC president, Janet Napolitano, said at the time, “This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict.”
Seeming to ignore this major factor completely, San Diego State University professor and attorney, Dr. Wendy Patrick, told a local CBS affiliate, “[I]t’s the family members, it’s the people closest to the perpetrator who are in the best position to notice red flags.”
Second Amendment and constitutional advocates have been understandably upset by the coming law, saying further rules in a state already rife with restrictive gun laws will only serve to punish law-abiding gun owners.
“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” asserted Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, to the Associated Press, as reported by the Washington Times. “We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”
What could possibly go wrong?
The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry (Ad)
This article (California Law Allowing Government to Seize Legal Guns Goes into Effect January 1st) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Augustas Didzgalvis. If you spot a typo, email [email protected].
Second Amendment went into effect about 2 centuries and some change ago. Federal Law trumps State law , we even fought a war over it…kill every last Californian LEO who comes to claim your guns. They are criminals engaged in Felony Theft.
They aren’t criminals taking guns…they’re the enemy neo-cons…!
The Song of Jesus, Son of God;
“My meal is fasting,
my standard is awe of God..
My clothing is of simple wool,
my prayer in winter is at suns rise.
My lamp is moonlight,
My steed is my legs.
My meal is whatever the earth gives me.
I lay down to sleep at night and have nothing,
I awake in the morning and have nothing,
yet there is no one in the world
richer than I.”
uhhh – wut about government sponsored false flag events. Guess the police should all give up their guns.
California should succeed from the several states – don’t want ya no more.
“California should succeed from the several states”
what does that sentence even mean? Cali is one state and would SECEDE (not succeed) from the U.S. not from several states.
What really needs to be investigated is the unnecessary prescribing of SSRI’s and other psychotropic medications.
I’ve witnessed the bad effects that SSRI’s have done to people. SSRI’s have been responsible for turning some people into very moody, capricious, unpredictable, irritable people with serious impulse control/self-control issues who go on tirades and will tear things up.
You may be a person that is a gun owner that is experiencing some sadness-depression due to some trauma or loss of a loved one and you seek a doctor for some help and what will that doctor most likely do? Prescribe some medication for you, like an SSRI, and if you’re one of those people which SSRI’s causes some really bad effects on, you could do something on an impulse that you would not normally do because this SSRI that was prescribed for you caused you to lose your self-control.
Most of the shooters in mass shootings have been on an SSRI or some other psychotropic medication. If I was allowed to post links here I would show you that is true.
Claire Bernish- If you are going to write about the Isla Vista hoax shooting, please make it clear that you know the ‘shooting’ was just another hoax. Foe those in doubt, just google ‘Bianca de Koch’ and read about the crisis actor who was ‘shot five times’ in this hoax, yet didn’t even break a nail!
Please use the proper terminology. It isn’t a “hoax”, it’s a false flag. Hoaxes are something done for fun and jokes.
They have been doing systematic gun confiscations for years now. This is just one more step to rid the most likely to resist total gun control, before the coming national emergency this coming year.
I am in agreement with Mudhole. Do some more digging before you parrot the official narrative of this UC Hoax. There is so much disinformation. This is one of the reasons that I do not rely on Activist Post for real news. There are some stories worth looking into, but I support the most credible sources and your site is not one of those. Your site is loaded with advertising viruses. Which proves you don’t have enough peer support that you receive funds from unscrupulous sources. As little as I do frequent your site, It will slowly trickle to not at all. Thanx for wasting our time peeps.
Molon labe
let me guess, it WILL NOT apply to police officers who MURDER innocent, unarmed men, women and children, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE 9000 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY A POLICE OFFICER THAN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IDENTIFIES AS A TERRORIST!
As usual, a “knee-jerk” law designed only to target “Lawful” gun owners.. The criminal element doesn’t bother with the usual bureaucratic “red tape” . Of course the “lock step” lawmakers, fall in line to criminalize those who aren’t criminals..