New CA gun law even the ACLU opposes

New CA gun law even the ACLU opposes

This is a discussion on New CA gun law even the ACLU opposes within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As reported by the VCDL: The red flag law just signed by Gov. Newsom will allow co-workers, employers, and teachers to seek a "red flag" ...

Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree41Likes
  • 11 Post By jmf552
  • 11 Post By Nmuskier
  • 3 Post By The Old Anglo
  • 3 Post By pskys2
  • 1 Post By 1942bull
  • 1 Post By PPS1980
  • 3 Post By M1911A1
  • 4 Post By graydude
  • 1 Post By pskys2
  • 1 Post By Psycho41
  • 2 Post By jmf552

Thread: New CA gun law even the ACLU opposes

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,220

    New CA gun law even the ACLU opposes

    As reported by the VCDL:

    The red flag law just signed by Gov. Newsom will allow co-workers, employers, and teachers to seek a "red flag" firearm restraining order against anyone they believe is a threat to themselves or others. Previously, only law enforcement or immediate family members could seek such an order. Newsom also signed a companion bill that allows the restraining orders to remain in place for one to five years, the Associated Press reported. The same bill allows a judge to also issue a search warrant at the same time the restraining order is issued. Keep in mind, the subject of the order need not have said or done anything threatening to anyone, at any time. And if the law can do something, it probably will.

    The bill is so extreme that the American Civil Liberties Union is speaking out against it. The ACLU says it "poses a significant threat to civil liberties" because a restraining order can be sought before a gun owner has an opportunity to dispute the request. Additionally, those making a request under the new law may "lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment." As you probably know, clinical psychologists are generally not involved in red flag proceedings.

    I'm glad the ACLU is saying that, but where I think they fall short is they are not saying that is true of every red flag law. As was reported in other threads, Florida, whose laws are not as extreme as CA's have red flagged over 2,500 people over the year or so it's been in effect, including over 100 minors, one of them an 8-year-old. Do they really think they have prevented 2,500 mass shootings? Do they really think that 8-year-old was a threat? Really?
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,035
    When the ACLU comes out against a gun control law, you know the law is a train wreck.
    danco, ETXhiker, baren and 8 others like this.
    Psalm 144:1

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array The Old Anglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orlando,Fl
    Posts
    1,832
    Kommiefornia is now like Berlin 1933.
    OldChap, ETXhiker and Struckat like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array pskys2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by The Old Anglo View Post
    Kommiefornia is now like Berlin 1933.
    More like Stalins Russia or Mao's China.

    I read that California Democrats https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...QGS5OdKLfWXsCs wanted the new upgrade to the Red Flag Laws because " California Democrat lawmakers complained that not enough family members were availing themselves of the confiscatory law".
    Then when someone reacts to a volatile situation with violence that action will be used to "JUSTIFY" the new law. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that will get people/LEO killed unnecissarily.
    Reminds me of the Governments reaction to issues at Waco. Instead of waiting on Koresh to go to town, where they could arrest him alone, they made a full on military assault that virtually guaranteed the reaction that happened. Leading to a massacre and tragedy.
    ETXhiker, msgt/ret and OldChap like this.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,971
    Dealing with a law as egregious as the CA law I am glad to have any opposition to it by anyone.
    M1911A1 likes this.
    "You don't hurt them if you don't hit them." Lt. Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller, USMC Retired

    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June ‘66 to February ‘68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    1,493
    The legislature in Commifornia is emboldened by the failure of the Federal Courts in their area to actually honor their oaths to the US Constitution.
    Struckat likes this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  8. #7
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    176
    - if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
    - cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
    - retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
    - that is the ideology here
    - to correct people's behaviors
    - before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
    - since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

    - the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals








    .

  9. #8
    Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
    - cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense...
    From my personal viewpoint, I believe that you have a misplaced faith in government and its minions.

    I suggest that if abuse is possible, then abuse will happen.
    Many government functionaries bend in the direction in which their political beliefs (or their bosses' political beliefs) blow them, and do not respect the law, the state constitution, the US Constitution, or the natural rights of the individual.

    Personally speaking, I fear zealots.
    And all it takes to wreak havoc is one of them.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, pręparet bellum."

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array graydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    3,504
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
    - cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
    - retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
    - that is the ideology here
    - to correct people's behaviors
    - before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
    - since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

    - the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals

    .
    No, red flag laws are not about helping people or altering dangerous behavior, they are about disarming people, assuming that guns are the problem rather than troubled people.

    There are existing means to actually help people: involuntary commitment (aka. Baker Act). If someone is likely to be an active shooter they need mental health attention.

    Red flag laws are just a convenient way for anti gun politicians to push more gun control by harnessing emotions of the masses.
    pskys2, Struckat, M1911A1 and 1 others like this.
    Ride hard, shoot straight, always speak the truth

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Novarider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,489
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
    - cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
    - retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
    - that is the ideology here
    - to correct people's behaviors
    - before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
    - since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

    - the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals








    .
    You have been shown proof of abuse that has already happened and you continue to state there will be no abuse......

    You're not going to convince anyone here that red flag laws are good.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array pskys2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
    - cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
    - retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
    - that is the ideology here
    - to correct people's behaviors
    - before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
    - since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

    - the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals








    .
    Yep just like the USSR and China sent people to re-education camps and/or gulags because they needed to be saved from themselves due to some quaint ideas on a God or heaven forbid think they can speak their minds and disagree with their bettors.
    M1911A1 likes this.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I'm glad the ACLU is saying that, but where I think they fall short is they are not saying that is true of every red flag law. As was reported in other threads, Florida, whose laws are not as extreme as CA's have red flagged over 2,500 people over the year or so it's been in effect, including over 100 minors, one of them an 8-year-old. Do they really think they have prevented 2,500 mass shootings? Do they really think that 8-year-old was a threat? Really?
    Of course no one believes that every instance where a red flag is performed prevents a mass shooting or even a suicide. It does us no favor to try and argue such extremes. Their belief is that such measures will prevent "some" number of incidents. I wouldn't even debate against that argument. Assuming that many/most of the people that get flagged to exhibit some behavior that is worrisome, then it is reasonable to believe that some percentage of them would be capable of causing harm with a firearm. There is some data that suggests that Red Flag laws can have an impact on suicides. My response to that would be "So what?". I bet we could geatly reduce all types of crime by selectively ignoring the 6th or 8th amendments ("right to counsel", "cruel and unusual punishment") if the defendant meets some arbitrary conditions (especially heinous crimes, repeat offender, etc.). But, rights are not meant to be given/taken away by the government (as many seem to think these days). Government's role is to protect the rights of all citizens. Only when it has been proven that (i.e. a conviction) it is justified should the government be compelled to restrict a person's rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by M1911A1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
    - cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense...
    From my personal viewpoint, I believe that you have a misplaced faith in government and its minions.

    I suggest that if abuse is possible, then abuse will happen.
    Many government functionaries bend in the direction in which their political beliefs (or their bosses' political beliefs) blow them, and do not respect the law, the state constitution, the US Constitution, or the natural rights of the individual.
    To add to @M1911A1 - Let's say [u]most[u] Cops/Judges will perform some due diligence in receiving such claims. Everything that can be abused IS abused, it is just a matter of how much. So, we would be allowing the government to take away a person's constitutional right based on the assertion of someone who may have an ax to grind. Think of it this way: If a cop receives such a report they can either 1) Put in additional effort to ensure it is not bogus or 2) Do the easy thing and just kick it up for enforcement. I'd rather not have my rights be decided by some union employee who is just biding his time to retirement.

    Also, restraining orders are typically about not interacting with another person. Not exactly the same thing as taking away a constitutional right.
    M1911A1 likes this.

  14. #13
    Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    ...Government's role is to protect the rights of all citizens...
    Well, actually government's role (I believe according to Jefferson) is to "smooth the intercourse among its people."

    Of course, protecting the rights of its citizens is certainly a major part of doing this.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, pręparet bellum."

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,220
    Quote Originally Posted by M1911A1 View Post
    Well, actually government's role (I believe according to Jefferson) is to "smooth the intercourse among its people."

    Of course, protecting the rights of its citizens is certainly a major part of doing this.
    Some of the people are apparently trying do "forced intercourse" on the rest of us!
    PPS1980 and Psycho41 like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •