A gun control measure about to be voted on in California would allow the police to confiscate firearms from people with only accusations being made against a person by either their family or a medical health professional.
According to the DCClothesline, the original bill was amended however if passed as is will be considered the most strict gun control in the nation.
The bill, which was authored by Assembly members Das Williams and Nancy Skinner, would create new “gun violence restraining orders” that allow police to proactively take a person’s guns and hold them for up to a year without due process while the person proves they’re mentally fit to own a gun.
According to the Clothesline, the bill reads “This bill would allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized are a firearm or firearms or ammunition that is in the custody or control of, or is owned or possessed by, a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order and who is presently known to have in his or her custody and control or possession, or to own a firearm or firearms or ammunition.”
The standard of evidence is lackluster at best, and states that “to believe that the subject of the petition poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm,” without ever actually defining what the nature of the evidence is.
In other words, California’s about to allow your constitutional rights to be stripped on hearsay alone.
AB 1014 has passed the California Senate Public Safety Committee and now will head to the Assembly for a full vote. However if it’s actually passed, there’s many people who believe it will amount to an all-out assault on Californian’s Second Amendment rights.
Yehuda Remer explained the process of what would happen to the accused perfectly, writing “If for example, person A goes to a judge and files a complaint about person B, person B can have his/her guns and gun rights taken away without any idea why or even have the chance to plead their case. Only after law enforcement searched person B, their family, friends, place of work, and anywhere else police might have thought person B hid guns would that person have the right to defend themselves. Guilty until proven innocent.”
It’s important to note that a nearly identical law is being pushed in Congress at the federal level by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both from California. If passed, it too would be an assault on our rights, only on a national scale.
Do you think that laws like this that severely infringe on our rights re worth the tradeoff for their perceived effectiveness at preventing violence, or do our rights trump people need to “feel” safer?