This won’t lead to a major increase of swatting, right?
California could expand use of gun violence restraining orders under bill sent to governor
California teachers, school administrators and employers could ask the courts to take guns away from people they see as a danger to themselves or the public under a major expansion of the state’s “red flag†law approved by the Legislature on Monday and sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In response to a string of mass shootings, the governor has said he is interested in expanding the state’s gun restraining order law, which for the last four years has allowed family members and law enforcement officers to ask courts to seize firearms from people deemed a public risk. Legislators have offered a half-dozen proposals this year to broaden the law’s reach.
On Monday, the state Assembly gave final approval to a measure that would allow employers, co-workers and high school and college teachers and administrators to petition the courts to remove guns from employees and students.
Even previous governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown thought that this type of expansion was misguided, since the same people could work through the police if they were concerned.
Civil libertarians objected to the fact that the law allows guns to be removed for up to 21 days before a court hears the testimony from the person losing the firearms. A hearing with the gun owner could extend the order for up to a year.
The measure was also opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which said it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.â€
So, someone could have your Constitutional Right taken away for a period of time without a fast hearing. Good thing that they aren’t seeking to extend the period a firearm is taken away to 5 years. Oh, right, they actually are. There really are no measures in this bill or the original bill that protect citizens from false/frivolous allegations against them, and this makes the pool of people who can play games larger.
Another bill sent to the governor Monday would lift the $100 cap on fees that counties can charge for concealed weapon permits so the agencies can recover all of their costs in processing the applications.
You can bet that they will immediately increase the cost to absurd levels, making it too expensive for the average citizen to apply.
Off to San Francisco
The National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit against San Francisco Monday over the city’s recent declaration that the gun-rights lobby is a “domestic terrorist organization.”
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the city and county of San Francisco and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It accuses city officials of violating the gun lobby’s free speech rights for political reasons and claims the city is trying to blacklist anyone associated with the NRA from doing business there.
The gun rights lobby asked the court to step in “to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree.”
Democrats have never been concerned with restricting free speech and any other part of the 1st Amendment before.
So, now teachers will have this “power,†right? The teachers’ unions already oppose out second amendment rights, so count on them to find out whether little Johnny’s dad owns firearms, and the first time little Johnny comes to class looking sad, it will be assumed that it was because mom and dad had a fight, so she’ll red flag the family.
It’s been asked numerous times why we oppose small measures on gun control, like banning AR-15 style weapons or suppressors or certain magazines. This is a perfect example of why. Time an again, seemingly small measures are passed into law and then expanded on and expanded on until their ultimate goal is reached. In this case, they won’t stop until a total gun ban is reached.