Yes, the ACLU does, in fact, attempt to protect actual Constitutional Rights now and then
California enacts most radical gun seizure, gun control law yet — even the ACLU is speaking out
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed more than a dozen firearm-related bills into law Friday, including one that expands the state’s existing red flag law.
One law allows Californians to purchase just one long gun per month starting in July 2021. Another mandates that ammunitions dealers at firearm shows follow the same regulations as licensed firearm dealers.
But one law in particular is being hailed as one of the most strict gun seizure laws in the nation.
The law 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 that asks a judge to temporarily take away someone’s firearms, the Sacramento Bee reported. (snip)
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.
The bill is so extreme that the American Civil Liberties Union is speaking out against it.
From Fox News:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposed the bill, saying 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,” the ACLU said.
Of course, the ACLU being the ACLU, they don’t seem to be doing anything about it. Usually, they are hot to trot to file lawsuit after lawsuit. Anyhow, this update to the law will simply see unhinged gun grabbers making accusations because someone has a firearm and they Don’t Like That.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin failed to sign any sort of legislation cracking down on people who unlawfully have firearms nor those that use them illegally. Can’t demonize criminals, right?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This has exclusively been used in the past to mean searches for evidence of a crime and probably cause that a crime has taken place. The California legislature has just struck down the 4th Amendment by now allowing any accusation of possible future crime and the seizure of articles not related to crimes.
I predict a party line vote in the courts. Democratic party judges will support it. Republican appointed judges will affirm the traditional interpretation of the Constitution.