|January 1, 2016. Get ready, folks.|
Hey guys, remember when liberals laughed at conservatives' concerns that the sledgehammer of government to take our guns away from us? "No one's coming to take your guns away," they told us. Liberals assured us that gun confiscation was the last thing on their collective minds.
Surprise, surprise, liberals are full of crap. A.B. 1014, a bill signed into law by California governor Jerry Brown, goes into effect on January 1, 2016. Yes, A.B. 1014 allows the government to confiscate someone's guns based on the flimsiest of pretexts:
Under the new law, a restraining order could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.
“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” said Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”
After three weeks, the person can challenge the judge’s decision.
“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” Moore said.In a nutshell A.B. 1014 allows for the creation of a "temporary gun violence restraining order." What that means is an individual can be barred from owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition if there's an immediate danger that the individual might harm themselves or others. A temporary gun violence restraining order can also be issued if an individual might harm themselves or others at some point in the future. California Legislative Information has the full text of A.B. 1014 on their website. The first two paragraphs essentially go into a little more detail than I did.
What are the criteria for a judge signing off on a gun violence restraining order? Essentially the threat that someone at some point MIGHT use a gun to harm others. LAPD Assistant Chief Michael Moore likens the whole thing to a domestic violence restraining order. The problem is that there is literally no expounding upon this criteria anywhere in the bill. It's essentially left to the judgement of law enforcement officers, or the testimony of family members to determine if someone might use a gun to harm others.
Oh yes, folks, immediate family members can request a gun violence restraining order against you. When that happens there's a hearing where a judge listens to evidence presented by the immediate family members, law enforcement, and...no one else. The subject of the order does not have to be present. The subject of the order does not have to be notified of a hearing against them. In fact there's only two times where the subject of the order is involved-when the cops come to collect their guns, and at the end of the temporary gun violence restraining order where there's a hearing. That means the subject has zero chance to face their accuser until AFTER the penalty has already been levied against them.
Now let's talk about how all of this is supposedly "temporary." It's true that the initial order lasts 21 days. However the temporary gun violence order can be extended for up to a year. This time, though, the accused gets to be there. That's just about the absolute smallest nod possible to the concept of due process.
A.B. 1014 is an absolute monstrosity that is essentially a liberal gun control fanatic's wet dream. It allows California law enforcement to make an end run around the second amendment. The law allows the court to literally revoke an individual's basic, constitutional rights for a period of time based on nothing more than what that person might do in the future. The wording of A.B. 1014 is insanely vague, and the potential for abuse is high. What's worse is that the subject of the restraining order may not find out about until the cops are LITERALLY at the door to confiscate their guns.
Anyone who doesn't think this law is going to be used and abused is either a complete and utter moron, or a damn liar. New York passed a similar law in 2014 after the Sandy Hook massacre that allowed authorities to take the guns of anyone who was mentally ill and deemed too dangerous to have a gun. There were a whopping 34,500 names on their list, and that law was a bit more specific than the California one.
Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose you're Joe Schmoe, and average California citizen who owns guns for protection/hunting/etc. You consider yourself to be a patriotic American, you are a registered Republican after all. Then one day you decide to attend a TEA Party rally in your hometown. You have fun, you take some selfies, and you post them on Facebook. Unfortunately for you, your very liberal mother-in-law sees the photos. She doesn't like that, not one bit. In fact, dear old mother-in-law finds those teabaggers to be very dangerous indeed, and she worries that you might take your anti-government rhetoric to the next level. So your mother-in-law goes down to the courthouse, and petitions for a temporary gun violence restraining order. Naturally the presiding judge is just as liberal as your mother-in-law (it IS California after all), and finds enough cause to grant the order. The next morning you're awakened to a fully armed team of police officers at your door demanding you turn over your guns. All of this has happened without your knowledge, and you had zero chance to defend yourself.
Sound far-fetched? Perhaps, but never underestimate the ability of liberals to use the law to get exactly what they want. Liberals will use A.B. 1014 and other laws like it to wilfully violate the second amendment rights of the citizens. They will do it with a smile, and then pat themselves on the back for finally taking decisive steps to prevent gun violence.
Brace yourselves, Californians. Liberals quite literally are coming to take your guns away from you.
Read the entire text of A.B. 1014 here: Assembly Bill no. 1014