KQED called me yesterday to schedule an appearance on NPR’s Forum radio program (one hour from now at high noon EST). They want me to talk about the push by California legislators to create a post-Isla Vista spree-killing “gun violence restraining order.” There is no text available for the bill. According to latimes.com the measure would use “the same process that restraining orders are granted in cases of domestic violence. Family members, partners and friends would have the ability to alert law enforcement if they believe someone poses a threat to themselves or others. Law enforcement officers would then be able to petition a judge to grant a restraining order that could prohibit possession or purchase of a gun.” What could possibly go wrong? Seriously, help me out here. Before that, though, keep in mind that . . .
California already has a system to remove firearms from dangerous people – by removing dangerous people from society. If the police who interviewed Eliott Rodger for his “mental health check” a month before the killings had made the right call (not blaming, just saying), Rodger would have been detained under what’s called a 5150. [Click here to read the statute.] Rodger would have been subject to a 72-hour “hold” or involuntary commitment.
Regardless of the subsequent determination (i.e. whether the court released Rodger or continued to keep him under lock and key), he would have lost his gun rights for five years. Short of that, if a therapist had reported that Rodger had made a credible threat against another person, the state could have revoked his gun rights for a period of six-months.
So why does California need a law that’s invites abuse by feuding family members and others? I mean what judge wouldn’t sign a “gun violence restraining order?” and risk being “that guy” who let a spree killer go? And what possible good would this law do anyway? Under the new bill (as it’s being discussed) a judge would deem an individual too dangerous to own or buy firearms – but not too dangerous enough to lock up.
Rodger killed three men with a knife and severely injured four people with his car. Why take away a potential killer’s firearms, but leave him access to knives, a baseball bat, his car, poisonous cleaning products, etc?
Madness. Not to mention the [paranoid!] possibility that California could use the new bill to declare gun rights campaigners a danger to society per se and confiscate their firearms. Your thoughts?
Remind them of the program ‘Nothing stops a bullet like a Job’ by Father Greg Boyle.
This will be abused just like every other he said/she said law.
In NJ you can lose your gun rights by simply being accused of domestic violence.
The only time you should lose your rights in this country is when a court of law finds you guilty of a crime.
They are called “rights” for a reason.
“…like every other he said/she said law.”
Not only that, but if a neighbor has a problem with you and they know you have guns, or some anti-gun holier than thou officious intermeddler knows you have guns and you even look at them wrong, or some relative wants to protect you from yourself because they KNOW that you will hurt yourself – look out!
And if a cop has a problem with one’s ‘attitude’ during a ‘contact’?
http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=d4a7ef63c2&e=77e2e93f21
“ALERT: California Dems want
“Gun Violence Restraining Order”
According to the Sacramento Bee, “[Assemblymembers] Das Williams of Santa Barbara and Nancy Skinner of Berkeley announced they will introduce a bill that would allow concerned family members or friends to notify authorities when a loved one is at risk of committing violence.”
•Do you really think their bill will respect our Second Amendment gun rights, due process, or privacy? Can you imagine what might happen to law-abiding gun owners with anti-gun family or friends?!
Senator Steinberg, best known for authoring 2013’s SB 374 semi-auto ban, told the Bee that the Isla Vista tragedy creates new urgency for a conversation about passing more gun control.
•”You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel
In her May 26 L.A. Times op-ed, Dr. Renée Binder said that “[i]t’s impossible to know” if a “Gun Violence Restraining Order law” (such as she’s proposed) would have prevented the Isla Vista killings, but also that “[e]nacting such a restraining order would be the next step in what is already a proud legacy” of gun control in California.
•Anti-gun extremists don’t care about anything but passing more gun control laws. It doesn’t matter to them if the laws actually solve problems or create new ones. Your fundamental rights aren’t even a consideration.”
And the latest:
http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=2c6b040129&e=77e2e93f21
** FIRE MISSION **
TAKE ACTION NOW: Asm. Skinner Intros
AB 1014, “Gun Violence Restraining Orders”
Dems “gut & amend” bill already in the Senate ala Sen. Yee’s SB 249
AB 1014 (Skinner):
•Creates shall-issue “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” (“GVRO”) and “Firearm Seizure Warrants” issued by anti-gun California courts.
•Will lead to the persecution of an entire class of law-abiding Californians…and it might lead to even worse.
•Second Amendment rights would be stripped away on as little as hearsay.
•Would establish that evidence for a GVRO includes “recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.”
Re-read those last two bullet points.
Due process is becoming more the ideal and less the reality, which is mind blowingly sad. We used to be a nation founded on liberty and justice for all. Now it’s more like convenience and no hurt feelings for all.
This is clearly just knee-jerk extremism. It’s armchair activism. there’s no benefit to this law that can counteract the horrible abusability of it.
The existing law for restraining orders is frequently abused in domestic disputes such as divorces. Many divorce attorneys will adviser their clients to seek a restraining order as the first step, to ensure better litigation in their favor.
This would be a large step towards stripping constitutional rights in a bid to ensure higher payments from a judge.
my ex-wife had threatened to do this when we were separating based upon advice from her lawyer. However, she was close to an aunt of mine (by marriage) and that aunt told her (a) I would fight any such restraining order, (b) it would have the opposite effect in the divorce litigation, and (c) filng a false report is a felony, which would hurt her employment opportunities in the future. Fortunately, she took this advice over her lawyer’s. I did b!tch slap him in the proceedings and took joy in pointing out he committed malpractice in his representation. I think it is criminal if women use restraining orders as litigation weapons and should be punished. Just like men who withhold child support should be punished.
Ie ti a simple poblem. We DO want restraining orders to be low probative burden. They are about saying, stay away from this specific person not generally restricting your basic rights..
BUT if they are going to be used to restrict constitutional rights, you cant have low probative burden,. You need beyond a reasonable doubt, full evidenciary rules, cross examination, etc.
I dont see how other civil liberties organizations wont see further increasing penalties and loss of rights of being subject to a restraining order or other type of wider mental illness order, as a potential MASSIVE abuse by disputing partners, other individuals, your neighbor who is p/o at you, and indeed the government.
What judge wouldn’t issue a Gun Violence Restraining Order on even the most tenuous evidence and risk being hung out to dry as the jurist who could have prevented a tragedy but didn’t?
I just don’t see how they could set this up without opening up to abuse. Messy divorce and custody fight – call for a restraining order to help discredit one partner. Personal animosity or revenge – call for a restraining order. It could be the new “Swatting”.
The other issue that comes to mind is the procedures that will be put in place to contest such an order. Anyone care to guess how much time, money, and grief it would take to get your guns back? In a state like California, would you EVER get your guns back?
You need to take the police to task for not doing their due diligence on rodgers. If we (the internet) could dig up tons of dirt on him within hours of the story going live, there was no reason the cops couldn’t do the same. They really dropped the ball. On a broader issue, impart to people that you can’t hold every gun owner responsible for that man’s actions.
Do tell. Perhaps the entire SVU and NCIS cast and Ted Dimwit Danzen’s crime lab should have pull an all nighter investigating EVERY citizen EVERY move/thought for the last 10yr over some rumor or innuendo. Or Not.
“If we (the internet) could dig up tons of dirt on him within hours of the story going live, there was no reason the cops couldn’t do the same.”
All the “actionable” dirt we dug up was post-LEO encounter. Again, I’m asking, what “actionable” things did the cops miss? Elliot Rodger had not threatened anyone and did not appear to be suicidal. His “I’m going to kill sorority coeds” video hadn’t even been made yet, and his manifesto hadn’t been made public or sent to anyone else.
If the 5150 didn’t stop him, how would another law/regulation? It’s another measure to make people feel like they did something that won’t do anything to stop such violence.
They’ll stop at nothing. As California goes, so goes the Nation. What we’re seeing here, with laws like this, is a Stalinist renaissance. More Hope and Change. Fasten your seatbelts, we’re in for another bumpy ride.
BTW, good luck on the show RF
Yep!
And ditto; best of luck with the program RF – I hope they actually let you present your views.
“May the force be with you” – I think I heard that somewhere.
Thankfully, so far much of the country has not followed California off the gun control cliff.
The Mother of Hysteria is going to love this.
I”m not sure the issue is with so-called “gun violence” – the dude used a car and stabbed folks, too. It’s not the object – it’s the actions of an individual. Focusing on one object out of many doesn’t make sense when any object can be used for beneficial as well as evil purposes; it’s the acts of the individual that determine things.
So this is a valid point. Yes, it would be deflecting the original topic of discussion… but there shouldn’t BE an original topic of discussion. 50% of the victims were killed with something other than a gun. I don’t see Cutco or Henkel being taken to task for their role in this. Or a sudden surge in the mini knife safe for the kitchen counter top market to prevent minors from having access to knives.
More hand wringing and whining that wee need to do ‘something’.
If you really want to get tough on gun crime then 5 years for committing a crime while in possession of a gun.
I say scrap all gun control laws and go back to the original intent with stiff sentencing for gun related crime and be done with it.
Feds already have a 5-year trigger lock provision on crimes involving firearms, thought CA did when I (wisely) left in 1997.
So those in Oakland and LA have been killing each other with mostly illegally acquired firearms for years… but when a disturbed 22 y-o rampages at a privileged college campus after passing through multiple instances of FEDERAL and STATE scrutiny, it’s time to make more laws?
liberal racism at its best
Another GREAT idea from California! Let’s not do something that works, like say conceal carry.What is the stupidist thing we can do that doesn’t work and cost the taxpayers tons? Ok, let’s do that!
Besides pointing out the obvious due process problems with this penalty by government fiat, how about taking an absolute different approach. Say, “Let’s say this law passes, and another spree killing happens where the perp uses guns, knives, car, etc…, what will be the next “if we only had this one other law” that you would propose? Then what happens after that law passes and fails and so on?” Basically, being that these idiots always give us the line of “we know this law won’t stop the behavior, but if it will save just one life,” at what point is there an exceptable amount of lost lives from mass killers for them to not march toward a total ban? Further, you can point out the recent mass stabbing in Canada where, in the aftermath, some have proposed to ban pointy tips on all knives. What is the exceptable level of random homicide they are willing to accept, by any tool, as a trade off for people having the choice of defending themselves? They will obviously either ignore the question or say the “one life is too many.” If they say the latter, I would put the screws to them that no country has a zero homicide rate and that they’re too focused on the tool instead of the social and cultural policy problems that are responisble for most of the homicide in this country.
You could focus on the failures of police and his family to actually restrain in. Little rich boy didn’t get the money to buy 2 SIGs and a Glock on his own.
Don’t leave out the BMW.
So would they propose a law like this that takes away First Amendment rights if someone thinks you’ve insulted them? Or takes away your Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections if you “look guilty”?
Idiocy.
you could point out that he had THERAPISTS HIS WHOLE FRICKIN’ LIFE AND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON MEDS!! Why was he not a prohibited person? Who the hell let him slip through the cracks??
Family money and strategy to keep his ‘history’ clean as much as possible.
I am really scared of random therapists being able to take away my rights!! Constitutional rights should be constitutional rights therapists shouldn’t have any ability to remove your rights… only court actions which allow you a legal response and an opportunity to appeal should have any impact on your rights
The level of evidence for a restraining order varies by state. You need to understand what that means. This might help: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/pdfs/Standards_of_Proof_by_State.authcheckdam.pdf
If a person is deemed to much of a risk to be around firearms they are too great a risk to society, period. Ask why they wouldn’t want that person also committed for psychiatric evaluation. That is the only way to be sure to that this person will not cause harm.
Since when do restraining orders work? They’re tantamount to a gun-free zone around a particular person.
I have a friend who recently had a restraining order taken out against him (in SF). The ex broke down his door to get in his room. Falsly claimed he had shoved her. His name was cleared. It took him weeks to get his handgun back. He went to numerous departments numerous times. Then, they told him his rifle was an illegal assault rifle and he wouldn’t get it back. I sent him the calguns flowchart and relevant info. He appealed and got his rifle back 2 weeks later. But the police took his scope, some ammo, his mags, and forward grip.
Yeah, all the existing laws didn’t stop the maniac, maybe making them SUPER DOUBLE ILLEGAL will do the trick!
Just like attaching the “hate crime” label to a fight. Two guys get in an argument in a bar and one calls the other one a faggot, then they proceed to engage in fisticuffs. They are both arrested and charged with drunk and disorderly conduct unless…the guy called the slur turns out to be gay. Then it is a big time felony for the other guy that may not have even started the fight.
Or when sombody murders. Murder already carries a stiff penalty but if it can be called a hate crime then…I don’t know what else you can do to a murderer to make the punishment worse than it already should be.
I cannot look at the word ‘therapists’ and not see the words ‘the rapists’.
Everyone who has ever been in any anonymous 12-step recovery program (AA, OA, Al-Anon, etc) knows that the therapists are the sickest of the lot. As long as they can play the game of fixing somebody, they don’t have to look at themselves.
On another thread I facetiously posted that 2nd amendment rights were too dangerous for Americans to possess because they ignored the “carnage” going on around us. I’d suggest that you take a similar approach in the forum discussion. You can count on your pro-gun-control (i.e., all of them) participants claiming a moral imperative that demands more gun-control. If they pull this—betcha’ they will—go for the red-meat part of the argument: force them to discusses which historical civil-rights are now too dangerous for Americans to enjoy.
A “gun violence restraining order”? You can kiss due process good-by. We are on a slippery slope that ends up with “thought-crimes” and criminalization based on nothing more than having a label applied to you.
I’d also suggest that you bring up Leghorn’s description of the “blood dance” that happens whenever a spree-killing happens. The media, activists, politicians, police, and grief-stricken parents, all have all-too predictable roles to play in this sickening political theater. More than anything their collective actions probably contribute to more spree-killing than any other single factor. Little Elliot was pretty doggone sure he was gong to get lots of attention when he started killing people.
And don’t forget to emphasize how much Rich Hollywood Liberal Bigwig Privilege was going on there.
Be sure to point out that they haven’t released the full text of the bill yet. For all we know complete strangers will have the ability to disarm people. Criminals could use this to ensure disarmed targets. We just don’t know whats in it yet and how far reaching the bill is.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014
Here are some details I just got from the Firearms Policy Coalition
AB 1014 (Skinner):
>Creates shall-issue “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” (“GVRO”) and “Firearm Seizure Warrants” issued by anti-gun California courts.
>Will lead to the persecution of an entire class of law-abiding Californians…and it might lead to even worse.
> Second Amendment rights would be stripped away on as little as hearsay.
>Would establish that evidence for a GVRO includes “recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.”
It is not paranoid to follow a fact pattern and draw reassonable conclusions. In CA we have activist legislators who enjoy single party rule, by Democrats, in both houses and the Executive Branch, with a State Attorney Genaral who is the process of abusing the court process in the Peruta case. Combine pervasive corruption, see Lelad Yee and others in San Francisco, and organized “under the radar” abuse of Executive functions and various agency Buses, see F&F, DOJ stonewalling, and obvious cooperation by non-profits to propagandize on tragedies, ie MDA and Everytown, OFA and Nudge Team, well…I wonder why NPR even bothers.
Prepare, one hour prior? Go back and watch Ben Shapiro video at Truth Revolt on the disinvestment vote at UC. Moral narrative, infused with passion, supported by the facts. Dont get defensive, stay on your track for poinrs to be made, and stay cool.
It would be foolish NOT to take precautions. See this link on how to protect yourself from this kind of gun grab by vengeful domestic partners, or just a troll abusing the CA legal system if something like this passes.
http://www.lawnews.tv/index.php/88-practice/estates/family-protection/gun-trusts/133-gun-trust-attorneys-issue-warning-on-gun-transfers
I’d start with simply asking what new capability the new law would provide vs what’s already on the books (nothing, apparently) and then ask why the existing laws weren’t applied.
It’s like having separate laws against murder by knife, gun, poison and “other”, vs one good simple law against murder in general.
Just another tool for vengeful, angry women to make phony claims against men. If implemented, the rate of abuse will likely far surpass the legitimate function of the retraining order. Women routinely use the legal system, which ALWAYS defaults to the male being the bad guy, as a weapon to ruin an ex boyfriends’ lives. As an Army Officer, I see it happen to my Soldiers on a monthly basis. The number of actual wife beaters and bad guys doesn’t even hold a torch the number of false accusations. YMMV.
No gripe will change this reality. The morale of the story: don’t date, marry or screw crazy women. Female companions must be selected with a heaping tablespoon of caution and a gallon of prudence.
I am going to have to grammar-nazi myself on this post. There’s no excuse for bad grammar when you know what right looks like. Shame on me.
Also I’m a jackass for saying “women routinely…”
That’s an unfair and inaccurate generalization towards women. Please edit it in your minds to “Crazy bitches routinely…”
The crazy ones are always the best in bed though
One problem is, when you boink them, some of the crazy rubs off on you. (it has something to do with entwined auras or some such.) It can take up to three weeks for it to wear off.
Been there. Still not worth it.
+1.
Qick points:
1. No written language. It is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with guess work.
2. The issue is not about guns. California has laws already on place that would have addressed the situation. Addionally if you take guns off the table you are looking at melee weapons or asymmetrical violence such as poisons, bombs cars…or attack dogs. Taking away guns does not stop the violence and must makes it harder for innocent people to defend themselves and each other.
3. Because the current law is so strong and the proposal does nothing new, I would argue that it fails meeting one of the stock issues in policy debate.
good luck. Seems crummy that nor called such short notice.
Besides, there is already a program in place to report and act upon those deemed a danger to selves, via the mental health side – the therapist screwed up as did the police in using it properly. The same facility exists for reporting elder abuse, where therapists, doctors, even concerned family can make a referral to police, who are mandated to follow up. This is just more grandstanding by corrupt pols who can’t even clean their own house first.
If the opportunity presents itself, I might try to turn the conversation to the current state of California’s laws and how that state has every law gun control people want, and how the NRA has limited clout there.
I think the heart of this gets down to the “Innocent until proven guilty” and “Due Process”.
If you are in favor of this, it ultimately means you endorse governmental power to strip you of your constitutional rights based on an accusation and a judge’s signature- until you prove you are innocent.
Take it a step further: Since taking away right to buy guns isn’t a guarantee he won’t kill then this doesn’t do enough to protect us. If you are that worried that he could be a threat- why not incarcerate him for a week for a thorough eval? After all- what’s a week in the clink compared to the threat that he MIGHT be the next spree killer? Well, since people can fake sanity/safeness for a week maybe a month? Based on an accusation and a signature.
Ask if this new list of accused but not adjudicated dangerous people people needs to be a public list. That is the only thing that would have saved half the victims in Santa Barbera.
If we are going to reduce rights, than reducing the right to privacy would save just as many lives.
Persons with mental illness are 6% of the population and commit 16% of murder (a almost 3x elevated risk or 4x higher than current registered gun owners who at 20% LOWER risk of violence commission than the general average pop). As often with a knife, strangulation, beating, bludgeoning as with a gun.
So if the the Santa Barbera killers second amendment rights should have been compromised due to his illness, why not his right to privacy (which isn’t even explicit in the Bill of rights but inferred?
If he had no gun, his stabbing to death of his three roommates would have remained the same. But if he had been on public internet list, as possibly dangerous, their lives would likely have been saved, as they would not roomed with him.
Ask: Since non adjudicated mentally ill people (autism/asbergers as with 70% of rampage murderers) kill as often without a gun, if we are going to compromise rights, why pick just one right? Doesn’t public health demand we know whether we are working with them or rooming with them? If they can buy a knife or car?
As a Radical Libertarian Loon, I’m kind of weirdly surprised at myself by how much I like this idea, while a dwindling voice in my head is going, “Yabbut yabbut, yabbut…” It sounds (at least ‘in spirit’) very much like Robin Hanson’s idea of legalized blackmail. And it gets the government out of the loop, which I like a LOT. 🙂
http://youtu.be/mwmulBFHrwk?autoplay=0
I have to admit that there’s a part of me that was saying, “I hate this (proposed Law in California), but we have got to do something to intervene with people like the SB spree killer” (and others we all know).
There might be the seed of an idea here that could work in at least some cases, but the mechanics need to be thought out carefully, and this seems too rash and knee-jerk.
These kinds of spree killers have used guns, and now stabbing weapons and an automobile, so the issue is not exclusively about guns, and neither should any law enacted, but about stopping these mentally ill people from committing mass killings . Period.
For now, I cannot accept this Law.
BTW- I do think the guy who wants to “Legalize Blackmail” might be on to something. Thanks for posting the video.
“There might be the seed of an idea here that could work in at least some cases, but the mechanics need to be thought out carefully, and this seems too rash and knee-jerk.”
Nah. Throw it open to the Free Market and the Invisible Hand will work everything out to the best benefit of all concerned. It is the Nature of Free Will to find the solution that is to the highest benefit of everyone involved[1], when it’s not overridden by force or the threat of force.
So the way to really take power away from the tyrants is to simply not obey them. The fastest, most effective way (indeed, the only way) to be free is to Be Free.
[1] Of course, that assumes that each knows what her own highest benefit is.
“about stopping these mentally ill people from”
If the roommates who voluntarily moved in with him had known about his clinical angst and history of therapy, would they have moved in with him?
If the gun dealer who sold the guns to him had known about his clinical angst and history of therapy, would he have found an excuse to not sell him the guns? “Uh I dunno, buddy, you sound a little too crazy for my tastes.”
It makes a hell of a lot more sense than pre-convicting us all of being homicidal maniacs and forcing us to prove that we’re not before “allowing” us to exercise our God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms..
And it does NOT infringe the man’s rights one whit. (well, except for the “right to privacy.” I’ll have to think about that part of it. [edit 2] privacy schmivacy, the doctor called the gendamres. He should have posted it to facebook!) You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you don’t have a right to compel anyone to provide them to you.
I agree with your point that nothing compels anyone to provide you with arms. This SB spree killer seemed to have a talent for appearing normal and rationale when it suited his purpose. So, he probably did not raise any suspicions when he bought the guns that would cause the dealer to refuse to sell to him.
As for the rest of it, apparently my tin foil hat is preventing me from following exactly what you are saying. Can I borrow the other guy’s Unicorn for awhile?
Someone brought up the point that rather than reporting his insanity to the authorities and depending on them to figure out how to keep him from doing what he did, what if they had reported on the social media that he’d been seeing a psychiatrist and taking powerful therapeutic drugs on a doctor’s orders? Would the roommates have chosen to room with him then?
If I were those potential roommates, I would have had to think about it, and probably not moved in, if I could find a suitable alternative. Would you? I have wondered why they stayed when they realized he was weird, but maybe it’s not so easy to move around in Isla Vista due to housing demand.
That would keep the authorities out of it, but depending on what social media is used could be a “hit or miss” that they saw those messages. You can post pretty much what you want on social media about anyone else whether it’s true or untrue. Various social media is how the middle and high school kids bully each other outside the school grounds (and inside for that matter). I suppose the college kids do too.
Another thing that comes to mind…the reportage says the parents and therapist saw the “Final Good-bye” video on YouTube, then frantically tried to drive to SB. I would have called the SB Police or Sheriff immediately and had them start looking for him. Do you think they should bear some responsibility for not calling the SB authorities immediately? They waited to call 911 until they heard the first reports of the shootings on the car radio. By then the roommates were dead and it was too late for those three girls he shot (two of them shot dead).
I don’t know…as you said maybe we “Throw it open to Free Market and the Invisible Hand will work everything out to the best benefit of all concerned. It is the Nature of Free Will to find the solution that is to the highest benefit of everyone involved” …sounds better than letting the crazy people in Sacramento clap another un-Constitutional Law around our necks.
As a Constitutional Conservative Kook, I don’t like the idea as much as I love the analogy. I plan to plagiarize it every chance I get.
Please also remind them that the purpose of the law is not to prevent crime, but to form a framework to define what is not allowed in society, and a set of consequences when one does what is not allowed. If laws worked to prevent crime, there would be no murders, because murder is already illegal.
No restraining order. It violates due process just like existing restraining orders.
Make sure to emphasize that Mr. Rodger killed three people with a knife and injured countless more when he DROVE HIS CAR into them. A “gun restraining order” would not stop a deranged person from stabbing, burning, bludgeoning, etc. hapless victims.
Nor will a piece of paper stop a bullet. (it takes 3,000 of them)
http://youtu.be/NfOhKDJZsCk?autoplay=0
+1 Rich. yeah blood dance. I’m happy I don’t live in California. I’m happy the ex-wife didn’t do this s##t back in the day. I know I wasn’t perfect but the ex made up all kinds of evil crap about me. Happily married 25 years now. I don’t have ANY suggestions that would make a damn bit of difference.
The GVRO basis, as it seems to me, is that ‘someone’ has a gun and they are a danger to themselves or others and that gun should be taken away. This assumes that the concerned ex-wife, neighbor, nervous soccer mom, school knows this violent person has a gun.
However – I can see a situation whereby a person calls police and assumes or guesses a person has a gun. This would constitute a violation of probable cause and search and seizure laws too. E.g. “Hello Police, my neighbor’s wife was killed by a drunk driver two days ago and he is really pissed and upset, I think he has g-g-g-guns.” The police then proceed to turn this poor mans’ life upside down for no probable cause or proof.
Plus it’s based on the assumption that the one calling it in is sane.
ha! better you than me, brother. i doubt i’d be able to keep my tongue civil.
I would bring up Chicago. Look at how strict their gun laws are, yet the murder rate is one of the highest in the country. Draw similarities between the philosophies behind passing such laws and how THEY HAVE LITTLE TO ZERO IMPACT on actual gun violence inside the city/state.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/28/chicago-gun-violence-rahm-emanuel-shootings
As in paint the larger picture they seem to be ignoring. Why waste time, resources, coverage, etc. on laws/rights that from basic studies have been proven to be ineffective.
Isn’t better that a few innocents lose their rights than a mass murder is able to kill one more person with a gun than he would with an ANFO bomb?
/sarc
As a medical student, I guess the biggest thing I can add right here is that medicine’s ability to predict violent behavior is not particularly reliable.
There are three main screening tools used to predict violence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23834372
Let me know if you need more background in the area, and I can provide more detail, but the big idea is that none of them work notably well. Trying to assess gun violence propensity and issue a restraining order just doesn’t make sense- how would you decide that a person’s likelihood of committing violence is bad enough to take away a gun, but not bad enough to involuntarily commit them and take away their ability to use a knife/manufacture a bomb out of commonly-available tannerite? We can’t even predict if a person will throw a punch, let alone do something worse.
All this will do is add more stigma onto the mentally ill, particularly in rural areas where gun ownership is common and a set way of life. We need a coherent policy- a gun violence restraining order isn’t it.
I’ll be very interested in hearing this interview. So far nothing found on KQERs website except this quick podcast on efforts to tie this into more money for prisons and police training, underway for months:
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201405290850/a
Keep in mind the number one lobby group in dollars paid out in bribes in Sackatomatoes is the police and prison guard unions, followed closely by schoolteachers. NRA has one guy there, and the amount spent is a pinprick in comparison.
Dont forget to mention the Return On Investment on taxpayer dollars, prisons forced by judge to release to county jails for overcrowding, and county jails turning loose lower level offenders, including rapists on gps anklets. We know how that worked out. Google Amber Dubois…
Where was I, oh yeah, schools- CA number 2 from bottom of 50 states in math, number 4 from bottom reading…
This is a bad bill.
Does not involve doctors in decision making.
No penalties for false claims.
Includes drugs, alcohol, even brandishing as possible factors.
The only up side is that it goes through a judge and there needs to be a warrant unlike APPS.
By the way, since we already know that NSA is able to profile based on metadata, and passes that to DEA and fusion centers provide that to local leos for reasons to stop and arrest, then build fact patterns after, for parallel construction, then what would one conclude about Google, FaceBook, and others, who collect and share info on your emails, web-browsing, and so on, in order to provide targeted ads tailored to your interests?
That would be illegal, and they promised,right. Ask Angela Merkel on that.
Oh yeah, Google got a sweetheart deal on using the old NAS Alameda as a private airport for their executive jets, as I recall. I’m sure there is no data sharing going on…wait, the Google Geek squad built the database cited for the get out the vote effort for Obamas 2012 run, and he turned that over to OFA after, for more campaign use, elsewhere, like the get the guns initiative he put poor Ole Uncle Joe on, not long after…
I’m sure this would NEVER be abused in CA tho….wait, didnt Obamas most attractive State AG just take money collected from DROS fees, to hire a bunch of new cops, to check the prohibited person list vs the gun owner registrations, which was found to be 40% innacurate? My guess is those folks will need something to do soon….
I have no doubt that NPRs taxpayer doller public news reporting will be right on top of this story…
Say, where is KQED anyway, and who is on their local Board?
It’s society’s fault for not outlawing sexual pervert fathers and Homicidal Maniac sons
Nice job, RF. You kept your cool and stuck to the facts without getting “hysterical” about every little proposed infringement on law-abiding Americans constitutionally protected rights.
Thanks for representing us POTG so well.
Is the interview online anywhere, for those of us who don’t have radios?
This bill (bill text http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014) really wouldn’t have any productive output.
The California courts are still heavily back logged due to funding cuts. This would remove due process and lowers the bar to misuse the legal system.
The salient point is simply this: Rodger had a mental health check prior to the killing. Cops went to his home, talked with him, and were not able to discern any reason to believe he was a danger to himself or others. In other words, his parents and the police already did what they are proposing to make “new” law. It failed. What people are pushing for with these new laws is not a public safety push, but a fundamental shift in the ideology of innocent until proven guilty that underpins our justice system. This law (based on the limited information) would seem to be moving towards a guilty until proven innocent model. If it were me, I would keep hammering on that, because I don’t think anyone is going to garner much support advocating for Salem Witch Trials 2.0.
Since Rodger wasn’t dissuaded by 6 counts of 187 PC (murder), I doubt he’d be dissuaded by a 12020 or 12028 PC (weapons) violations. Frankly, I don’t think the Democrats in the CA legislature give a sh!t.
Their narrative is pretty damn simple: ban guns from civilians. Any move closer to that goal is “progress.” Any murders by a firearm is proof positive – in their feeble minds – that “tough guns laws” haven’t “gone far enough” and that only they are “courageous” enough to pass more gun control – er, gun safety laws. Meanwhile, they live in smug comfort in their gated communities behind their armed guards.
Thankfully, Dr. Vino is more optimistic than I am. If there is any specific research that you feel I can do, feel free to contact me: [email protected]
+1.
StateRunMedia in CA: OMG guns! Do something!
Legislators: ban guns!
Meanwhile, in Oakland, East LA, Chinatown, and other poor communities filled with recent immigrants and po’ folks, the criminals laugh at the laws, that take the means for effective 2A rights, away from the elderly, weak, and other law abiding taxpayers.
Wealthy limo liberals, safe behind gated community walls, with their very well paid suburban police and reliable sheriffs of urban counties well supplied with funds for re-election, and rich suburban Barneys equipped with MRAPs and camo oufits for all, breath a sigh of relief…
“Wealthy limo liberals, safe behind gated community walls,…”
For some reason, it just occurred to me that it wouldn’t take much to blockade those little walled enclaves, if push ever came to shove…..
Careful Rich…you’ll be getting that knock on the door soon, if you write anything a “reasonable” therapist, cop, or judge might interpret as threatening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)
Jk, of course, but its almost to that point here in CA…all we need is another law that wont be enforced, or worse, selectively abused, by those who on the left in CA seem quick tobelieve those of us who believe in 2A rights to self defense, are
1. “bitter clingers”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-pennsylvanians-bitter-article-1.283600
2. Or jifadists:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/dems-call-gop-jihadists-arsonists-terrorists/
3. Or unAmerican,
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/05/20/howard-dean-democrat-calls-for-ethnic-cleansing-of-republicans/
But, enough snark, back to the facts; because these will come out in the civil trial, I am sure;
1. Why didnt the parents call the cops IMMEDIATELY after reading the email?
2. Why didn’t the THERAPIST immediately call the cops?
3. Why isn’t the media even asking these questions? Everytown? MDA mommies?
Hello? Doesn’t that silence, or worse, complicit obscuration of the facts make you, the media, the hired anti-gun PR hacks, and any LEO organization that DOES NOT speak to these facts MORALLY if not legally responsible for the next tragedy?
I feel so bad for the survivirs, and can only pray that poor man who lost his beloved son, and was so despicably trotted out in press conferences, to rage against the NRA, in his pain,
Will be left to grieve, with loving family, and support, and not further abused and used by the Blood Dancers, Everytown, Brady, et al, and their willing enablers in the press.
(Crickets…)
Office of Pre-Crime will be a lovely thing indeed.
Jeez. I hope no one here thinks that I dont believe the CA dems can’t be trusted or anything like that.
That would be SOOO cynical, right. Maybe even…..paranoid!
Where did my unicorn go, anyway….
She’s over here with mine, holding our tinfoil hats. 😉
I think you have publius2 confused with me,
I’m the paranoid, raving, rightwing loon, here, Rich. 🙂
The gravatar gives it away…
As Roscoe mentioned above, the mere act of buying a gun is evidence in support of one of these new orders. This is the literal codification of the classic anti-gun Catch-22: “no crazy people should have a gun; oh, you want a gun, you’re crazy!”
The other thing to consider is the GVRO is a perfect tool to disarm a potential victim. Planning violence on someone you know has guns? Why, they’re a danger to themselves and others and could snap at any time. One rubber stamped GVRO coming right up, bye bye guns, and the job just got a lot easier.
Could they add a “car violence restraining order” to the law? After all, the sociopathic creep used his BMW to run down a lot of people, so “society” should be able to stop that kind of violence without having to go through the whole “trial and conviction” process, right?
I hope you get this in time because I think it important at a conceptual level….
“Gun Violence Restraining Order”
Why the specificity?
If robbing a bank is illegal, why would we need an additional law making robbing a bank with a gun illegal?
We have restraining orders now, why would we need one specific to guns? Is it going to be *more* restraining than a regular restraining order?
You have the rest of it already with the limiting of rights based on nothing more than an accusation. A “gun restraining order” is just opening the door for abuse even wider.
We’ll be posting a link as soon as KQED has it ready at around 2:00p central time.
I don’t know if anybody had pointed it out, but in this case the family DID have a way of preventing him from buying guns, and it wouldn’t even require the intervention of the courts. You see, they were his sole source of funding. They could have used that leverage to make him live at home while attending a local college. They could have required him to account for his spending. If they weren’t willing to do that much, why would they go so far as to involve the courts?
Somebody please tell me that I’m not the only one who hears the deafening silence from Bloomy and his Demanding Moms?
Ah, grasshopper.
What do you hear? Is it the wind in the bamboo, or is that the tattered panties of the faux mommies flapping as they blow out, in their PR pro panic, and run away…
or, perhaps it is the rustle of greenbacks fluttering to the waters of the rushing stream of ridicule, $50Million wasted by the Littlest Nanny, on dreams of power and fanny-wacking of the evillllll N_R_Anyway.
cue the flutes…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_J4TRYxpmU
This is simply another “pre-crime” law. Suggest that they watch the movie Minority Report. You are stripping someone of their rights on the basis that they “might” commit a crime.
1) Ask them how a “gun-violence restraining order” will prevent a similarly disturbed individual from taking a milk jug of gasoline and a bic lighter on a bus or similar confined environment and killing more people than any one of these “mass killings” perpetrated with a firearm. For example, the Chengdu bus fire or the Xiamen bus fire.
2) Ask them if there are any limits to the problems legislation can solve? Or can legislation solve every problem faced by humankind or society?
3) Call them out on all of the real solutions that exist outside of token legislative measures that are willfully ignored because they’d involve people taking responsibility for themselves and their acquaintances, because people are lazy and don’t actually want to do any work themselves.
What about if people spent time ACTUALLY raising their kids and put the kids welfare FIRST, and took an active interest in their families and neighbors. What if when acquaintances showed obvious signs of unrest we engaged with them instead of alienating them. What if people felt a sense of responsibility when they noticed a threat and raised the appropriate alarms instead of just pushing the crazy person into another school or another community or another job (passing the buck). This isn’t a gun issue, this isn’t a law issue, not a crime issue, this isn’t even a mental health issue. This is a PASSING THE BUCK issue.
My advice for your appearance on KUED: Take three deep breaths, relax and attempt to keep calm. I’m sure you already have plenty of verbal ammunition. I would also recommend, however, you keep your strongest point at the ready. Good luck!!
This may not quite work but hey, give it a go:
Denying any one person their rights is discriminatory against that person; just because they have [Insert offence here] doesn’t mean their rights aren’t the same as anyone else’s. Would you deny someone the right to free speech because they said something racist? Of course not, there would be outrage. Would you say: “Oh, that person’s done such and such, so we can search him because police corruption!”? There would be riots in the streets!
This is just another form of the same discrimination.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it elsewhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying all the wrong remedies” – Groucho Marx
Best of Luck.
Keep your sense of humor.
I will pray for you and I’m not much of a man of God.
How about doing something realistic by declining because one cannot speak knowledgeably on something which they have no knowledge about.
The text of the bill doesn’t exist yet, so it’s a trap to discredit you as a source of informed comment AFTER the text becomes available.
I wish you would not have done it, almost. In the sense that you could have potentially shone a bit of intelligent light in the dim minds of Cali politicians. But, after reading the comments on that site, I am now actively praying to the Earthquake god so that California can fall away from the continental U.S. and then declare that they are their own country. Afterwards I propose that we enter into a deal with the newly formed country of Commifornia where we send our criminals to them en masse. The mos heinous ones will have their citizenship revoked.
The San Andreas isn’t a subduction fault, it’s a strike-slip fault. LAX is sliding towards Oakland Bay.
Reject the premise. No need to even talk about guns. The restraining order system as it exists today is already corrupted beyond reason.
http://ncfm.org/2013/04/action/restraining-order-terrorism-the-pauley-perrettefrancis-coyote-shivers-case-the-beginning-of-the-end/
Is this an Orwellian law or am I dreaming? How can they make students in CA read Animal Farm and then propose laws that encourage unbridled tattling to remove constitutional rights? Unfortunately I fear that, like with most government intervention, they will continue to misdiagnose the problems and apply the wrong remedy.
In Haiku form:
How can someone be
Too crazy to own a gun
Yet still remain free
Just finished listening to that podcast- nice work RF.
Nice Ben Shapiro move when he tried to suck you in on that Joe the Plumber trick…
You stayed cool and calm all the way thru –
well, you got a little rushed there, at the end, and a bit sarcastic,
but I put that down to being from the East Coast and a member of the Tribe.
‘nother year in Texas and you will be slowing down a bit-
and the SoCal pretend sophisticates of NPR will be able to follow you better that way…why do you think they ALL put on that drawwling, plummy fakey wannabe BBC accent?
Just remember your stage days – if it sounds slow to you, your pace is just about right, right?
And here is a southern boy trick, if you make ’em wait on ya, and drop your voice a bit, along with the volume – (why, its making me want to grab my wallet right now)
then you got a big future ahead of you- its the anti Alex Jones style,
so theres a niche waiting out there…
I suggest Redman, and bring your cup, so you can pause to spit.
That Copenhagen will just make you wanna hit yo daddy.
I spec ol’ Tyler Kee can he’p ya wit dat, hoss.
How would all this legislation have stopped Rodgers anyhow? Whatever the nature of his autism/personality disorder combo, this guy was intelligent and determined. During and after 14 years of therapy, he was able to conceal his murderous impulses. Even if 5150’d, it’s conceivable he would have eventually got his guns back. The welfare check also inadvertantly served as way for him to understand and manipulate the system: within 10 minutes of posting the video he was shooting people.
Of course, it all might work with a lower functioning person, but there definately needs to be safeguards and exemptions written in so this law isn’t used to violate the rights of innocent gun owners
Comments are closed.