New bill passes senate in California

[DoubleDeuce 1]

Carguy,

Absolutely yes. The police here in California have access to the AFS. The information is right at their fingertips. You type in a code, push a button, wait a few seconds and bingo. It certainly has never been a secret. Before the cars were equipped with on board computers, the officer on the street had to call in the information request.

As for the welfare check stuff, there was nothing to prevent an inquiry. They have been done, but never as a matter of routine.

 

[Marred]

Both current bills SB 505 and AB 1014 are bills that, correct me if i'm wrong, are intended to address problems with the welfare check of Elliot Rodgers. They both contain language like " reasonable cause", "the
subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger", "a concern that the person may be a danger to himself or herself".
SB 505 allows a check for gun ownership and AB 1014 allows for a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. Law Enforcement will have to serve the order. My problem with this and my question is, with a restraining order entered into the system does the person named now lose gun rights? Even if the charges are proved unfounded does said person have to go to and pay for court to get their gun rights back?
Secondly, I'm sure it's been brought up already but I'd hate to be the person being served by police coming to take my guns with language like "immediate and present danger" on the warrant. Seems like a recipe for death of the person being served and whoever else might happen to be there.
Third, since the police who interviewed Rodgers said that he appeared normal and not a danger, do these bills make it easier for law enforcement to get orders to confiscate guns with no real credible threat but only on the "word" of some concerned citizen or someone who doesn't like you? Kind of like "swatting" someone?

 

[44 AMP]

Correct me if I missed something, but this bill doesn't seem to be anything that is a threat to the public's rights.

It seems to be a requirement for the police to abide by. A requirement that if they are going to do "A" then they must check database XYZ first....

It is a procedural requirement, dressed as a law, probably done so it will be both mandatory and uniform throughout all the law enforcement agencies in the state.

Or, it could just be some lawmakers flexing their muscle, so they can claim to be concerned and doing something...

or maybe its just CYA, so that if officers don't do it, and something bad happens they can be hung out to dry...

I have no idea, but unless I missed something I don't see it as an issue for the citizens to be concerned about.

I didn't see anything requiring collecting new data, just a requirement to check what there was in the system already, in certain situations.

Did I miss something?

 

[jscottjones88]

Not that i'm an expert in legalese, but i had an elderly neighbor lady that had no family in hundreds of miles, so her daughter requested weekly welfare checks by the local pd. the point i'm trying to make here is that there is a HUGE difference (as far as i understand it) between a pd welfare check and an officer responding to a report of an unstable person.

If the latter of these two instances is what this law deals with, then it seems logical for an officer to know if the unstable person he's going to try to help has a weapon that may be turned on himself or on the officer. Having said this, the same officer that may benefit from knowing if there is a registered firearm in the home has no way of knowing if the unstable fellow has an unregistered gun, a butcher's knife, or a table leg he is going to attack with. since this is the case every time an officer responds to any call, the law in question seems less than useful at best, if not unnecessarily intrusive.

Again, the prior paragraph was about an officer responding to a call - in the case of little old Ms. Bateman next door, i am completely befuddled why an officer needs to know if she owns a gun - the only logical reason he should know this is to supply her with one if she doesn't, so that she isn't as much of a helpless target!! (maybe that's what's going on, CA is finally coming around people!!) Really, though - in the "welfare check" case, this law seems to be so unnecessary that it makes me suspect it is one step on a carefully thought out path leading to a leftists gunless (and crime riddled) utopia.

really though, how hard would it be to first, slowly pass laws about other cases in which an officer can determine if you own a gun, next pass a law saying that the officer has the ability to temporarily seize the weapon, then to make that seizure longer or permanent.

I also think that anyone who doesn't believe that there are policy makers out there with these kinds of specific, stepwise plans to remove guns is beyond naive! that is EXACTLY how they disarmed the UK, and WILL accomplish the same ends here if law makers aren't held in check by those they are supposed to be representing.

 

[jscottjones88]

Why is he focus on gun ownership and not on violence generally?

I firmly feel that this is a very logic-based argument. NOT that i think it is logical to blame the gun, but because for liberals it's much more efficient to blame the gun instead of the person - it makes for better soundbites, is a good way to shift blame to 2nd amendment supporting conservatives, thereby chipping away at not just gun rights but their whole platform, and it lets them stick to their side's beliefs. think about it - lefties CAN'T do anything else because then they would have to admit that moral values, supporting families, a firmly defined sense of right and wrong, etc. are an important part of a peaceful society, because they lead to more stable, well balanced citizens.