A California *** law will permit the confiscation of legally owned firearms. The new *** control law is slated to go into effect in just two days. Police officers in the state will be allowed to take legally owned weapons from law-abiding citizens and keep them for three weeks
without filing any charges against the owners. The statute opponents feel this powerfully infringes upon Second Amendment rights and does not offer a manner in which to contest such seizures.
The California *** law, also known as AB1014, was ****** after the Isla Vista shooting by Elliot Rodger last year. The teenager opened fire on the University of California at Santa Barbara campus and ****** six people before taking his own life. Prior to the mass shooting, Rodger’s parents had reportedly informed *************** that they had concerns about his mental health and the “rants” he was posting online.
After a meeting with police, the officers determined that Rodger did not pose a criminal risk. *** control supporters maintain that the “stockpile” of ammunition and guns in his apartment should have raised a red flag. As *** rights advocates are quick to point out, it is not against the law for an American to legally own as many firearms and ammunition as desired.
California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1
Premium Link
Upgrade
pic.twitter.com/cApr5JQCHS
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 29, 2015
Second Amendment activists have likened the reasoning behind the law which will allow police to seize legally owned guns without notice, a warrant, or any criminal allegations, akin to taking the car of an individual with a ******** problem based the number of cans of **** in their fridge and the possibility that the person could get behind the wheel while *****.
The new California *** control law permits a judge to grant a restraining order against a *** owner who has been charged with a crime, the Daily Caller reports. Immediately after the order has been issued, police officers can seize all of the individual’s guns. Such an order can be signed due to comments of concern uttered by relatives of the *** owner. If the ****** members claim that the person might pose imminent harm, the judge can sign the *** seizure order without notifying the individual – or the person even being present in the courtroom to contest the *** grabbing dictate.
There is no requirement for *************** officers or mental health workers to meet with the *** owner prior to the issuance of the restraining order.
California *** Law Will Let Police Confiscate Legally-Owned Weapons:
Premium Link
Upgrade
— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 30, 2015
Here’s an excerpt from the California *** law.
“This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte *** ******** restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified.”
According to the text in AB104, the *** owner who has never been charged with a crime could be prohibited from owning or possessing firearms or ammunition for up to one year on an annual basis. The California *** control law also states that the court can renew the firearms seizure order for another year and allow the citizen just a single hearing to request a termination of the order on an annual basis.
