New California Gun Law

[SUXBNME 1,328]

No more restrictions on our magazine capacity, b1tches  

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-blocks-california-s-ban-high-capacity-magazines-over-2nd-n989136

[SUXBNME 1,328]

I honestly don't know if this a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm incredibly shocked that this happened

[bandrus1 413]

Hmm if it was federal I wonder what happens to ny

[Nomad99 406]

3 minutes ago, bandrus1 said:

Hmm if it was federal I wonder what happens to ny

Or Mass....

[wiffleball 4,639]

NoWe're about to have a red flag law. Basically, if your adjudicated is mentally unstable or dangerous what's your family members come in or whatever, I haven't read all the details. But if any of the above, they can confiscate your weapons.

I assume temporarily. But of course, the gun nuts are out there with their slippery slope bulshit again. There are cops here refusing enforce the law.

All I know is that in this particular case, it would have stopped that idiot from Virginia tech, the freak from Aurora movie theater shootings and I believe also the Gabby giffords shooter. So seems like a pretty good idea to me. Also, if you're talking suicide.

I assume there's some procedures involved. Some legal steps and like  said a temporary time period That has to be reassessed on a regular basis.

I think I'll read up more on that today.

But honestly, what's the worst thing that can happen? " Oh God no! now I can't go to the firing range for 90 days?"

Pretty much, if you urgently need a gun? That's about 99% of the time when you absolutely should not have a gun.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

25 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

NoWe're about to have a red flag law. Basically, if your adjudicated is mentally unstable or dangerous what's your family members come in or whatever, I haven't read all the details. But if any of the above, they can confiscate your weapons.

I assume temporarily. But of course, the gun nuts are out there with their slippery slope bulshit again. There are cops here refusing enforce the law.

All I know is that in this particular case, it would have stopped that idiot from Virginia tech, the freak from Aurora movie theater shootings and I believe also the Gabby giffords shooter. So seems like a pretty good idea to me. Also, if you're talking suicide.

I assume there's some procedures involved. Some legal steps and like  said a temporary time period That has to be reassessed on a regular basis.

I think I'll read up more on that today.

But honestly, what's the worst thing that can happen? " Oh God no! now I can't go to the firing range for 90 days?"

Pretty much, if you urgently need a gun? That's about 99% of the time when you absolutely should not have a gun.

Say goodby to your guns wiff. 

[wiffleball 4,639]

2 minutes ago, NorthernVike said:

Say goodby to your guns wiff. 

They'll take my "guns" when they pry them from that bone that runs from mAh shoulders to my elbows.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

32 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

NoWe're about to have a red flag law. Basically, if your adjudicated is mentally unstable or dangerous what's your family members come in or whatever, I haven't read all the details. But if any of the above, they can confiscate your weapons.

I assume temporarily. But of course, the gun nuts are out there with their slippery slope bulshit again. There are cops here refusing enforce the law.

All I know is that in this particular case, it would have stopped that idiot from Virginia tech, the freak from Aurora movie theater shootings and I believe also the Gabby giffords shooter. So seems like a pretty good idea to me. Also, if you're talking suicide.

I assume there's some procedures involved. Some legal steps and like  said a temporary time period That has to be reassessed on a regular basis.

I think I'll read up more on that today.

But honestly, what's the worst thing that can happen? " Oh God no! now I can't go to the firing range for 90 days?"

Pretty much, if you urgently need a gun? That's about 99% of the time when you absolutely should not have a gun.

You're assuming the 'Red flag reporting' won't be abused. I'd refer you to twitter where reporting users is used politically to silence those who disagree with you. The radical left's motto is the ends justify the means.

How long before the radical left gets a hold of gun registration lists and flood the system trying to get them all rounded up? 

I'm all for removing guns from nutjobs but in no focking way should the public be able to just report this and it just happens.

[wiffleball 4,639]

5 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

You're assuming the 'Red flag reporting' won't be abused. I'd refer you to twitter where reporting users is used politically to silence those who disagree with you. The radical left's motto is the ends justify the means.

How long before the radical left gets a hold of gun registration lists and flood the system trying to get them all rounded up? 

I'm all for removing guns from nutjobs but in no focking way should the public be able to just report this and it just happens.

That's why I said I assume Legal steps and procedures.

 

"But what if some radical activist judge Deems that wearing a maga hat is a form of psychosis and every one of the Trump supporters has their guns seized? you know that's what the liberals and the UN with their black helicopters really want don't you?"

... Meanwhile, Johnny on 14 different kinds of antipsychotic drugs shoots up princess daisies kindergarten daycare...

"And I'm proud to be an Amuricun where at least my guns are free!!."

[Nomad99 406]

53 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

NoWe're about to have a red flag law. Basically, if your adjudicated is mentally unstable or dangerous what's your family members come in or whatever, I haven't read all the details. But if any of the above, they can confiscate your weapons.

I assume temporarily. But of course, the gun nuts are out there with their slippery slope bulshit again. There are cops here refusing enforce the law.

All I know is that in this particular case, it would have stopped that idiot from Virginia tech, the freak from Aurora movie theater shootings and I believe also the Gabby giffords shooter. So seems like a pretty good idea to me. Also, if you're talking suicide.

I assume there's some procedures involved. Some legal steps and like  said a temporary time period That has to be reassessed on a regular basis.

I think I'll read up more on that today.

But honestly, what's the worst thing that can happen? " Oh God no! now I can't go to the firing range for 90 days?"

Pretty much, if you urgently need a gun? That's about 99% of the time when you absolutely should not have a gun.

What's the worst that can happen? You have an angry GF or wife or ex that makes a report. They come & take your guns & your license, without due process. You end up in a situation in which you would normally have the means to defend yourself & now you cant. Maybe you you end up Seriously hurt or dead....all because someone had a hair across their ass. I'm not against being cautious.....but not at the cost of individual rights & due process. 

[wiffleball 4,639]

Because I'm too tired to look it up. And how many home defense from armed Intruders have been thwarted by gun-wielding Americans per year? from some source that doesn't start with NRA please.

Yeah, criminals have just been waiting to get their hands on a list like that. The . 001 people who've had their weapons temporarily siezed because they're batshiit crazy. Cuz God knows they'd be easier to hit than the other 70% of the country that doesn't have a gun.

[wiffleball 4,639]

So, before we get all nutty on theoreticals maybe read this:

The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in her or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.

After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. If a family or household member or a law enforcement officer establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm, the court may issue a continuing ERPO. The ERPO would prohibit the respondent from possessing, controlling, purchasing, or receiving a firearm for 182 days.

Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.

The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.

 

 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

8 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

So, before we get all nutty on theoreticals maybe read this:

The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in her or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.

After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. If a family or household member or a law enforcement officer establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm, the court may issue a continuing ERPO. The ERPO would prohibit the respondent from possessing, controlling, purchasing, or receiving a firearm for 182 days.

Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.

The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.

 

 

Go read Twitter's TOS................sound innocuous just like this bill. Until a political agenda comes along to exploit it.

[wiffleball 4,639]

Im guessing Twitter doesn't require:

Legal affidavits, preponderance of evidence, face to face hearing within 7 days of a request for ERO, nor does it allow for reversal, nor does it expire by law.

----------

Honestly, now that I've read that? TRO have been a long-standing principle to keep battered spouses and others safe. This seems more reasonable than I expected.

Also, note that it's not all about seizure as much as surrender voluntarily. 

I have to go back and read how much time you have to surrender your weapons. But if you're hearing is required within 7 days? We're not exactly talking about a huge hardship here.

[Mike Honcho 4,027]

8 hours ago, SUXBNME said:

No more restrictions on our magazine capacity, b1tches  

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-blocks-california-s-ban-high-capacity-magazines-over-2nd-n989136

Is this knows as the "women can't hit the broadside of a barn" law? 

[Mike Honcho 4,027]

17 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Im guessing Twitter doesn't require:

Legal affidavits, preponderance of evidence, face to face hearing within 7 days of a request for ERO, nor does it allow for reversal, nor does it expire by law.

----------

Honestly, now that I've read that? TRO have been a long-standing principle to keep battered spouses and others safe. This seems more reasonable than I expected.

Also, note that it's not all about seizure as much as surrender voluntarily. 

I have to go back and read how much time you have to surrender your weapons. But if you're hearing is required within 7 days? We're not exactly talking about a huge hardship here.

No, he's right, it's one of the amendments that you can't limit someone's speech on Twitter.   CONSTITUTION!!!!  AMERICUH!   

[5-Points 2,727]

11 hours ago, SUXBNME said:

I honestly don't know if this a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm incredibly shocked that this happened

It's a good thing. It means there is at least 1 district judge here in california that still takes the constitution seriously. 

This was previously upheld by a 3 judge panel in the 9th circuit who kicked it back for more clarification. This judge basically said penal code 32310 is unconstitutional. I'm sure it will be appealed again and probably go back to the 9th for an en banc review but it will be difficult for them to overturn this decision. Might end up going to SCOTUS. 

 

In the meantime, hi/standard cap mags are legal to buy, sell, import and possess in California so get em while they're hot.