Kathianne
12-30-2015, 06:24 PM
Just takes an angry neighbor or ex:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/30/new-laws-in-2016-show-states-are-diverging-on/
One way to cover the story in a sentence:
...Meanwhile, California, the most populous state, has multiple new laws on gun control. One tightens a ban on firearms in and around schools. Under the new law, the prohibition will apply even to most people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons generally. Another will allow people to request that a judge order weapons be taken away from relatives who are believed to pose a threat...
and providing a bit more in how it may be implemented:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/12/29/police-may-confiscate-guns-without-notice-owner-starting-january-1/
...According to KPCC (http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/28/56511/police-in-california-will-be-able-to-seize-guns-pr/), GVROs “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.” And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.
To be fair, Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore does not use the word “confiscate” when talking about confiscating firearms. Rather, Moore says, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”
...
The 'time out' may be extended to a year and renewed yearly thereafter. Only the police will be able to stop it, would they take a chance that sometime that gun maybe used?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/30/new-laws-in-2016-show-states-are-diverging-on/
One way to cover the story in a sentence:
...Meanwhile, California, the most populous state, has multiple new laws on gun control. One tightens a ban on firearms in and around schools. Under the new law, the prohibition will apply even to most people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons generally. Another will allow people to request that a judge order weapons be taken away from relatives who are believed to pose a threat...
and providing a bit more in how it may be implemented:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/12/29/police-may-confiscate-guns-without-notice-owner-starting-january-1/
...According to KPCC (http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/28/56511/police-in-california-will-be-able-to-seize-guns-pr/), GVROs “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.” And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.
To be fair, Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore does not use the word “confiscate” when talking about confiscating firearms. Rather, Moore says, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”
...
The 'time out' may be extended to a year and renewed yearly thereafter. Only the police will be able to stop it, would they take a chance that sometime that gun maybe used?