President Obama and most of the lawmakers in the Golden State have many things in common, but two things specifically: They hate the Constitution, and they have no problem ignoring it when it serves their political interests (and they don’t think anyone will stop them).
Beginning Jan. 1, a California law took effect that allows a state judge to take away a resident’s firearms for 21 days if the judge believes that the person is a danger to himself or others.
As noted by the Washington Times:
Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”
“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate, according to The Times. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”
“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” he said. “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.”
This is how authoritarians think: They justify an arbitrary court decision, based perhaps on biased information from a ticked off family member, to deny someone their Second Amendment rights before they’ve ever committed an act of violence and call it “due process” (when, actually, that Fifth Amendment requirement/right is violated as well).
Worse, California’s control-freak Democrats are largely basing this law on one incident. In the case of Elliott Rodger, 22 – who killed six and injured 14 others before shooting himself, during attacks across Isla Vista near the campus of the University of California-Santa Barbara – he committed his crime with two knives and three handguns that he bought legally.
The impetus for his attack was discussed in a 107,000-word manifesto as well as in a video that was uploaded to YouTube – but these were only posted and circulated mere minutes before he began his rampage.
So, even this new law would not have been effective, and that’s what Obama, with his anti-gun stance, and California’s one-party rulers don’t get (or refuse to acknowledge) – that their gun-grabbing laws are not designed to stop people who are committed to killing people with a firearm.
At least one liberal understands that.
“This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict,” Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, and Obama’s former homeland security secretary, said following Rodger’s ambush.
Still, the little tyrants in Sacramento would not be denied, so 22 months after the attack, the law was implemented. Some actually believe that the law will give family members an effective way to take guns that were otherwise legally acquired, from loved ones who have yet to actually commit a crime.
“It’s the family members, it’s the people closest to the perpetrator, who are in the best position to notice red flags,” Wendy Patrick, a San Diego State University professor and lawyer, told San Diego’s CBS affiliate recently, The Times noted.
As you might expect, Second Amendment rights groups are opposed to this lunacy, and are trying to tell anyone who has any remaining sense that in a state that already has some of the most draconian gun control laws on the books, there isn’t much left to do – except violate constitutional rights and order gun confiscations.
“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told The Associated Press, as reported by The Times. “We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”
Absolutely, that is what will happen. Anyone at a state agency that has a “hotline” will tell you such reporting mechanisms are used and abused often by spiteful people attempting to get back at someone for something. Only in this case, a judge’s decision based upon false information will put an otherwise law-abiding citizen in danger.