'Gun violence restraining order' pushed after Isla Vista rampage

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: SF Gate

Two California legislators introduced a bill Tuesday to create a "gun violence restraining order" that they said would give family and friends of a person threatening to harm others the tools needed to take guns or to prevent the person from buying new ones.

California Assembly members Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, and Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, say people should be able to intervene - much as a therapist can today - to notify law enforcement when someone they know appears likely to hurt others or themselves.

The bill, modeled after systems in Connecticut, Texas and Indiana, would require law enforcement officials to ask a judge to grant the firearm restraining order in a process similar to a domestic violence restraining order.

The language for AB1014 was drafted last year, Skinner said, but the bill was ultimately dropped as Democrats focused on other gun control legislation. Skinner revived it Tuesday after the shooting rampage on Friday at Isla Vista near UC Santa Barbara.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Gun-violence-restraining-order-pushed-after-5508835.php

[Aristus]

1. Man, the gun-humpers are gonna HATE this...

I don't hold out much hope for its passage. Hell, if it gets out of committee, it'll be a miracle.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Not much different than the Lautenberg amendment.

It just expands the list of people who can institute such a restraint beyond domestic violence causes.

A good tool.

I'm a gun owner, I think it's a good idea. Doesn't scare me.
The Lautenberg Amendment has been highly successful, and withstood numerous court challenges. Good stuff. Need more like it.

[MicaelS]

6. I'm a gun owner, and I think it's a fine idea.

What needs to go along with this is to change the standards of involuntary commitment for people who are mentally ill, especially if that person has a gun.

[Lurks Often]

8. Don't know a single gun owner that would object to this

as long as it properly written to prevent the process from being abused.

[hack89]

2. Excellent idea

temporarily removing someone's guns is perfectly constitutional.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Has to be crafted carefully, but yes, within the sphere of due process.

[hack89]

5. Of course. nt

[BrotherIvan]

7. I absolutely agree with this

But that is also why all the unchecked sales must be stopped and all the buying and possession loopholes closed. If someone threatens someone with a gun, why can't police be called and his right to possess firearms revoked? If, as gunners state, their guns are to be used only for self defense, it should become law that any glimpse of that gun other than self defense means your gun is gone.

If guns are to be used in target practice, are they loaded with live rounds? If, as gunners say, the point of their arsenals is target practice, why not outlaw walking around with a loaded gun for anything but your one defense weapon then jack the price up for live bullets. Use airsoft or similar in target ranges. Make a great blank. And then bullets are $100 each. Or $1000. That way, idiots can't get their hands on hundreds of rounds and people make damn sure those bullets are only used as a last resort. I know bullet control has been a joke, but it's time to start coming up with some real solutions.

[marginlized]

9. 500% tax on bullets!

we do this for cigarettes. Why not?

edit: my typing!

[BrotherIvan]

10. Yes

We could learn a lot from the fight with big tobacco. There was an industry trying every dirty trick and complete LIES just like the gun industry. At least there is some regulation now. I'm sure they will scream about their right to profits, because that argument goes very far here in the US, unlike the EU. But fuck them. They are selling dangerous/hazardous/lethal products and must be held accountable.

The biggest lie you will ever hear from a gunner is that their lethal weapon isn't dangerous. With the new blanks, they won't be. I'm sure I'll be told this is impossible and there will be an underground market for homemade bullets, but there must be some solution. I don't know why we have to make sure everyone is happy when people are dying.

[bobalew]

12. There is a problem with your solution, Grasshopper...

I know Lots of mental miscreants, such as certain neighbor of mine, who own all of the components for making of bullet cartridges.
the Gun Show loop-hole is also involved with this, since that is WHERE these components are purchased. There are hobbyist bullet making mechanisms available for sale, & it's QUITE the hobby, if you know of what I speak. You'd have to fix THAT, in order to implement your $1000.00 a bullet cartridge solution. A 'Gun NUT" doesn't just own GUNS, they also have all of the gear to make bullet cartridges, and from what I've seen these components are as close as the internet & "Cheaperthandirt.com".

[BrotherIvan]

13. Um, yes

Just as it has become very difficult to get one's hands on supplies to blow shit up, perhaps we can find a way to limit things like gunpowder or other bullet supplies. I doubt most of the potbellied weekend warriors will be spending all their free time making bullets. But that's not the point. The point is, Rodger had 400 rounds of ammunition in his car. Holmes had 6000 rounds. How long would it have taken to make that many?

The big problem for many is EASY access. If a lethal weapon is truly going to be used to save your life, you might not mind spending $1000 for that bullet. There could be a first buy for low income people - six bullets free per person. I don't have all the answers, but there must be some. Gunners always mention how there is no way we can lessen the millions of guns already circulating in this country. But maybe we can make it harder to kill a bunch of people than moseying on down to the local Wal Mart.

I'm not the first one who has proposed this.

"Because if a bullet cost $5000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders."

[SoapBox]

11. Cue the NRA PR machine.

NRA = THE True Death Panel.