California Looking to Expand “Gun Violence Restraining Orders”


They haven’t even been in place for four months, and already the rest of the camel is coming under the tent. Via the Firearms Policy Coalition:

Authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the bill massively expands a controversial law that has only been in place for 4 months. At present, current law permits family members and peace officers to petition a court, in secret, in order to restrain an individual from possessing firearms. AB 2607 compounds this measure by adding, to the list of qualified petitioners, employers, coworkers, mental health workers, and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school.

There’s way too much potential for abuse with this, and as FPC has pointed out, it would put gun owners in fear of seeking any kind of health treatment for fear an anti-gun doctor will report them to the authorities, causing them to get raided.

They are showing their cards. They want to be able to deny you a fundamental, constitutional right on the flimsiest of evidence with no due process, and if Hillary wins in November, they will almost certainly get away with it.

9 thoughts on “California Looking to Expand “Gun Violence Restraining Orders””

  1. I’m sorry I just have to laugh. “Requires a form 1 to complete”??? Really? On a threaded metal pipe?

    Actually, I think this kind of shows the opposite – how gun control truly does not work and misses the mark by a mile.

    So a “pipe bomb” is a “regulated” NFA item? Good luck with enforcing that. See above…

    “In fact TFB looked at buying some grenades recently but insurance to actually use them was far too expensive.”

    (or is this just a big joke I missed?)

  2. Guns? I ain’t got no stinking guns! I don’t nead no stinking guns.
    I can do just fine with a large Bowie knife.

  3. I would think that the VRO is an excellent mechanism to disarm police in the state of California. At a minimum, it would tie up the court system, if enough people accused police officers of erratic behavior. But I am sure there is an exception built into the law. Isn’t there always?

  4. I guess I missed this, but what justification was given for petitions to be secret? Is the restraining order also secret?

    1. Retaliation, I’m sure. It’s completely against the constitutional right to face one’s accuser, of course.

Comments are closed.