• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New Law

Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.

The trouble with that mentality is that it doesn't work but I like the analogy. Restraining orders are just a bunch of crap, just as gun control legislation is a bunch of crap. If someone is a threat to someone else one person can get a restraining order against the other but how many countless numbers of people have been killed by the very person who they got a restraining order against? It happens all the time. So, in many cases the restraining order is a totally worthless piece of paper. If the other person is dead set against violence against the other they are going to do it whether there is a restraining order against them or not. Ditto this gun control legislation. If they want to harm the other person they are going to do whether there is a restraining order or not or whether their guns were taken away or not. It's actually quite easy to get a gun even when there are laws against you getting a gun and there are many acts of violence you can do without having a gun at all. We live in a society where people have the right to murder as many people as they want and then society will make you pay the price afterward, if you get caught and if you haven't blown your own brains out. Obama commutes the sentences or pardons people who have been in jail for gun violations and then wants to pass gun control legislation so that these people can't have access to guns. How warped thinking is that?
 
Last edited:
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

The trouble with that mentality is that it doesn't work but I like the analogy. Restraining orders are just a bunch of crap, just as gun control legislation is a bunch of crap. If someone is a threat to someone else one person can get a restraining order against the other but how many countless numbers of people have been killed by the very person who they got a restraining order against? It happens all the time.

I'm sure it does but not every time. Sometimes a violator can be stopped before he kills.

Violation of a restraining order can mean community service, fines, and/or jail time. The penalties depend greatly on the terms of the violation and the state enforcing the violation, but in most states, a violation of a restraining order is charged as a misdemeanor. However even as a misdemeanor, the penalties can still reach up to $5000 in fines, and up to a year in jail in some states. Finally, if there was an additional crime committed during the violation of the restraining order, the penalties can become even more severe.

Read more: Violation of a Restraining Order
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.

Justice works the other way around. The GOVT has to prove its case, not citizens. Citizens are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

Justice works the other way around. The GOVT has to prove its case, not citizens. Citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

That may be the way justice works but it's not the way restraining orders work. For instance:

Colorado's statute inverts the standard procedures, providing that after the court issues an ex parte order, the defendant must "appear before the court at a specific time and date and . . . show cause, if any, why said temporary civil protection order should not be made permanent."[4] Hawaii similarly requires the defendant to prove his own innocence.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraining_order
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

I'm sure it does but not every time. Sometimes a violator can be stopped before he kills.

If someone is intent on harming or killing someone else a restraining order is a worthless piece of paper, just as taking their guns away would be a worthless act. If someone is just severely harassing someone else a restraining order is more apt to be effective. As for punishments for violating a restraining order go, I refer to my previous sentence. If someone is real threat to someone else we live in a society where we let one person kill the other and then we charge them with murder. Doesn't help the dead person much. I'm fighting for the life of someone who shouldn't be dead in the first place.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

If someone is intent on harming or killing someone else a restraining order is a worthless piece of paper, just as taking their guns away would be a worthless act. If someone is just severely harassing someone else a restraining order is more apt to be effective. As for punishments for violating a restraining order go, I refer to my previous sentence. If someone is real threat to someone else we live in a society where we let one person kill the other and then we charge them with murder. Doesn't help the dead person much. I'm fighting for the life of someone who shouldn't be dead in the first place.

A restraining order is one more tool to use. It may not work every time but it can help.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.

Are you kidding me? Your solution is to declare someone guilty, for life, until they can prove their innocence? Here is how due process works; make an arrest and bring a criminal charge, have a trial and if found guilty of that criminal charge then impose a sentence. You want to start with the life sentence with no criminal charge and then leave it up to the "guilty" to prove (by some unknown mechanism) that they were not guilty.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.

Your guilty until proven innocence sense of justice is terrifying. I don't even want to know what you think "the real Second Amendment" is... no matter what it is, it allows for infringements of the people's right to keep and bear arms; I'm sure of it.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

A restraining order is one more tool to use. It may not work every time but it can help.

Bottom line to me is that no amount of gun control is going to stop the bad people from getting guns. The only effective gun control would be severely restricting the buying of all guns AND going door to door and confiscating all of the guns already out there. Since that has a less than zero chance of happening then all gun control legislation does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns because the bad people are going to get them anyway. All they have to do is have someone else buy it for them or steal them from friends or relatives or break into a place that has guns and steal them. Easy as pie. Don't even need to pass a background check in order to do it but the law abiding citizens do.

It is crazy to me to allow people who are an obvious threat to society to roam free or slap them with a worthless restraining order and then try and keep them from getting guns, which is close to impossible. On top of that we have Obama commuting the sentences of people who were in jail for firearms violations and then wanting to pass gun control legislation so that these very same people who he released can't get a gun. That's just crazy. It just proves that Obama himself isn't serious about the issue.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

Bottom line to me is that no amount of gun control is going to stop the bad people from getting guns. The only effective gun control would be severely restricting the buying of all guns AND going door to door and confiscating all of the guns already out there. ...

Yes, and I've posted proposed legislation, The Gun General Recovery and Ban (GRAB,) a number of times. It's not perfect but it's a start.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

Your guilty until proven innocence sense of justice is terrifying. ...

This isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about reasonable actions to prevent tragedies.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

Are you kidding me? Your solution is to declare someone guilty, for life, until they can prove their innocence? Here is how due process works; make an arrest and bring a criminal charge, have a trial and if found guilty of that criminal charge then impose a sentence. You want to start with the life sentence with no criminal charge and then leave it up to the "guilty" to prove (by some unknown mechanism) that they were not guilty.

Restraining orders are a part of due process.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

Yes, and I've posted proposed legislation, The Gun General Recovery and Ban (GRAB,) a number of times. It's not perfect but it's a start.

Not dealing with reality accomplishes nothing. If the Democrats were in complete control not even they would pass something like that.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

Restraining orders are a part of due process.

Nope, temporary restraining orders, with judicial review, are part of due process.
 
Re: California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New L

That may be the way justice works but it's not the way restraining orders work. For instance:

That might work for restraining orders, but not removal of constitutional rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom