Police May Confiscate Guns without Notice to Owner
Mar 21, 2016 12:30:03 GMT -6
Nugget, 727sky, and 3 more like this
Post by Rickster on Mar 21, 2016 12:30:03 GMT -6
SOURCE:
So read paragraph 3 a couple of times. How many times have you heard some family member had a big fight over nothing and now they are suing over a dog, or how bad are some divorces? They don't even have to hear from the gun owner.Oh and lets not use the word confiscate!! This is who we fight every day the left and their continued advance towards total confiscation. They actually say confiscation is what they want.
So glad I left CA. this is over the top and highly unconstitutional and I am sure will be tested in court wasting thousands of tax payers dollars.
"Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.
This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.
According to KPCC, 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.”
This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.
According to KPCC, 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.”
So read paragraph 3 a couple of times. How many times have you heard some family member had a big fight over nothing and now they are suing over a dog, or how bad are some divorces? They don't even have to hear from the gun owner.Oh and lets not use the word confiscate!! This is who we fight every day the left and their continued advance towards total confiscation. They actually say confiscation is what they want.
"KPCC reports that “California law already bans people from possessing guns if they’ve committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.” And now, with GVROs, California law allows judges to bar people from possessing guns even if they have not committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed. Because of this, Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes warns that GVROs “may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”