Moonbeam Brown Signs Gun Law, Family Members Have Constitutional Power Over You In California

[JakeStarkey]

Your comparison is illogical, turtle, thus it does not count.

 

[turtledude]

Your comparison is illogical, turtle, thus it does not count.

you are not smart enough to tell me what is illogical and thus you do not matter

rid this forum of your illogical presence

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Moonbeam Brown Signs Gun Law, Family Members Have Constitutional Power Over You In California"

This doesn't make any sense, no one 'possesses' 'Constitutional power,' whatever that's supposed to mean, neither a family member nor anyone else.


Otherwise, there's nothing about the law that is in any way 'un-Constitutional,' or in 'violation' of the Second Amendment:


“California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.


Under the California bill, whoever seeks the restraining order would have to sign an affidavit under oath. If they lie, they could be charged with a misdemeanor.

A court hearing would be held within 14 days after the restraining order is granted to give the gun owner a chance to argue there is no danger.”

Gov. Jerry Brown Signs California Gun Restriction - ABC News



What part of ask a judge does the OP and those on the right who agree with him not understand?

What part of a court hearing does the OP and those on the right who agree with him not understand?

The law affords gun owners ample and comprehensive due process rights, where a restraining order must be authorized by a neutral magistrate, where the gun owner is allowed to contest the order in a fair hearing, and where the burden of proof rests with those seeking the restraining order to demonstrate the gun owner is unfit to possess firearms.

The inane 'argument' that family members would 'abuse' this law by capriciously taking from a gun owner his firearms against his will absent reasonable cause fails as a slippery slope fallacy, as a judge would not sign off on such an order absent compelling, objective evidence, such as medical records documenting a history of mental illness.


This is yet another failed attempt by the right to take a non-issue and contrive it into a controversy that does not exist for purely partisan reasons.