The Road To Hell

After Attack Near Campus, California Weighs Gun Bill - NYTimes.com:
(May 28, 2014)

LOS ANGELES — Just days after a 22-year-old killed six college students and himself near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, state lawmakers are championing legislation that would permit law enforcement officials and private individuals to seek a restraining order from a judge that would keep people with a potential propensity for violence from buying or owning a gun. The process would be similar to the one currently used for restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.

This is not a surprising response to yet another massacre.   And on the surface, it sounds like a "Reasonable Restriction" on firearms ownership.  We all know that there are people out there who are too loony, or too out-of-control, to be trusted with a firearm.

Who decides who they are?

Assuming that this legislation is accepted and enacted .. who has the time to review each 'restraining order' to determine its validity?

But California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, could go even further. The legislation, known as a gun violence restraining order, would allow people to notify courts or law enforcement officials if they are concerned that a family member or friend is at risk of committing violence. Gun control advocates have recently started pushing for such restraining orders in statehouses across the nation, expanding on similar laws that have passed in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas.

Oh.  Right.  A "family member", or a "friend".

Who vets these people, who call themselves "friends" of the accused?  Is there a judicial hearing involved?  Are witnesses called?   Who speaks for the accused?

Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the California Senate, said in an interview on Wednesday that he was not familiar with the details of the restraining order legislation, though he foresaw concerns being raised about civil liberties. Such a bill “would have to be very carefully crafted, because you do not want the law to get into the middle, or just to be used as a pretext or excuse for leverage in an intergenerational family fight,” he said. “You could see the potential for abuse.”

On the other hand, Mr. Steinberg said: “There might be circumstances where it is appropriate for this additional protection. I think this is worthy of a real serious conversation.”

[emphasis added]

Well, finally somebody speaks up (however he qualifies his warning) about the possibility for abuse of this measure.

Abuse?  Oh my yes.

A very close friend of mine was married to a lady who had 'issues'.   She once pulled a gun on him in their home, and threatened to shoot him.  Subsequently, she spent time as a resident at a "mental health care institute", and was later released.

Later, she died.

But ... weeks after the death of his wife, my friend was visited at his office by a Deputy Sheriff.  He was served with a restraining order.  Under state law, any person can initiate a restraining order upon their spouse without need to prove claims of abuse, or any other situation on which the restraining order has been based.

My friend objected; he noted that his wife was dead.  The Deputy replied: "It doesn't matter.  You got to sign the order anyway."    As it seemed to be a moot point, my friend signed the order and the Deputy left.   There were no subsequent consequences.



To recap: out of pique, and perhaps emotional issues, she had filed a restraining order on him.  And it was served after her death.  The mill of "justice" grinds slow, but it grinds exceedingly fine.

---

Consider if the California Restraining Order had been in effect at the time.

There were no firearms in the home; he had taken them with him when he moved out.  Yet if he lived in California, and this bill had become law, the police might have required to invade his place of residence, impound his firearms, and nobody knows at this time what other restrictions might have been imposed upon him.

My friend had never been arrested, or charged with anything more serious than a minor traffic ticket.  He had been a responsible member of his community for twenty years.  He was working in the same job for the twenty years he lived in the community.

Yet, under this bill he might have been subjected to arbitrary impoundment of his property and other restrictions which have yet to be defined.

It would have been a vindictive act, and unless the California bill is loaded with a TON of

I'm doubtful of the value of an enhanced Restraining Order law.

I'm also glad that I am not married, and that I do not live in California.

The Road to Hell is paved with "Good Intentions".