The State of California just passed a bill that allows police or immediate family members to let the courts seize guns and ammunition of someone who is suspected of being a threat.
According to The Guardian, this law, passed last year but went into effect January 1st, has had lawmakers and pro-gun groups raise concerns about its effectivity.
It is modeled after firearms prohibitions in domestic violence restraining orders. It can allow law enforcement or "immediate family members" to seek a restraining order from a judge if they feel someone is a danger to themselves or to others. This would also land the individual in the state's do-not-buy-list thereby barring them from purchasing any firearm.
The new law defines "immediate family member" as a range of relatives which may or may not be related by blood. It also includes persons who are regularly living in the same house for the last six months.
The Guardian further reports that a proof of danger, to self or to others, must be presented by a petitioner to the court to secure the said restraining order. The petitioner must also prove the necessity of the restraining order with regards to the subject of the order from harming anyone. If granted, a judge can issue a temporary firearms restraining order within 24 hours and the subject must surrender his or her guns and ammunition within 24 hours after being served.
The judge can convene a hearing attended by both parties to decide whether to extend or terminate the order and return the subject's firearms and ammunition. The judge must review evidence which can include but not limited to written witness testimony, photos, damaged property and threatening messages before rendering a decision.
Meanwhile, Fox News shed some light on how this new law came to be. It was introduced by Democratic Assembly member Nancy Skinner and fellow Democrat Das Williams. It is seen as a pro-active response to the Isla Vista massacre where Elliot Rodger killed six people near San Bernardino.
Over at the Washington Times, Second Amendment advocates are up in arms and insist that adding legislation is not the answer since California has more than its fair share of restrictive gun rules. Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California thinks that this new law misses its mark and may jeopardize law-abiding gun owners.
Whether this law successfully curtails gun violence remains yet to be seen. Its implementation, however, give family members a mechanism for preventing violent rampages through the temporary confiscation of a subject's legally acquired weapons. After all, it is people closest to the perpetrator who is in the best position to notice red flags.
