5 ms·

California and the Federal gov’t has a requirement that if you’re ever accused of domestic violence, you’re not allowed to be near any firearms unless the accus

by lazide 2y ago

California and the Federal gov’t has a requirement that if you’re ever accused of domestic violence, you’re not allowed to be near any firearms unless the accusations have been withdrawn or found without basis. (Notably, it is a very low bar for them to be found as having a basis. The standard is literally ‘could have possibly happened/occurred’, not did or beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) Practically in California, you’re required to turn them all in for storage or sell them within 24 hrs of being served - either selling them to a dealer or turning them in to the cops or to a very hard to find, expensive, and specialized type of gun dealer who doesn’t advertise. Keep in mind - accused - not a finding of or anything - and the court is happy to issue these orders ex-parte based off accusations which the impacted party has no chance to rebut or is necessarily even aware of at the time the order is issued. And the bar to issue it is very, very low. The accusations don’t even need to make sense or be supported by any police calls or the like. In theory? Fine. In practice, a very common abuse and harassment tactic. Or actually necessary. If you can’t find the specialized type of dealer and get him everything within 24 hrs, and can’t sell everything for penny’s on the dollar to a standard gun dealer in time, then you have to turn them into the cops. Or be committing a felony. Oh and the court will demand proof when you go to reply to/contest the emergency order that you did everything within the requisite amount of time, and did indeed turn everything in. In Santa Clara county - among others - apparently the cops will also never actually return the guns to you either. Because ‘it would look bad if you then used them in a crime’. Yes, this is clearly against the law. They DGAF. There are multiple outstanding lawsuits against them for this, last I checked, but the courts keep putting them on the back burner as after the Judge Persky recall no one wants to be involved in anything like this in the current political climate. They’d much rather drag it out for years or even decades over procedural matters. Even if it’s really clear what the legal thing to do is. One or two guns, not a lot of money. But folks with collections? Better not piss off anyone you’re living with.

tekknik 2y ago
It doesn’t even have to be someone you’re living with unfortunately.
bambax 2y ago
Well, maybe people should not own guns. At all. Any gun, let alone "a collection".
- lazide 2y ago
  Why allow anyone to own anything? In this case, while it may (temporarily) remove (if the party is willing to follow the law!) one method of domestic violence, it’s not like it’s hard to come up with alternatives. In many parts of the world, the preferred method of domestic violence is throwing acid on someone’s face. The concern here is abuse of due process, and that it’s so trivial to take away someones rights and property using falsehoods and BS bureacracy, while also not actually solving any of the underlying problems. Since, for instance, if that emergency order was for someone who actually was a problem, they still have a full day to go after whoever while still legally owning everything, and if they go on the run, it’s not like they care about another felony!
  - bambax 2y ago
    I'm not defending the police, or forfeiture laws; I'm just surprised one would use guns as an example, because it's still so surprising to me, as a European, that people would have guns in their homes like it's the most natural thing in the world. Guns are dangerous -- in fact they don't have any other purpose beyond inflicting harm (unlike other dangerous things such as cars or drugs, etc.) I'm aware of the 2nd amendment, but firearms don't look like a good rhetorical argument in a discussion about property.
    - lazide 2y ago
      In the US it is, clearly. And statistically, very very very few guns kill people. The US has well over 300 million, and it is far from the top cause of death or serious injury. If anything, a collection of them is even less likely to be dangerous, no? Since if someone is collecting something, they tend to be familiar with it and are putting effort into keeping it safe and in good condition. Even Germany allows gun collections, albeit with a mind blowing amount of paperwork. And they are worth money. And prone to people trying to grab/forfeit/confiscate.

by lazide 2y ago

tekknik 2y ago

It doesn’t even have to be someone you’re living with unfortunately.

bambax 2y ago

Well, maybe people should not own guns. At all. Any gun, let alone "a collection".

lazide 2y ago
Why allow anyone to own anything? In this case, while it may (temporarily) remove (if the party is willing to follow the law!) one method of domestic violence, it’s not like it’s hard to come up with alternatives. In many parts of the world, the preferred method of domestic violence is throwing acid on someone’s face. The concern here is abuse of due process, and that it’s so trivial to take away someones rights and property using falsehoods and BS bureacracy, while also not actually solving any of the underlying problems. Since, for instance, if that emergency order was for someone who actually was a problem, they still have a full day to go after whoever while still legally owning everything, and if they go on the run, it’s not like they care about another felony!
- bambax 2y ago
  I'm not defending the police, or forfeiture laws; I'm just surprised one would use guns as an example, because it's still so surprising to me, as a European, that people would have guns in their homes like it's the most natural thing in the world. Guns are dangerous -- in fact they don't have any other purpose beyond inflicting harm (unlike other dangerous things such as cars or drugs, etc.) I'm aware of the 2nd amendment, but firearms don't look like a good rhetorical argument in a discussion about property.
  - lazide 2y ago
    In the US it is, clearly. And statistically, very very very few guns kill people. The US has well over 300 million, and it is far from the top cause of death or serious injury. If anything, a collection of them is even less likely to be dangerous, no? Since if someone is collecting something, they tend to be familiar with it and are putting effort into keeping it safe and in good condition. Even Germany allows gun collections, albeit with a mind blowing amount of paperwork. And they are worth money. And prone to people trying to grab/forfeit/confiscate.