AB 2888: losing more gun rights in California by "allegation"

And without due process. This is eligible for a vote in the California Senate.

Assembly Bill 2888, sponsored by Assembly Member Phillip Ting (D-19), would expand the list of those eligible to file gun violence restraining orders (called a GVRO) beyond the currently authorized reporters -- which typically include immediate family and law enforcement.  The new list is expanded to employers, coworkers and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months. GVRO’s can remove a person’s rights without due process and not because of a criminal conviction or mental adjudication, but based on third party allegations.

Read that again:

GVRO’s can remove a person’s rights without due process and not because of a criminal conviction or mental adjudication, but based on third party allegations. 

Allegations.

Verbiage from the bill itself:

AB 2888, as amended, Ting. Gun violence restraining orders.

Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. Existing law requires the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order. Existing law also authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. Existing law authorizes renewal of a gun violence restraining order within 3 months of the order’s expiration. Petitions for ex parte, one-year, and renewed gun violence restraining orders may be made by an immediate family member of the person or by a law enforcement officer.

This bill would similarly authorize, but not require, an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the last 6 months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.

"One year or renewed gun violence restraining order."

Let's now do what BZ calls the Logical Extension.

Have you ever heard of "SWATTING"?

It's a situation wherein people place a prank call to local 911 numbers in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a specific address -- a real address -- due to the severe described nature of the call. Sometimes even SWAT units themselves are sent. How are they to know until after their arrival and the situation is assessed?

 

Fast forward to the potential passage of AB 2888.

Imagine Leftists. Imagine Leftists know that _______ is a Conservative and may possess firearms because, perhaps, he or she has talked about hunting or target shooting at work.

Imagine that someone in the above categories -- a co-worker perhaps -- decides to inject their SJW or Progressive or Antifa or Socialist or Leftist beliefs into that person's life by making allegations.

You'll notice there are no consequences or actions delineated in the bill for those doing so. Law enforcement departments and District Attorney offices in California already wantonly fail to prosecute allegations of numerous crimes later proven to be false. Public Defenders call that a "chilling effect" in California. Gosh. Can't have people dissuaded from making false allegations of rape, other crimes or "weapons violations" in California, can we?

Imagine said Leftist placed a call alleging X, Y or Z about their Conservative co-worker.

 

How are these orders frequently acquired? No, not in court.

But over a telephonic device to judges on standby for such "exigent" calls. They are authorized verbally by the judge via a set of circumstances described over said telephonic device, customarily by peace officers who have been contacted and assigned the event. The order is valid "no later than 21 days" -- up to a period of one year.

Jackson Browne: "don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet."

California, Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots are coming for your firearms.

Make no mistake whatsoever.

And they couldn't care less what rights are trampled or who gets in their way.

BZ