The Liberal Gun Club Forum

...pioneers gun violence prevention

"The parents identified this risk, and—my goodness—they were taking some really bold steps to try to prevent what happened, but it wasn't enough," said Shannon Frattaroli, a gun violence prevention researcher at Johns Hopkins University. "They didn't have enough tools at their disposal to prevent that new purchase."

Frattaroli is a coauthor on a new paper in the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law, which advocates for a new option for parents like Loughner's: gun violence restraining orders (GVRO). Like a domestic violence restraining order, GVROs give families an option to petition a court when they fear the actions of a loved one.

In September 2014, California became the first state to establish a GVRO system. When the law comes into effect in 2016, immediate family members and domestic partners will be able to petition courts to have guns removed from those they fear may act in violence, and prohibit them from purchasing firearms for the length of the restraining order. Law enforcement officers also will be able to request GVROs. Initial restraining orders will last up to 21 days, but can be extended to one year.

This again is treating the Second Amendment as if it’s just some kind of second-class right, not worthy of the protections afforded to other rights.

Given that we know many judges are hostile and dismissive of Second Amendment rights, I predict there will be a large number of judges who will act as a rubber stamp for these GVROs. Keep in mind, these can be issued without the accused having the opportunity to appear or be represented counsel in an adversarial hearing. This is not due process, which should be required to deny someone a fundamental right.

I get that California enacted stiff penalties for false accusers, but the penalties mean nothing. I don’t believe the vast majority of false accusers will ever be charged. It’ll be a case of “he said, she said,” and prosecutors will understandably be reluctant to take the cases to trial on flimsy evidence. Let us not also discount the general hostility big city prosecutors have toward gun ownership in the first place, who might not be too sympathetic to a person petitioning them to charge a person who made a false accusation that got his or her guns taken away.

GVROs will be abused. It’s naive to think otherwise.

JinxRemoving wrote:Being pretty far Left, one thing that annoys me like no other is when people cloak their cowardice and desperate need to be catered to in some sort of quasi-progressive clothing.

There is a huge difference between progressive, liberal, and committed to social justice, and being spoiled, entitled, and chickenshit about preservation of rights over your own mild discomfort.

What's good, Whole Foods crowd?

Under the new law, a restraining order could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” said Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

After three weeks, the person can challenge the judge’s decision.