California Law Will Allow "Gun Restraining Orders" Without Due Process


All around the planet, people dream of moving to that great and shining beacon of freedom, America.

And where do they all want to go? Why, the most famous place in the country, maybe second only to New York: LA, baby!


Sadly, California is not at all representative of the U.S. Many venture across the ocean, only to never discover the nation to which they migrated.

For example, America is largely pro-gun and anti-weed. The golden state? Not so much.

As part of that cultural contrast:

On Monday, the California Assembly approved a bill that will grant employers, co-workers, and school staff the right to make the confiscatory version of a citizen’s arrest: they can report an individual who, they’ve determined, should have their guns taken away from them.

Bill AB 2888 will augment the 2014 “red flag” law which allows relatives, roommates, and police officers to petition the court to seize firearms from those engaging in suspicious behavior. Subsequently, a judge decides whether to forcibly remove the person’s guns. The confiscation period can last a year or longer.

Under the new bill, the list of people who can file to have someone’s guns taken away is expanded to include employees at high schools.

Perhaps that sounds like a good idea, given all the talk of warning signs from recent mass shooters.

However, what about civil rights? The bill seems like an open invitation to a great big mess, whereby bullies, those with personal vendettas, or irrational alarmists may severely encroach upon law-abiding citizens and the freedoms they are guaranteed by the Constitution:


“An immediate family member, an employer, a coworker, an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months, or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.”

Mass shootings take away the rights of the citizenry to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we face that impediment to freedom, in my view, hastily threatening the rights of others is not the proper way to fight it.

Since 2016, the original red flag law has resulted in 190 confiscations.

If the new bill sounds reasonable to you, perhaps consider this exchange during debate in the State Assembly between Republican Jim Patterson and the bill’s architect, Democrat Phil Ting:


Jim Patterson: Mr. Ting, is the American Civil Liberties Union still currently opposed to this bill?

Phil Ting: I believe so.

Jim Patterson: With that, I would just suggest that when the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union both are opposed to something, it’s probably something we ought to take a real long look at before we push the green button.

Do you agree with AB 2888? Please let me know in the Comments section below.

Also, check out my coverage of opposing views on the cause of mass shootings: the Left vs Oliver North.

And follow Alex Parker on Twitter.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos