Do you agree with California's new gun law(s)?

[Adelaide]

One of the most controversial new laws of 2016 will go into effect Friday in California, where the state will allow judges to seize guns from even law-abiding citizens if they are judged to be a risk to themselves or other people.

The legislation, introduced after Elliot Rodger killed six people in the Isla Vista massacre, near Santa Barbara, will allow authorities to seize a person's weapon for 21 days if a judge decides the potential for violence exists.


The law, known as the “gun violence restraining order” will allow family members and law enforcement to request an order from a judge to have guns removed from those seen as a danger.



New California law allows police to seize guns without notice - Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/31/new-california-law-allows-police-to-seize-guns-without-notice.html)

Do you agree with this law? Yes, no, or other and you will explain?

My issue is that this depends upon the system to be fair and balanced and I don't think it is - I don't know that we can trust judges to make fair decisions. I don't think we can trust that family members or police will always act in good faith. Otherwise, I can see the merits of a law like this. If someone is a danger to themselves or someone else then I agree that they should not have firearms until they are no longer a threat.

Honestly, I also think that it should really only be licensed medical professionals in psychiatry or psychology or even social work who work with the mentally ill that should be allowed to go to a judge and say someone should have their right to be armed removed.

So, your thoughts?

[Peter1469]

It goes too far. No notice to the person- lack of due process. Not enough safeguards.

It should be more like the current path of having someone declared mentally incompetent. With perhaps an exception of a treating shrink certifying that the person is a danger to himself and / or others. That would require a specific reporting requirement on shrinks via statute.

[donttread]

I do not agree with the law. Way too much room for abuse. If they are homocidal arrest them, if they are suicidal take them to mental health. If ya got nothin, leave em alone

[Mister D]

It goes too far. No notice to the person- lack of due process. Not enough safeguards.

It should be more like the current path of having someone declared mentally incompetent. With perhaps an exception of a treating shrink certifying that the person is a danger to himself and / or others. That would require a specific reporting requirement on shrinks via statute.

I'd imagine it would also deter people from seeking help for depression etc.

[PolWatch]

Many years ago it only took a family member or a person in authority going before a Probate Judge and swearing that a person was mentally incompetent. They then issued a mental warrant and the person was picked up by the Sheriff's Dept. and committed for an indefinite period of observation. How well did this work? Not too well. The law was used by those who wanted to put people away for selfish reasons. It was intended to help people but was too easily used. I worked at a mental health center and was in charge of processing these people into the state hospital. I can't count the number of people who were committed that were in the middle of a divorce or an estate fight. The gun law is very similar and will probably be used the same way.

[donttread]

I'd imagine it would also deter people from seeking help for depression etc.

Yes

[Boris The Animal]

From a Constitutional POV, this is a clear 2A violation and will get struck down so fast it'll make your head spin.

[Bo-4]

I understand the hesitancy of some and potential for abuse but if it saves a few lives it may be worth a trial run.

If i tell friends or family members or posted threatening crap via social media (see vid) that i planned to kill myself or do harm to others - i'd hope one of them would report it.

Cries for help should be heeded and acted upon by others.

They should have snagged Elliot Rodger's gun and given him some psych assistance and evaluation - bet the families of the six people he killed would concur.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu6NKHtLzks

[Peter1469]

When that came out I thought it was a spoof.


I understand the hesitancy of some and potential for abuse but if it saves a few lives it may be worth a trial run.

If i tell friends or family members or posted threatening crap via social media (see vid) that i planned to kill myself or do harm to others - i'd hope one of them would report it.

Cries for help should be heeded and acted upon by others.

They should have snagged Elliot Rodger's gun and given him some psych assistance and evaluation - bet the families of the six people he killed would concur.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu6NKHtLzks

[HoneyBadger]

Gotta love leftists. They're all about "guilty until proven innocent".

[silvereyes]

Gotta love leftists. They're all about "guilty until proven innocent".

Um what? What the HELL is that hackery shit supposed to mean?

[Mac-7]

We should treat illegal aliens the same way

Deport them without a hearing

[Green Arrow]

No, I don't support it, for the reasons both Adelaide and Peter1469 mentioned.

[Don]

Too many ways it could and probably would be abused. There are some people who might think the very fact you possess a firearm makes you mentally unbalanced. They lump all gun owners into the group. These are the same people who think all guns are AR-15's. :shocked:

The lady who lives next door to me said her son in law had a scary looking AR-15. I showed her a Mini-14 and asked her if she thought it looked scary. She said no, it just looks like a rifle. I told her it was essentially the same gun as an AR-15.

[Bo-4]

When that came out I thought it was a spoof.

If it was a spoof, then it was a very SICK spoof @Peter.

C'mon .. does the first amendment give people the right to post crap like this (i'm going to slay ALL you sorority sisters - heheh) and then keep their guns after his Mom warned the cops and they were hand-tied?

I say no.. a three week timeout with the firearm and some professional evaluation and guidance may have prevented this shit.

His videos really hit home for me. Foothills of Montecito, UCSB, and the beach right there in downtown Santa Barbara were too personal - my old stomping grounds.

And now it's too late to help him or any of the folks he traumatized and killed or their families.

[Bo-4]

We should treat illegal aliens the same way

Deport them without a hearing

Did you drink too much shine last night?

Seriously.

[Bo-4]

Too many ways it could and probably would be abused. There are some people who might think the very fact you possess a firearm makes you mentally unbalanced. They lump all gun owners into the group. These are the same people who think all guns are AR-15's. :shocked:

The lady who lives next door to me said her son in law had a scary looking AR-15. I showed her a Mini-14 and asked her if she thought it looked scary. She said no, it just looks like a rifle. I told her it was essentially the same gun as an AR-15.

Don Don DON .. a judge would NEVER act on such a tip .. please address the case that the new law is based upon.

Her kid says threatening things and posts a video promising to shoot up a sorority to make girls pay for not being interested in him.

TOTALLY different my friend.

[HoneyBadger]

Um what? What the HELL is that hackery shit supposed to mean?

It's supposed to mean exactly what it said. Leftists don't give a shit about the rule of law. You don't see the right going on and on about punishing speech or using the government to persecute political ideology. The left, on the other hand, has made it their goal in life to invent rights via judicial fiat while attempting to limit or eradicate actual constitutionally protected rights.

[Bo-4]

It's supposed to mean exactly what it said. Leftists don't give a shit about the rule of law. You don't see the right going on and on about punishing speech or using the government to persecute political ideology. The left, on the other hand, has made it their goal in life to invent rights via judicial fiat while attempting to limit or eradicate actual constitutionally protected rights.

Nonsense at best ..

[Peter1469]

It turned out to be real.

I don't think the First Amendment protects that sort of speech.


If it was a spoof, then it was a very SICK spoof @Peter.

C'mon .. does the first amendment give people the right to post crap like this (i'm going to slay ALL you sorority sisters - heheh) and then keep their guns after his Mom warned the cops and they were hand-tied?

I say no.. a three week timeout with the firearm and some professional evaluation and guidance may have prevented this shit.

His videos really hit home for me. Foothills of Montecito, UCSB, and the beach right there in downtown Santa Barbara were too personal - my old stomping grounds.

And now it's too late to help him or any of the folks he traumatized and killed or their families.

[Bo-4]

I'd imagine it would also deter people from seeking help for depression etc.

My friend, it would do no such thing.

Please watch this video and tell me why his own MOTHER would be wrong in reporting him, or the cops would be wrong to snag his gun for a time and provide psych assistance.

NO judge wouldn't even CONSIDER such an order if things had not degraded to this point.

Elliot posted this the day prior to shooting and safe to say that MANY people saw it, yet the cops can do NOTHING?

Please join me in calling BS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8syYRKjb6o

[Tahuyaman]

It goes too far. No notice to the person- lack of due process. Not enough safeguards.

It should be more like the current path of having someone declared mentally incompetent. With perhaps an exception of a treating shrink certifying that the person is a danger to himself and / or others. That would require a specific reporting requirement on shrinks via statute.


I agree. When you give government the power to bypass the concept of due process and abuse the rights of others, they will do just that.

[Bo-4]

It turned out to be real.

I don't think the First Amendment protects that sort of speech.

Ba-Da-Boom

The vid i posted earlier was too long. This was the day prior .. it WAS reported and yet cops can do NOTHING?

I'd have been on him like stink on crap (assuming legal to do so).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8syYRKjb6o

[Tahuyaman]

That dude looks oddly similar to another youngster here who says he's a college student

[Bo-4]

That dude looks oddly similar to another youngster here who says he's a college student

Scraping the bottom again?

Sad Man :(

[Tahuyaman]

Scraping the bottom again?

Sad Man :(


You automatically think the worst case scenario in everything.


Sad Man.

[zelmo1234]

This law will be challenged quickly in the courts. They just need someone with Standing. It has issues with two amendments The 2nd is very clear but is has issues with due process as well. and possible illegal search and seizure.

Lower court will kill it, the ninth circus will uphold it and Supreme will likely shoot it down.

[Mister D]

My friend, it would do no such thing.

Please watch this video and tell me why his own MOTHER would be wrong in reporting him, or the cops would be wrong to snag his gun for a time and provide psych assistance.

NO judge wouldn't even CONSIDER such an order if things had not degraded to this point.

Elliot posted this the day prior to shooting and safe to say that MANY people saw it, yet the cops can do NOTHING?

Please join me in calling BS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8syYRKjb6o

What does the video have to do with what I suspect? I agree about this dude. If I observe the gradual mental breakdown of someone I'd like to think I'd be inclined to mention it to someone. That said, I think people would keep the possible legal consequences of seeking help in mind. That's not a good thing.

[domer76]

Sounds good to me. 21 days.

[domer76]

Many years ago it only took a family member or a person in authority going before a Probate Judge and swearing that a person was mentally incompetent. They then issued a mental warrant and the person was picked up by the Sheriff's Dept. and committed for an indefinite period of observation. How well did this work? Not too well. The law was used by those who wanted to put people away for selfish reasons. It was intended to help people but was too easily used. I worked at a mental health center and was in charge of processing these people into the state hospital. I can't count the number of people who were committed that were in the middle of a divorce or an estate fight. The gun law is very similar and will probably be used the same way.

People aren't being committed here. There is a 21 day period.

[Fagan_the_Pagan]

I believe that there is a need for better gun regulations. I do NOT believe that this is it. I have yet to see the details of the law, but based on the information provided, this seems very easy to abuse.

[Green Arrow]

The vote tally looks inappropriate.
Captain Obvious

[Captain Obvious]

The vote tally looks inappropriate.
@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)

wot...

[Green Arrow]

wot...

You don't see it? Maybe I'm just tired...

[Captain Obvious]

You don't see it? Maybe I'm just tired...

I don't see it.

I haven't been following the thread.

[Green Arrow]

I don't see it.

I haven't been following the thread.

The shape of the poll results.

It looks like a rather large and erect rod.

[Captain Obvious]

The shape of the poll results.

It looks like a rather large and erect rod.

http://i.imgur.com/rbUM3.gif

[ThaiBoxer]

Gotta love leftists. They're all about "guilty until proven innocent".

Like the Syrian refugees?

[Bo-4]

Many years ago it only took a family member or a person in authority going before a Probate Judge and swearing that a person was mentally incompetent. They then issued a mental warrant and the person was picked up by the Sheriff's Dept. and committed for an indefinite period of observation. How well did this work? Not too well. The law was used by those who wanted to put people away for selfish reasons. It was intended to help people but was too easily used. I worked at a mental health center and was in charge of processing these people into the state hospital. I can't count the number of people who were committed that were in the middle of a divorce or an estate fight. The gun law is very similar and will probably be used the same way.

If there WERE a divorce or estate fight involved, one would think that the judge would require a higher burden of proof.

You know, something like a threatening email, social media post or recorded phone conversation.

Am i wrong?

[zelmo1234]

Like the Syrian refugees?

Once again, we have a leftist that wants to give constitutional rights to anyone and everyone, except Law abiding Americans.

Syrians Refugee's don't have constitutional rights.

[Adelaide]

It's interesting that most people, left and right, seem against this law.

I have to give California credit though - I don't agree with the law for quite a few reasons but they're trying to address the mental health aspect and provide a way to ensure someone who is mentally ill and a danger can't have a firearm while they are dangerous. But, I agree with many of the posts. I don't think this law will stay up for long since it violates the 2nd. I think there are flaws in how it has been set up.

[Mac-7]

Like the Syrian refugees?

They aren't Americans and are not entitled to the same rights we have

[domer76]

They aren't Americans and are not entitled to the same rights we have

As usual, you are ignorant of the Constitution.

[Green Arrow]

They aren't Americans and are not entitled to the same rights we have

That idea goes against everything the founders believed.

[ThaiBoxer]

Once again, we have a leftist that wants to give constitutional rights to anyone and everyone, except Law abiding Americans.

Syrians Refugee's don't have constitutional rights.

What does that have to do with anything? He said people shouldn't be deemed guilty until proven innocent. He's a hypocrite

[zelmo1234]

What does that have to do with anything? He said people shouldn't be deemed guilty until proven innocent. He's a hypocrite

First please look up what he really said, which is right in line with the FBI's position.

Stop Islamic immigration until we can figure out how to do it safely. that is not stupid or racist it is common sense.

Second, the constitution applies to Citizens of the USA not of Syria. If they want to come to the USA then they need to play by our rules.

[Peter1469]

It's interesting that most people, left and right, seem against this law.

I have to give California credit though - I don't agree with the law for quite a few reasons but they're trying to address the mental health aspect and provide a way to ensure someone who is mentally ill and a danger can't have a firearm while they are dangerous. But, I agree with many of the posts. I don't think this law will stay up for long since it violates the 2nd. I think there are flaws in how it has been set up.

Bein g pro-gun in America is bipartisan. That really ticks off the gun-grabbers. They have zero political power.

[Peter1469]

As usual, you are ignorant of the Constitution.

That may be, but he is correct about Syrian refugees. The Constitution will only apply to them when they step foot in the US. A good reason to just say no.

[Tahuyaman]

What does that have to do with anything? He said people shouldn't be deemed guilty until proven innocent. He's a hypocrite

Isn't that something? This guy has the ability to misunderstand just about anything.

[ThaiBoxer]

First please look up what he really said, which is right in line with the FBI's position.

Stop Islamic immigration until we can figure out how to do it safely. that is not stupid or racist it is common sense.

It's bigoted and xenophobic


Second, the constitution applies to Citizens of the USA not of Syria. If they want to come to the USA then they need to play by our rules.

It applies to everyone within our borders

[ThaiBoxer]

Isn't that something? This guy has the ability to misunderstand just about anything.

You can't understand anything. Why don't you go back to your 30 page thread and keep arguing about how trickle down economic theory isn't real.

[Tahuyaman]

You can't understand anything. Why don't you go back to your 30 page thread and keep arguing about how trickle down economic theory isn't real.


Get a clue young feller. You are bringing discredit upon the younger generation.

thank goodness for William. He gives me hope that the future won't be left in the hands of morons.

[domer76]

That may be, but he is correct about Syrian refugees. The Constitution will only apply to them when they step foot in the US. A good reason to just say no.

That's not what he said though, was it?

[Green Arrow]

That may be, but he is correct about Syrian refugees. The Constitution will only apply to them when they step foot in the US. A good reason to just say no.

I have never bought that argument. The founders believed that the rights enshrined in the constitution were universal rights that belonged to all humans by virtue of birth. Freedom isn't something that only belongs to Americans.

[Peter1469]

I have never bought that argument. The founders believed that the rights enshrined in the constitution were universal rights that belonged to all humans by virtue of birth. Freedom isn't something that only belongs to Americans.

I agree with you. I only meant that is what current case law says.

[Cletus]

I have never bought that argument. The founders believed that the rights enshrined in the constitution were universal rights that belonged to all humans by virtue of birth. Freedom isn't something that only belongs to Americans.

The concept, yes. Peter however, is right about the Constitution only being binding on those within the jurisdiction of the United States, not necessarily CONUS, but where the US claims jurisdiction.

[Mister D]

I have never bought that argument. The founders believed that the rights enshrined in the constitution were universal rights that belonged to all humans by virtue of birth. Freedom isn't something that only belongs to Americans.

This is where the impact of Christianity has been most deleterious to the state but our militant atheists remain oblivious.

[silvereyes]

It's supposed to mean exactly what it said. Leftists don't give a shit about the rule of law. You don't see the right going on and on about punishing speech or using the government to persecute political ideology. The left, on the other hand, has made it their goal in life to invent rights via judicial fiat while attempting to limit or eradicate actual constitutionally protected rights.

Hey, sugarpuss, do me a huge and never, ever presume to know what I give a fucking shit about, 'mkay? That will save you tons humiliation. But the good news is that you still win hackery shitfest award. Congrats.

Bless yer presumptuous heart.

Toodles sugarpuss.

[silvereyes]

Once again, we have a leftist that wants to give constitutional rights to anyone and everyone, except Law abiding Americans.

Syrians Refugee's don't have constitutional rights.

Neither did our ancestors when.they arrived on this rock.

[silvereyes]

That idea goes against everything the founders believed.
Thank you thank you thank you.

I want to know when people became the "turn around we don't want you here" society?

Sad.

[Tahuyaman]

Neither did our ancestors when.they arrived on this rock.

just an FYI. There was no United States of America or a US Constituion then.

[birddog]

New gun laws, state or federal, do not address the underlying needs.

[TrueBlue]

Yes I do agree with California's new gun law as that is the prudent thing to do for a judge to decide whether the citizen is a danger to him/herself or others and then remove their weapon(s) if they are found to be.

In other news, Texas, the red state, has enacted a new right to carry gun law. That is to say that people can now openly carry guns on their person where everyone can see them instead of the former way where they could only carry them if they were concealed. Already that is causing great controversy as some businesses, including schools, simply refuse to admit anyone who carries a gun into their establishment and they are obviously doing the right thing. It can be pretty scary for many people to see individuals walk into a store or other business where you are shopping or even in a restaurant or school and they are carrying a gun where you can see it. It can be pretty nerve-wrecking as their first thought is that the person could be mentally unstable and could start shooting the place or people at any time as has happened many times before. That is a pretty scary thought. But that's Texas for you and other states as well. Kissing the Second Amendment while there will undoubtedly be many who will be carrying weapons who have absolutely no business doing so due to their mental condition or past criminal history. After all, there isn't enough police to stop each one carrying a gun to check them out to see if they are stable enough to be carrying them. Therein lies the problem. Guess that is simply an open invitation and giving license to more shootings, most unfortunately. I hope that never does happen though. But if it does, who else can we blame but state government.

And just look at what is happening right now in Oregon where a militia has taken over a Federal government building and refuses to leave unless two guys are set free. What needs to obviously happen in that case is for the governor to order the State Police or National Guard to go in there and arrest those who have taken over the Federal building. And if the governor refuses to do that then the President should order the military to go in and arrest the perpetrators to teach them a good hard lesson that they can't just go in and take over a Federal or any government building for that matter to use as they so desire. That is just not how things are done in this country and they need to be called on the carpet for it and strict sanctions imposed.

[Peter1469]

How many criminals open carry? If you see some one open carry, you very most likely are safe. :wink:

[Tahuyaman]

The law is too arbitrary and open for abuse. No one, not even the most liberal among us should be supporting it.

[Tahuyaman]

Yes I do agree with California's new gun law as that is the prudent thing to do for a judge to decide whether the citizen is a danger to him/herself or others and then remove their weapon(s) if they are found to be.

In other news, Texas, the red state, has enacted a new right to carry gun law. That is to say that people can now openly carry guns on their person where everyone can see them instead of the former way where they could only carry them if they were concealed. Already that is causing great controversy as some businesses, including schools, simply refuse to admit anyone who carries a gun into their establishment and they are obviously doing the right thing. It can be pretty scary for many people to see individuals walk into a store or other business where you are shopping or even in a restaurant or school and they are carrying a gun where you can see it. It can be pretty nerve-wrecking as their first thought is that the person could be mentally unstable and could start shooting the place or people at any time as has happened many times before. That is a pretty scary thought. But that's Texas for you and other states as well. Kissing the Second Amendment while there will undoubtedly be many who will be carrying weapons who have absolutely no business doing so due to their mental condition or past criminal history. After all, there isn't enough police to stop each one carrying a gun to check them out to see if they are stable enough to be carrying them. Therein lies the problem. Guess that is simply an open invitation and giving license to more shootings, most unfortunately. I hope that never does happen though. But if it does, who else can we blame but state government.

And just look at what is happening right now in Oregon where a militia has taken over a Federal government building and refuses to leave unless two guys are set free. What needs to obviously happen in that case is for the governor to order the State Police or National Guard to go in there and arrest those who have taken over the Federal building. And if the governor refuses to do that then the President should order the military to go in and arrest the perpetrators to teach them a good hard lesson that they can't just go in and take over a Federal or any government building for that matter to use as they so desire. That is just not how things are done in this country and they need to be called on the carpet for it and strict sanctions imposed.


Wow. That is a frightening position. Wow.....

[Truth Detector]

New California law allows police to seize guns without notice - Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/31/new-california-law-allows-police-to-seize-guns-without-notice.html)

Do you agree with this law? Yes, no, or other and you will explain?

My issue is that this depends upon the system to be fair and balanced and I don't think it is - I don't know that we can trust judges to make fair decisions. I don't think we can trust that family members or police will always act in good faith. Otherwise, I can see the merits of a law like this. If someone is a danger to themselves or someone else then I agree that they should not have firearms until they are no longer a threat.

Honestly, I also think that it should really only be licensed medical professionals in psychiatry or psychology or even social work who work with the mentally ill that should be allowed to go to a judge and say someone should have their right to be armed removed.

So, your thoughts?

This is an abridgment of our second amendment. I don't see how it will hold if challenged and sent to the Supreme Court.

[Truth Detector]

I understand the hesitancy of some and potential for abuse but if it saves a few lives it may be worth a trial run.

Rescinding the Constitution and eliminating our liberties would save a lot of lives too; as would living in a bubble.

No thank you; I am weary of the "save a few lives" argument for the sake of giving up liberty and rights.

[Truth Detector]

I believe that there is a need for better gun regulations. I do NOT believe that this is it. I have yet to see the details of the law, but based on the information provided, this seems very easy to abuse.

Please explain to me what criminals abide by gun regulations.....I am all eyes.

[Tahuyaman]

Rescinding the Constitution and eliminating our liberties would save a lot of lives too; as would living in a bubble.

No thank you; I am weary of the "save a few lives" argument for the sake of giving up liberty and rights.

too many people fall for the emotional plea....." If it only save one child....."

[Tahuyaman]

Please explain to me what criminals abide by gun regulations.....I am all eyes.

Better question. Which laws to outlaws obey?

[Truth Detector]

Wow. That is a frightening position. Wow.....

It's only okay to take over buildings in their minds if they are leftist whackos.

Protestors Take State Capital in Wisconsin
http://abcnews.go.com/US/protestors-state-capitol-wisconsin/story?id=12947666

Student protesters taking over the buildings at Columbia University
https://prezi.com/bt75btwdqzsb/student-protesters-taking-over-the-buildings-at-columbia-university/

Occupy protesters take over UBS building
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/sign-in?rtn=business-news/occupy-london/occupy-protesters-take-over-ubs-building/1062.article

[Truth Detector]

too many people fall for the emotional plea....." If it only save one child....."

Except when it comes to abortions; then the same lefties believe that you can kill as many unborn as you want.

[Tahuyaman]

Except when it comes to abortions; then the same lefties believe that you can kill as many unborn as you want.


Youre right. I wasn't considering that hyporcicy.

[Truth Detector]

Two more "other" votes and it will look like someone flipping the bird....which is what many feel about this law.

[ThaiBoxer]

The law is too arbitrary and open for abuse. No one, not even the most liberal among us should be supporting it.

If it gets more guns off the streets I have no problem with it.

[Tahuyaman]

But it doesn't. Guns won't be taken away from the people on the streets killing others for criminal purposes.

[Tahuyaman]

too many people fall for the emotional plea....." If it only save one child....."


And someone one pipes up and verifies that comment

[Safety]

How many criminals open carry? If you see some one open carry, you very most likely are safe. :wink:

That depends if you are 12 but "look older".....

[Tahuyaman]

That depends if you are 12 but "look older".....


Thats a pretty crafty dodge of the question.

[Safety]

Thats a pretty crafty dodge of the question.

Thanks, I was pretty proud of it myself.

[Tahuyaman]

Thanks, I was pretty proud of it myself.


I'm surprised you didn't tag me with a warning for taunting you after that one.

[Safety]

I'm surprised you didn't tag me with a warning for taunting you after that one.

That's not how it works.

[Tahuyaman]

That's not how it works.

since when does that matter?

[Professor Peabody]

New California law allows police to seize guns without notice - Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/31/new-california-law-allows-police-to-seize-guns-without-notice.html)

Do you agree with this law? Yes, no, or other and you will explain?

My issue is that this depends upon the system to be fair and balanced and I don't think it is - I don't know that we can trust judges to make fair decisions. I don't think we can trust that family members or police will always act in good faith. Otherwise, I can see the merits of a law like this. If someone is a danger to themselves or someone else then I agree that they should not have firearms until they are no longer a threat.

Honestly, I also think that it should really only be licensed medical professionals in psychiatry or psychology or even social work who work with the mentally ill that should be allowed to go to a judge and say someone should have their right to be armed removed.

So, your thoughts?

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause, California's law will be knocked down the instant it's challenged.

[Tahuyaman]

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause, California's law will be knocked down the instant it's challenged.

I'm not so sure about that one. I don't have much confidence that the Supreme Court has as much respect for the constitution as you think.

[Adelaide]

I'm not so sure about that one. I don't have much confidence that the Supreme Court has as much respect for the constitution as you think.

The US Supreme Court is so political... I hate to make the comparison because I know it grates on Americans, but the Supreme Court up in Canada is completely different. I don't know their political leanings. It doesn't really matter who appointed them. They vote based on the Constitutionality of something, not because they do or don't support a political goal. Rarely can you pick which Justices will vote based on their personal politics, if ever. Usually Canadians know how they'll vote on something because we understand our Constitution and Charter.

It's always seemed fucked up to me that you know which US justices are liberal or conservative.

Because of that, I think they have the potential to seriously fuck up the United States with their politics.

[Tahuyaman]

The US Supreme Court has always been political and always will be. However, we now have justices on our Supreme Court who actually have cited European law to support their decisions. Some justices on our Supreme Court have little to no respect for their true purpose.

we also gave a president who views himself as a king instead of a president. He obviously believes the constitution is something which doesn't place any obstacles in his path to rule as a king would.

[Peter1469]

Justices who lean left are likely to believe that the Constitution is a living document- a concept that makes the document "fluid."

Justices who lean right are more likely to hold to the text or to the original meaning (with Amendments and case law).