in the same sentence but how often does that happen? Well, maybe a lot now that my hero, Gov Jerry Brown, has signed a bill that allows family members or law enforcement to ask a judge to seize guns from someone who is suspected of posing an immediate danger to himself or others.  

          Now that’s what I call leadership. (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Barry). This law has its genesis in the mass shooting last May  when a pathetic 22 year old fatally shot 3 people on a college campus. Usually we just wring hands at these tragedies and say how awful it is but California decided to take immediate action.

           The standard for “21 day emergency confiscation” is remarkably low.  All it takes is a signed affidavit under oath from a family member or LE alleging that the suspect “poses a significant danger, in the near future, of personal injury to himself… or another by …possessing…. a firearm” and that less restrictive alternatives –other than taking his guns - will not work.

          How do you know whether your son or brother poses a significant danger to shoot himself or others? Well, you can consider evidence that he threatened to use his gun; that he brandished the gun unlawfully in public, and even that he bought guns in the last 6 months.  

          All this is done ex parte – i.e, the guy with the gun is not consulted -(I love this). If the judge issues the order, the police show up at your door and confiscate your guns.

          Twenty days later there is a hearing where the family member or LE has to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence – but if they do so, your guns can be taken for a year. The suspect, of course, can present evidence that he just needs all those guns for self defense.  

          Is the statute constitutional? Let’s not worry about that. The bottom line is that Minority Report is coming true- in California, based on a complaint by private citizens, you can lose your guns BEFORE you commit the crime

Oakland’s worst housing complex taken over by a notorious gang
By Chip Johnson
Updated 3:04 pm, Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The apartment complex at 8701 Hillside St. in Oakland is owned by two East Bay men awaiting sentencing in federal court for bid-rigging and mail fraud. The buildings have descended into chaos, without security or management. People openly carry weapons on the property, deal drugs, and the complex is frequented by gangs. The city filed a lawsuit earlier this week to fix the problems or shut it down. Photo: Google Maps

Oakland’s worst housing complex sits at the end of a dead-end street off of 87th Avenue adjacent to Castlemont High School.

Here, in what looks like a two-building fortress, one of the city’s most notorious gangs — the Case Gang — has rooted itself, openly brandishing guns, dealing drugs and using violence to intimidate residents to maintain control. Stolen vehicles — some stripped down to the frame and others burned — sit in the lot.

I went early Sunday afternoon to get a look for myself after hearing that the City Attorney’s office had filed a suit against the complex’s owners, who apparently had a hands-off approach to managing the place. Not only did a gang take over — but no one apparently collected rent and some of the 100 tenants simply stopped paying.

I'm sure Gerry's Law is gonna get a LOT of guns off the street!!

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-s-worst-housing-complex-taken-over-by-a-5789051.ph

Any other rights you think the government should "confiscate" from its citizens with mere allegations and no due process, counselor?

a guy that has no record yet of domestic battery, yet wants to get a gun out of his wife's control so he can have free reign afterward? He signs, she has no legal recourse.

but if its used as a whole sale way to confiscate firearms forever without proof it'll be overturned. If its used to take firearms for 21 days and either return them or PROVE there was a real threat to keep them than there's no issue for me. There will be issues, ie not finding the firearm, or the person who has it taken can go buy another unless its linked to FBI.  
      It really isn't a bad start, truly if your family is reporting you there might be an issue. I dont see how solely buying a gun makes you dangerous or a threat to others; if that's used as a singular qualifier I can see the supreme court taking issue as well, combined with threats or seeing someone for mental health treatment sure. There are many things that can be done to make us safer without ignoring the second amendment.

but this would be admissible in conjunction with the other factors listed by the statute. I would think the judge would put the greatest weight on threats made to shoot others or one’s self. Note, however, that mental illness is not a part of the required showing.  

        But it certainly is an interesting approach to dealing with the problem. NY equally burdens mass shooters and good citizens with its assault weapon ban while California seeks identify only those who actually pose a threat. Neither approach will protect against all such shooters but they might protect against some. Unfortunately, with these kinds of law, you never know when the laws are actually working – you only know when they fail to stop a shooting incident

I guess I see this as more likely to prevent killings than the safe act. The safe act really does nothing to prevent singular shootings. At least this has a chance of preventing them. the safe act is nothing more then restricting everyone, California s law only infringes on the rights of people probably deserving of it. Worst case someone is accused and found to not be a danger and gets their firearms back in less then a month.  
       This sort of law would have might well have prevented Elliot Roger and Holmes in aurora. Something I don't think any other law being kicked around would have done short of an all out ban.  
       It does seem strange to agree on something.

This is RIDICULOUS. Before we take rights away from someone there needs to be cause, a hearing and due process.  Sorry, but somebody's unproven testimony isn't good enough.

And the fact that the "accused" doesn't get a chance to address the "charges" and mount a defense before confiscation is a gross violation of our rights and should scare the shit out of anybody.

Ruled on domestic violence and removing firearms from the possession of the person accused. If I am right they ruled that removal of the firearms for a short period of time while the case is adjudicated does not constitute a violation of the second amendment and it's better to be cautious and infringe on the rights of the party accused for a short period of time than have it become a worse case scenario.  
       If the law isn't abused and takes actual evidence to enact a 21 day firearm hold I don't think you lp win the argument its infringing on their rights. They committed a crime just by virtue of making threats. I am sure most courts would hold that a small infringement is better than doing nothing. Besides what are you doing that you couldn't live 3 weeks without firearms worst case scenario? I am very vocal about firearms rights but see the as the lesser of MANY evils. I am curious to see how many times its used in the first year and for what reasons. Don't forget if it's used frivolously the state can probably still be sued for civil rights violations and it might be a class action if it can be proven it was intentional to confinscate guns and never return them.