Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, May 29, 2014

A Different Kind of Law to Prevent Gun Violence

Posted by on Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:00 AM

Out of the rampage near UCSB comes this:

Just days after a 22-year-old killed six college students and himself near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, state lawmakers are championing legislation that would permit law enforcement officials and private individuals to seek a restraining order from a judge that would keep people with a potential propensity for violence from buying or owning a gun. The process would be similar to the one currently used for restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.

According to this New York Times story, laws like what's now being proposed in California are already on the books in three states—including deep-red Texas.


Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Cato the Younger Younger 1
Do you think getting a restraining order is that easy? In King County I had to spend 6 months trying to get a restraining order against an ex who beat me enough to send me to the ER at Swedish and afterwards he made several life threats. After all of that it took the courts six fucking months get a restraining order in place.

Yeah...I'm sure this idea will solve all of our problems.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on May 29, 2014 at 6:16 AM · Report this
Yes, and restraining order word so well.
Posted by rabbitbrush on May 29, 2014 at 6:30 AM · Report this
Posted by rabbitbrush on May 29, 2014 at 6:31 AM · Report this
NotSean 4
I don't understand how this will work.

The constitution and SCOTUS say that a gun (an arm) is the one thing that I may possess (bear) without any restrictions, ever.

How can a judge order that - or any - right away?

As SCOTUS interprets it, I'm not even sure how that right can be denied to prisoners.
Posted by NotSean on May 29, 2014 at 6:46 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 5
file gun-owning restraining orders against every male in the entire country, regardless of age. problem solved.
Posted by Max Solomon on May 29, 2014 at 7:18 AM · Report this
J-Haxx 7
It is UCSB, not UCSF.....
Posted by J-Haxx on May 29, 2014 at 8:00 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 8
Restraining orders are hard enough to maintain and enforce as it is, without bringing the 2nd amendment into it. Going to be a hard fight.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on May 29, 2014 at 8:03 AM · Report this
Talk about applying a Band-Aid to a severed limb...
Posted by COMTE on May 29, 2014 at 8:08 AM · Report this
seatackled 10

You're going to freak out the gun nuts like Charles did the other day.
Posted by seatackled on May 29, 2014 at 8:08 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 11
While it's certainly possible to deny someone a constitutional right, it can't be done without due process. This means you would. Have to serve them with a notice of a hearing and give them a chance to respond in court. It also means you would need to show good cause why the right should be revoked. They would also have the right to appeal any decision. This isn't the kind of thing that could be used willy-nilly against just anybody.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on May 29, 2014 at 8:30 AM · Report this
A restraining order issued by a judge would seem to be all the "good cause" required in situations like this.
Posted by COMTE on May 29, 2014 at 9:04 AM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 13
Is this law disproportionately used against minorities and the poor in the States where it is extant by any chance?
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 29, 2014 at 2:03 PM · Report this
venomlash 14
@11: It's well-established that you can limit a Constitutionally-guaranteed right in the name of public safety. No restraining orders needed, only laws.
Posted by venomlash on May 29, 2014 at 3:37 PM · Report this
delirian 15
@14: What are you talking about? What waiver to the 14th Amendment do you think exists?
Posted by delirian on May 29, 2014 at 5:01 PM · Report this
venomlash 16
@15: Fires and moviehouses. I'm talking about the 1st Amendment here.
Posted by venomlash on May 29, 2014 at 8:49 PM · Report this
NotSean 17
@11 It wouldn't be a 'limit' to the right. It would be the elimination of that right, at least for the period of the order.

A 'limit' might be something along the lines of not being able to possess an arm while within some reasonable goegraphic area (of petitioner).

Maybe the state's boundaries, or judge's jurisdiction, acts as such an area.
Posted by NotSean on May 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM · Report this
delirian 18
@16: That is well established Constitutional law (based on caselaw) that applies to everyone. We are talking about restricting a Constitutional right to an individual, which requires due process per the 14th Amendment. The most you are probably going to be able to get away with would be a temporary restraining order followed shortly by a formal due process hearing for a permanent restraining order.
Posted by delirian on May 29, 2014 at 9:35 PM · Report this
If a person is so dangerous that you feel the need to deprive him of the tools for self defense, then are you also creating a "special relationship" with police/government that make the police responsible for his protection? If so, how many police officers need to be in his protection detail? Maybe the same number that protects a federal senator or the president?

(of course the "special relationship" comes from SCOTUS Castle Rock ruling)
Posted by textopcat on June 1, 2014 at 8:03 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy