http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/12/29/police-may-confiscate-guns-without-notic...

Police May Confiscate Guns without Notice to Owner Starting January 1

by AWR Hawkins29 Dec 201560

Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.

This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.

According to KPCC, GVROs “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.”
And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.

To be fair, Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore does not use the word “confiscate” when talking about confiscating firearms.

Rather, Moore says, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”

KPCC reports that “California law already bans people from possessing guns if they’ve committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.”
And now, with GVROs, California law allows judges to bar people from possessing guns even if they have not committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed.

Because of this, Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes warns that GVROs “may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”

With the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' and throw our entire justice system on it's head?

Knee jerk reaction..."we got to do something"...so we can feel better, even though it does not address the problem: there is evil in the world and no law will stop it.

I do not believe this is knee-jerk on the part of the legislators, but that they are counting on knee-jerk reactions from the public to facilitate their attempts to limit the rights and freedoms of that same public.

Agree

If there was a definition of "liberal" it would be "one who wants to limits rights and freedoms of other people while expanding their rights and freedoms". At least that is from my observations of what they are doing.

This type of seizure seems to conflict with the 4th amendment to the constitution and there will probably be challenges along that line. There are also "due process" clauses in the constitution. If a judge can rule that certain property can be confiscated, then this in effect gives the government unlimited power to do whatever they want.

Last night I watched this movie on television (the movie being about Charlie Company in Vietnam). As I'm watching the movie it strikes me that there is evil in the people that are trying to take freedom away from the people of S. Vietnam, and that evil becomes horrible violence against the draftees of Charlie Company. Some of the survivors talk about how the news media did not recognize their accomplishments or sacrifices, and now I'm realizing that the news media is about as evil as the communists intent on controlling S. Vietnam. Of course the news media is driven by the liberal political agenda so that exposes the evil of the liberal political agenda. What I don't understand is why the voting public goes along with this.