California legislators recently passed a bill allowing family members to ask a judge to confiscate firearms from relatives who they see as a danger to themselves or others. The seizure will be enforced only when the judge deems the family’s concerns to be “legitimate”.
Liberal lawmakers, who never leave a tragedy unexploited, drafted the bill in response to Elliot Rodger’s deadly rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus earlier this year.
California Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said: “Family members are often the first to spot the warning signs when someone is in crisis. AB 1014 provides an effective tool to get guns out of the hands of loved ones to avoid these tragedies.”
Keeping guns out of Elliot Rodger’s hands would not have averted a tragedy – after all, he stabbed three people to death before he even picked up a gun. (It sure is funny how lefties always leave out the inconvenient details.)
That said — this law could be worse.
Individuals seeking the restraining order have to sign an affidavit under oath and can be charged with a misdemeanor if caught lying. A court hearing also has to be held within two weeks after the restraining order is granted to allow the gun owner to defend himself.
So long as California administers the law properly and does not allow vindictive family members to abuse their newfound privilege, it seems like a reasonable way to prevent mass shootings by the mentally ill.
I know some people might not like it, but gun rights supporters might have to accept compromises like this if we want to avoid all out gun control in the future.