Image 01 Image 03

Even the ACLU Opposes California’s Gun Confiscation Legislation

Even the ACLU Opposes California’s Gun Confiscation Legislation

“a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders”

California recently pushed constitutionally guaranteed second amendment protections to the limit. So much so that they’ve drawn the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union.

From The Daily Caller:

Under current California law, the government is empowered to confiscate an individual’s firearms if a family member or law enforcement officer petitions a court to do so and the court determines that there is a “substantial likelihood” that the individual “poses a significant danger” to themselves or others. The entire procedure takes place ex parte. This means that the person targeted with the confiscation order is not provided with any opportunity to present evidence and offer a defense in court or even receive notice of the petition prior to the confiscation of their firearms.

The California scheme has unconstitutional effects. As proposed, every family member of a gun owner and every law enforcement officer will enjoy an unlawful veto over that gun owner’s Second Amendment rights and the gun owner has no opportunity to object until their rights have been infringed. Due process is fundamental; at a minimum, due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and the right to be represented by counsel.

Within 21 days after the order is issued a gun owner is entitled to a hearing on the matter. If, after a hearing, the court determines the individual to pose a danger, the gun owner’s right to possess firearms is suspended for one year.

…On October 11, Newsom signed a raft of gun control bills that amend California’s gun confiscation orders procedure. Newsom signed AB 12, which will increase the duration of the gun confiscation order from “one to five years.” The governor also approved AB 61, which will expand the categories of individuals who can petition to deprive a person of their Second Amendment rights to include employers, coworkers, and “employee[s] or teacher[s] of a secondary or postsecondary school.” That’s right, not just educators, but any employee of the school district may be able to restrict the constitutional rights of on an adult student.

The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the new slate of legislative measures and as The Daily Caller reports, said they pose “a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.”

An ex parte order means the person subject to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to contest the allegations. We support the efforts to prevent gun violence, but we must balance that important goal with protection of civil liberties so we do not sacrifice one in an attempt to accomplish the other… By expanding the parties that could apply for such an ex parte restraining order to include all the parties listed above, many of whom lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment, AB 61… creates significant potential for civil rights violations.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 22, 2019 at 3:10 pm

Think we can get the ACLU to go after these criminals also?

“Racist Watch” Website Outs Trump Donors….”

It’s not just the Second Amendment Newsome doesn’t like. It’s also the 14th and 5th Amendments.

California is too communist for the ACLU. Progress!

One thing that will help (although not stop) the ‘greedy little fingers’ is if the Feds were to establish iron-clad property protections for the firearms owner. Since they’re Federal, they would apply on down the line so no weaseling out of it by county sheriffs.
1) The expense of firearm confiscation is to be completely born by the State (or Feds if the Feds are responsible). No billing the owner, period.
2) The confiscated property is to be fully inventoried, stored properly, and not removed from storage other than for forensic testing (which requires a warrant). The inventory will be made immediately available to the owner upon request.
3) Return of the property is to the owner, or duly designated third party that the owner determines. No auctioning it off to pay for ‘fees.’ Owners determined to be mentally incompetent or otherwise unable to legally receive the weapons back shall be entitled to designate an heir to receive them, without cost to the owner or heir. A little something to forbid asset forfeiture of the property without a felony conviction directly relating to the weapons would help.

None of this would stop the State from being an overbearing (censored) but it would damp their enthusiasm, and that’s a start.

So.. how about that gun owner’s car? Impound it? How about buying a super sized bottle of Tylenol at Costco? Take away their Costco card?

Reminder: The Gestapo was a rather small force which relied heavily upon the populace informing on their neighbors (for the good of the Fatherland). Considering how rabid anti-gunners can be as shown by the Left with doxing…yep… living in a twilight of fear is just what Gov. Nuisance and the Politburo want.

The only “good” part is that this is all self-inflicted on the voting majority in Cali. May they reap what they sow and not be able to leave.

i will be not at all surprised if i get one of these served on me because of the a55holes in my local community.

i don’t even have to have done anything: all they have to do is be “afraid”.

first thing i’ll know is LAPD kicking in the door at odark30, followed by me being shot to death.

    alaskabob in reply to redc1c4. | October 22, 2019 at 6:11 pm

    There was that spat of SWAT dynamic entries into the WRONG homes years ago… in San Diego they used flash bangs and shot up a guy (six months in ICU).. and the other I remember was entry into a Federal Marshal’s home when, fortunately, she was away. She would have had to shoot it out as anyone breaking in and yelling “police” is ALWAYS suspect.

    So, they are going to a home with known firearms… right… just how is that going to be handled… kidd gloves or “formal dress” at Zero-Dark Hours?

    Geologist in reply to redc1c4. | October 22, 2019 at 6:38 pm

    Let’s never forget Donald Scott. Scott was a rancher in Ventura County, murdered by LA County Sheriff’s Dept, DEA and other LEA, back in the early 1990s. There were false claims that Scott was cultivating marijuana, and the gov’t was hoping to seize his ranch.

The California legislature has doubtless been informed by its own attorneys that these new laws are unConstitutional. This is apparently a feature, not a bug. The State already had very restrictive laws allowing gun confiscation. My guess is that 1) These measures are designed to make the older measures look “liberal” and remain unchallenged, and 2) They’ve already picked the preferred judges for the anticipated lawsuits.

Like the saying goes: Once you’ve lost the American Criminal Lobby Union,you’ve lost it all.

Another example of the anti-gun folks overreaching. This is why those of us on the pro-2nd amendment side SHOULD be in favor of looking at mental illness as a disqualification from owning firearms. This is a bit counterintuitive but:
1. Moves the discussion to address the real issue, a specific individual’s behavior vs firearms
2. Creates allies in the form of ACLU and mental health advocates to ensure that proposed ‘mental health red flag laws’ are narrowly tailored and provide true due process not the kangaroo court described above
3. Following court ruling that an individual is not competent to function that individual is sent for treatment and not left out in general society

When you consider the secret hearings to impeach Trump along with leaks that the progressive fascists in the House are holding there is no procedure that we can rely on to make this fair and honest. There is no point in compromising with the progressive fascists.