Buckle Up: Democrat California’a New 2020 ‘Gun Restraining Order Law’ to Allow Seizure of Guns, Attacks on Police Officers
lawenforcementtoday.com
Here are California's new laws to seize guns and attack police officers in 2020 - buckle up
SACRAMENTO, CA- From la-la land, aka California, we present some new laws that will be going into effect on Jan 1.
Teachers, school administrators and employers can now ask courts to take away guns from people under an expansion of the state’s “gun restraining order law”, which currently only allows family members and police officers to have firearms seized from people deemed a “public risk.”
The new law will allow the above entities to petition courts to remove guns. What could possibly go wrong? The law was proposed after the high school shooting in Parkland, FL in February.
As with all these feel-good gun laws, this one also skips the little clause in the Constitution called due process. It can take up to 21 days before a court will hear testimony from the person losing the guns. So basically, they lose their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment pending a court appearance three weeks later.
Another law would allow one-year gun seizures to be extended annually for up to five years. Another law will limit residents of California to purchasing one semi-automatic rifle per month, but only if you’re only over 21. I’m not sure but something about “shall not be infringed” is may be getting violated here.
In the law enforcement arena, police didn’t escape the long arm of California lawmakers either.
The state’s deadly force statute was amended to say that officers can “use deadly force only when it’s necessary in defense of human life.” The law changes the standard from saying that officers can use deadly force when it is “reasonable” to when it is “necessary.
So let’s look at this again. Under the new law, lethal force may be used by police when it is “necessary in defense of human life” as perceived by a “reasonable” officer and based on the “totality” of circumstances. It also speaks to de-escalation as an alternative to deadly force.
So before, when police officers got the benefit of the doubt generally, that will no longer be the case in California.
Of course, the word “necessary” is wide open to interpretation. According to Robert Weisberg, law professor and faculty co-director of the Criminal Justice Center at Stanford University, he says:
“It’s going to depend almost entirely on how the law’s interpreted—first by prosecutors, then by judges, then by juries. It certainly, by its terms, moves the law in the direction of making it more feasible to prosecute officers for homicide.” BINGO! There is your reason. This is just another way to go after cops.
According to USA Today, momentum behind the change in the language was due to “increased national attention on the killing of unarmed black men by law enforcement.”
This is the same old, typical BS that police are out on the streets gunning for black males, which has been disproven by statistics.
In California, the impetus to change the law was fueled by the shooting of a 22-year-old black male in Sacramento, who was killed by officers who mistook his cellphone for a firearm.
So, the issue is you get a jury with a bunch of people who see a police officer who shoots someone who has a cellphone. Using the reasonableness standard, one can make the argument that given the fact that police officers have mere seconds to react, or split seconds for that matter, when someone has a dark object in their hand, and when they refuse to drop that object, it is “reasonable” for an officer to be in fear for his or her life.
However, now that you put the word “necessary” out there, it changes the context. There isn’t too much of a difference between the words reasonable and necessary, however in the minds of a jury that have probably watched too many episodes of Law and Order, they may think it was not “necessary” for the officer to use deadly force against someone “armed” with a cellphone.
For an example of that mindset, let’s go to the website for radio station KTHS in Santa Clarita, CA, where they posted the new laws that would be taking effect in California.
In response to the posting about the new use of force statute, we have the following comments:
Shirly wrote:
“So officers can use deadly force if they feel it necessary wow well that’s crazy they are all going to claim it necessary wow” In response, Cris wrote:
“I thought the same thing. Just wow.” People like “Shirly” and “Cris” will be in the jury pool if an officer was somehow being prosecuted under the law.
Fortunately, there are some people with a few brain cells that work.
Izzy wrote:
“No, actually it UPDATES the law from implying that officers can use deadly force when it is “reasonable” to only when it is “necessary.” They can no longer say it was a REASONABLE situation, to rather they must say (and PROVE) that it was NECESSARY to use deadly force.” Notice I said a “few” brain cells. Quite obviously Izzy has a problem with police officers using deadly force, but at least she can differentiate between reasonable and necessary.
However, “Jeff” had the comment of the day.
“Officers of the law are easy to get along with. You must do some very simple things. 1. Do not commit crimes. 2. Do what an officer asks. Like put your hands up. Drop the knife or gun, not run. Anyone who understands and speaks English (sic), this is a good thing. If you do not there is a badge. Maybe you can save your self.” Ok, so Jeff is not exactly an English major. But you get the point.
Of course, Black Lives Matter isn’t happy with the legislation because it doesn’t go far enough to prosecute police officers for doing their jobs.
In order to get the bill passed, the proponents had to amend it to be less punitive to officers who were involved in what ultimately proved to be “bad” shootings. Still, the change from reasonable to necessary could be a game changer for some officers.
Another bill that was passed at the same time will require all police agencies in the state to revise their policies, and actually provides funding to do so. This bill actually has the support of law enforcement unions in California.
“With the passage of AB 392 and SB 230 legislative package, California will go further than any other state in the country to provide our officers with the tools and training they have requested and deserve,” said Rick LaBeske, president of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in a news release. So, we will keep following this story to see what effect, if any it has on law enforcement in California. Usually as California goes, to go the other liberal states. |
