Arcata Hosting Gun Violence Restraining Order Training
Press release from the Arcata Police Department:
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM at the D Street Neighborhood Center, 1301 D Street, the City of Arcata is hosting training for law enforcement, attorneys and court personnel on gun violence restraining orders. Gun violence restraining orders are civil orders, issued in writing and signed by the court, that prohibit a named person from having in their custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving any firearm or ammunition. This training is designed to enhance public safety by providing law enforcement, attorneys and court personnel with an additional resource that, when issued by the court, provides the community an additional safeguard against those who are in possession of firearms and/or ammunition and are deemed to also pose a risk to themselves or others.
Using case studies the training team identifies procedures and protocols to obtain gun violence restraining orders and explains how to apply the law and navigate through complex situations to determine whether or not a gun violence restraining order would be applicable. A significant amount of the curriculum is devoted to the service of the restraining order itself, obtaining and serving search warrants and the process to seize firearms and ammunition.
As the first statewide champion for gun violence restraining orders, the San Diego City Attorney’s Office was selected by the state to conduct training for law enforcement agencies, attorneys and court personnel throughout California. The program is guided by California Penal Code Section 18100 et sec, which allows family members or law enforcement personnel to seek a gun violence restraining order against someone they believe poses an immediate and present danger of harming themselves or others.
To date the training team has delivered this same curriculum to jurisdictions throughout California including Riverside, Ontario, Anaheim, San Francisco, Beverly Hills and Sacramento. This same training is being delivered to agencies in the North Coast region and will include representatives from the cities of Arcata, Eureka, Crescent City, Ferndale, Blue Lake and Rio Dell; the counties of Humboldt, Del Norte and Trinity; as well as State Parks and Cal Fire.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
?Bang,Bang he shot me down
Bang,Bang he hit the ground
Bang,Bang my baby shot me down. ?
Very ,Very slippery slope. What happens when a liberal judge with a hard on for gun owners gets to make the call? I am not saying that a nut case should be running around with a Glock at the mall looking for trouble, but It could turn into a neighbor that’s pissed because you left your trash can out calling the cops and tell them your mentally unstable and have a firearm. Then one of your constitutional bill of rights just went out the window . Next could be very easily your right to be heard on something that opposes the kings point of view. When one thing goes away the rest are easy pickings.
How would they know you have a firearm? The worst that happens is your without you firearms for a time. Doubt the king of england will invade that week.
Festus,
thanks. They already have a law that convicted felons can’t have guns, the problem is that they aren’t punished for it.
Would make more sense to make harsher laws for convicted felons caught with a gun, then to restrain guns from people that haven’t necessarily done anything.
Its not a choice between one or the other.
there is a problem with banning convixted felons from owning a firearm imho.
most think that a felon is some scary threatening unstable person, yet is someone who plays poker on line a tjreatening person whom should no longer to allowed to own a gun or vote ? yes in certain states on line video poker is a class c fellony. and that is where things get screwed up. the wording sounds right but it isnt the way it is …..
the goverment shall not infringe . it doesnt say unless or if it says shall not period. maybe instead of attempting to force views and values on others useing the threat of law people should learn how to understand and not infringe upon each others rights reguardless if they like or agree with the way others are using their rights.
~you said it right, Antichrist – except for the “law” word.
“maybe instead of attempting to force views and values on others useing the threat of law . . .”
U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County in the State of Tennessee, 118 U.S. 425 (1886): “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (verified source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=1…).
The virus is the illusion of communication.
I see that neighbor being thoroughly sued for defamation. but the main problem in CA is prop 13, which means that neighbor might be a tweaking thief that’s squatting with dad in grampa’s home.
Arcata pd is doing a good job.
This sounds like a nice idea, but convicted felons aren’t supposed to have guns,
yet they still do. Many local headlines start out “felon with a gun.”
Even felons with guns aren’t really punished, but maybe this will work.
“The restraining order’s greatest danger is not its obvious unconstitutionality (trampling due process) or irrelevance (deranged individuals ignore firearms prohibitions). The main problem is the huge potential for abuse by disaffected spouses and/or angry, jealous or greedy relatives.”
There are already mechanisms in place to disarm dangerous individuals, they just involve pesky things like due process and court judgments before taking lawfully owned possessions. This is a blatent end run around the bill of rights on multiple levels. Notice it’s a “civil” action, enforced at gun point by law enforcement. This is because there is no victim, just the potential for some alleged future crime, aka pre-crime. If a person is that much of a threat, they should be confined away from society as there are statistically plenty of other tools at their disposal to cause harm, like gasoline, kitchen knives, baseball bats and fists to name a few. What’s not being said in the press release is that anyone can request this order, like past co-workers, someone you dated, disgruntled neighbor, etc. with litterly no consequence to themselves. Watch as these kind of preemptive restrictions are placed on other civil rights like the first amendment for our “collective safety “. This violation of the rule of law (and reason) comes from both parties. BTW, erpo or red flag orders enjoy support from 2nd amendment rights groups like the NRA as long as they incorporate due process, including the accused facing a judge and their accuser BEFORE weapons are confiscated and a safe process for storage and return pending court judgments and good behavior, as well as a sunset clause. Also, there should be civil and criminal consequences for abusing this process. We already have this ability, it’s call a restraining order. Red flag laws just anonymize this process which invites abuse. If someone thinks our government is concerned for the safety it’s people, just take a look at its policies, both foreign and domestic to disabuse yourself of this notion.