CA: Man Wants People In Child Custody Disputes To Lose Their Guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://longbeach-ca.patch.com/articles/husband-of-salon-shooting-victim-pushing-for-christy-s-law

Paul Wilson, who lost his wife, Christy, proposes legislation that would prohibit people who are going through child custody disputes and divorces from buying and possessing guns.

SNIP

According to Wilson, the measure would prohibit people who are going through divorce proceedings or child custody disputes from owning or possessing a firearm, and it would require them to temporarily surrender their existing guns.

After the end of a divorce or custody battle, the guns would be returned and the ban would be lifted, according to Wilson.

Much more at link

So the new direction of the gun controllers is to identify people who are in so-called high-stress events and deprive them of their rights. Will high stress occupations be next? Should those same people be allowed to drive? When do we establish a Dept. of Future Crime?

[former-republican]

1. I stopped reading when it started with California

[Common Sense Party]

2. Perhaps they should also lose their right to purchase gasoline as well.

Google Josh Powell if you don't recall...

[Remmah2]

5. How about a ban on high capacity gas cans? nt

nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. CA already has useless gas cans due to unique laws...

And they are miserable to use.

[ileus]

3. What other rights would he like to remove from people?

That are going through a divorce?

[Eleanors38]

4. Probably alimony collection.nt

[4th law of robotics]

6. Living in a high crime area is stressful

people shouldn't be allowed to have legally owned guns in high crime areas.

So is having a job (you could lose it at any point) anyone with a job shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Or people with children, parenting is stressful.

Or people with family members that get on their nerves, are often stuck in traffic, or are just otherwise prone to lot's of stress.

Rights were never meant to be inalienable. They are graciously doled out from on high to the select few who are worthy of them.

[Remmah2]

7. Many laws are in place that address this already.

I think restraining orders already cover this.

When just cause and the threat is shown, firearms of the offending party can be confiscated. In the case where one party is clearly hostile to the other, firearms should not be denied for the personal protection of the defending party.

[slackmaster]

8. Ridiculous