Christy's Law

M

Marred

New member
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/10/12/husband-of-seal-beach-massacre-victim-pushes-gun-control-reform/

The husband of one of the victims of the "Seal Beach Massacre" is trying to pass "Christy's Law" named after his late wife. She was working at a hair salon when the husband of another worker came in and murdered eight people because of a heated divorce and custody battle. This was one year ago today and the murderer is still awaiting trial.
This proposed law would allow someone involved in a divorce or custody battle to request the other party be denied the ability to buy a gun and have their currently owned guns confiscated. The details are kind of vague but it seems if one party feels threatened they can get the court to order the denial of rights on the word of the spouse. So to put it plainly, if you're involved in a divorce in California you would have to surrender your guns. How many of you think that if your wife wanted to get back at you, she would hit you where it hurts by making false claims? Especially if she didn't need to prove anything, just on her word.
The murder suspect had previously had his guns confiscated by the police because of a suicide attempt and he apparently made violent threats to his wife and others and then had his guns returned, I would think that these would be better reasons to deny someone the possesion of guns but that's not what this law would require. I really feel for the loss of this poor mans wife but more bad laws is the last thing we need. If anyone knows more or has any input I'd like to hear it.
 
Last edited:
didnt you know that its standard textbook for the females attorney to claim abuse by the husband when a divorce is filed?
 
The issue of firearms already comes up during divorces, but in a slightly different manner.

When my Brother went through a divorce a year ago his attorney recommended he remove all his guns from his home so his wife could not use it as an issue during child custody hearings. So, suddenly my gun collection doubles as he brings all his guns to my house. They eventually settled out of court after the PI discovered her boyfriend, but at least the attorney felt it might be an issue.

Divorces are nasty and people tell all kinds of lies to gain an advantage either financially or in the area of child custody. So, yes I have no doubt someone would use this proposed law to discredit a spouse.
 
Gunnut17, quite often the claims are that the husband has abused the kids (who are too young to testify - this rarely happens with kids who are old enough to understand and refute the allegations), let alone the wife.

Such allegations may be limited to "verbal abuse," since absence of marks or bruises would have no bearing.

People can be very nasty when it comes to divorce.
 
Theres too great a chance for that to become just another stab in the eye for a woman to use in a divorce. There would need to be some proof of violent behavior i think. Textbook tactics for the wifes lawyer to claim abuse ive got them there, police were called to my house for such a thing once before. She went to jail, not me. Still have the paperwork too.
 
Marred said:
This proposed law would allow someone involved in a divorce or custody battle to request the other party be denied the ability to buy a gun and have their currently owned guns confiscated. The details are kind of vague but it seems if one party feels threatened they can get the court to order the denial of rights on the word of the spouse. So to put it plainly, if you're involved in a divorce in California you would have to surrender your guns. How many of you think that if your wife wanted to get back at you, she would hit you where it hurts by making false claims?
Click to expand...
How is any of this new? This has already been going on for years, through the vehicle of the (allegedly) aggrieved party taking out a restraining order against the other person. It's almost always a woman putting a restraining order on the husband, and once a court issues such an order the person who is subject to the order generally can't possess firearms and can't buy firearms. (That's one of the questions on the 4473.)

Why does California think there needs to be a law to allow women to do what they've been doing for years?

Gunnut17 -- no, this is not a joke. No judge wants to risk denying a request for a restraining order and then have the husband shoot the wife, so the level of "proof" required to get such an order issued is ridiculously low. They are virtually automatic.
 
This is the wording of it.

Proposed new gun legislation:

Intention:

A. Prohibit the purchase of firearms while engaged in dissolution/child custody dispute
B. Prohibit possession of firearms while engaged in dissolution/child custody dispute
C. Require surrender of existing firearms while engaged in dissolution/child custody dispute

Implementation:

A. Require "Firearm Notification" form to be submitted by both parties, addressing:

1. Presence of firearms
2. Purchase of firearms
3. Surrender of firearms
4. Existence of prior or potential domestic violence
5. Law enforcement exception
6. Procedures for return of right to possess firearms (below)
7. CLETS requirement at time of filing case

B. Return of firearms/right to buy and possess

1. Parties file a revocable non-issue form

a. Both parties agree that possession of firearm is non-issue (assent
revocable) by either party

2. Court makes determination that the possession of firearm is non-issue

a. Determination requires judicial hearing at moving party’s expense
b. Dead-beat spouses don't get firearms back (option)

C. Violations/Punishment

1. Failure to file forms = contempt of court
2. Possession of firearm violation = misdemeanor + mandatory jail time
3. Subsequent offenses = felony

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm really tired at people automatically convinced that I'm some kind of homicidal maniac intent on overthrowing the Government simply because I own guns. The proposed legislation seems to require confiscation simply because you're involved in a divorce. I don't have the right to self defense because I'm getting divorced? I don't have rights, period, because I'm a gun owner? This is out of control.
"Determination requires judicial hearing at moving party’s expense" Who's the moving party in a divorce? How much does a judicial hearing cost? It appears to be in the signature gathering phase and they have 1,395 signatures online. Here's a link to the petition page. I'm not saying sign it, well you can sign it if you want, it's still a free country but that's not why I put it here.

http://www.change.org/petitions/support-christy-s-law
 
Last edited:
As it is all a woman has to do is say she feels threatened to get a temporary order of protection without any proof in a divorce. Getting a permanent one can be a touch more difficult but it is not that difficult....basically what others have said; unless its an amicable divorce you are going to lose your 2A rights.
What court is going to allow someone to get their firearms back; even with both parties signing on? If that person who they just gave their guns back to goes on to kill a bunch of people it would be a huge liability for the courts...so basically you lose your rights and they stay lost.

I can't see this passing muster in the supreme court; the problem is it will take years to get there if it is passed.
 
No Patriot, is not a liability for the court, at least not in the criminal or civil punishment sense. The only consequence is political, and most judges are elected.

Yes, a TRO is fairly easy to get, but it does require sworn testimony and/or other evidence. Often it is an He said/She said in the form of affidavits. When you get to the stage of a permanent injunction, there will be lawyers and live testimony, plus whatever evidence can be gathered to bolster a case. And if any one lies in their affidavits to get a TRO, it will hurt them at the fornal injunction hearing.

This petition is largely duplicative of existing law, and there really is no reason to make it any easier for spuses to obtain restrictions on the other spouses constitutional rights. And California is a no-fault state; the only thing to argue about are minimal property issues, and child custody and support.
 
I don't know how California works but here in Illinois when my Parents got divorced there was no two sides about the order of protection in the beginning; all my mother had to do was say she felt threatened even though my father had never been abusive and she got the temporary order. Thankfully for my dad he fought back in court during the hearing for the permanent order of protection and it was not granted.

The point is we already have a system to deal with firearms rights during a divorce when someone feels threatened; we don't need more laws mucking it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top