Originally Posted by Marred
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?
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.