Friends have nothing to do with it and in both California and Washington the subject of the order…
Ladd Everitt
1

“Allow me to direct you to California’s definition of “immediate family member”: (3) “Immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, domestic partner, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.”

So indeed, if I had roomed with a friend in the prior six months, they are authorized by the law to petition for the removal of gun rights. This definition is far too broad. Either folks on your side don’t read the laws you propose, or you take the word of the fools at LCAGV (how’s that Nevada background check thing working out for you, if you want to believe your legal eagles know what they are doing) as to what these laws do and don’t do.

There is no due process here. The order is issued upon the court signing a petition after a sworn affidavit of the petitioner. The court must either sign off or reject the petiton within a day. Practically speaking, few courts will likely reject petitions because the subject has no chance to defend himself. Once issued, the subject of the order has 24 hours to surrender their firearms. The law offers only two arrangements: sell them to an FFL or surrender them to police. There’s no leaving them with a responsible family member or other custodian. Only after is the order is issued does the subject of the order notice and opportunity to contest their status.

So no, there’s no due process in any real sense. People who get parking tickets are afforded more due process than this law allows for.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.