Recently an article entitled Armed and Aging: Should Older Americans Face Tighter Gun Controls? came over the Facebook transom.
To her credit, the author tries mightily to pretends to be a balanced observer. She even includes a few quotes from older gun owners and some well-known facts about the reality of suicide. However, by the end I realized she simply has no grasp of the principles involved in the gun rights issue. She writes,
State lawmakers in California recently offered a unique solution that could appease both sides: the gun violence restraining order.
The statewide policy, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2016, is based on the domestic violence restraining-order system, in which concerned citizens can turn to the courts for help, said Frattaroli, who serves as associate director for outreach for Johns Hopkins’ Center for Injury Research and Policy.
No one with half a brain still functioning could think the California GVRO is a good idea. It is not just its obvious trampling of due process -- though that is certainly bad enough. The big problem is the enormous potential for abuse by angry, jealous or greedy relatives.
The penalty for a false accusation is a misdemeanor and, five'll get you ten, no false testimony will ever be pursued by a DA. This opens the GVRO to gossip being given force of law. On the victim's side, the penalties are being the subject of a false report of suicidal or homicidal intentions, losing his gun rights for up to a year (extensible to forever if the judge can be convinced he was right the first time) and being disarmed against those who would do him harm.
This from a group claiming it "promotes a positive view of aging."