According to AntiMedia, the amendment is intended for families that feel a loved one is at risk for gun violence.
“[I]t’s the family members, it’s the people closest to the perpetrator who are in the best position to notice red flags,” Dr. Wendy Patrick told a local CBS affiliate.
The law states that if a gun owner “poses an immediate and present danger of causing a personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having it in his or her custody or control,” he/she must be divested of their weapons for a cooling off period of up to 21 days.
“Law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” he explained in an interview with NPR.
Not everyone is optimistic about the proposal. Constitutional advocates have suggested that the law does not go far enough to address the root causes of gun violence.
“This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict.” AntiMedia quoted Janet Napolitano, UC president, as saying.
“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said to AP. “We think this just ‘misses the mark’ and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”
Others note that, with the ongoing epidemic of gun violence in America, anything is better than nothing.
