This was the primary purpose of the Elliot Rodger shooting hoax. That phony event would have been absolutely laughable if it weren't for the real world consequences that would come of it.
This law is horrible in every regard. It allows any person to petition a judge to take away another person's guns for 21 days without a hearing. As a lawyer I will tell you that the hearing will not be easy for the person being deprived of his firearms.
The accused citizen will have to show up and prove that he isn't mentally ill or a danger to the public. Judges are famously chickenshit, and will probably err on the side of "safety". Judges don't want something to go wrong down the road and it cause them reelection problems. They do this all the time with other ex parte orders concerning protective orders and child removals.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do a shooting hoax where the shooter got his guns back after the hearing. That way judges are extra scared in the future.
What a sad state of affairs. This law should be challenged in federal court. It's terrible.
Seeing the bearded Richard Martinez as a stage prop in the video of Obama's "emotional" plea told me everything I needed to know and should expect from this clumsy, ham-handed exercise in manipulation. Richard Martinez was stumping for gun legislation one day after his virtual son was virtually shot by the virtual Elliot Rodger. The clip that follows, excerpted from his CNN interview two days later, contains some elements of the script that are worthy of consideration. A bit of revelation of the method, as it were, or perhaps an instruction to the viewer on how to receive the clip.
The cropped segment opens with the performative:
And the people need to understand..."
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K568ed7da1cf29
He then goes on to elaborate exactly what the people need to understand:
That real people died here. And they need to know...put faces, names and histories to the people who died, to make it real for them."
"And they need to know" is yet another performative where the audience is instructed in how to anchor the false as real in their minds.
Prior to this segment the interviewer moves the interview along with this unusual prompt:
So he's not going to grow up to be a man,... to work in the world."
Another motive, is to keep the populace afraid so that the populace will support increased amounts of tax revenues spent on policing.
I believe in areas like middle class parts of big cities, and in basically the whole of smaller cities, violent crime today is just not that common. Ya if you are living in a public housing ghetto, that also is in the middle of drug gangs fighting for territory, violence by other residents is a real threat. But for the vast middle class suburbia & exurbia, where the tax payers live, things like random rapes, non-family dispute related murder, 'serial' killers etc.. are like something you see on tv how 'bad' it is, but is just not part of your real experience in life.
Part of that comes from effective technology, including things like cameras everywhere and databases making it near impossible to get away with crimes. And from large increases in spending on police over the years. Another part is middle class Americans are just not that violent, and never have been.
While the narrative is that human beings are ferocious predators/killers, only held at bay by law & order.. in reality humans are more like a plant eating herd animal. Basically every adult person I have ever known who is not suffering some severe mental deficiency or illness, is just not that violent. Sure they talk super tough, and might even get in the odd barfight, but its not like when you are randomly walking down the street, there is a high chance some guy is going to run out and try to kill you.