A lawsuit has been filed in the state of California that seeks to challenge a local restraining order law that bars those with standing restraining orders from being able to own guns. 

This lawsuit was filed by the Second Amendment Law Center and the California Rifle & Pistol Association in an effort to overturn this aspect of California Law. This law requires that all those who have a restraining order filed against them have their firearms confiscated and are barred from buying firearms and ammunition in the state of California. 

The lawsuit is being filed over one specific case where it would appear that this law was abused to ridiculous ends. 

Richard and Miranda Wallingford are happily married and have lived in their California home for well over 50 years. The Wallingfords have seen saplings in their yard turn into full-grown trees and they have managed to stay afloat through thick and thin. Things were going great for the pair until one neighbor moved in next door.

Richard and Miranda’s new neighbor was not a fan of a particular tree at the edge of their property and after the couple refused to remove it this neighbor plotted to ruin their lives to get what they wanted. The neighbor hatched a scheme to accuse Richard Wallingford of assault and battery and filed for a restraining order. 

The Wallingford’s wacko neighbor filed both a civil case and small claims against Richard and Miranda for their failure to manage their property as they would have, typical California. The court granted the neighbor a temporary restraining order against Richard Wallingford and this resulted in the confiscation of his arms as well as the state barring him from purchasing any more firearms and ammunition. 

Sadly, the court made a major mistake in its issuing of the restraining order. The court admitted that it had mistakenly read the neighbor’s petition to include new allegations of assault while granting the restraining order, noting that these are not the same allegations that were previously pushed by Wallingford’s neighbor. Had the allegations not changed and the restraining order would not have been granted. 

The Wallingford’s also pursued a restraining order against their neighbor, which the court granted because the neighbor made a throat-slashing gesture towards the Wallingford’s security camera, flashed the camera, sprayed the camera, and engaged in other acts similar to those described. 

This case is ridiculous and it’s clear that the anti-2A restraining order law in California has been abused to punish someone over a personal dispute. 

It is very easy to say that this law could save lives, it is not hard to imagine a situation where a law like this could have prevented a disgruntled ex from killing their former partner. This was the easy solution to a complex problem, just like Red Flag Laws. In that instance, it is also easy to imagine how those laws could prevent someone from ending their own life or the lives of others. 

The easy way is not always the right way to do things, certainly not when it comes to legislative solutions. Patriots around the country fear Red Flag laws because they are open for abuse, these laws in California are the same way.

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2 days ago

Leave it to pos California to come up with this, worst state there is!!

Bemused Berserker
Bemused Berserker
2 days ago

Seems to me (and I’m not a Lawyer), that the standards for justification of a Restraining Order are way too low. That there wasn’t any evidence of a clear threat to the Filer’s health and we’ll being. Also the Filer is the provocative party in this case. It’s his words and actions that are accelerating conflict, not the accused.

Just my opinion, but the Judge that granted the provocative party’s request for a RO, needs to be censured by the State’s Judicial authority.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
2 days ago

Clearly red flag laws have triggered the national movement for 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties. But the Washington Post immediately labeled supporters as mischief makers. Fact is, red flag laws were created to transfer power licensed to the psychiatric community to unqualified persons more obedient to democrats, e.g., local judges and crotchety old aunts.

Due process requires reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury. Nobody wants criminals to have firearms but to be taken seriously, if the accused is a danger to himself or others, he should be legally arrested. In other words, take the man but leave the guns.

The line of inheritance codified in state laws defines the legal custodian of any property. Jailing people for oppositional thoughts is just one small step from recreating concentration camps and mass annihilation. Politicians on both sides who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws.

Currently, the United States comprise 2,030 counties and 247 municipalities that deny assistance to state and federal authority that violates the 2nd Amendment. Among them are 17 sanctuary states. Clearly, with 65 percent of America’s counties opposed, state and federal attempts to enforce anti-2nd Amendment laws would be a difficult chore.

2 days ago

Why not? They already duped you into believing the unconstitutional rogue law that came straight out of the 68 GUN CONTROL ACT. You did NOTHING when they came at you with the N.F.A. The 4473. The N.I.C.S. etc. Since you all think the bit that came out of the 68 GUN CONTROL ACT will stop crime instead of making them do their jobs and keep the worst off the street I assume you are willing to give over your AR’S and any other semi-auto since they say it too will stop crime. Take a bow. YOU did it to yourselves. See they don’t like me. I won’t give in. They don’t like staunch anti gunners either. But they love you. You say you are pro gun. Won’t support gun control. Yet you fall for or give into them a bit at a time. Enjoy. The world YOU make.

You may also like