Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

California Gun Confiscation and Mental health

Discussion in 'Legal' started by LNK, Mar 12, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LNK

    LNK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    299
    Location:
    SE MA Soon Somewhere else
    "Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

    They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms."

    How would this encourage someone who needs mental health help, to want to seek it? Also, how does HIPA allow this information to be tracked? Is there a way to legally fight this?

    LNK

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...wners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  2. swalton1943

    swalton1943 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    southwest of fort worth
    Having a Claymore mounted on the front porch might be an option. JMO.
     
  3. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    1) Link?
    2) Since I haven't read the article yet (no link), was the gun owner adjudicated mentally defective or not?
     
  4. rodinal220

    rodinal220 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    USA
    Since half the country is/has been on anti-depressants of some kind,looks like the new tactic to disarm America.
     
  5. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,439
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    The bottom line is that the people losing their guns are legally prohibited, under either state law or federal law, from possessing a gun, and possession of a gun by them is a criminal act. That's current law, and current law can be enforced. No one can have any reasonable expectation that it will not be enforced.

    If you don't like the law, our system provides a number of means to seek to change the law or challenge it. Until such laws are changed or successfully challenged, persons who violate them risk losing their guns (and perhaps arrest and jail).
     
  6. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    They are also taking ALL guns in the household, not just those "registered" to the owner in question.

    First, don't tell me CA doesn't already have registration even though they tell us that they don't and secondly, what is your right to keep and bear arms if someone in your house cannot? As long as you are able to secure the weapon from the person in question, why are they taking other guns out of the house?
     
  7. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,439
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    1. In California handguns have been registered upon transfer beginning in around 1991. Long guns are not currently registered, but registration of long guns will begin with transfers on and after 1 January 2014.

    2. There is good law to suggest that if a person who may lawfully possess firearms is cohabiting with a prohibited person, the former may possess a gun as long as the prohibited cohabitant doesn't have access, e. g., the gun is stored in a safe to which the prohibited person does not have a key or combination.

    3. However, the news story provides limited information. We don't know that the guns taken from the non-prohibited cohabitant were indeed secured against access by the prohibited cohabitant.
     
  8. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    Looks like in CA you lose it also. Best be very careful who you marry or select as a roommate if you're a gun owner.
     
  9. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Frank, hopefully our house will be sold soon and I can become a full time Idaho resident.
     
  10. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,470
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    There are larger things going on.

    Here's State Senator Mark Leno
    (Note that he is very precise with 'handguns and assault weapons' - owner information about long guns in general has not been sent to the CA-DOJ; that becomes a regular thing beginning Jan 2014.)

    Leno's bill SB 140 just passed the CA Senate and moved to the Assembly. He wants to take money collected from the DROS (Dealer's Record Of Sale) funds. Stories like this are to support that bill.

    The bill appears to have two longer term goals. (1) Establish that the State can create new uses for those funds, and (2), given (1), in the future it will be reasonable to raise the fees - currently $19 per transaction.
     
  11. Tom from WNY

    Tom from WNY Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    72
    Location:
    Western New York
    VA Will not comply with the NY SAFE Act

    In today's Buffalo News, the lead story line (print) is that the Veteran's Administration will not comply with the mental health reporting provisions of the NY SAFE Act. According to the article; "VA spokesman Mark Ballesteros said Monday that federal protections of veterans' mental health records takes precedence."

    Here's the article on the web, it is good reading. http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130312/CITYANDREGION/130319814/1003.
     
  12. Arbo

    Arbo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Colorado
    This seems to be just one of the paths that the anti-gun crowd is going to go about getting rid of guns.. Declare as many people ineligible to own, ban all mags made, and I'm not sure that the DHS 1.6 billion bullet buy isn't part of limiting ammo...
     
  13. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,092
    Divide and conquer.

    In California to become a prohibted person you only need have an up to 72 hour psychiatric evaluation.
    There is no review process, no appeals process, no process by which to challenge it. If you are reviewed you are a prohibited person for 5 years from that date.
    (This is different from the 2 week involunatry commitment that prohibits someone for life at the federal level.)

    This sounds like someone given an evaluation. In fact by releasing him after only 2 days they probably were pretty certain he didn't even need to be there, as they will generally keep people the full 3 days and it would be even more work to let them go early.

    Any police officer can have just about anyone be given an evaluation, no crime need be committed. It has been a technique used to seperate people in domestic disputes when no crime has been committed but they don't want to just leave those involved together for example.
    So people who have not even commited so much as a misdemeanor (some of those disarm people in California that do not elsewhere as well) become prohibited persons.




    The number will increase after 2014 when long guns are part of the list referenced as well.

    Registration leads to confiscation.
    In this case it may be after the person is declared prohibited for one reason or another (in California this includes various things that don't prohibit you elsewhere.) But the registration came first. They established registration in 1991 and within a decade they were creating a database to check and disarm those on the list of firearms they had registered (handguns and later registered 'assault weapons', and all long guns transferred after 2014).
    When firearms are registered they are emboldened to implement new ways to restrict, reduce freedom or increase hoops to retain ownership or default to unlawful, or remove firearms, when they have a database that clearly tells them who has the guns and thier addresses.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  14. splithoof

    splithoof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,053
    This is really scary. We are getting closer to the point that everyone who keeps any firearm that is not registered (after a "grace period" in which even wall-hangers must be listed) will be an instant felon or otherwise prohibited person upon waking up some morning in the near future. What some observant moderators have said here before is true: that if you don't like the way things are going, you can change it at the ballot box. Fine. But in the meantime, everyone likely will have to make a personal choice about what they are going to do or not. You may think that you will be OK, but we never know how broad the scope will become, and what additional factors will be thrown in. Hold on folks, it could get rough!
     
  15. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,439
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Get a grip guys. This is not "big news."

    These are people who are prohibited persons the "old fashion way" -- felons, domestic abusers, persons determined to be disqualified by reason of an involuntary psychiatric confinement, etc. There is nothing novel or unexpected about the authorities collecting from them guns they're not permitted to possess.

    Folks might disagree with the laws disqualifying those people from having guns, and perhaps folks need to focus on changing those law if they don't like them. But as long as these people are disqualified from having guns, we shouldn't be surprised that LEOs are rounding up those guns.
     
  16. Ohio Gun Guy

    Ohio Gun Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,466
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    I dont think anyone is saying that they are surprised at the fact that mental health problems = prohibited.

    The concern is how easily a person could be "declared" to have mental heath issues through somewhat obscure means, ie no due process.
     
  17. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    No. It's not "obscure". There is a "due process". Maybe a lot of gun owners are running scared and "suddenly" realizing that you can get locked up just for making threats and acting crazy enough to scare people to call the cops, convince a panel of doctors that you're a danger and go thru a forced commitment hearing. Or wind up in a hospital/jail after trying to kill yourself, or someone else.
    Most of these forced commitments are due to people saying they were going to hurt themselves or others, or already tried it. Not just somebody feeling lonely and talks to a shrink and "pesto" he "declares" you mentally ill and puts you on a list to get your guns. No. It doesn't work that way.
    These people all did something to get locked up and they did get some "due process".
    Everyone of these recent shooting rampages was by someone who was seeking mental health and didn't get it or the doctors/cops ignored repeated threats and pleas by others that they were dangerous.

    These ARE the people who should lose their gun rights (at least temporarily). Not the rest of us.
     
  18. docsleepy

    docsleepy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,023
    No. It's not "obscure". There is a "due process". Maybe a lot of gun owners are running scared and "suddenly" realizing that you can get locked up just for making threats and acting crazy enough to scare people to call the cops, convince a panel of doctors that you're a danger and go thru a forced commitment hearing. Or wind up in a hospital/jail after trying to kill yourself, or someone else.
    Most of these forced commitments are due to people saying they were going to hurt themselves or others, or already tried it. Not just somebody feeling lonely and talks to a shrink and "pesto" he "declares" you mentally ill and puts you on a list to get your guns. No. It doesn't work that way.
    These people all did something to get locked up and they did get some "due process".
    Everyone of these recent shooting rampages was by someone who was seeking mental health and didn't get it or the doctors/cops ignored repeated threats and pleas by others that they were dangerous.



    The above is not necessarily true. It only takes one health professional to create a Baker act in my state. As far as I know that is all the due process you get. One person can send you out for an involuntary evaluation, and you lose your firearm rights. I've practiced medicine for a quarter century.
     
  19. Ohio Gun Guy

    Ohio Gun Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,466
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Due Process is a legal term, has a definition.

    Due process is not testimony of an individual or officer that yields a pre-determined result. If I took your post as threatening, should you lose your rights?


    (I didnt, and you did nothing wrong, but see the problem?)
     
  20. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Really? No other requirements like evidence of mental illness and evidence of a harm to themselves/others?
     
  21. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,092
    That is how it is in California as well. In California it is called a 5150.
    It is the same thing, a 72 hour psychiatric hold.
    All it takes is an officer to take someone to the hospital and check them in.
    Sign a form that they feel they may be a danger to self or others.


    They are then held for up to 3 days initially, at which point some who work there determine based on what they have observed or discussed with the individual if they should be released, or it should be extended to a 5250 for another 14 days.

    There is no court process. There is not presenting any evidence. The initial 5150 takes nothing but an officer's signature. There is no appeals process, no trial.
    At that point even if the professionals at the hospital find no reason to keep them any longer they are a prohibited person for 5 years.

    That sounds exactly like the case in the OP, a man that spent 2 days in a mental hospital, not even the full 3 days of an observation, and releasing someone earlier would take extra work on the part of those working there to expedite the process. So they really probably saw nothing to keep him over.
     
  22. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Do you see where there is a threat to you or others? Do you see where there is other evidence of mental illness? Do you see what (2) important factors are missing from your claim?

    Making threats is a crime. It will get you locked up in jail or in a hospital.
     
  23. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "One person can send you out for an involuntary evaluation"

    Which why that process doesn't meet the level of "adjudicated" as the federal law is written. At least in Viriginia, you don't get to see the administrative law judge/hearing officer until after the eval. That's the due process part.

    After nearly 40 years of working with individuals with disabilities, I've got a zillion stories. One guy, with an M.S. degree, was sent for a 72-hour psych eval - or as we call them, green warrants. Why? Because he was so high on coke that he went down to the police station and tried to swear out a warrant on the devil. Some of the folks working on the psych unit wanted to know where he got the coke because he had the highest lab work reading they'd ever seen.

    John
     
  24. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,092
    Now compare that with someone that actually is arrested and goes to jail.
    Has behavior problems at the jail (in the hospital that would probably get them an extended stay turned into an involuntary commitment prohibiting them for life at the federal level), has various problems in jail, cusses out the jailers, bangs on doors, has to be put in restraints or otherwise dealt with. Who then calms down or sobers up and gets out.

    The person that actually broke the law and committed a crime and was actually trouble at the jail facility would retain thier rights (unless it was a prohibiting offense) while the person guilty of no crime that was taken to the hospital for a 72 hour evaluation at the word of an officer, behaved great, and was even released early, would be a prohibited person and have lost thier rights in California. They would then be on the prohibited armed person list, the topic of this thread which is being granted more manpower and funding to hunt down and disarm such people.
     
  25. SHR970

    SHR970 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    338
    IANAL

    I have been present several times when a 5150 hold has been put on some one. I have twice assumed massive CIVIL liability in the course of my job when I provided the LEO's the PC necessary to invoke 5150 on suicidal people.

    For your reading pleasure California Welfare and Institutions Codes 5150 - 5157 C.W.I.C. 5150

    You might as well know what our law is so we can have an intelligent conversation on the matter.

    Also remember (its in the article) the LEO's don't have enough PC to secure a warrant simply based on the records....they need to be invited in. ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page