California Gun Confiscation and Mental health

[joeschmoe]

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.
Period.

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 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.

Do you see where those 2 parts contradict each other.

 

[Zoogster]

In court evidence can be refuted, challenged, determined to be poor.

A cop saying he feels someone may be a danger to themselves or someone else is pretty pathetic for something that results in what amounts to automatic conviction with no trial option or appeals process.



Loss of a right that "shall not be infringed" at the word of a lone individual without even a crime being alleged to have been committed.

 

[joeschmoe]

How is that different from being arrested for making threats? The officer locks you in a cage for the weekend based on nothing more than his say so. Monday morning you do not get to challenge the evidence, officer or anything else. You can be released on bail, or if they decide not to you don't. Usually you must surrender your arms while on bail for making threats or domestic violence.
I agree that losing your rights for 5 years without additional due process or appeal is wrong, but it is the current law and not that much different than the criminal process.
I think the people who are acting surprised by this don't know we have 5 million Americans in prison, millions more out on parole and millions more who have had their rights taken away forever. Most of who are not violent criminals.

I hope more start waking up to the reality of how little it takes for our government takes peoples rights. People think it's just murderers and rapists who are prohibited. No. It used to be serious felonies, then it was lowered to 5 years in prison, then 2 years. Now it's any misdemeanor crime which you COULD have received 1 year in jail.

Soon it will be speeding more than 4 miles over the limit or raising your voice at work.

 

[Bubbles]

The woman in the article spoke with a reporter from TheBlaze and claims she admitted herself voluntarily at the suggestion of her psychiatrist.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/

 

[Frank Ettin]

And indeed in California, to be admitted to a facility for evaluation under 5150, the facility must be convinced that probable cause exists for the admission. Admission for an evaluation can not exceed 72 hours, and a longer commitment requires a hearing before a judge.

This isn't a new thing. These sorts of things have been going on for a long time. It's not like someone just decided yesterday to start tossing folks in mental institution so that "
the Man" can take their guns.

 

[splithoof]

I agree with Zoogster 100%.

 

[JohnBT]

"Soon it will be speeding more than 4 miles over the limit or raising your voice at work."

Do you truly believe this?

 

[JohnBT]

"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."

That's a very good point - it takes at least 2 people. The cop on the street can't simply have a person admitted for a 72-hour eval. I believe the phrase I've heard is that the 5150 form only gets them to the front door; then the staff has to agree they need an evaluation. (And there has to be a bed available. Big bottleneck.)

John

Fwiw - Around 1980, we had a client at the office who decided to clean off a couple of desks and throw some papers around and then he locked himself in an office for 10 minutes. I got there by the time two officers responded to the call (to evict the guy) and they said they wouldn't do anything because the man was now calm and they hadn't witnessed the behavior...

Then the guy got mad and dropkicked his parka out into traffic. Off to the hospital he went.

 

[itsa pain]

john bt I believe that. look at the smoking and seatbelt laws where they passed the barebones law then kept adding to them casting a much bigger net. how anyone with a sane mind could say with a straight face that govt does not expand their laws is beyond me

 

[SHR970]

Zoogster originally said: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.

Nope, sorry that is not what the law says.

In 5150 an assessment needs to be performed.

WIC 5151. If the facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation admits
the person, it may detain him or her for evaluation and treatment for
a period not to exceed 72 hours. Key words: If the facility admits.

5250 can only be invoked by two designated professionals, and the specificity is laid out in the law. Further a 5250 certification also comes with the right to a hearing WIC 5255 and 5256. The person heading up the hearing is a court officer WIC 5256.1

CWIC 5250-5259

Under an even more narrow set of circumstances they can go beyond 14 days CWIC 5260-5268 & 5270.

It still comes down to this...a LEO can not just say you are a threat to yourself in Ca. and get you a 72 hour hold. He must be able to qualify the statement with something real and tangible that will pass the smell test. If you go tinfoil hat; you may just qualify.

WIC 5150.4. "Assessment" for the purposes of this article, means the determination of whether a person shall be evaluated and treated
pursuant to Section 5150. The assessment is performed by a licensed mental health professional at a designated facility.

 

[-Xero-]

Disabled veterans, diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and preliminarily classed as "at risk" (a vague, non-specific and non legal designation) were barred by NICS from purchasing firearms. Evidently no restrictions on prior ownership, no confiscation of currently owned firearms.

This ruling was overturned by the courts. Lots of people are statistically "at risk" for all sorts of stuff while not being a threat to themselves or others.

There's a HUGE LEGAL DISTINCTION between being admitted to a psychiatric facility and being "adjudicated." Nonetheless, this seems the current "slippery slope" being pushed in the legislatures.

Mental Healthcare Professionals -- particularly those who work through the Vets. Admin. -- are extremely concerned about patient confidentiality and legal requirements to "report" those "at risk." The consequence of "reporting mandates" is that those with problems -- particularly veterans -- simply decline to seek help.

Currently more veterans commit suicide than are lost in battle.

 

[VINTAGE-SLOTCARS]

5150 wic

xxx

 

[Frank Ettin]

Disabled veterans, diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and preliminarily classed as "at risk" (a vague, non-specific and non legal designation) were barred by NICS from purchasing firearms. Evidently no restrictions on prior ownership, no confiscation of currently owned firearms....

Please provide documentation.

...This ruling was overturned by the courts....

What ruling, exactly? Please provide a citation.

 

[Zoogster]

It still comes down to this...a LEO can not just say you are a threat to yourself in Ca. and get you a 72 hour hold. He must be able to qualify the statement with something real and tangible that will pass the smell test. If you go tinfoil hat; you may just qualify.

The cop on the street can't simply have a person admitted for a 72-hour eval. I believe the phrase I've heard is that the 5150 form only gets them to the front door; then the staff has to agree they need an evaluation. (And there has to be a bed available. Big bottleneck.)

The official formalities and what happens in real life may sound the same but are not quite as protective of your rights as you may think.
If LEO shows up with someone and says they are a threat the credible law enforcement officer will typically be believed and they will go along with thier initial assessment that the individual needs to be at least evaluated as a threat to themselves or others.
He may need to articulate a reason, but once done it is almost a certain thing.


As for 5250 you are correct that it takes a little more, I kept it simple for the sake of the thread. Even there the specific professionals that do such things on a regular basis go through the motions, make an educated determination and move on to the next guy. These are professionals that make thier rounds check forms, and deal with such things on a regular basis.
While a hearing may sound professional and give images of a court room to the average person, some guys set up in an office or available area or designated area and make a determination on various cases, then move on to thier other work. Its not like there is a criminal trial, or the burden of proof required in a criminal court with witnesses challenges to evidence, a jury, or bias towards the defendant with reasonale doubt criteria.
The way these things can remove rights is with much lesser difficulty than in a criminal court with all the rights accused get there, and bias towards the defendant. It is less likely than a 5150 and more difficult, but it also prohibits people for life federally.

In a nation that prides itself on giving rights to the criminally accused and an intended bias towards not guilty built into the system, this mental health system certainly sidesteps a large percentage of those rights and is more in line with the criminal justice system of some third world nations.

(And there has to be a bed available. Big bottleneck.)

Which is essentially saying one of the big things protecting people from excessive abuse is a lack of mental health funding for more hospitals and beds.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The official formalities and what happens in real life may sound the same but are not quite as protective of your rights as you may think.
If LEO shows up with someone and says they are a threat the credible law enforcement officer will typically be believed and they will go along with thier initial assessment...

And you know this how? What evidence or documentation can you provide to support your claim?

...Even there the specific professionals that do such things on a regular basis go through the motions,...

And you know this how? What evidence or documentation can you provide to support your claim?

You are basically accusing professionals of shirking their legal and professional obligations. If you're going to do that, you need to provide some pretty strong, convincing evidence to support your claim.

 

[joeschmoe]

The official formalities and what happens in real life may sound the same but are not quite as protective of your rights as you may think.
If LEO shows up with someone and says they are a threat the credible law enforcement officer will typically be believed and they will go along with thier initial assessment that the individual needs to be at least evaluated as a threat to themselves or others.
He may need to articulate a reason, but once done it is almost a certain thing.

While a hearing may sound professional and give images of a court room to the average person, some guys set up in an office or available area or designated area and make a determination on various cases, then move on to thier other work. Its not like there is a criminal trial, or the burden of proof required in a criminal court with witnesses challenges to evidence, a jury, or bias towards the defendant with reasonale doubt criteria.

You do not get those things at arrest for a criminal offense. You may get them months later at trail, but less than 1% of cases end in trail. So that point is largely moot. If an officer thinks you are a threat to yourself or others you're going to jail or the hospital. You do not get to challenge evidence or the officer that night. You will spend a few days in jail or the hospital. As they love to say; "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

 

[HorseSoldier]

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?

There are HIPAA exceptions for some law enforcement matters.

 

[Skylerbone]

At some point, IMO, it must be conceded that barring a massive conspiracy effort on the part of legislators, law enforcement, mental health professionals, lawyers and judges, that the system has a reasonable number of safeguards built in to protect those who are lawful and separate those who are not. Without any mechanism for removing rights, we as firearm owners would need shoulder the burden of allowing every citizen unlimited right to bear arms without restriction regardless of mental state or criminal disposition. I for one would never choose to defend that position as there are and must be limits on any right given an individual by a society.

It has been pointed out in the case cited in CA that the woman in question allowed officers into her home; read invited. Her failure to comprehend the law or request a valid search warrant does not relegate the actions taken by those officers to be nefarious. A legitimate reason for their dispatch was present and they did their job. As to the individual woman and what we know of her, she 1) sought out mental health assistance, 2) was asked by a professional to seek more comprehensive help, 3) complied with that advice, 4) may not have considered the consequences of her actions as a firearms owner and 5) may not have considered the consequences of inviting law enforcement into her home for a look around without a warrant.

In any case it is, again IMO, a more fitting example of ignorance of law being no excuse. I may hold personal opinion of such an individual beyond what's been stated given the events leading up to the seizure but they might be considered reaching to the point of recklessness.