Legal? - Took potential school shooters parents guns for safekeeping

I can't speak to the past, or for other agencies. But here they are in the basement locked up....twice. They are in a box with a clear plastic "lid" and they sit on a shelf, nothing is done to them or with them till the order comes from the judge, dispose or return. Then the party gets called and given the news.

 

I tried to read it, behind a pay wall. You have reached your limit on free articles.....really don't think I have looked at one.

 

My speculation is as good as yours. Unless there is consent, the firearms are believed to be used in a crime or there is reasonable and articulable suspicious that the will be used in a crime, I believe the firearms to be illegally confiscated by law enforcement. I care as much about violations of rights as I do about people in mental health crisis. I can care about both things at once. In addition, unless I’m uninformed, I don’t believe the OP is the actual parent of the child in question, so it’s perfectly reasonable for them to be thinking about what might happen to their firearms under these conditions. Maybe in another situation in which the or their family was in crisis they would have a different priority. Again, you have a lazy in my opinion that as third party observers, we can’t care about more than one thing at a time. I don’t need to prioritize my thinking, because can multithread and care about two things at the very same time.

 

I guess I missed that part where the 4th Amendment wasn’t part of the Consitution.

 

You are correct, he didn't want to end his life, just the anguish he was feeling. But so many others don't think when acting on suicidal ideation , and many kids these days don't realize that they don't automatically respawn like in their video games. It's my personal belief that we do come back, and face similar situations until we get past them without resorting to suicide.
Karmic tangent aside, many kids, and some adults, only comprehend the immediate. They want the emotional pain to end, now, and lacking mental health resources, (or believing they don't exist, or would never go there) they mentally paint themselves into a corner, and see no way out.

 

Right on!

 

This is all perfectly legal and constitutional in California.

California just this year strengthened its Red Flag laws.

 

A good friend went through this years ago. Crazy girlfriend, guns confiscated. Dude had a very nice high end collection. Took a year to get them back. Pythons, automags bren 10, m1a's etc.

They came back with the docket (?) number engraved on the slides and barrels.

This happened in the 80's (i think).

 

I think it is a matter of balance, as all Constitutional rights need to be balanced. In general, I lean towards the least individualy intrusive balance. It's the question of who is doing the balancing.

I work in the schools and deal with students who make or are alleged to have made these types of threats a few times a week. We take these statements seriously. Some of these reports are bullying reports, like the swatting calls, which has been "popular" the last 2 months.

Others are quite serious, deadly serious. I've met some scary kids. There is a large number of people working very hard in the background to minimize the threats, which most people have no idea are even around. You rarely hear about the successful stops, though they are thousands to one on the bad guy's successes.

Going back to the topic at hand, the law enforcement officers made a choice to seize those weapons: perhaps they saw negligence in the parents storage practice and parental supervision, perhaps they were hoplophobes, or perhaps wanted to minimize legal/social/media exposure (think the Parkland shooter everyone who could have done something about didn't). Perhaps there were major mental health red flags that the article didn't publish or have access to due to HIPAA. Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution while also legally obligated to protect the public. They have to find the balance too. I can almost guarantee it wasn't the street level officers who made the decision without consulting their chain of command, and I imagine the courts would give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

If my kid threatened to shoot up his school, my guns would be the least of my worries and I should be thankful the police removed them from the house so he couldn’t shoot me with them (or force me to shoot him in self-defense.)

In reality confiscating them isn’t just but neither is murder, and although I don’t think it should be legal per se, it’s not necessarily a terrible idea provided the law has an easy mechanism for the rightful owner to get his guns back after a certain amount of time. Which I doubt it does, sadly.

 

Yes, so far as it appears from your sources, it is legal.

There are three separate avenues of analysis that all bring you to the conclusion that the seizure was legal (with the stated assumptions being made):

1) The rifles were found pursuant to a search warrant service. The sources are silent as to what the Search Warrant was issued for. If the warrant were issued for evidence, and listed firearms, then they are lawfully seized.

2) California's "Red Flag" law also allows the issuance of a non-criminal Search Warrant to recover firearms where the "Red Flag" criteria are satisfied.

3) If the firearms were found unsecured within the home, they could also be seized under the provisions of California's "Safe Storage" statute (Penal Code section 25100(c)) if they were found while the LEOs were conducting the search permitted by the warrant.

About the only way the seizure would not have been permitted under California law is if: 1) The Search Warrant did not list them, and 2) There was no "Red Flag" finding, and 3) The firearms were securely stored in way the met the requirements of PC 25100.

 

Yo most of you are assuming the guns weren't locked up . IF they were locked up then that's a whole other ball game ,as there would be little justification for confiscation at that point . The kid DIDN'T have a weapon and he may NOT have been able to acquire one either .

We simply DON'T know all the circumstances or facts and one thing I've learned is , NEVER trust the Media or LEO to stick with facts ; Especially where Gun laws or political pandering is concerned

 

I think you hit the nail square on the head on this. When the facts support their narrative, we receive them in abundance, 5X5, loud and clear on every channel. But when the facts don't support their narrative; well, then we are left to do a lot of speculation and inference. Nothing to see here: move along in those cases, as far as they are concerned.

 

Wrong.
Under the California Red Flag laws, the gun can be confiscated based on a rumor. No proof required.

A kid at school can start a rumor about another kid - saying that kid is going to shoot up the school. A teacher gets wind of the rumor (not knowing it was made up of course) and reports it as required. A judge signs off on it and - the police show up at your door and take your guns. They can keep them for, I believe 5 years.

https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/resources/californias-red-flag-law/

Horrible abuse of power. But, it's been put in place by the vote of the people - so -....

 

Having a statute that asserts legal grounds for a particular act isn’t, in all cases, a reflection of the legality. We see many runaway legislators, in particular in California who are violating the law on a fairly regular basis. There are many challenges to California’s legislation in the circuit courts and in several instances there is evidence that their statutes are in fact not legal.

 

Another foiled FBI public shooting attempt.

 

California's "Red Flag" law does not permit the seizure of firearms based only on a rumor. The applicant is required to demonstrate "Clear and Convincing" evidence of danger posed by the firearms. I've taken hundreds of cases through California courts. Nearly all of the judges actually take the law seriously and do not "Rubber Stamp" applications. Some do, and that makes it only a matter of time until there is a "Juicy" anecdote about a judge signing off on a rumor-based application.

The "Red Flag" law does have a lot of problems, the biggest of which is the lack of due process for the person from which the weapons are taken.

It's also important to note that the law does not permit LEO's to "Take" weapons from the restrained person. It only allows them to request the weapons be surrendered. If the weapons are not voluntarily surrendered, there is a whole separate process the LEO's have to follow in order to obtain a search warrant that would permit them to take the weapons.

Folks should be aware of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Henderson v United States that permits folks who have had weapons seized by law enforcement to sell those weapons in order to recover their value.

California folks should also be aware of California Penal Code section 34000 that permits law enforcement agencies to destroy weapons as "abandoned" after they have been in custody for 180 days following the conclusion of court proceedings.

 

You've got the proverbial "Chicken and Egg" problem with your analysis.

When a law is finally found to be unconstitutional, it becomes without any legal effect (Marbury v Madison), even though the law may remain on the books. When California's "Stop and ID" statute was found unconstitutional, the law remained on the books for more than a decade.

But that does not mean the unconstitutional law was without effect prior to the final court decision. This issue comes up every time that some one suggests a law is unconstitutional just because they say it is. The Supreme Court addressed this "Chicken and Egg" thing in it's 1827 Brown v Maryland decision. In very simple terms, the Court held that the law is the law until it isn't.

 

Once the "teachers" have been added to the list of people that can trigger a Red Flag law, that opens that Pandora's box to untold horrors. Just ask anyone that's been involved anywhere in the country with Children's services. No teacher is going to want to be known as the one that ignored the kids talking about someone wanting to shoot up the school.

 

What's pictured appear to be "school shooter guns".
Is this is allowed to stand every student who's parents have guns will have them confiscated for "saftey".

Furthermore for me:
1 they won't find them all.
2 I'll just make more.

Postscript:
This is another example of why everyone needs a lawyer.
What if it's not even your kid, you just happen to be the aunt/uncle or grandparent and the kid name drops you because you have guns.

 

I never said it won’t have an effect. I said because it is a statute, it doesn’t make it “legal.” That may be semantically incorrect, but my point is, just because some legislature somewhere says “oh yeah we passed a law that the mayor gets to sleep with everyone’s wife,” it doesn’t make it legal.

 

It does until that legislation is either struck down for legal reasons by the judicial branch, or by the legislative branch, through referendum.

An "executive order", by that mayor, or a Governor, or even POTUS, is not law, and is therefore not legally enforceable.

 

I can empathically tell all of you ,what should happen according to the Law and what does actually happen in California ,does NOT always happen . I'm living proof of a Judge stealing MY personal property via the court system and falsifying a court record in order to continue the fabrication MY Pistol was ordered destroyed and in fact WAS NOT !. Because upon his death MY pistol was recovered and returned too ME ,however that took a little over #40 years !. And I had immediately petitioned the court for the return of MY property ,as there was NO felony associated with MY illegal search and seizure . CHP perjured himself on the stand #3 times and his testimony thrown out ,however the Gun was in fact Mine and in MY vehicle . The judge deemed it a Saturday night special loaded with hollow points ,fined ME and remanded custody of the pistol too the Sheriff's dept. for destruction . Which was TOTALLY ILLEGAL . First time in MY lifetime I'd heard a Walther PPK was a Saturday night special

I've GOOD friends in several places both High and Low . I learned that particular Judge had in fact STOLEN SEVERAL firearms over the years and upon his death his Wife contacted a licensed dealer who was going to purchase or consign his collection ,so he ran the numbers and several came back as DESTROYED or outright reported stolen !. May he rest in Hell for all eternity

 

Not true.

Executive orders can't MAKE law. However, they CAN provide clarification and guidance on existing laws and they can also be issued based on the powers the Constitution has assigned to the Executive Branch.

They are, in fact, codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (for the POTUS).

Most states are very similarly set up in the same manner as that of the POTUS with respect to EOs.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/