Thread: California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1 California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,086
    By Michael B. Marois & James Nash - Mar 12, 2013 2:06 PM CT

    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.

    California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

    “What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.
    Read More>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sarasota,FL
    Posts
    41,896
    Who wants to try that in Chicago???
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,088
    Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaRepub View Post
    Who wants to try that in Chicago???
    Hell, I'd like to see them try that in Los Angeles.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    Hell, I'd like to see them try that in Los Angeles.
    I'm sure that they do, just not in the bad parts.

    Part of me doesn't have a problem with this, as long as the people that they are going after are (a) legitimately not permitted to own guns by virtue of criminal actions on their part or mental incompetence and (b) the execution of the warrants provides real procedural protections for the Second Amendment rights of all concerned. For example, if a person owns guns but is arrested for a felony, do we really want them to keep their guns while out on bail? This would be a case where the state has an obligation to ensure that the guns are locked up, pending the disposition of the individual's case, and that the guns be returned in the event of an acquittal. What should happen is that in the event of a stay in a mental health facility or arrest, the state should have to show cause that the state's compelling interest in public safety in this specific instance justifies the temporary impoundment of the firearms of the accused, or demonstrate that the person owning the guns is not mentally competent to keep them (under the same standard that is currently applied to defendants standing trial). I don't think that any of us would have a problem with that. What is a problem is that the state appears to be acting to grab guns based on minimal due process, which will become zero due process as we get used to it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    So the people who think that police running immigration status checks (or enforcement of "nuisance laws" in the black community) will keep Mexican women from seeking help when victims of violence don't think that this sort of thing will keep gun owners from seeking medical attention for mental health?

    In my own case, I went to my doctor for assistance in sleeping. Due to my symptoms I was afraid he would prescribe something which might endanger my concealed carry permit. As you all know, the true culprit wasn't mental illness (although it certainly felt like chemical imbalance) it was dangerously low sodium levels. But who needs a bunch of BS from the Florida Dept. Of Agriculture when he is feeling a little strange or out of sorts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    So the people who think that police running immigration status checks (or enforcement of "nuisance laws" in the black community) will keep Mexican women from seeking help when victims of violence don't think that this sort of thing will keep gun owners from seeking medical attention for mental health?

    In my own case, I went to my doctor for assistance in sleeping. Due to my symptoms I was afraid he would prescribe something which might endanger my concealed carry permit. As you all know, the true culprit wasn't mental illness (although it certainly felt like chemical imbalance) it was dangerously low sodium levels. But who needs a bunch of BS from the Florida Dept. Of Agriculture when he is feeling a little strange or out of sorts?
    I have no doubt that it will, which is why the standard for mental competency for gun ownership has to be the same as the standard for standing trial, i.e., that the accused must not know the difference between right an wrong. Simply taking an anti-depressant after a tour in Iraq or after a traumatic event shouldn't make the cut, and the burden of proof must be on the state.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I have no doubt that it will, which is why the standard for mental competency for gun ownership has to be the same as the standard for standing trial, i.e., that the accused must not know the difference between right an wrong. Simply taking an anti-depressant after a tour in Iraq or after a traumatic event shouldn't make the cut, and the burden of proof must be on the state.
    It will be abused for a result, both the threads I posted about confiscation are only the beginning of an obviously unconstitutional gun grab.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    It will be abused for a result, both the threads I posted about confiscation are only the beginning of an obviously unconstitutional gun grab.
    It can certainly be abused, but there is a legitimate compelling interest in confiscating guns from felons and those who are judged incompetent to possess firearms. The issue is how to prevent the abuse, and that requires that the law be specific in its enumeration of the circumstances under which a person can have their property confiscated, and that the law have oversight. This would be a great task for a ballot initiative:

    The Constitution of the State of California shall be amended to include the following:
    The State of California shall not confiscate any legal firearm except upon the establishment of proof, in a court of law, that the possesser of said firearm has been determined to be ineligible to own a firearm under the laws of the State of California, having been convicted of a felony or deemed incompetent by a court of law. For the purpose of declaring a person incompetent to own a firearm, there shall exist a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that:
    (a) All persons have the capacity to make decisions and to be responsible for their acts or decisions.
    (b) A mental or physical disorder does not automatically preclude ownership of firearms.
    (c) A judicial determination that a person is totally without understanding, or is of unsound mind, or suffers from one or more mental deficits so substantial that, under the circumstances, the person should be deemed to lack the legal capacity to continue to have unsupervised access to firearms, shall be based on evidence of a deficit in one or more of the person's mental functions rather than on a diagnosis of a person's mental or physical disorder.
    Firearms in the possession of persons persons under indictment or who are subject to evaluation for mental competency may be temporarily impounded, and shall be held only until the State has met the burden of proof for confiscation. Weapons shall be returned to the defendant upon acquittal or the failure of the state to meet the burden of proof for declaration of mental incompetence. Destruction of impounded weapons by the State prior to determination of the legal status of the owner is prohibited under all circumstances. Destruction of permanently confiscated firearms of significant historical value is prohibited, unless the firearm has been used in the commission of a fatal crime.

    The language regarding mental competence comes from the California Probate Code Section 810, and applies to those persons deemed incapable of caring for themselves or of dictating changes to their wills. Section 811 provides a more detailed definition of mental incompetence:

    811. (a) A determination that a person is of unsound mind or lacks the capacity to make a decision or do a certain act, including, but not limited to, the incapacity to contract, to make a conveyance, to marry, to make medical decisions, to execute wills, or to execute trusts, shall be supported by evidence of a deficit in at least one of the following mental functions, subject to subdivision (b), and evidence of a correlation between the deficit or deficits and the decision or acts in question:
    (1) Alertness and attention, including, but not limited to, the following:
    (A) Level of arousal or consciousness.
    (B) Orientation to time, place, person, and situation.
    (C) Ability to attend and concentrate.
    (2) Information processing, including, but not limited to, the following:
    (A) Short- and long-term memory, including immediate recall.
    (B) Ability to understand or communicate with others, either verbally or otherwise.
    (C) Recognition of familiar objects and familiar persons.
    (D) Ability to understand and appreciate quantities.
    (E) Ability to reason using abstract concepts.
    (F) Ability to plan, organize, and carry out actions in one's own rational self-interest.
    (G) Ability to reason logically.
    (3) Thought processes. Deficits in these functions may be demonstrated by the presence of the following:
    (A) Severely disorganized thinking.
    (B) Hallucinations.
    (C) Delusions.
    (D) Uncontrollable, repetitive, or intrusive thoughts.
    (4) Ability to modulate mood and affect. Deficits in this ability may be demonstrated by the presence of a pervasive and persistent or recurrent state of euphoria, anger, anxiety, fear, panic, depression, hopelessness or despair, helplessness, apathy or indifference, that is inappropriate in degree to the individual's circumstances.
    (b) A deficit in the mental functions listed above may be considered only if the deficit, by itself or in combination with one or more other mental function deficits, significantly impairs the person's ability to understand and appreciate the consequences of his or her actions with regard to the type of act or decision in question.
    (c) In determining whether a person suffers from a deficit in mental function so substantial that the person lacks the capacity to do a certain act, the court may take into consideration the frequency, severity, and duration of periods of impairment.
    (d) The mere diagnosis of a mental or physical disorder shall not be sufficient in and of itself to support a determination that a person is of unsound mind or lacks the capacity to do a certain act.
    (e) This part applies only to the evidence that is presented to, and the findings that are made by, a court determining the capacity of a person to do a certain act or make a decision, including, but not limited to, making medical decisions. Nothing in this part shall affect the decisionmaking proces set forth in Section 1418.8 of the Health and Safety Code, nor increase or decrease the burdens of documentation on, or potential liability of, health care providers who, outside the judicial context, determine the capacity of patients to make a medical decision.

    That burden of proof must be on the state, but once it is met, the person deemed incompetent would clearly be someone who is incapable of meeting the responsibilities of gun ownership.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    ]


    That burden of proof must be on the state, but once it is met, the person deemed incompetent would clearly be someone who is incapable of meeting the responsibilities of gun ownership.
    That may be true but they will use the wrong standard to establish who is crazy. California does not care if it takes guns away from law abiding citizens as well as the so called crazy, it is the goal of progressives to take all guns.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I have no doubt that it will, which is why the standard for mental competency for gun ownership has to be the same as the standard for standing trial, i.e., that the accused must not know the difference between right an wrong. Simply taking an anti-depressant after a tour in Iraq or after a traumatic event shouldn't make the cut, and the burden of proof must be on the state.
    They were showing a quorum in Colorado where this bitch of a state legislator was saying how she believes that any returning soldier should not be allowed to have a firearm because they come back crazy. Thankfully another legislator called her to task for making a blanket statement.
    "Inequality is a false notion propagated by those who are made to feel guilty for what they have by those who are jealous for what they don't"-Former MTV Host Kennedy
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •