California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

[Parker 213]

California really likes to push the envelope, don't they? (Concerns for this becoming a national model in the making?)

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-11/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms

 

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.

 

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

 

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.

[TK421 2]

As they make our point for us, what have we learned here?

 

A. Never voluntarily let your government know what you have or where it is.

 

B. Regardless of need never seek mental health services.

 

C. Never keep all of you firearms and ammunition at one location.

 

D. You can never have too many guns or too many storage locations.

 

E. Preparing goes beyond purchasing and storing.

[Bully 749]

As they make our point for us, what have we learned here?

 

B. Regardless of need never seek mental health services.

 

Although I understand why you are saying what you are saying, some things go beyond wanting to own firearms. I would say that the "big picture" needs to be considered by anyone seeking mental health services. Realizing that your rights may be compromised would be part of that. However, sometimes getting healthy is more important than keeping guns. It is a very personal decision that should NOT be litigated on. JMHO.

 

C

[Candide 0]

If you need mental health services you should transfer all your firearms to a friend, then seek services. Then when asked if you own guns then you can answer no truthfully. After said services are done, get your guns tranfered back.

 

 

[wooly bugger 1]

 

Although I understand why you are saying what you are saying, some things go beyond wanting to own firearms. I would say that the "big picture" needs to be considered by anyone seeking mental health services. Realizing that your rights may be compromised would be part of that. However, sometimes getting healthy is more important than keeping guns. It is a very personal decision that should NOT be litigated on. JMHO.

 

C

 

+1. It's extremely hard to get involuntarily committed. And even if you do, and you followed the other rules above, they won't know you have guns and realistically aren't going to go to every FFL to search for your name on their books.

 

I've never seen a psychiatrist even consider getting someone committed as part of a personal vendetta, and believe me, they run into plenty of hateful people. Other than professional integrity, it just wouldn't work and would backfire on them professionally.

[Sigman 41]

Mental health records should never be turned over to the government for any reason. It's just another avenue set up for abuse by our elected officials. It's another control method that can be used to promote an agenda.

 

We don't want someone who is really mentally ill to have firearms, but it should not be left to government officials to decide. If someone is suspected of being mentally unstable, it should be reported to the local authorities and investigated by a neutral party. There should also be legislation in place to help prevent false accusations and protect peoples rights. If someone is deemed to be unstable to the point they may be dangerous, then yes, the firearms should be secured from that person.

 

I'm not sure of the best way to do this, but we need to get the control out of the governments hands. We want people to not feel threatened to go for help when they really need it. There are many that just need to talk with someone to help get their life in order before it gets worse.

 

There is too much corruption in the government to give them the authority to decide who is mentally ill beyond the point of having firearms. Once they get records, they can decide how to use them to get whatever legislation they want passed. It doesn't necessarily have to be gun control.

 

Do you really want them to have that power?

[TK421 2]

Two words: due process.

 

The problem is they are doing everything in their power to avoid it and therein lies the problem. Until there are sufficient protections in place you would (pardon the pun) have to be nuts to seek any type of mental health help. Look what they are doing to these poor bastards coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, these guys put their lives on the line, did a hard job and come home to a bunch of douchebags trying to summarily strip them of their rights for their efforts. Absolutely disgraceful. My point above was more rhetorical in nature, that people are going to choose not to seek help they really need to avoid being black listed without proper due process.

[quikz 34]

They're All 'mental' in CA.

 

 

[Pythagoras 2]

As they make our point for us, what have we learned here?

 

A. Never voluntarily let your government know what you have or where it is.

 

B. Regardless of need never seek mental health services.

 

C. Never keep all of you firearms and ammunition at one location.

 

D. You can never have too many guns or too many storage locations.

 

E. Preparing goes beyond purchasing and storing.

 

All good advice given the current legislation, but the fact that B exists is really sad. Unfortunately, legislators are further stigmatizing mental health and discouraging people from seeking treatment, which is a major source of the problem.