If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   State seizes weapons from homes of mentally ill. Judging by the derp in the comments section, the mentally ill have a problem with this   (bloomberg.com) divider line 438
    More: Stupid, California, registered owner, Vice President Joe Biden, probable cause, assault weapons  
•       •       •

11843 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



438 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 06:58:39 PM

Nick Nostril: Moral of the story: Don't ever go in for mental health treatment if you want to own guns in Kalifornia. This will end well.


That's not the moral of the story, dumbass. Living in California myself I can PROMISE YOU- seeking help when you need it is never a bad thing. If you cry all over your therapist because you just don't know what the meaning of life is, he's not going to mark you a violent criminal and toss you in the big white house with the nice young men in their clean white coats.

You'd have admit to wanting to go on a rampant shooting spree or something, or say the words "I am a danger to myself.

BY NO MEANS should we be insinuating that if you need help, you shouldn't do it for frer of The Gov. I had therapy for three years and never once did I have the cops knocking on my door seeking my guns, despite whatever diagnoses my numerous doctors may have laid upon me.
 
2013-03-13 06:59:38 PM
 
2013-03-13 07:00:12 PM

Skyd1v: Amphipath: Mirrorz: Amphipath: //puddle ice is way cooler to discuss.

That's crazy talk. You should be committed.

Ice is only bought in bags at convenience stores and grows in my refrigerator.
I've never seen that stuff outside.

Hey, I'm not kidding. This was a lot of ice. I mean, I've smashed some ice in my day, but this took some time...

[i.imgur.com image 240x320]

Last weekend...cruising on the lake...

[img202.imageshack.us image 563x394]


I sometimes wish I lived far enough north to take my WRX out and do that. It would sure make the locals happier if I didn't do it on the street.
 
2013-03-13 07:00:35 PM

duenor: Bong Hits For Mohammed:
If a felon has done his time, and been released from prison, why shouldn't he be able to exercise his natural rights?

I can see the recidivism argument. How about this:

1. Mentally ill that are a danger to others: no guns. period. this needs to be a well regulated process, however, not the current "he raped me" BS that gets any guy served with a restraining order overnight.
2. felons can own only shotguns, and only after approved by a separate court after they've done their time. the restriction is less for fear they'll commit crime (we know that criminals dont' follow laws to being with) but to be a lasting effect of their lost rights.
3. if you are convicted of a violent felony, all  your guns are seized and sold at auction. 100% of the proceeds go to your victims, then the rest goes to your family.



 Clarify?
 
2013-03-13 07:00:48 PM

peasants_are_revolting: Satanic_Hamster: That's a whole lot of stupid in those comments.  So there's people who actually disagree with removing firearms from crazy people?

The reason I submitted this was that the NRA has it on their site, and they're essentially trying to convince people that the next step is bundling people on cattle trains to Aushwitz, because you, you-know-who-else-confiscated-guns and all that BS.


What's the definition of crazy?
 
2013-03-13 07:02:16 PM

lostcat: Clarify?


THEY GET NOTHING. THEY LOSE. END OF STORY.

GOOD DAY SIR.

kiwimoogle84: BY NO MEANS should we be insinuating that if you need help, you shouldn't do it for frer of The Gov. I had therapy for three years and never once did I have the cops knocking on my door seeking my guns, despite whatever diagnoses my numerous doctors may have laid upon me.


THIS. This bears repeating. There's difference between "I hear voices and need help to make them stop", "I'm depressed and I dont want to be this way anymore", and "The voices are telling me to get my 9mm, go to safeway, and take back our state from Gabby Giffords".
 
2013-03-13 07:02:39 PM
RenownedCurator:
Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.

I think it would benefit everyone if as soon as someone filed for divorce, or were served divorce papers, all guns in the household(s) involved went into an escrow company locker for a cooling off period of 1 year; and both parties were temporally blocked from buying new guns.
 
2013-03-13 07:05:14 PM

duenor: peasants_are_revolting: Satanic_Hamster: That's a whole lot of stupid in those comments.  So there's people who actually disagree with removing firearms from crazy people?

The reason I submitted this was that the NRA has it on their site, and they're essentially trying to convince people that the next step is bundling people on cattle trains to Aushwitz, because you, you-know-who-else-confiscated-guns and all that BS.

What's the definition of crazy?


This gets decided in court all the time. They call in a set of mental health professionals to evaluate the subject and determine whether or not they are "sane."

I'm sure it's s complicated process with shades of gray that don't fit nicely into some people's word view that everything has to be black or white. But I'm also sure that there are people who are rational and understand the consequences of their actions, and some who are not, and do not.
 
2013-03-13 07:05:26 PM

Kaenneth: RenownedCurator:
Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.

I think it would benefit everyone if as soon as someone filed for divorce, or were served divorce papers, all guns in the household(s) involved went into an escrow company locker for a cooling off period of 1 year; and both parties were temporally blocked from buying new guns.


You know, in some cases, that might not be a bad idea. My own parents' divorce springs to mind. Neither were gun owners, but I'm fairly certain I inhaled enough hate during that debacle that it dripped out my pores for a decade.
 
2013-03-13 07:07:34 PM

hardinparamedic: lostcat: Clarify?

THEY GET NOTHING. THEY LOSE. END OF STORY.

GOOD DAY SIR.



100% of the proceeds go to your victims, then the rest goes to your family.

So this statement makes sense to you? OK.
 
2013-03-13 07:08:08 PM

justtray: vudukungfu: chapman: this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.

This.
Plus, how do the cops get notified without violation of HEPA, patient/client privilege, etc?

Take his guns.
Why?
He's nuts, certified.

They have a need to know?
They have certification on that?

Ignorance is always a good counter argument. Maybe you could google some of these things, starting with HIPAA.


maybe you could actually contribute something of substance, and for that matter just what are you trying to say?
 
2013-03-13 07:12:18 PM

Kaenneth: RenownedCurator:
Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.

I think it would benefit everyone if as soon as someone filed for divorce, or were served divorce papers, all guns in the household(s) involved went into an escrow company locker for a cooling off period of 1 year; and both parties were temporally blocked from buying new guns.


I think we should just toss them both in prison for a year instead. If they are a danger to others then they are a danger to others. Having a gun doesn't make a bit of difference.
 
2013-03-13 07:13:15 PM

Kaenneth: RenownedCurator:
Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.

I think it would benefit everyone if as soon as someone filed for divorce, or were served divorce papers, all guns in the household(s) involved went into an escrow company locker for a cooling off period of 1 year; and both parties were temporally blocked from buying new guns.


Any other rights that get flushed down the toilet for a year after a divorce?
 
2013-03-13 07:15:35 PM

Panatheist: justtray: maybe you could actually contribute something of substance


I'm sure one of Fark's biggest gun thread trolls will get right on that.
 
2013-03-13 07:15:47 PM

pedrop357: Kaenneth: RenownedCurator:
Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.

I think it would benefit everyone if as soon as someone filed for divorce, or were served divorce papers, all guns in the household(s) involved went into an escrow company locker for a cooling off period of 1 year; and both parties were temporally blocked from buying new guns.

Any other rights that get flushed down the toilet for a year after a divorce?



Freedom of speech.  Seriously.
 
2013-03-13 07:16:25 PM
The article is lying......the man who had his guns taken away was NOT mentally ill.......it was his WIFE who was mentally ill and they took HIS guns and hers.
 
2013-03-13 07:19:00 PM

Vtimlin: This is how it starts. Eventually it will be a DUI that makes you not elligible to own a gun. They will keep chipping away.


In Massachusetts, first-offense OUI comes with a theoretical 2.5 year sentence, even if it's never or almost never imWeeners-offense OUI in Massachusetts thus means you're a "convicted felon" as contemplated in the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.   You are then barred for life from even picking up a single round of ammunition.

When GCA68 was passed, "convicted felon" was a much smaller category, and generally included only people who had been convicted of violent crimes.  Forty years of "getting tough on crime" has brought us to where the average person probably commits three felonies a day and doesn't even realize it.

Granted, OUI is a pretty serious offense, considering the risk to the public at large, and being dumb enough to get nabbed for it betrays a certain lack of responsibility.  I'm not sure I'd want someone with a recent conviction being given a carry permit to go around armed.   But I refuse to believe that something someone did once when young and stupid should be a lifetime DQ from ever picking up a gun ever again.
 
2013-03-13 07:19:08 PM
How do you tell the difference between a gun owner and a mentally ill person?
 
2013-03-13 07:20:06 PM
AverageAmericanGuy: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x251]
From my cold, dead hands.


Acceptable.
If you would die for a piece of metal, fine.

I think gun lovers get angry over mental health checks is that, deep down, they know they'll fail.
 
2013-03-13 07:20:18 PM
crap, filter-pwned.  "Even if it's almost or almost never imposed."
 
2013-03-13 07:21:39 PM

kiwimoogle84: geekbikerskum: kiwimoogle84: $500. Here's the wisdom... Nag him into buying a sportbike. I guarantee results.

I've owned a 1200cc sportbike for ten years now, am still breathing and being a PITA to the same girlfriend I had when I first bought it.  I might trade it on something smaller since I want something with better gas mileage and haven't taken any long trips on it in some while.

It was kind of meant to be a joke at my own expense, didn't mean to threadjack WHATSOEVER. It was just crappy timing that a freighter truck didn't look left before making a turn, yet the bikers are always blamed as being at fault by the good ol' po-po's. Paid off my wedding with his life insurance. Hence the depression, and our guns being removed from the house by his brothers, for my own good.

See? I kept on topic. It's related.

/throw me a bone?


I'm throwing you a hug...
 
2013-03-13 07:22:03 PM

whatshisname: How do you tell the difference between a gun owner and a mentally ill person?



Is that a rhetorical question?
 
2013-03-13 07:22:25 PM

Panatheist: justtray: vudukungfu: chapman: this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.

This.
Plus, how do the cops get notified without violation of HEPA, patient/client privilege, etc?

Take his guns.
Why?
He's nuts, certified.

They have a need to know?
They have certification on that?

Ignorance is always a good counter argument. Maybe you could google some of these things, starting with HIPAA.

maybe you could actually contribute something of substance, and for that matter just what are you trying to say?


Well, I understood the HIPAA thing. It makes sense that a doctor and his patient have confidentiality agreements.

But just like HIV+ diagnoses, if it becomes a public safety hazard, it has to be logged with the proper channels. As soon as a therapist hears a patient detail to him a fantasy to shoot up a shopping mall, the doctor has a duty to act.

Though I guess that didn't work in the Aurora shooting case, since I believe I read somewhere that a college counselor or someone knew he had these violent feelings and did nothing.
 
2013-03-13 07:22:34 PM

trey101: but you have a problem with the link i showed earlier... because it is on a blog from glenn beck?


No, I have a problem with the link you showed earlier because it's on a site owned by a ranting maniac who has never shown once any propensity for dispensing anything that comes remotely close to the truth.

I don't care what people who make a business of lying for effect about everything have to say about anything.

jigger: This person was deprived of property by the state. According to the 5th amendment, this requires due process of law. Did this person receive it? I'd like to know if what happened is considered due process.


So, did you still just not RTFA or did you not comprehend it? Because your comments have nothing to do with what's happening.
 
2013-03-13 07:22:40 PM

duenor: cptjeff: JesseL: cptjeff: duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,

The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.

Because being submissively gassed is a much better alternative?

Either way, having guns didn't exactly protect them from a modern, well organized military. Your protection against government tyranny does not come from guns- it comes from strong democratic institutions, rule of law, a strong independent judiciary, and extremely strong protection of open political discourse.

Your first defenseagainst tyranny, you mean. And I agree entirely, and hope that that will always be enough. But any student of history, even of only US history, knows that the government is more than capable of using force as a way to impose its will upon a subjugated group.

See: blacks before brown vs board of education, native americans right up to 1960 when native american kids were still being kidnapped from their homes in maine for "their own good", japanese americans during ww2, chinese during the yellow peril....

One should read the 9 exceptions to FOIA. After doing so, and realizing that it basically means that the government can ignore the constitution if it feels that it's for "national security" (who defines and checks that?)....

So I reiterate. Vote. Join the political process. Be heard, engage. Volunteer. Be educated. But also keep your guns.

remember, historians call periods of peace by another name: the "inter-war" years.


cptjeff proved the futility of treating him as an adult in his answer to dittybopper just above: he doesnt bother to read information that might conflict with his carefully constructed worldview.
 
2013-03-13 07:26:09 PM

Witty_Retort: AverageAmericanGuy: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x251]
From my cold, dead hands.

Acceptable.
If you would die for a piece of metal, fine.

I think gun lovers get angry over mental health checks is that, deep down, they know they'll fail.


I see that you were careful with your wording- good for you. There's a huge difference between responsible gun owners who take care of their firearms and keep them locked up safely, and Uncle Joe Bob who sleeps with nine rifles in his bed.

Joe Bob probably ain't all there, what with the Nam flashbacks and all, but a guy who owns/collects handguns and uses them responsibly? That's a large chunk of the gun-owning population.
 
2013-03-13 07:28:00 PM

geekbikerskum: kiwimoogle84: It was kind of meant to be a joke at my own expense, didn't mean to threadjack WHATSOEVER. It was just crappy timing that a freighter truck didn't look left before making a turn, yet the bikers are always blamed as being at fault by the good ol' po-po's. Paid off my wedding with his life insurance. Hence the depression, and our guns being removed from the house by his brothers, for my own good.

Wow, I'm so sorry.  My sympathies on the loss of your husband.

I thought you were engaging in the usual "HURR DONORCYCLES HERP DERP" that, well, I hear quite a lot of, and have been hearing since the 1980s when I first learned to ride.  I hear it so much that I get kind of defensive about it.  And it certainly does come up a lot around these parts whenever motorcycles get mentioned.  Anyway, my most sincere apologies for shooting off my mouth before engaging my brain, and for any pain or grief I might have caused.


I'm throwing you a hug too...
 
2013-03-13 07:30:46 PM

chapman: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

Having the State AG order confiscation isn't the answer.  There should be at least some sort of due process.  We are trying to stop dangerous crazy, not "I had a bad 48 hours" crazy or "I have the sort of temporary depression that millions of perfectly safe normal people have" crazy


There is due process. In the case of mentally ill or a TRO/domestic violence order, (in CA anyway) you can go to court and petition to have the removal order lifted. Only if there is a felony conviction or a permanent RO injunction given that includes a no-gun order can your right be permanently stripped.

Which is one of those things that we seem to argue about on Fark a lot: If you are a convicted felon, your rights can be stripped willy-nilly and nobody has a problem with it...unless it's gunz (if you're a gun nut) or voting rights (if you're a librul) or welfare. So what do you want, exactly? (I mean "you" in the general sense) Do you want felons to have the same rights as anyone else, or not? Because the Constitution, like the Bible, isn't really ripe for cherry-picking. If you can take some of a felon's rights, then you can take any of them--or none of them.

In the case of the involuntarily committed mentally ill (which is different from someone who voluntarily checks in, or is just seeing a shrink), again, you can't have it both ways. Either they are a danger to themselves or others--which is why they were INVOLUNTARILY committed--and so taking their guns is quite justifiable in the name of safety like everyone wanted only a couple months ago IIRC; or they are not and then all that bleating about crazy people having gunz was just so much noise. Confiscation of weapons is what MUST HAPPEN if you want crazy people not to have gunz.

So the question is: Is that what we as a society want?
 
2013-03-13 07:31:35 PM
What other Constitutional rights should we lose if we are involuntarily committed for two days under highly suspicious circumstances? I mean, it's not like that could be easily abuse-able or anything....
 
2013-03-13 07:37:08 PM

Sgt.Zim: cptjeff proved the futility of treating him as an adult in his answer to dittybopper just above: he doesnt bother to read information that might conflict with his carefully constructed worldview.


Oh, the irony.
 
2013-03-13 07:38:35 PM
Because anyone with sense knows this is not a public safety campaign but a gun grab campaign.
 
2013-03-13 07:38:51 PM

kiwimoogle84: Witty_Retort: AverageAmericanGuy: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x251]
From my cold, dead hands.

Acceptable.
If you would die for a piece of metal, fine.

I think gun lovers get angry over mental health checks is that, deep down, they know they'll fail.

I see that you were careful with your wording- good for you. There's a huge difference between responsible gun owners who take care of their firearms and keep them locked up safely, and Uncle Joe Bob who sleeps with nine rifles in his bed.

Joe Bob probably ain't all there, what with the Nam flashbacks and all, but a guy who owns/collects handguns and uses them responsibly? That's a large chunk of the gun-owning population.


Hey, that's me! Not really a collector. I got no reason to avoid any sort of mental health check. I'm thinking about getting a new pistol for plinking cans across the pond.
We could easily come up with a few hundred multiple choice questions with answers that can set off flags and randomly pull a couple dozen off the database and have you sit in front of a computer and plug away. Even have readers there for the Southerners (MS born here. Exception, unfortunately).
Though I would like each test to have a variation of 2 questions:
1 Would you be willing to die for a piece of metal? A. Yes B. No
2 Approximately how old is the Earth? A. Less than 100,000 years B. More than 100,000 years
Answer A to either of those flags you.

/leave my Uncle Joe Bob out of it. His dad worked really hard to make sure he didn't have to go to `Nam. But he still sleeps with rifles and pistols within reach. On his 1,000 acre compound estate.
 
2013-03-13 07:39:15 PM

duenor: cptjeff: JesseL: cptjeff: duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,

The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.

Because being submissively gassed is a much better alternative?

Either way, having guns didn't exactly protect them from a modern, well organized military. Your protection against government tyranny does not come from guns- it comes from strong democratic institutions, rule of law, a strong independent judiciary, and extremely strong protection of open political discourse.

Your first defenseagainst tyranny, you mean. And I agree entirely, and hope that that will always be enough. But any student of history, even of only US history, knows that the government is more than capable of using force as a way to impose its will upon a subjugated group.


Unfortunately, when tyranny comes to America, the NRA and its supporters will not be the ones shooting at Dear Leader's goon squad.  They will be the ones waving flags and chanting slogans between the Sousa marches.
 
2013-03-13 07:41:42 PM

brainiac-dumdum: See where lying gets you? If she truly did exaggerate her illness her attention whoring cost her a constitutional right and she has no one to blame but herself. If she didn't exaggerate her condition, she's probably better off without the guns.


Comprehension fail--the nurse exaggerated the condition.  I've heard of plenty of such cases before--milk the insurance benefits and the patient can't say no.

duenor: 2. guns that don't belong to the mentally ill person are also eligible for confiscation. so my gun will be taken even though it's my little brother, who I am lovingly caring for, who is suffering manic depression. doesn't matter if it's in a safe, doesn't matter if it's a family heirloom.


How it's supposed to work is you lock it in a safe he doesn't have the combination to.  That way he has no access, you're legal.  Whether the cops consider that, though...
 
2013-03-13 07:44:40 PM

skozlaw: jigger: This person was deprived of property by the state. According to the 5th amendment, this requires due process of law. Did this person receive it? I'd like to know if what happened is considered due process.

So, did you still just not RTFA or did you not comprehend it? Because your comments have nothing to do with what's happening.


How so? The article begins by describing a story where the cops show up and take someone's guns away because they spent two days at a mental hospital. Where was the 5th amendment due process in that sequence of events? Did you read the article? It also describes someone who had been held involuntarily in a mental hospital and because of that her guns were taken. So a nurse gets a bug up her ass, has the power to hold you against your will, and because of that the cops show up and take your property. Where is the due process in that sequence of events? Notice the cop said that they don't arrest people in that situation. You know why? Because then they can't immediately destroy the guns and there's the distinct possibility that the people will get their guns back. It's not because they feel like being nice.
 
2013-03-13 07:44:50 PM
They can take my guns....but they won't take the chemicals from under my kitchen sink, in my garage and out by the pool.

I can do one hell of a lot more damage with those than I can with a Glock or an AK.

/better living through chemistry
 
2013-03-13 07:46:20 PM
This will probably piss people off, and I have only skimmed the comments, so I apologize if this has been repeated.  My understanding in the article is that they had probable cause to investigate the person in question's mental history and was the reason why the guns were confiscated.  I'm okay with this if this is truly the case.

I'd like to think I have a semi-reasonable view towards guns.  I don't like guns, and even being around police officers with guns make me very anxious, but I don't think taking away all the guns is the answer either.  Responsible people shouldn't be punished for the few that are crazy.  Let those people keep their guns without the state or anyone else impeding on that.

That being said, considering the most recent people who have gone on shooting sprees have been mentally ill, I have no problem taking guns away from these people.  In fact I am willing to err on the side of caution or not.  I don't know the exact law in California, but I would hope it's meant to target people with chronic mental illnesses.  People with severe depression, anxiety, schizophrenia... not someone who was on zoloft for a few months after a close friend died.  Now whether or not the police/law makers/politicans are smart enough to make this determination, that's another issue...

I'd also like to add that I have had sever anxiety since I was four years old.  I held off being on medication for YEARS before I started taking stuff because I didn't want to have to rely on drugs to function.  It got too much.  I know from this definition I am prohibiting myself for ever owning a gun, and I am totally okay with that.

/I am referring to this one issue, don't give me the whole "slppery slope of rights being taken away."  It's as logical as gay marriage resulting in people marrying goats next
//I have really shaky hands.  You don't want me with a gun anyway
 
2013-03-13 07:48:05 PM
The linked article is from TheBlazeand had this: Phillips said the nurse had recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk. Phillips claims the nurse had put words into her mouth..

This is from Bloomberg: In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she'd been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition...She didn't blame the attorney general's agents for taking the guns based on the information they had, she said.

She was involuntarily committed. Anyone that believes anything the read on TheBlaze is so far down the rabbit hole there is no hope for them.
 
2013-03-13 07:48:31 PM

LisaSimpson: This will probably piss people off, and I have only skimmed the comments, so I apologize if this has been repeated.  My understanding in the article is that they had probable cause to investigate the person in question's mental history and was the reason why the guns were confiscated.  I'm okay with this if this is truly the case.


They can't get a search warrant but there's probable cause for an investigation?
 
2013-03-13 07:51:24 PM

insano: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

The article says the law only applies to those who were  involuntarilycommitted, so you should be fine.


And the police would never ever take someone in on a 5150 (psychiatric observation) just to fark with them, right?  They are, after all, the police, and they can be trusted no matter what.
 
2013-03-13 07:51:42 PM

jigger: Where is the due process in that sequence of events?


The judge approving an order to have them involuntarily committed? This ain't rocket surgery. Once you've been involuntarily committed, you lose your legal right to own a firearm. If you do not have the legal right to own a firearm, possessing a firearm is a criminal offense, and continuing to own one makes you a criminal, not a responsible gun owner.
 
2013-03-13 07:52:21 PM

chapman: Happy Hours: A couple of people in this thread have pointed out that the guns are destroyed thus precluding any possibility of returning them, but even if the confiscated guns should never be returned, why destroy them?

Why not auction them off?

And if you're worried about the wrong people buying them at auction, limit the auction to federally licensed firearms dealers.

The fact that they're destroying them is a huge sign to me that the goal is to eliminate as many guns as possible.

Oh good, give the state a profit incentive, no way that will be abused.


Require that the funds go to reimburse those from whom the guns were confiscated. It sounds like as it is now, you get nothing if your guns are taken away - and as someone else pointed out, some guns can be quite valuable.

Or plow the money into mental health care or education.

Of course, if there's a possibility they could be returned, the state should store them but they would view that as an incentive to raise taxes to handle the expense of doing so.

200,000 people who could have their firearms taken away is a huge number. It already sounds like it's being abused and before you point out that California is a big state, not everyone there even owns guns in the first place.
 
2013-03-13 07:52:50 PM

NightOwl2255: She was involuntarily committed.


Okay, good thing that's never happened without good cause. Your faith in the system is unjustified.
 
2013-03-13 07:52:54 PM

Abox: Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'm OK with this, but I'm sure this thread will fill up with derpy comments to the contrary, about how the mentally ill and/or felonious have the right to own guns, too.

The Bill of Rights says they do.


No, it does not.
 
2013-03-13 07:54:58 PM

MNguy: Abox: Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'm OK with this, but I'm sure this thread will fill up with derpy comments to the contrary, about how the mentally ill and/or felonious have the right to own guns, too.

The Bill of Rights says they do.

No, it does not.


Everyone knows that people who have been deemed mentally ill are not "people".
 
2013-03-13 07:56:45 PM

cptjeff: jigger: Where is the due process in that sequence of events?

The judge approving an order to have them involuntarily committed? This ain't rocket surgery. Once you've been involuntarily committed, you lose your legal right to own a firearm. If you do not have the legal right to own a firearm, possessing a firearm is a criminal offense, and continuing to own one makes you a criminal, not a responsible gun owner.


I'm starting to think "due process" is this year's catchphrase. People seem to understand it about as well as they comprehended "voter fraud" last year, and "religious freedom" a while before that.

Protip: Due process is not what you all seem to think it is, or ought to be.
 
2013-03-13 07:57:21 PM

untaken_name: NightOwl2255: She was involuntarily committed.

Okay, good thing that's never happened without good cause. Your faith in the system is unjustified.


If you think that it's a problem, demand reform of the involuntary committal system. But the law says that if you're adjudicated to be mentally unfit, you don't get to own a gun, and the police get to enforce that.
 
2013-03-13 07:57:28 PM

jigger: skozlaw: jigger: This person was deprived of property by the state. According to the 5th amendment, this requires due process of law. Did this person receive it? I'd like to know if what happened is considered due process.

So, did you still just not RTFA or did you not comprehend it? Because your comments have nothing to do with what's happening.

How so? The article begins by describing a story where the cops show up and take someone's guns away because they spent two days at a mental hospital. Where was the 5th amendment due process in that sequence of events? Did you read the article? It also describes someone who had been held involuntarily in a mental hospital and because of that her guns were taken. So a nurse gets a bug up her ass, has the power to hold you against your will, and because of that the cops show up and take your property. Where is the due process in that sequence of events? Notice the cop said that they don't arrest people in that situation. You know why? Because then they can't immediately destroy the guns and there's the distinct possibility that the people will get their guns back. It's not because they feel like being nice.


I got the impression that she started talking to the cops, they presented their argument (and probably never said anything about the fact that they didn't have a warrant meant that she didn't have to comply), and she "surrendered" her and her husband's guns. IANAL, but if you willingingly divulge information, doesn't that mean that you've already gone past the point where you can claim 5th Amendment protection?
 
2013-03-13 07:57:50 PM
Paranoid gun nut here, I'm okay with this.
As long as there is an appeal process in the event that you're on the list wrongly, and as long as you can have somebody you sell them to pick them up from the police.  Just because you can't have it anymore doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to recoup costs to cover the loss.
 
2013-03-13 07:59:54 PM

Ionessa: That's the thing, there was only one time because I mentioned wanting to see a doctor while at work due to gloomy feelings, but they only kept me for two days as well. But at no point leading up to when they took me in, or during my time there, did I even once think of a firearm, or any other weapon for that matter. Even told the doctor I'd give my gun to my father for safe keeping at the time if it made him feel better.
So yes, I'm a bit worried on that front, even if I am from New York. It does make those of us who have had issues, and are responsible gun owners, less likely to go see a doctor for help if needed.


Supposing the 'voluntarily' vs. 'involuntarily' thing were really well-enforced, and getting help yourself meant you could keep the guns, but putting it off until you had to be committed for your own good meant you lost 'em. I would think that "Get help before you lose your guns," would be a good incentive to get help sooner rather than later, and would be a good way to get groups like the NRA on board with mental health reform in America.
 
Displayed 50 of 438 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report