Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Stupid, California, registered owner, Vice President Joe Biden, probable cause, assault weapons  
•       •       •

11892 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:48 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



438 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-13 03:49:18 PM  
A friend of a friend's brother (yeah, I know, but still...) was recently convicted of a felony.  They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.
 
2013-03-13 03:52:01 PM  
My brother's friend is a paranoid schizophrenic who killed a man by using a ceramic flower pot just outside the victim's front door. If anything, we shouldn't be taking arms away from the mentally ill, we should be giving them all flower pots. Wait, what are we talking about?
 
2013-03-13 03:52:17 PM  

3.bp.blogspot.com
From my cold, dead hands.

 
2013-03-13 03:52:59 PM  
"Better mental health!"

"Wait, I'm crazy? Don't thread on me! Shall not be infringed!" said the Area man.
 
2013-03-13 03:53:53 PM  
There are four people in the U.S. who have legally changed their name to Herp Derp.

I don't know what their fark handles are though, but I'm pretty sure one of them is tenpoundsofcheese
 
2013-03-13 03:54:51 PM  
If you don't go to a shrink, you have nothing to worry about.  And neither do the other twelve people in my head....
 
2013-03-13 03:56:15 PM  
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?
 
2013-03-13 03:56:27 PM  
Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.
 
2013-03-13 03:56:43 PM  
That's why I always wear my tinfoil hat.  They can't detect my brain's crazy waves and track me down.
 
2013-03-13 03:56:57 PM  
Oh... this thread will be glorious...

28.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-13 03:57:00 PM  
At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares
 
2013-03-13 03:57:15 PM  

WhoGAS: If you don't go to a shrink, you have nothing to worry about.  And neither do the other twelve people in my head....


You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.
 
2013-03-13 03:57:18 PM  
"I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun," Phillips said. "I'm not a threat. We're law-abiding citizens."

Law abiding citizens apparently = not actively shooting up a playground so what's the problem you pinko commie.
 
2013-03-13 03:57:23 PM  
Yeaaaahh; registration can't ever ever ever come back and bite you in the butt!

If they let him go after 2 days; then they couldn't legally keep him anymore. So, he might be unstable; but, not enough to be confined to the mental hospital.

I do see the other side; it's damn hard to get someone committed who doesn't want to go onto the cart.

/ he did the responsible thing and surrendered his guns
 
2013-03-13 03:57:39 PM  

Heamer: My brother's friend is a paranoid schizophrenic who killed a man by using a ceramic flower pot just outside the victim's front door. If anything, we shouldn't be taking arms away from the mentally ill, we should be giving them all flower pots. Wait, what are we talking about?


See where pot gets you?
 
2013-03-13 03:58:08 PM  
They got a friend in the NRA.
 
2013-03-13 03:58:10 PM  
That's a whole lot of stupid in those comments.  So there's people who actually disagree with removing firearms from crazy people?
 
2013-03-13 03:58:23 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 03:58:44 PM  
As a fairly rabid gun-nut I have no problem with this, as long as the people whose guns are being seized were actually given due process and properly adjudicated as mentally defective.

Something like a single doctor's diagnosis alone should never be sufficient to permanently deprive someone of any of their civil rights.
 
2013-03-13 03:59:29 PM  
Good. I have a friend with a neighbor who's a retired mercenary. Dude's really farked up: PTSD, depression, paranoia. He's also heavily armed. Or he was until the local cops took away his AK47, AR15, Glock... Now I'm not afraid to visit my friend on Friday nights when his neighbor is usually drunk and out of control.

It's scary how many people think we're better off letting nutbars own assault weapons. Those people are mainly nutbars themselves.
 
2013-03-13 03:59:39 PM  

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?


Lots of them post here. They tell you they support it, and then list dozens of reasons why it shouldn't ever happen.
 
2013-03-13 04:00:08 PM  
Oh holy shiat subby was right there's a guy throwing around sieg heil's in their comments.
 
2013-03-13 04:00:25 PM  

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
 
2013-03-13 04:00:27 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-13 04:00:41 PM  
There's no reason to own a gun anwyays
 
2013-03-13 04:00:41 PM  
This thread will be glorious. Discord. Chaos. Chocolate Rain.
 
2013-03-13 04:00:56 PM  

Bastard Toadflax: Or he was until the local cops took away his AK47, AR15, Glock.


Did he intentionally buy buzzword firearms or are you generalizing?
 
2013-03-13 04:01:02 PM  

chapman: WhoGAS: If you don't go to a shrink, you have nothing to worry about.  And neither do the other twelve people in my head....

You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.


Or dissuade them from owning guns.
 
2013-03-13 04:01:38 PM  
I was late to work today because I stopped to smash all the thin, delicate ice that formed above a massive puddle on my walk in. I love breaking it. I could do it for hours, and I'm no spring chicken. Just brings the kid out in me. What do you guys think about smashing ice on puddles?

/fark the boring gun topic.
//puddle ice is way cooler to discuss.
 
2013-03-13 04:02:56 PM  
i970.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-13 04:03:00 PM  

Mirrorz: Bastard Toadflax: Or he was until the local cops took away his AK47, AR15, Glock.

Did he intentionally buy buzzword firearms or are you generalizing?


Don't be silly. Those are the only three types of guns that exist these days.
 
2013-03-13 04:03:09 PM  

Mirrorz: Bastard Toadflax: Or he was until the local cops took away his AK47, AR15, Glock.

Did he intentionally buy buzzword firearms or are you generalizing?


He told me what he owned. He used to work for Blackwater or some other "security" outfit. Killed people for money in Iraq. It seriously messed with his mind.
 
2013-03-13 04:03:13 PM  

Cymbal: I don't know what their fark handles are though, but I'm pretty sure one of them is tenpoundsofcheese


Isn't that considered to be "calling out"?
 
2013-03-13 04:03:39 PM  

timujin: They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.


That'sreasonable.
"The state gets to take your stuff with no warrant, arrest, or trial", not so reasonable.

/The cause may be just but the method is shady, to say the least.
/This sort of thing is not really selling the "gun registry" idea to owners.
 
2013-03-13 04:03:44 PM  

jfivealive: There's no reason to own a gun anwyays


Well shiat, it's a good thing you told me. Guess I'll get rid of mine then.

/never mind about the hunting
//and recreational target shooting
///and self defense
////-from people and dangerous animals
////and keeping the king of England out of your face
 
2013-03-13 04:03:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 04:03:55 PM  
I kinda like the disarm the mentally ill thing. It's a good way to get guns out of the hands of democrats.


/rimshot
 
2013-03-13 04:04:16 PM  

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 problem is that "crazy people" is a loose definition. cops can even do that to one of their own when he tries to do the right thing. just look up "Adrian Schoolcraft"
 
2013-03-13 04:04:18 PM  
So if you legally bought the firearm and it was confiscated due to a restraining order or medical records do you get remunerated by the State?  What happens when the restraining order expires, do you get the firearm back?

Seems there should be a lawsuit if not.
 
2013-03-13 04:04:53 PM  
Of course you can take guns away from the mentally ill, you just have to wait until they make their first kill before doing so.
 
2013-03-13 04:04:57 PM  

Bastard Toadflax: It's scary how many people think we're better off letting nutbars own assault weapons. Those people are mainly nutbars themselves.


This.

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


Also.
 
2013-03-13 04:05:26 PM  

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?


In the name of gun safety people like you should not have their guns taken or even be an issue.  Mental health care should be more accessible and if people are afraid that by getting help they stand to have their taken they won't seek help.

/some one should write a song about this
 
2013-03-13 04:05:33 PM  

kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares


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.
 
2013-03-13 04:05:36 PM  
Are politicians sane enough to own guns?  I'd think not...
 
2013-03-13 04:06:24 PM  

StrikitRich: So if you legally bought the firearm and it was confiscated due to a restraining order or medical records do you get remunerated by the State?  What happens when the restraining order expires, do you get the firearm back?

Seems there should be a lawsuit if not.


I was just wondering this. Also I wonder what the appeal process (if any) is.
 
2013-03-13 04:07:21 PM  

StrikitRich: So if you legally bought the firearm and it was confiscated due to a restraining order or medical records do you get remunerated by the State?  What happens when the restraining order expires, do you get the firearm back?

Seems there should be a lawsuit if not.


No- if they had to take them, you were in violation of the law by possessing those guns. They get confiscated, and it's your loss.
 
2013-03-13 04:08:07 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.


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.
 
2013-03-13 04:08:11 PM  

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


Define "mentally ill" for us, please.
 
2013-03-13 04:08:34 PM  

kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares


Did you nag him to death ?

/don't care
 
2013-03-13 04:08:39 PM  

way south: timujin: They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.

That'sreasonable.
"The state gets to take your stuff with no warrant, arrest, or trial", not so reasonable.

/The cause may be just but the method is shady, to say the least.
/This sort of thing is not really selling the "gun registry" idea to owners.


Hey, if asset forfeiture is legal then so is this.
 
2013-03-13 04:09:34 PM  

chapman: You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.


Oh shut up.
 
2013-03-13 04:10:08 PM  
Chapman: You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.

THIS!

Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....
 
2013-03-13 04:10:35 PM  

iheartscotch: Yeaaaahh; registration can't ever ever ever come back and bite you in the butt!


No, it can't.
The Constitution says they can't just come and take your shiat.  I get a trial and a lawyer and stuff, right?  The police can't just come and take my stuff and trash it, right?  Right?  Guys?  Guys?

Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh .. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eleventh .... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
2013-03-13 04:10:44 PM  
Four dead after shootings in up state New York

Six people have been shot in two separate incidents in Herkimer County, four of whom have been confirmed dead. It seems that police are looking for one suspect for both incidents. Two people were shot and killed at Gaffey's Car Wash on Mohawk Street in the Village of Herkimer. Four people were shot at John's Barber Shop on Main Street in Mohawk. Two were killed and two were injured.


They did not see the sign on the door prohibiting guns. If only they had read the sign. /s
 
2013-03-13 04:10:53 PM  

iheartscotch: Yeaaaahh; registration can't ever ever ever come back and bite you in the butt!

If they let him go after 2 days; then they couldn't legally keep him anymore. So, he might be unstable; but, not enough to be confined to the mental hospital.

I do see the other side; it's damn hard to get someone committed who doesn't want to go onto the cart.

/ he did the responsible thing and surrendered his guns


Might not be unstable enough to be confined, or just might not have good enough insurance to pay for the bed.
 
2013-03-13 04:10:59 PM  
I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I was going to buy one, but then I remembered that I'm not a pussy.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:09 PM  
Why is this a problem again?

Oh right, the NRA and the batshiat crazy brigade.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:42 PM  

timujin: A friend of a friend's brother (yeah, I know, but still...) was recently convicted of a felony.  They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.


TEH POUTRAGE OF IT ALL
 
2013-03-13 04:11:48 PM  

Gosling: Law abiding citizens apparently = not actively shooting up a playground


I think you'll find that those who are not using their guns to commit crimes are in fact law abiding citizens (however much certain hysterical people would like to scapegoat, say, NRA members as the greatest threat to America).

so what's the problem you pinko commie.

Speaking of communists, didn't they use the charge of "mental illness" to marginalize political opposition? God knows that many on the modern Left like to define practically every conservative viewpoint nowadays as "fringe", "extreme", the result of some "phobia" or "-ism" or deficiency of intellect or character, etc. Psychiatric diagnoses are not, despite popular opinion, founded in objective science, but are merely convenient guidelines capable of being manipulated for political purposes -- and if the right to gun ownership is made dependent upon a clean bill of mental health, the definition of who is mentally healthy will end up being greatly narrowed in the interests of gun control.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:50 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-13 04:11:58 PM  

mark12A: Chapman: You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.

THIS!

Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


And then and only then will the government be able to oppress us.

I'll bet you think Red Dawn was a documentary.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:59 PM  

Benjamin Orr: Don't be silly. Those are the only three types of guns that exist these days.


Yep.
It's just that the first two mentioned are model numbers and the latter is a brand name.

I guess you could refer to "Glocks" by their model names with G17, G19, G26, G34 being the ultra-mega scary 9mm versions.
 
2013-03-13 04:12:04 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


Cheron: 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?

In the name of gun safety people like you should not have their guns taken or even be an issue.  Mental health care should be more accessible and if people are afraid that by getting help they stand to have their taken they won't seek help.

/some one should write a song about this


Exactly my point. They should at least expand on whom they deem to be "crazy" enough to have their guns taken away. At this point it sounds like they're just saying, "Well, you went to the hospital for a few days, let's take care of those guns for you, regardless of if you're actually mentally stable or not."
 
2013-03-13 04:12:28 PM  

Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


People involuntarily committed is a no brainer. Theres already a process for getting that in Cali I believe its not easy.
 
2013-03-13 04:12:43 PM  
This should scare you:


They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

"The prohibited person can't have access to a firearm," regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office.

 You live with someone who is mentally ill, you lose your rights.  Sorry.

Actually, that's probably unconstitutional.  This case is from a different federal district than California, but I can't imagine the Supreme Court striking down this reasoning:

The Court finds that the Indictment fails to set forth an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2. 
Furthermore, under Heller, and its progeny, the Second Amendment protects defendant Huet‟s 
right to possess the firearm the government seeks to criminalize through the use of sections 2 and 
922(g)(1). To hold otherwise would be to ignore Heller: defendant Huet, not being a felon, 
insane, or otherwise disabled from possessing a gun, is entitled to possess a lawful firearm in her 
home, a place which is recognized as sacrosanct for purposes of Second Amendment analysis.

USA v. Huet

Melissa Huet owned an SKS rifle, and her boyfriend Marvin Hall was a convicted felon.  He was charged with constructive possession of her rifle, and she was charged with aiding and abetting his possession of a firearm.
 
2013-03-13 04:13:10 PM  

StrikitRich: So if you legally bought the firearm and it was confiscated due to a restraining order or medical records do you get remunerated by the State?  What happens when the restraining order expires, do you get the firearm back?

Seems there should be a lawsuit if not.


If they take your car away from you because you've been driving it dangerously do you get your money back? Even if it's because of a medical disorder?

I know the knee-jerk response is going to be "but you actually broke the law in that case", but the fundamental reasoning behind both actions remains exactly the same: that you're potentially dangerous even if you didn't actually hurt anybody yet and the state has an interest to protect the public that, because of the circumstances, outweighs your interest in your property in this particular case.

So, yes, you can be "technically correct" if you want (being the best kind of correct, of course), but the only purpose it could really serve would be to avoid the real issue by punting on the technical rules which have already been changed in this situation anyway.
 
2013-03-13 04:14:49 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 04:14:50 PM  

RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

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.



That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 

cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

Did you nag him to death ?

/don't care


It usually takes years for a successful wife to nag her husband to death. I was SO GOOD, I did it in six weeks. I deserve an award or something. This is MAJOR. I could teach lessons.
 
2013-03-13 04:15:33 PM  
I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.
 
2013-03-13 04:15:56 PM  

dittybopper: This should scare you:


They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

"The prohibited person can't have access to a firearm," regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office.
 You live with someone who is mentally ill, you lose your rights.  Sorry.

Actually, that's probably unconstitutional.  This case is from a different federal district than California, but I can't imagine the Supreme Court striking down this reasoning:

The Court finds that the Indictment fails to set forth an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2. 
Furthermore, under Heller, and its progeny, the Second Amendment protects defendant Huet‟s 
right to possess the firearm the government seeks to criminalize through the use of sections 2 and 
922(g)(1). To hold otherwise would be to ignore Heller: defendant Huet, not being a felon, 
insane, or otherwise disabled from possessing a gun, is entitled to possess a lawful firearm in her 
home, a place which is recognized as sacrosanct for purposes of Second Amendment analysis.
USA v. Huet

Melissa Huet owned an SKS rifle, and her boyfriend Marvin Hall was a convicted felon.  He was charged with constructive possession of her rifle, and she was charged with aiding and abetting his possession of a firearm.


Yes, this
 
2013-03-13 04:16:54 PM  
83 Yr. Old Woman Uses Gun To Scare Off Burglar, But Is Then Shot & Killed By Police in Her Backyard

An 83 year old woman in VA allegedly used a handgun to fire a warning shot to scare off a burglar late at night. The woman, Delma Towler, also called police to report the break in.
Before police arrived, Towler fired the warning shot and then tried to make her way across her backyard to her nearby sister's house, while still holding her gun.
When police arrived on the scene they saw the armed woman in the backyard and at some point shot and killed her.


When seconds count the police are just going to kill you.
 
2013-03-13 04:17:10 PM  

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents...


40 years ago the APA called homosexuality a mental illness.  As important and valuable as mental health services are, we still need to recognize that the organizations are run by people who might be clouded by political opinion and bias.
 
2013-03-13 04:17:46 PM  

Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


That is defined by the states, not me. I would likely be a bit more aggressive than the state definitions.
 
2013-03-13 04:17:50 PM  
This is why I will never register my guns.

Ever.
 
2013-03-13 04:18:04 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  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.


Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/
 
2013-03-13 04:18:13 PM  
well how am i supposed to defend myself against the aliens without my gun? this tin foil only stops the mind rays....
 
2013-03-13 04:18:54 PM  

timujin: A friend of a friend's brother (yeah, I know, but still...) was recently convicted of a felony.  They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.


and when he gets caught he can expect a good 10 years of taking it in the keister
 
2013-03-13 04:18:57 PM  
So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?
 
2013-03-13 04:19:35 PM  
If your too crazy to own a gun your too crazy to be on the street. Make mental health care available to those who need and get mentally unstable people the help they need. If your a danger to yourself or others you should be locked up in a mental health ward getting the treatment and help you need. If you aren't a danger to yourself or others than there is no reason to deprive you of your rights.
 
2013-03-13 04:19:49 PM  

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?


Crazy by whose standards? Yours, mine, I mean really I cab think of several people I khow who I consider crazy, however I do not consider them dangerous.  I understand what they are trying to do, but what are the guidlines for claiming someone is "crazy".  Is that for anyone who has had a bout with depression? someone who is bipolar?

And what's to prevent someone with mental health issues from lying about it when they go and purchase a gun.  Do  you honestly think that I would tell that I had an issue with depression?  Oh hell no.

And as far as I'm concerned, why do we keep felons from voting and having guns?  I think that if you pay for your crime your rights should be restored. Fully restored.  It's like making them pay over and over for something that they paid for by being in prison.

/not a felon.
/and only slightly crazy.
 
2013-03-13 04:19:59 PM  

trey101: So tell me, which one is correct?


Considering you're linking to Glenn Beck's blog I'm going to go with "whatever is the opposite of what the page says"...
 
2013-03-13 04:20:46 PM  

Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.


That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just because I didn't want to take the easy route to solve my issues and acted on it. That could have been bad.
 
2013-03-13 04:21:06 PM  

trey101: 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  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.

Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/


The willingly gave away the guns. The could have told the cops at the door to fark off or just waved in the window at them and not answered and the cops couldn't have done a thing.

/america throwing away their rights
//not many left
 
2013-03-13 04:21:24 PM  

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


 THIS. My problem is how they define mentally ill.

 Already a buddies roommate discovered he had lost his ability to own firearms after applying  for a new handgun permit. He had a totally clean criminal record and no mental health issues or even a history of any care, so he pushed back and requested to know why they were taking his guns. They referred him to an incident decades ago in college where he drank too much and spent the night in a drunk tank and was then later released without charge. They can now consider that as an 'involuntary committal due to mental state' when regarding firearms ownership and >poof<, no right to own firearms.
 Another friend was told his application was denied due to a 'history of violence and contact with the police'. He fought it, and won, as when his lawyer finally forced them to release the report the incident in question was reporting a bully (violence) to the school resource officer in 8th grade (contact with police).

 They lost that one, but its clear places like New York are taking the position to deny and seize first and let the few who get lawyers go broke dragging it through court.
 
2013-03-13 04:22:07 PM  
You might not believe it but I've been found to be 100% sane.  I even have paperwork to prove it.  The broad that insisted I be tested turned out to be nuts.
 
2013-03-13 04:22:57 PM  

onyxruby: If your too crazy to own a gun your too crazy to be on the street. Make mental health care available to those who need and get mentally unstable people the help they need. If your a danger to yourself or others you should be locked up in a mental health ward getting the treatment and help you need. If you aren't a danger to yourself or others than there is no reason to deprive you of your rights.


But that will cost money!!!

Money that can be spent on more guns.

Sadly, this is SOP for the GOP.  Cut domestic programs, spend more on defense programs, wonder why we have issues at home that other first world countries have dealt with better(not necessarily resolved, just they don't cause as much of a problem for them), then deflect with "Bbbbut American Exceptionalism!!!!!" when some one brings up that would could also do better.
 
2013-03-13 04:23:21 PM  

jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?


Don't be silly. The Constitution was written by white male slaveowners, so it's of no importance.
 
2013-03-13 04:23:28 PM  

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
 
2013-03-13 04:23:35 PM  

treesloth: Cymbal: I don't know what their fark handles are though, but I'm pretty sure one of them is tenpoundsofcheese

Isn't that considered to be "calling out"?


No, and stop being a pussy.
 
2013-03-13 04:24:17 PM  

jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?


Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.
 
2013-03-13 04:24:44 PM  

Amphipath: I was late to work today because I stopped to smash all the thin, delicate ice that formed above a massive puddle on my walk in. I love breaking it. I could do it for hours, and I'm no spring chicken. Just brings the kid out in me. What do you guys think about smashing ice on puddles?

/fark the boring gun topic.
//puddle ice is way cooler to discuss.


I thought you were letting us know to take your guns away.
 
2013-03-13 04:25:52 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: peaking of communists, didn't they use the charge of "mental illness" to marginalize political opposition? God knows that many on the modern Left like to define practically every conservative viewpoint nowadays as "fringe", "extreme", the result of some "phobia" or "-ism" or deficiency of intellect or character, etc. Psychiatric diagnoses are not, despite popular opinion, founded in objective science, but are merely convenient guidelines capable of being manipulated for political purposes -- and if the right to gun ownership is made dependent upon a clean bill of mental health, the definition of who is mentally healthy will end up being greatly narrowed in the interests of gun control.


heroes.ph

You sound paranoid. And like you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:13 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.

That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just because I didn't want to take the easy ...


you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:17 PM  

Lehk: timujin: A friend of a friend's brother (yeah, I know, but still...) was recently convicted of a felony.  They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.

and when he gets caught he can expect a good 10 years of taking it in the keister


Caught doing what?  If he's allowed to sell them, what would keep him from selling them to his brother?
 
2013-03-13 04:27:28 PM  

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


Of course they shouldn't....but to legislate this is to not have any known guns in their hands. It would not address the fact that they will have them.

It isn't a matter of making guns illegal for felons (a friend is a convicted felon, for bank fraud; dangerous guy, there) or mentally ill. It's a matter of getting rid of the ones who shoot people. It won't stop the crazy, but if every crime committed with a firearm had a death penalty, there would be less chance of the shootings...at least, the second one.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:30 PM  

Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


That's easy.... Anyone that doesn't agree with ME!
 
2013-03-13 04:27:32 PM  
Getting dizzy from the movement of the goalposts.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:47 PM  

skozlaw: jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.


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.
 
2013-03-13 04:28:14 PM  

Bastard Toadflax: I'll bet you think Red Dawn was a documentary.


The original was actually quite well made.  It was well researched, mostly consistent internally, and it was actually a fairly realistic assessment:  Teens and young adults used to hunting and camping in a particular area would probably have a pretty good record against second and third-string occupation troops, but would get slaughtered pretty quickly when they bring in the professionals.

Remember, they all die except for 2 of them (Danny and Erica), and it doesn't take all that long, either:

September:  Soviets invade.
October:  Group is still hiding in the woods.
November: The "Wolverines" start taking action instead of just hiding.
January: The Spetznaz arrive.
March:  They're all dead except for the two who run away.

Plus, the "bad guys" are often shown in a rather sympathetic light, with one exception.
 
2013-03-13 04:28:34 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Don't be silly. The Constitution was written by white male slaveowners, so it's of no importance.


Well, if a random New York Times op-ed writer speaks for the left in your mind, you don't get the right to marginalize any member of the GOP media brigade when they say something stupid.

Q.E.D. Todd Akin now represents the mainstream Republican party.
 
2013-03-13 04:28:35 PM  

Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.


Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding
 
2013-03-13 04:28:45 PM  

justtray: Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.

People involuntarily committed is a no brainer. Theres already a process for getting that in Cali I believe its not easy.


involuntarily committed = police or a doctor (or in Florida, anyone. Baker Act.) thinks you're acting crazy. involuntarily committed for more than 48 hours = a doctor filled out a form saying that at that moment you might be a 'danger to yourself or others' and a judge rubber stamped it. you never go before the judge or anything, someone just puts a pile of papers on his (her) desk and he automatically signs them all.

if you called a suicide hotline 15 years ago when some really bad stuff was going on and you felt hopeless, then the cops came and took you to a hospital where you stayed for observation and were deemed safe and released 4 days later with a temp prescription and a followup appointment, and you've been well since, does that mean that you should never be able to own a gun?

and is registration a california thing? at one point i owned close to 20 guns, but none were registered to me or to previous owners. seems odd you'd want to file paperwork with the state to tell them about your gun.
 
2013-03-13 04:29:55 PM  

the801: involuntarily committed = police or a doctor (or in Florida, anyone. Baker Act.) thinks you're acting crazy. involuntarily committed for more than 48 hours = a doctor filled out a form saying that at that moment you might be a 'danger to yourself or others' and a judge rubber stamped it. you never go before the judge or anything, someone just puts a pile of papers on his (her) desk and he automatically signs them all.


Uh, you're confusing a 24 hour psychiatric hold with an involuntary commitment. Involuntary commitment requires a court hearing, not just a "rubber stamped" form.
 
2013-03-13 04:30:51 PM  

skozlaw: trey101: So tell me, which one is correct?

Considering you're linking to Glenn Beck's blog I'm going to go with "whatever is the opposite of what the page says"...


gotcha, then look at the paragraph in the article that starts with
Probable Cause then read a little lower and...

"They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him. "

but you have a problem with the link i showed earlier... because it is on a blog from glenn beck?  i just linked to that because it goes into more detail.
 
2013-03-13 04:31:15 PM  

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?


This.  This is my concern about this issue.  Not that there doesn't need to be action taken, just that it will be done with the broadest brush possible.
 
2013-03-13 04:31:41 PM  

jigger: skozlaw: jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.

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.


Being involuntarily committed usually requires some due process. Once a court decides you meet the standard for you no longer being allowed to own guns, you don't get an additional hearing when they decide to enforce that.
 
2013-03-13 04:32:43 PM  
cdn.buzznet.com
 
2013-03-13 04:33:07 PM  
hardinparamedic: [Citation Needed]

Citation needed for what, that psychiatry can be manipulated for political purposes? It's already happened in the past -- in the USSR and in Cuba, among other places. There's no need to sound so skeptical, you can Google it for yourself.

You sound paranoid. And like you have no idea what you're talking about.

The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.
 
2013-03-13 04:33:15 PM  

chapman: WhoGAS: If you don't go to a shrink, you have nothing to worry about.  And neither do the other twelve people in my head....

You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.


The mentally ill read Fark?

Oh wait... the politics tab.
 
2013-03-13 04:35:06 PM  

cptjeff: jigger: skozlaw: jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.

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.

Being involuntarily committed usually requires some due process. Once a court decides you meet the standard for you no longer being allowed to own guns, you don't get an additional hearing when they decide to enforce that.


Some states, California and Connecticut included, the police can seize your guns even if you haven't really done anything, so long as they can articulate some reason why they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.

There is no due process involved.
 
2013-03-13 04:36:21 PM  

Boeheimian Rhapsody: kiwimoogle84: Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.

That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just because I didn't want to ...


*squeeze* We don't get enough hugs around here.

You've been on the favorites for a while now- blue ok?
 
2013-03-13 04:36:35 PM  

trey101: 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  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.

Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/


From your own link:
Then, when she reviewed her file, 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.
 
2013-03-13 04:38:31 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.


pictures.mastermarf.com

You just lost any right to be taken seriously by making the oft-repeated claim that gay people are really mentally ill, but there's a powerful cabal keeping them from being listed as such. Oddly enough, the only people who tend to claim this are the same ones which seek to justify their irrational hatred of people. In reality, the removal of homosexuality came about because of a complete discrediting of the principles by which it was listed as a mental disorder in the first place, namely the work of the Freud camp, and the Neo-Freudians, and research in the 1950s onwards which pointed out that sexual variation among orientation was normal.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.


No. Paranoia is equating the modern mental health system which is run by providers themselves, and guided by evidence, with the State-run mental health system of the USSR under Communism.

Actually, I take that back. That equation doesn't make you seem paranoid. It makes you look like a complete idiot.
 
2013-03-13 04:39:32 PM  

donnielove: trey101: 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  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.

Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/

From your own link:
Then, when she reviewed her file, 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.


if you are going to use a quote use the ENTIRE quote.

"Phillips told TheBlaze she had an adjustment to her medication in December and could not stop crying. Her personal psychiatrist suggested she go to Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, Calif., where she said she was admitted voluntarily, not a threat to herself or others. Then, when she reviewed her file, 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.
"I kept telling her I had a grand-baby at home and had to be better for Christmas," she said. "Does that sound like the words of someone who is a risk to themselves and others?"


still wanna fark that chicken?
 
2013-03-13 04:39:44 PM  
hardinparamedic:  Well, if a random New York Times op-ed writer speaks for the left in your mind,

[Citation needed]. I never said that, sunshine.

you don't get the right to marginalize any member of the GOP media brigade when they say something stupid.

I'm not a Republican, so I have no idea why I supposed to care about the reputation of the "GOP media brigade", whatever that is.

Q.E.D. Todd Akin now represents the mainstream Republican party.


I think you know very well that most left-liberal Farkers do indeed blame the entirety of the GOP whenever a Republican politician says something silly.
 
2013-03-13 04:39:48 PM  

Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding


Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.
 
2013-03-13 04:40:35 PM  

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 depressed tend to just kill themselves while the crazies who make threats before rampaging are the real problem. So you go ahead and hold onto your gun until you need it lil buddy.
 
2013-03-13 04:41:41 PM  
Ah, California.

imageshack.us
 
2013-03-13 04:42:11 PM  

dittybopper: so long as they can articulate some reason why they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.


dittybopper: There is no due process involved.


You mean articulate that before a judge?

Due process does not always work the way you're imagining it to.
 
2013-03-13 04:42:52 PM  
Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them. 

Fabulous!
 
2013-03-13 04:43:39 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: [Citation needed]. I never said that, sunshine.


Of course you didn't. But don't pretend you didn't infer it. Don't play stupid. You're more intelligent than that. If you're going to make idiotic claims, at least have the gall to stand by them and defend them when called out, don't backtrack.

Your inference was that "This is what they believe", namely an Op-Ed in the NYT with a poor grasp of - well, everything - speaks for the majority of Americans who think different than you.

The only reason you trotted that out was to set up an appeal to ridicule.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I'm not a Republican, so I have no idea why I supposed to care about the reputation of the "GOP media brigade", whatever that is.


Of course you're not a Republican. You're a right winger. The real republicans died off with the Southern Strategy when it ceased being the party of Lincoln.

 You've already proven that by making absurd claims, like a conspiracy of teh ghei was the reason we don't lock up those dirty homos anymore. You just don't get to play the poor, persecuted believer, when you make the same tactics.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:10 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding

Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.


I'll take a down south mouth hug. They are even better than normal hugs.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:17 PM  

JesseL: jfivealive: There's no reason to own a gun anwyays

Well shiat, it's a good thing you told me. Guess I'll get rid of mine then.

/never mind about the hunting
//and recreational target shooting
///and self defense
////-from people and dangerous animals
////and keeping the king of England out of your face



/The food in the mall is already dead
//Those targets better not shoot back
///It's a war zone out there
////I gotta move out of the zoo
////Don't shoot - swallow.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:19 PM  

stevetherobot: way south: timujin: They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.

That'sreasonable.
"The state gets to take your stuff with no warrant, arrest, or trial", not so reasonable.

/The cause may be just but the method is shady, to say the least.
/This sort of thing is not really selling the "gun registry" idea to owners.

Hey, if asset forfeiture is legal then so is this.


Assuming its a punishment that comes to pass through proper procedures.
Say You did something wrong, so you got penalized.

"We heard the owner was sick, so we talked our way into the house and took stuff" sounds more like a flimsy excuse you'd hear from a burglar rather than a cop.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:27 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them. 

Fabulous!


That was then, this in now.
 
2013-03-13 04:45:40 PM  
Agents also took 117,000 rounds of ammunition and 11,000 high-capacity magazines, according to state data.

Subby here's the non-derp in the story.  Why take these?  What is the person going to do with them, make booby traps?

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a "disqualifying event," such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn't sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.

So basically these people were stupid enough to let the cops in without a warrant and let them conduct a search.  How about "come back with a warrant?"

Went off to spend some quality time in the state correctional facility, maybe you don't need a firearm, spend a number of months in the local nut grove and still on meds, maybe you don't need a firearm.  But a restraining order?  Really?  Why is that a seizure and not a temporary handing over of the weapons until the order is lifted?

The lesson is if you want to keep your firearms under those circumstances, transfer them to friend or family member you trust and when the cops show up for them, tell you don't own any and go away.
 
2013-03-13 04:47:01 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them. 

Fabulous!


Sorry, we have already been shown in this thread that the inclusion, and eventual exclusion of homosexuality as a mental disorder is proof that the system works.
 
2013-03-13 04:48:04 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding

Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.


i184.photobucket.com

Says you.
 
2013-03-13 04:48:25 PM  
What a wonderful precedent. "You took responsible action and sought help for your depression, pardon us while we take away your rights". I wonder how long before gun ownership is added to the DSM as a mental illness. Then they can confiscate all the guns.
 
2013-03-13 04:48:33 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Boeheimian Rhapsody: kiwimoogle84: Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.

That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just beca ...


Blue is awesome. And thank you!
 
2013-03-13 04:49:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: EvilRacistNaziFascist: The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.

You just lost any right to be taken seriously by making the oft-repeated claim that gay people are really mentally ill,


I never made any such claim. Can you even read? I said that homosexuality was removed from the DSM after aggressive lobbying; I never advanced any opinion as whether or not it should have been in there in the first place. Look pal, I know you desperately want to do battle with some kind of evil fantasy conservative who hates everyone, but he doesn't exist.

but there's a powerful cabal keeping them from being listed as such. Oddly enough, the only people who tend to claim this are the same ones which seek to justify their irrational hatred of people. In reality, the removal of homosexuality came about because of a complete discrediting of the principles by which it was listed as a mental disorder in the first place, namely the work of the Freud camp, and the Neo-Freudians, and research in the 1950s onwards which pointed out that sexual variation among orientation was normal.

"In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association


No. Paranoia is equating the modern mental health system which is run by providers themselves, and guided by evidence, with the State-run mental health system of the USSR under Communism.

Because the modern mental health system is staffed by infallible human beings who would never let their own prejudices and biases guide their decisions? If you believe that, you're even more foolish than you sound.

Actually, I take that back. That equation doesn't make you seem paranoid. It makes you look like a complete idiot.

I'm cut to the quick by this insult from a grown man who adores cartoon ponies.
 
2013-03-13 04:49:43 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them.

Fabulous!

 
2013-03-13 04:51:54 PM  
So if someone were to start an L.L.C. and have that purchase their guns, what's the outcome?
 
2013-03-13 04:52:20 PM  

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


img96.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-13 04:52:23 PM  

umad: kiwimoogle84: Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding

Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.

I'll take a down south mouth hug. They are even better than normal hugs.


farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-13 04:55:03 PM  

hardinparamedic: EvilRacistNaziFascist: [Citation needed]. I never said that, sunshine.

Of course you didn't. But don't pretend you didn't infer it.


If I didn't say it, I didn't say it -- simple as that. You don't get to pretend that you're a Magic Internet Mindreader by claiming that I was really "thinking" it.

And by the way, the verb you're looking for is "imply", not "infer".

The only reason you trotted that out was to set up an appeal to ridicule.

I do believe the implication that the Constitution is obsolete because it was written by "white males" is ridiculous (not to mention racist, sexist etc.) However, I still didn't say that all Leftists share this view. Why don't you stop floundering and admit you were wrong?

Of course you're not a Republican. You're a right winger. The real republicans died off with the Southern Strategy when it ceased being the party of Lincoln.

O parochial one, have you considered that I might not even be an American?

You've already proven that by making absurd claims, like a conspiracy of teh ghei was the reason we don't lock up those dirty homos anymore.

Never said this either. What a tremendously fertile imagination you have! Keep making stuff up tho', it's awfully entertaining.
 
2013-03-13 04:55:28 PM  
s18.postimage.org
 
2013-03-13 04:56:21 PM  
If you want to own or own a gun, you're mentally ill. If you're mentally ill, you can't own a gun.
 
2013-03-13 04:56:39 PM  
WITHOUT THEIR WEAPONS THEY'LL BE DEFENSELESS!!!  Then it's just a waiting game.  Called the cops?  She's crazy!  It's not like I was the one who shaved one letter into each of her cats to spell out "Thundercats are on the move!".  I'm allergic to dander.  She's clearly crazy in the head and about '80's cartoons.
 
m00
2013-03-13 04:56:55 PM  

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


Came to make this comment. If the government can take away X from people who are deemed "crazy," and the government gets to defined what "crazy" is, then nobody has a right to X.

Haven't you ever heard someone say "it's crazy to own a gun?" Well, if wanting to own a gun makes you crazy, and crazy people are deprived of guns, fantastic catch-22.
 
2013-03-13 04:57:11 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: hardinparamedic: EvilRacistNaziFascist: The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.

You just lost any right to be taken seriously by making the oft-repeated claim that gay people are really mentally ill,

I never made any such claim. Can you even read? I said that homosexuality was removed from the DSM after aggressive lobbying; I never advanced any opinion as whether or not it should have been in there in the first place. Look pal, I know you desperately want to do battle with some kind of evil fantasy conservative who hates everyone, but he doesn't exist.

but there's a powerful cabal keeping them from being listed as such. Oddly enough, the only people who tend to claim this are the same ones which seek to justify their irrational hatred of people. In reality, the removal of homosexuality came about because of a complete discrediting of the principles by which it was listed as a mental disorder in the first place, namely the work of the Freud camp, and the Neo-Freudians, and research in the 1950s onwards which pointed out that sexual variation among orientation was normal.

"In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association


No. Paranoia is equating the modern mental health system which is run by providers themselves, and guided by evidence ...


Your post is internally inconsistent. Did "aggressive lobbying" get the DSM changed? Or was it changed as the result of a vote by the Board of Trustees followed by a ratification vote by the general membership?

It is entirely disingenuous, based on what you've provided, to make the leap of logic that "aggressive lobbying" caused the outcome of the vote.
 
2013-03-13 04:58:23 PM  
Personally, I think anyone who is a member of a religion or is a Republican is crazy. Can we start confiscating now?
 
2013-03-13 04:58:47 PM  
My biggest concern with this is about the exploding definitions of mental illness. One of the my major criticisms when we left the DSM-IV TR to go to DSM-V was that, theoretically, you can find a way to wedge just about anyone alive into some definition of mental illness as they're described (and I have a BA in Clinical Psychology, and several years working in clinical settings, yes I work as a R&D engineer, long story).

So it's not inconceivable that someone who is seen protesting something the government does (on either side of the aisle) is ID'd, stopped for any number of silly offenses, and forced to go in front of a shrink who is receiving a nice tax incentive. It's not like corrupt judges and private businesses don't have a history together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Shrink gets cash, judge gets to look good for "disarming crazies," and anyone with political opinions gets disarmed. I'm not saying it will happen that way, but it's not a far-fetched situation.
 
2013-03-13 04:59:12 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I never made any such claim. Can you even read? I said that homosexuality was removed from the DSM after aggressive lobbying; I never advanced any opinion as whether or not it should have been in there in the first place. Look pal, I know you desperately want to do battle with some kind of evil fantasy conservative who hates everyone, but he doesn't exist.


Riiiiiight.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: "In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association


"Aggressive lobbying" is protesting, and ratification by the national membership of the APA? Wow. No wonder you create these strawmen you believe people view you as. Actually, peaking at your profile, Yeah. I can see it.

You poor, poor persecuted man you.

In reality, the 1973 decision did  not remove Homosexuality as a mental health disorder, but created a new category for the DSM-III, known as ego-dystonic homosexuality. The diagnosis, by the way, was not supported by any evidence, and there was overwhelming outcry in the Psychiatric community to have it removed, which the APA has done since 1987, and the release of the DSM-IV.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Because the modern mental health system is staffed by infallible human beings who would never let their own prejudices and biases guide their decisions? If you believe that, you're even more foolish than you sound.


Actually, I made the point that the difference lay in the fact that the Psychiatric community is controlled by it's member boards and practices dictated by medical evidence and research, not by the State. Since you don't seem to be able to follow the conversation, you made the claim that "Anti-Gun" activists would change the definition of mental health to keep you from owning guns, and deliberately invoked the Soviet practice of declaring dissidents mentally ill through the state-controlled system as proof of this.

You need to be careful with all these strawmen. It's rather dry, and you might cause a fire.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I'm cut to the quick by this insult from a grown man who adores cartoon ponies.


Why do you hate freedom so much? You need to stay out of what I do for 30 minutes on a random Saturday. It's not like I go on the internet and make badly constructed comparisons to the Soviet Union which demonstrates a substantial misunderstanding of history, and then stomp my foot because someone calls me out on it, and when I have no other recourse to argue, I insult that person's 30 minute sunday activity, which is completely irrelevant to the thread.

706b87399f-custmedia.vresp.com

If you only had a brain.
 
2013-03-13 05:00:15 PM  
I'm all for taking guns from mentally unstable people.
I'm also all for my farking 4th amendment rights.
Getting railroaded into an involuntary 72 hour psych eval by a nurse or doctor who dislikes you doesn't make you mentally unstable, and that seems to be the grounds they are using to take people's shiat.

I think they should have to actually get a farking warrant, meaning they have to go to a judge and show reasonable proof that there's a gun in the house and that someone who shouldn't have one lives there.

A psych eval declaring someone to be mentally competent and no threat to society like the one in TFA? yeah no warrant.
 
2013-03-13 05:01:47 PM  

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


Ok, two issues here:

So, someone who embezzled from their employer is a violent threat how? What about a computer hacker?
What about the instances where the spouse is having their weapons seized AND destroyed because Their SO is depressed?
 
2013-03-13 05:02:13 PM  

lunkhed: JesseL: jfivealive: There's no reason to own a gun anwyays

Well shiat, it's a good thing you told me. Guess I'll get rid of mine then.

/never mind about the hunting
//and recreational target shooting
///and self defense
////-from people and dangerous animals
////and keeping the king of England out of your face


/The food in the mall is already dead
//Those targets better not shoot back
///It's a war zone out there
////I gotta move out of the zoo
////Don't shoot - swallow.


How droll. Allow me to retort:

/somebody killed the food in the mall
//I do generally try to avoid anything that's likely to be shooting at me. Paper is a pretty safe bet.
///Bad shiat happens and it never hurts to be prepared.
////Indeed.
// I like the freedom to choose not to swallow.
 
2013-03-13 05:02:15 PM  

K-jack: It is entirely disingenuous, based on what you've provided, to make the leap of logic that "aggressive lobbying" caused the outcome of the vote.


Yeah, you're right. I'm sure it's a total coincidence that the APA changed the diagnosis after four years of aggressive lobbying at their annual meetings. Look, believe what you like -- God knows you will anyway, regardless of the truth.
 
2013-03-13 05:04:36 PM  

oryx: If you want to own or own a gun, you're mentally ill. If you're mentally ill, you can't own a gun.


If you want to own a gun, you're mentally ill? That makes zero sense. My hubs had them because he was a competitive shooter. It was a hobby. We shot clay and paper. There's nothing wrong with that WHATSOEVER.

The guns are not the problem. Anything can be a weapon- second post in, someone mentioned a guy being killed with a flowerpot. Cars kill people all the time. How about knives? NOT JUST FOR COOKING ANYMORE!

The issue is the mental health and responsibility of anyone carrying anything that could potentially be lethal. Me carrying a TV up the stairs could prove lethal if I didn't watch where I was going and dropped it on the old lady downstairs.
 
2013-03-13 05:06:28 PM  
Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a "disqualifying event," such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn't sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.


Cop: Hi, we want to search through all your shiat, take any gun we find, smash it with a steam roller, and give you jack for compensation. Can we come in?
Me: ...I'm thinking no.
 
2013-03-13 05:06:38 PM  

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?


Yup.  Not all people who have been in a mental institution pose a danger.  There's quite a tendency to overreact at signs that someone might be suicidal.  (While I don't personally know anyone who got in trouble that way I used to know a teetotaler that got diagnosed as an alcoholic.  It was all based on her answering Yes to "Have you ever lost friends due to alcohol?".  Note that the question does not specify whose alcohol use.)

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.


In that case you should transfer them to someone else before the cops come after them.

Sniper061: What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims. As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else. Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.


Not to mention the money to be made out of hospitalizing them.
 
2013-03-13 05:06:57 PM  
Hurry up and fall into the ocean already.

/COME ON EARTHQUAKE!
 
2013-03-13 05:08:21 PM  
FTFA: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.

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.
 
2013-03-13 05:08:44 PM  

hardinparamedic: Why do you hate freedom so much? You need to stay out of what I do for 30 minutes on a random Saturday.


Your arguing style -- histrionically shrieking about things that were never said, lashing out at imaginary enemies -- is that of a babbling hysteric, so it really isn't much of a surprise to find that you're also attracted to a sentimental show intended for little girls. Just making the obvious connection. Grow a pair, turn off the TV and learn to debate properly, you creampuff.
 
2013-03-13 05:10:34 PM  

MythDragon: Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a "disqualifying event," such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn't sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.


Cop: Hi, we want to search through all your shiat, take any gun we find, smash it with a steam roller, and give you jack for compensation. Can we come in?
Me: ...I'm thinking no.


Exactly. Regardless of my mental state, I know enough to know that the LEOs at my door are not my friend and are not concerned with my safety or well being. "No. You may not come in."

/former LEO
 
2013-03-13 05:10:49 PM  

Pockafrusta: Hurry up and fall into the ocean already.

/COME ON EARTHQUAKE!


See you down in Arizona Bay.
 
2013-03-13 05:10:59 PM  

brainiac-dumdum: FTFA: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.

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.


Reread the quote and then go have your stone of shame attached.
 
2013-03-13 05:11:13 PM  
Well I'm pants pissingly terrified the Government (capital G see, so thst means the party I dont agree with) is going to label me crazy and revoke my rights. Time to buy a gun.
 
2013-03-13 05:11:30 PM  

Pockafrusta: Hurry up and fall into the ocean already.

/COME ON EARTHQUAKE!


We're not all bad, I swear to you. I don't like 90% of what California is, but the rest is pretty nice.
 
2013-03-13 05:12:13 PM  

JesseL: brainiac-dumdum: FTFA: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.

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.

Reread the quote and then go have your stone of shame attached.


Ohhhh, why would a nurse do that?
 
2013-03-13 05:13:59 PM  
In general, I'm pro-gun-rights.  IMO people should be able to own pretty much what civilians in most U.S. states can own today.  However,  I don't have any problem with taking guns away from people who are sufficiently mentally unstable to be a threat to themselves or others.  On the gripping hand, such people should probably be locked up--but that would take money, and "taxation is theft," right? :-P  ("Community care" of the mentally ill is a whole other rant.)

I *do* wish we had a way to restore gun rights to mentally ill people who get better with therapy and/or medication.  Currently, if you've ever spent time on a locked ward involuntarily, you lose the right to own guns for life.  That dates to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed back-when attitudes towards the mentally ill were a lot different than they are today.  A lot fewer people were classified as mentally ill and if you were involuntarily committed, chances were you actually *were* a threat to yourself or others and chances that you were ever going to get better were pretty small because therapeutic techniques and medications weren't what they are today.  Also, our social view of the mentally ill has come a long way in the meantime (but IMO not far enough, as getting mental-health help is still stigmatized).

Then there's the whole slippery-slope argument about the ever-expanding definition of "mentally ill."  Currently, that's set at "involuntarily committed by a court order, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime," which is a pretty high bar and involves some pretty serious due process via the court system.  It'd be all too easy to expand that to "ever in an inpatient facility, involuntary or not," "currently under psychiatric care," and so on.

One problem with the mental-health solutions propounded by the NRA is that every last one of them is going to be a deterrent to mentally-ill people seeking help for their issues.  A "mental-health registry" would even deter many of those who have no interest in ever owning a gun.  Who's going to have access to that registry and for what purposes?  Could it be used one day to deny you a job, or insurance, or be used against you in a child-custody proceeding?  Besides, who's more dangerous, someone who sought help for depression 10 years ago and is currently in therapy and on meds, or someone with undiagnosed bipolar disorder who has never sought help, and which one will appear in this "registry"?

The situation we have in the USA right now WRT guns sucks, but every solution I can think of, or that has been thought of by anyone else, sucks worse.  Kinda like capitalism as an economic system, and democracy as a form of government.
 
2013-03-13 05:17:09 PM  

brainiac-dumdum: FTFA: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.

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.


No, Lynette said the nurse exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.
 
2013-03-13 05:18:25 PM  
Here's why there's an issue: It's an easily exploited excuse to seize firearms.
It starts small: "If you fall into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Okay, makes sense, but then...
"If someone in your house falls into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Thus if you're in a multi-generational home, and grandpa has mental issues, you are not allowed to have any guns. But it "makes sense" because they want to keep grandpa away from firearms.
Then it becomes...
"If anyone in the house is being treated for a mental condition, you're not allowed to have a firearm."
Now they're moving in. Little Billy takes medication for ADHD, or your spouse some depression medication, or your brother who just came back from Iraq has some medication for anxiety... now nobody in that household is allowed to have a firearm.
But let's say you get divorced, give the kid up for adoption, and grandpa dies. "Can I have my guns back?" "No, because you have a family history of mental issues thus you can't have a gun."

Or if that's too strawman for you...
"I want to kill person X. Person X has a firearm. I'm going to file a bogus complaint and get a preliminary restraining order, wait for the police to go disarm them, and THEN I can go kill person X."
 
2013-03-13 05:18:42 PM  
FREE GUNS!!!
 
2013-03-13 05:19:32 PM  

j__z: brainiac-dumdum: FTFA: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.

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.

No, Lynette said the nurse exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.


yeah, i see it now. I'm working and a little distracted. Would that be a CYA maneuver in case the patient went home and offered herself?
 
2013-03-13 05:19:40 PM  

geekbikerskum: One problem with the mental-health solutions propounded by the NRA is that every last one of them is going to be a deterrent to mentally-ill people seeking help for their issues. A "mental-health registry" would even deter many of those who have no interest in ever owning a gun. Who's going to have access to that registry and for what purposes? Could it be used one day to deny you a job, or insurance, or be used against you in a child-custody proceeding? Besides, who's more dangerous, someone who sought help for depression 10 years ago and is currently in therapy and on meds, or someone with undiagnosed bipolar disorder who has never sought help, and which one will appear in this "registry"?


I think they are using it as a tongue-in-cheek demonstration the idiocy of a gun registry. The unintended consequences in both cases overshadows any benefits they provide.
 
2013-03-13 05:19:47 PM  

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?


Which crazy people? The ones that believed them when they said they wouldn't be archiving a record of gun checks or the people that didn't?

From the article;

""Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have," said Wintemute, who helped set up the program."
 
2013-03-13 05:20:18 PM  

JesseL: As a fairly rabid gun-nut I have no problem with this, as long as the people whose guns are being seized were actually given due process and properly adjudicated as mentally defective.

Something like a single doctor's diagnosis alone should never be sufficient to permanently deprive someone of any of their civil rights.


Damn straight. I have zero love for the NRA and their lunatic fringe members, but you still have a right in this country to face your accuser. The last thing I want is some moronic college mental heath service drone with more authority than they deserve. This is some seriously dicey territory constitutionally, even if you disregard the 2nd Amendment issue.
 
2013-03-13 05:20:57 PM  
Law enforcement, enforcing laws?

Clearly this is an outrage.
 
2013-03-13 05:22:50 PM  
Seems like the gun owners should be compensated for this asset seizure, even if they're crazy. The money could be used towards their treatment, as the mentally ill might have a tougher time finding steady, good-paying jobs.
 
2013-03-13 05:23:05 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Law enforcement, enforcing laws?

Clearly this is an outrage.


That's crazy talk.

Now bend over.
 
2013-03-13 05:23:19 PM  

Molavian: treesloth: Cymbal: I don't know what their fark handles are though, but I'm pretty sure one of them is tenpoundsofcheese

Isn't that considered to be "calling out"?

No, and stop being a pussy.


I've had a post or two disappear because I posted the Summon You-Know-Which-Creationist-Troll card.
 
2013-03-13 05:23:27 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Me carrying a TV up the stairs could prove lethal if I didn't watch where I was going and dropped it on the old lady downstairs.


OMG. You want to kill that nice old lady downstairs. You monster!
 
2013-03-13 05:25:51 PM  

Securitywyrm: Here's why there's an issue: It's an easily exploited excuse to seize firearms.
It starts small: "If you fall into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Okay, makes sense, but then...
"If someone in your house falls into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Thus if you're in a multi-generational home, and grandpa has mental issues, you are not allowed to have any guns. But it "makes sense" because they want to keep grandpa away from firearms.
Then it becomes...
"If anyone in the house is being treated for a mental condition, you're not allowed to have a firearm."
Now they're moving in. Little Billy takes medication for ADHD, or your spouse some depression medication, or your brother who just came back from Iraq has some medication for anxiety... now nobody in that household is allowed to have a firearm.
But let's say you get divorced, give the kid up for adoption, and grandpa dies. "Can I have my guns back?" "No, because you have a family history of mental issues thus you can't have a gun."

Or if that's too strawman for you...
"I want to kill person X. Person X has a firearm. I'm going to file a bogus complaint and get a preliminary restraining order, wait for the police to go disarm them, and THEN I can go kill person X."


Yeah, it CAN be a slippery slope. I think it should just be the registered owners. That way, the registered owners can be responsible for ensuring they are locked up and savely out of reach of anyone who may have a mental illness who visits for Christmas dinner. If the registered owner is the only one who knows the combination of the gun safe, and Grandpa has a 'Nam flashback, there's no danger.
 
2013-03-13 05:26:56 PM  

Pockafrusta: MythDragon: Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a "disqualifying event," such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn't sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.


Cop: Hi, we want to search through all your shiat, take any gun we find, smash it with a steam roller, and give you jack for compensation. Can we come in?
Me: ...I'm thinking no.

Exactly. Regardless of my mental state, I know enough to know that the LEOs at my door are not my friend and are not concerned with my safety or well being. "No. You may not come in."

/former LEO


Also
"We would like to talk with you, can we come in?"
-No.

"Okay, how about you step outside so we can talk with you?"
-HELL no.

Outside is 'probably drunk in public, so let's take him down to the station, chuck him in a cell, and release with no charges in the morning' territory. You don't want to visit that place. The people arn't nice to foreigners there.
Best place to chat with the cops (well there is no *best* place) is right in your door way with them outside, and the door closed as much as possible.
Though if you have a mailslot in your door that would probably be even better to have a chat through.
 
2013-03-13 05:29:31 PM  

Autistic_Monkey: kiwimoogle84: Me carrying a TV up the stairs could prove lethal if I didn't watch where I was going and dropped it on the old lady downstairs.

OMG. You want to kill that nice old lady downstairs. You monster!


Well to be fair, her apartment DOES waft the odor of feet upstairs.
 
2013-03-13 05:29:39 PM  

cptjeff: dittybopper: so long as they can articulate some reason why they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.

dittybopper: There is no due process involved.

You mean articulate that before a judge?

Due process does not always work the way you're imagining it to.


Do you consider it due process when the spouse's guns are seized?   That's happened in Connecticut.
 
2013-03-13 05:31:37 PM  
I'm in favor of gun control, but opposed to this. Who can blame someone for not seeking mental health treatment when there is a strong possibility they'll be put on some kind of blacklist? Maybe some schizophrenic goes apeshiat on an airplane, and the next thing you know, they're going through hospital records determining who should be added to the TSA watchlist.
 
2013-03-13 05:34:03 PM  
The beauty of this, is anyone who disagrees can be diagnosed with 'oppositional defiant disorder' and have their guns taken away.
 
2013-03-13 05:34:14 PM  

dittybopper: Melissa Huet owned an SKS rifle, and her boyfriend Marvin Hall was a convicted felon. He was charged with constructive possession of her rifle, and she was charged with aiding and abetting his possession of a firearm.


i3.mirror.co.uk

I'm outraged too, bro.
 
2013-03-13 05:34:37 PM  

kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

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.


That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

Did you nag him to death ?

/don't care

It usually takes years for a successful wife to nag her husband to death. I was SO GOOD, I did it in six weeks. I deserve an award or something. This is MAJOR. I could teach lessons.


What's your enrollment fee?
 
2013-03-13 05:35:17 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Autistic_Monkey: kiwimoogle84: Me carrying a TV up the stairs could prove lethal if I didn't watch where I was going and dropped it on the old lady downstairs.

OMG. You want to kill that nice old lady downstairs. You monster!

Well to be fair, her apartment DOES waft the odor of feet upstairs.


Does she eat a lot of Fritos?
 
2013-03-13 05:38:31 PM  
I think the mentally ill should be allowed to have guns as long as they're heavily medicated for their condition.
 
2013-03-13 05:38:45 PM  

dittybopper: cptjeff: dittybopper: so long as they can articulate some reason why they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.

dittybopper: There is no due process involved.

You mean articulate that before a judge?

Due process does not always work the way you're imagining it to.

Do you consider it due process when the spouse's guns are seized?   That's happened in Connecticut.


Was the spouse, under state law, allowed to be in possession of those guns? Because if the law says that you're not allowed to own guns if you live with somebody adjudicated to be unstable, than the spouse was in unlawful possession of firearms. That would make the spouse a criminal, and I'm told that you're in favor of disarming people who own guns illegally.

Who is and is not a legal gun owner is a matter of legal definition, not some inherent state. If the spouse meets the legal definitions as somebody who is not permitted to own guns, than tough- the police get to take them.
 
2013-03-13 05:38:49 PM  
Wild hogs everywhere rejoice
 
2013-03-13 05:39:15 PM  
So, are they going to hit the state prescription data base and take guns from anyone who has ever taken an antidepressant?
 
2013-03-13 05:40:55 PM  
This is not okay.

Yes, the mentally ill who are  a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.
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.
3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.

So... here is my suggestion to gun owners.

1. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE FOR ANY REASON. someone please link the excellent youtube video by the law professor that explains this.
2. If someone in your household needs to be committed, make sure it is recorded as being voluntary unless it really is a case of "danger to others".
3. If someone in your household is eligible for confiscation, get your guns out of the house. A locked safe in a storage locker will suffice.
4. Keep your guns locked up, in a secure container, do not talk about them, brag about them, or show them off to anyone you don't trust with your life.
5. Practice regularly, become involved with your state's gun owner's organization (in California it is Calguns), and participate in the democratic process through voting, writing, and donating.

Guns are absolutely essential to freedom. The Jews in Warsaw, the South Africans during Apartheid, and the Syrians today had to learn this the hard way. No one expects violent oppression in their homeland until it quietly, insidiously, happens.
 
2013-03-13 05:41:00 PM  

DisregardTheFollowing: I think the mentally ill should be allowed to have guns as long as they're heavily medicated for their condition.


What if they run out of pills, or forget to take them, and immediately revert to being a danger to themselves and others?

A lot of mental illness is not "cured". It is managed. If that management goes away for whatever reason, which happens, people can go right back to the state that got them put in a mental institution by a judge.
 
2013-03-13 05:42:07 PM  

duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,


The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.
 
2013-03-13 05:43:29 PM  

superdude72: I'm in favor of gun control, but opposed to this. Who can blame someone for not seeking mental health treatment when there is a strong possibility they'll be put on some kind of blacklist? Maybe some schizophrenic goes apeshiat on an airplane, and the next thing you know, they're going through hospital records determining who should be added to the TSA watchlist.


It was established earlier in the thread that this applies only to those who were involuntarily committed. People who go to see a shrink because they are depressed are not going to be affected by this.

Also, everyone is talking about how the state is taking goods and not compensating, but the point is these people are all given notice that they may not keep their firearms. They have plenty of opportunity to sell them. It's the ones who choose to hang on to them who get them taken away.
 
2013-03-13 05:44:56 PM  
Pay your shrink with cash. Don't use insurance either.

Problem solved.
 
2013-03-13 05:44:58 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-13 05:45:44 PM  

duenor: Guns are absolutely essential to freedom.


LOL
 
2013-03-13 05:45:55 PM  

duenor: This is not okay.

Yes, the mentally ill who are  a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.
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.
3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.

So... here is my suggestion to gun owners.

1. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE FOR ANY REASON. someone please link the excellent youtube video by the law professor that explains this.
2. If someone in your household needs to be committed, make sure it is recorded as being voluntary unless it really is a case of "danger to others".
3. If someone in your household is eligible for confiscation, get your guns out of the house. A locked safe in a storage locker will suffice.
4. Keep your guns locked up, in a secure container, do not talk about them, brag about them, or show them off to anyone you don't trust with your life.
5. Practice regularly, become involved with your state's gun owner's organization (in California it is Calguns), and participate in the democratic process through voting, writing, and donating.

Guns are absolutely essential to freedom. The Jews in Warsaw, the South Africans during Apartheid, and the Syrians today had to learn this the hard way. No one expects violent oppression in their homeland until it quietly, insidiously, happens.


In other words, hide the fact that someone in your family may be a danger to themselves and others, because it's more important that they be able to keep their guns.
 
2013-03-13 05:47:14 PM  

vicioushobbit: kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

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.


That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If th ...


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

/I take cash or credit
 
2013-03-13 05:47:43 PM  

m00: mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....

Came to make this comment. If the government can take away X from people who are deemed "crazy," and the government gets to defined what "crazy" is, then nobody has a right to X.


Are you sitting down? You'll want to sit down before you hear this.

Right now, right here in America, the government can take one's personal freedom away and involuntary commit to a mental health facility people who are deemed "crazy" and the government gets to define what "crazy" is. Not only is this possible now, it has been this way for the entire history of our nation.
 
2013-03-13 05:48:03 PM  

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?


AFAIK it isn't "everyone with a mental illness", it's "everyone who's had to be committed due to a mental illness that posed a threat to themselves or others". Avoid botched suicide attempts (and don't kill your neighbors with flowerpots!) and your guns should be fine.
 
2013-03-13 05:49:07 PM  

cptjeff: duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,

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


By the time they had them, they were starved, weak, disorganized. And they had piss-poor ones in inadequate numbers. Look up the "Liberator" pistol in google. that was the kind of "gun" they were provided with by the allies. they never seriously wanted to help the jews revolt... they just wanted them to be a disruptive force behind enemy lines.

Look at the various revolutions in the ME in recent years. The one thing they have in common is the tide turns against the oppressive government ONLY when the revolutionaries become organized and effectively armed. THis is not meant to be a politcal commentary on those revolutionaries, but their methods are worth noting.

An AR-15 (or Mini14, or SKS, or M1 Garand, or M-14) in my home does not constitute a threat to the government on its own. But when a large number of the populace is thus effectively armed, it provides a certain final check against oppression.
 
2013-03-13 05:49:11 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 05:49:39 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Pay your shrink with cash. Don't use insurance either.

Problem solved.


Not with EMR these days. You pay cash at a doctor's office, they're still going to log your diagnosis into a database where every other doctor who ever sees you or wants to look you up can find your medical history. This cuts down a lot of drug seeking behavior, because if a patient sees nineteen different doctors all for different pain related problems just to try and get another rx, they can see the patterns.

/is addiction considered a mental illness now?
 
2013-03-13 05:50:42 PM  

duenor: Look at the various revolutions in the ME in recent years. The one thing they have in common is the tide turns against the oppressive government ONLY when the revolutionaries become organized and effectively armed. THis is not meant to be a politcal commentary on those revolutionaries, but their methods are worth noting.


Like Egypt, where a bunch of peaceful, unarmed protesters overthrew the government?
 
2013-03-13 05:50:48 PM  
Seems to me that a good set of body armor, rather than owning a gun, would have saved the lives of a lot more civillian gun-death victims in recent history.
 
2013-03-13 05:50:57 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 05:52:23 PM  

duenor: cptjeff: duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,

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

By the time they had them, they were starved, weak, disorganized. And they had piss-poor ones in inadequate numbers. Look up the "Liberator" pistol in google. that was the kind of "gun" they were provided with by the allies. they never seriously wanted to help the jews revolt... they just wanted them to be a disruptive force behind enemy lines.

Look at the various revolutions in the ME in recent years. The one thing they have in common is the tide turns against the oppressive government ONLY when the revolutionaries become organized and effectively armed. THis is not meant to be a politcal commentary on those revolutionaries, but their methods are worth noting.

An AR-15 (or Mini14, or SKS, or M1 Garand, or M-14) in my home does not constitute a threat to the government on its own. But when a large number of the populace is thus effectively armed, it provides a certain final check against oppression.


So why don't you and your fellow patriots storm government buildings in California to check against this oppression?
 
2013-03-13 05:52:23 PM  

cptjeff: Was the spouse, under state law, allowed to be in possession of those guns? Because if the law says that you're not allowed to own guns if you live with somebody adjudicated to be unstable, than the spouse was in unlawful possession of firearms.


Did you not read the link?  Here:

Baird is concerned that the law, as it exists now, is already ripe for abuse. "I have a recent case where a person said he wasn't [previously] concerned about my client's guns but he started to think about Newtown and then he called the police."

She also represents a woman, Barbara Doutel, in a federal lawsuit that claims Norwalk, Conn., police violated Doutel's constitutional rights to possess a firearm to protect her home when they seized her guns because of a complaint against her husband.
 
2013-03-13 05:54:26 PM  

dittybopper: Did you not read the link?


Nope. Don't really care, either. Just pointing out that the idea wasn't nearly as crazy as you seemed to think it was.
 
2013-03-13 05:56:02 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 05:56:31 PM  

lostcat: Seems to me that a good set of body armor, rather than owning a gun, would have saved the lives of a lot more civillian gun-death victims in recent history.


The gun control supporters are trying to outlaw that as well.
 
2013-03-13 05:58:18 PM  

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.


Very true. Still, those things can (and do) fail from time to time.

The idea that the people should no longer have any hope of recourse in that event (even if it's largely symbolic) is a biatchilling.

As important as I think it is for my son to learn his rights and responsibilities in ensuring that our free and democratic society remains so, I think it's also important to teach that there is never any good reason to go quietly when someone wants to load you into a cattle car.
 
2013-03-13 05:58:35 PM  
When it comes to mental illness, I don't think the state should destroy your firearms, and I think you should be compensated for it if they do.  I'm kind of a stickler for due process.  The state should hold on to your weapons until you are deemed fit by doctors and a judge to have your rights restored, after which time your property should be handed back over.  Barring that, I think it should be acceptable for a relative (that you don't share a residence with) to hold on to your weapons and secure them while your shiat gets sorted out.

At the very least, you could sell grandpa's old M1 instead of melting it down.  Maybe the CADOJ should have a direct-sales program for FFL-C&R weapons to collectors across the country if they're hard-up for cash.
 
2013-03-13 05:58:39 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-13 06:01:15 PM  

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


No, that's strictly the period between the two world wars. It's called peace time, not arm yourself to the teeth in a fit of paranoia time.
 
2013-03-13 06:02:59 PM  
HotWingConspiracy:

So why don't you and your fellow patriots storm government buildings in California to check against this oppression?

Are you attempting to incite others to violence? It certainly sounds like it. Or is this simply your way of jeering when you find yourself incapable of rational response?
 
2013-03-13 06:03:10 PM  

Fark It: When it comes to mental illness, I don't think the state should destroy your firearms, and I think you should be compensated for it if they do.  I'm kind of a stickler for due process.  The state should hold on to your weapons until you are deemed fit by doctors and a judge to have your rights restored, after which time your property should be handed back over.  Barring that, I think it should be acceptable for a relative (that you don't share a residence with) to hold on to your weapons and secure them while your shiat gets sorted out.

At the very least, you could sell grandpa's old M1 instead of melting it down.  Maybe the CADOJ should have a direct-sales program for FFL-C&R weapons to collectors across the country if they're hard-up for cash.



They don't just show up unannounced at take your guns away. They notify you that you may no longer own firearms, and you are given a period of time in which to sell your guns.

It's the people who don't comply who have them taken away.
 
2013-03-13 06:03:46 PM  

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
 
2013-03-13 06:04:06 PM  

kiwimoogle84: vicioushobbit: kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

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.


That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If th ...

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

/I take cash or credit


I knew I had you farkied for a reason, and now I remember. It's because you crack me the fark up.
 
2013-03-13 06:04:22 PM  

duenor: HotWingConspiracy:

So why don't you and your fellow patriots storm government buildings in California to check against this oppression?

Are you attempting to incite others to violence? It certainly sounds like it. Or is this simply your way of jeering when you find yourself incapable of rational response?


I'm sorry...Are you using the word "rational?"
 
2013-03-13 06:04:34 PM  

Heamer: My brother's friend is a paranoid schizophrenic who killed a man by using a ceramic flower pot just outside the victim's front door. If anything, we shouldn't be taking arms away from the mentally ill, we should be giving them all flower pots. Wait, what are we talking about?


I agree! We should make sure that all gangbangers and felons have weapons! Who are we to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights?
 
2013-03-13 06:05:52 PM  

duenor: HotWingConspiracy:

So why don't you and your fellow patriots storm government buildings in California to check against this oppression?

Are you attempting to incite others to violence?


No. Do you know what words mean?

It certainly sounds like it. Or is this simply your way of jeering when you find yourself incapable of rational response?

Why aren't you fighting tyranny? Where is the line for you?
 
2013-03-13 06:08:45 PM  

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

No, that's strictly the period between the two world wars. It's called peace time, not arm yourself to the teeth in a fit of paranoia time.


Ah, I see - the time to arm yourself is  after the boot's been applied to the back of your neck.
No one is advocating for overthrowing a nation. Quite the contrary - a lightly armed populace is in defense of that nation.

And you are incorrect about "interwar years" only referring to the period between WW1 and WW2. Might I add that the 1920s were gloriously prosperous years for the United States. No one thought that the world would be at war ten years later.
 
2013-03-13 06:09:31 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 06:13:35 PM  

cptjeff: DisregardTheFollowing: I think the mentally ill should be allowed to have guns as long as they're heavily medicated for their condition.

What if they run out of pills, or forget to take them, and immediately revert to being a danger to themselves and others?

A lot of mental illness is not "cured". It is managed. If that management goes away for whatever reason, which happens, people can go right back to the state that got them put in a mental institution by a judge.


You can have my Xanax, Thorazine, and pistols when you pry them from my cold dead hands at the scene of the crime.
 
2013-03-13 06:13:35 PM  

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

No, that's strictly the period between the two world wars. It's called peace time, not arm yourself to the teeth in a fit of paranoia time.

Ah, I see - the time to arm yourself is  after the boot's been applied to the back of your neck.


Most people are so paranoid that they see boots everywhere. I'm thinking this stuff worries you because your family thinks you're insane.

No one is advocating for overthrowing a nation. Quite the contrary - a lightly armed populace is in defense of that nation.

Try to be a little more honest, you're prepping for a war against our government and your friends and neighbors should they disagree with your politics. Because we aren't getting invaded.
 
2013-03-13 06:19:22 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Heamer: My brother's friend is a paranoid schizophrenic who killed a man by using a ceramic flower pot just outside the victim's front door. If anything, we shouldn't be taking arms away from the mentally ill, we should be giving them all flower pots. Wait, what are we talking about?

I agree! We should make sure that all gangbangers and felons have weapons! Who are we to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights?


Agreed.
 
2013-03-13 06:20:01 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.


After five years, if I can't joke about it, I'm truly dead inside. I started it, so don't worry at all.

And Todashy- I do my best to please. Glad someone's sick enough to laugh at my terrible jokes :P

Well, my day's wrapping up, I'll peek into the thread later to see if the commies or the gun nuts won.
 
2013-03-13 06:21:03 PM  

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?


Me too man.
 
2013-03-13 06:21:53 PM  
I sure somewhere in this thread is "Ronald Reagan ...mental health!"  And no other administration or House vote reversed it.  In thirty years.
 
2013-03-13 06:26:58 PM  
How is "Revoke the rights of those who seek mental health care" NOT stigmatizing seeking mental healthcare?
At this point, I'm starting to label "Pro-gun control" as "Anti-mental healthcare."
 
2013-03-13 06:27:07 PM  

kiwimoogle84: vicioushobbit: kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

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.


That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If th ...

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

/I take cash or credit


I should pay you double. Hubby already has a motorcycle. Obviously your wisdom worked across the whole space-time continuum thing.

/he hadn't ridden it since a minor wreck over a year ago.
//you are a strong woman. Quite likely stronger than I.
 
2013-03-13 06:30:22 PM  

duenor: This is not okay.

Yes, the mentally ill who are  a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.
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.
3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.


1. My wife has been an expert witness in commitment cases, though not in CA. Involuntary commitment is much harder than you're assuming, though doubtless there are a few asshole judges out there who wield it like a weapon. Aren't there always?
2. This part of the law is against keeping firearms in the same home, not against ownership. Either store your family heirloom, or your suicidal little brother, elsewhere and the state won't care. As for your gun safe, how secure is it really from someone living in your home? Would it be that difficult for your little brother to get his hands on the key while you're asleep? Could it really not be forced open while you're at work, by tools already in your home? Ours certainly could. It'd take some time and make lots of noise, but I could open it. And I'm disabled and can barely walk.
3. Here we are generally in agreement, at least in the cases where the gun was legally owned but being kept in an ineligible home. For those, it should be possible to pay a fine, show proof you've acquired proper storage, and retrieve it.
 
2013-03-13 06:32:51 PM  

umad: This is why I will never register my guns.

Ever.


Seconded.
And buy them from private parties, not retail.
 
2013-03-13 06:33:58 PM  

vicioushobbit: should pay you double. Hubby already has a motorcycle. Obviously your wisdom worked across the whole space-time continuum thing.

/he hadn't ridden it since a minor wreck over a year ago.


Just got back on after a three year break following two accidents in the same month.  Probably stupid, but I feel ready.

/NEACSB
 
2013-03-13 06:35:28 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-13 06:36:31 PM  

Beowoolfie: duenor: This is not okay.

Yes, the mentally ill who are  a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.
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.
3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.

1. My wife has been an expert witness in commitment cases, though not in CA. Involuntary commitment is much harder than you're assuming, though doubtless there are a few asshole judges out there who wield it like a weapon. Aren't there always?
2. This part of the law is against keeping firearms in the same home, not against ownership. Either store your family heirloom, or your suicidal little brother, elsewhere and the state won't care. As for your gun safe, how secure is it really from someone living in your home? Would it be that difficult for your little brother to get his hands on the key while you're asleep? Could it really not be forced open while you're at work, by tools already in your home? Ours certainly could. It'd take some time and make lots of noise, but I could open it. And I'm disabled and can barely walk.
3. Here we are generally in agreement, at least in the cases where the gun was legally owned but being kept in an ineligible home. For those, it should be possible to pay a fine, show proof you've acquired proper storage, and retrieve it.


Thank you for your well-thought out response. In #2 I used an example, not an actual case. If I did have a suicidal little brother, I would indeed most likely have my guns stored in another location - although my first defense would be a whole lot of time and effort spent with him. After all, I can't lock away every possible way of suicide.
However, I'm not sure that the state should intervene in a case where the person is not a danger to others. If I'm committed at one point for being suicidal, and then later get better, should I still have my guns taken away? Especially if part of the reason why I was suicidal was because I felt unsafe? Again, hypothetical but things to think about.
 
2013-03-13 06:37:53 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 06:40:52 PM  
Telling people they should avoid mental health providers over fears that they will lose thier guns is the STUPIDEST reason to not seek mental health when you are feeling unstable in any way shape or form.  Seeing a "shrink" does not get your gun removed in California, being INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental hospital is the qualifier....  Learn to read dumbasses.
 
2013-03-13 06:41:49 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-13 06:47:20 PM  

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.



If a felon has done his time, and been released from prison, why shouldn't he be able to exercise his natural rights?
 
2013-03-13 06:48:31 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.


I see it the other way around. Instead of taking guns away from everyone, they are saying, "Who is likely to commit a mass murder with a gun?" Then they are working to disarm those people.

This is exactly as it should be. The people who want to stockpile guns can continue to do so. The people who want action to prevent mass murder get some form of action that actually addresses the issue.
 
2013-03-13 06:48:53 PM  
I just assume everyone with a mental illness will inevitably get violent.
 
2013-03-13 06:49:46 PM  

Bong Hits For Mohammed: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


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


Because he has shown a history of law breaking.

Doing his time does not mean he is rehabilitated, as we all know. It just means he has served the sentence that was handed down as a penalty.
 
2013-03-13 06:51:42 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-13 06:52:41 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-13 06:53:22 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

store.afa-online.org

rlv.zcache.com

/not enough funny in this thread.
 
2013-03-13 06:53:29 PM  

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.

/derp
 
2013-03-13 06:53:33 PM  

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


i know you're probably trolling, but at least felons had their day in court, it only takes one person to declare you "mentally ill" and take away your rights, demoting you to second class citizen. Are you mentally Ill? did he just not like you? where is the oversight?

either everyone can have guns or no one can have guns, thats my 2 cents
 
2013-03-13 06:53:56 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 06:58:00 PM  

Panatheist: either everyone can have guns or no one can have guns, thats my 2 cents



What if I can't afford a gun?  Should the state buy me one since it's a right?  They spring for a lawyer, why not a gun?
 
2013-03-13 06:58:02 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.


Take a minute to look at some of the similar comments. Involuntary...That's the key word. If you go in voluntarily for mental health treatment, you are not affected.
 
2013-03-13 06:58:10 PM  
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.
 
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.
 
2013-03-13 08:00:03 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.


That was my personal experience.  I never hit my (ex)wife.  I never threatened to hit her.  I never even thought about hitting her.  But her opening shot at me was to get a restraining order.  In California, a woman can say the magic words, "I don't feel safe", and the courts would grant a retraining order against Fred Rogers himself.  You can't even fight it.  I dutifully turned in my firearms to the local police station thinking I'd have them back in a few days after the hearing.  At the hearing, the judge admited there was no evidence of DV, but chose to leave the retraining order in place "just in case".  When the retraining order expired a few years later I went to get my guns.  The police had turned them into metal filings.
 
2013-03-13 08:00:53 PM  
AverageAmericanGuy:
3.bp.blogspot.com
From my cold, dead hands.

image1.findagrave.com
Okay, you win.
 
2013-03-13 08:03:28 PM  

SpiderQueenDemon: 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.


Gloomy feelings translated to a two-day stay? Sounds like there's more to the story, but I won't pry. Just seems like the diagnosis didn't justify the stay.
 
2013-03-13 08:07:12 PM  

OgreMagi: 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.

That was my personal experience.  I never hit my (ex)wife.  I never threatened to hit her.  I never even thought about hitting her.  But her opening shot at me was to get a restraining order.  In California, a woman can say the magic words, "I don't feel safe", and the courts would grant a retraining order against Fred Rogers himself.  You can't even fight it.  I dutifully turned in my firearms to the local police station thinking I'd have them back in a few days after the hearing.  At the hearing, the judge admited there was no evidence of DV, but chose to leave the retraining order in place "just in case".  When the retraining order expired a few years later I went to get my guns.  The police had turned them into metal filings.


That's AWFUL. :/ biatches be crazy. Thats why I seriously eyeball hardcore feminists, because they're always the ones who beat on their boyfriends and cry DV when they restrain them from hitting any more.

So just a restraining order is enough to get your guns taken? That's not cool. Should need a doctor's diagnosis or something, not the word of a crazy woman who's leaving you and just wants to stick it to you.
 
2013-03-13 08:09:42 PM  

Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


Crazy people like cops and politicians.
 
2013-03-13 08:19:32 PM  

jfivealive: There's no reason to own a gun anwyays


It's not as if they could help you spell.
 
2013-03-13 08:22:46 PM  

kiwimoogle84: OgreMagi: 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.

That was my personal experience.  I never hit my (ex)wife.  I never threatened to hit her.  I never even thought about hitting her.  But her opening shot at me was to get a restraining order.  In California, a woman can say the magic words, "I don't feel safe", and the courts would grant a retraining order against Fred Rogers himself.  You can't even fight it.  I dutifully turned in my firearms to the local police station thinking I'd have them back in a few days after the hearing.  At the hearing, the judge admited there was no evidence of DV, but chose to leave the retraining order in place "just in case".  When the retraining order expired a few years later I went to get my guns.  The police had turned them into metal filings.

That's AWFUL. :/ biatches be crazy. Thats why I seriously eyeball hardcore feminists, because they're always the ones who beat on their boyfriends and cry DV when they restrain them from hitting any more.

So just a restraining order is enough to get your guns taken? That's not cool. Should need a doctor's diagnosis or something, not the word of a crazy woman who's leaving you and just wants to stick it to you.


She had the nerve to contact me after that demanding money because she was in a tight situation.  Her logic, I had claimed her and her daughter on my taxes.  We filed jointly and I never took the refund and spent it on myself, it always went to the family.  Which I pointed out to her.  Then I mentioned that if anyone owed anyone money, she owed me a few thousand dollars for the firearms I lost because she committed perjury.

If she had simply asked for help, I would have been understanding.  Demanding, however, will never get a good response from me.

Oh, to give you an idea of how one sided this shiat is here in California.  A friend of mine was shot at by a crazy ex-girlfriend (she missed by a mile).  The judge refused to issue a restraining order.
 
2013-03-13 08:22:52 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: 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.


What's hillarious about his statement is that Poland had a larger defense budget and allowance under the League of Nations than Germany and a HIGH rate of private firearm ownership before the Soviet and German invasions.
 
2013-03-13 08:23:23 PM  

Deep Contact: Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.

Crazy people like cops and politicians.


Works for me.
 
2013-03-13 08:24:27 PM  

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


And more than one circuit has held that a person doesn't qualify as "committed" if he's only held for observation. If you get committed, and released in the first few days, you retain your firearms rights.
 
2013-03-13 08:24:53 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.


Why shucks! A guy was once convicted of a violent felony and turned out, he was innocent. Let's do away with prohibiting felons from owning guns. Or voting.

Let me guess, I bet you're pro death penalty.
 
2013-03-13 08:33:54 PM  

OgreMagi: 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.


For anyone who isn't a California resident, a 5150 hold is entirely at the discretion of the Officer and anyone who's ever been evaluated loses their rights to own or use firearms for life.  You're also kept locked up for 72 hours regardless of whether the admitting facility thinks you're at risk.

There is no review available other than habeas corpus, and that's irrelevant since the 72 hours will expire before you could go before a judge.

There's also nothing to keep the Officer from just 5150ing again when you're released, although I haven't actually heard of that happening.
 
2013-03-13 08:40:59 PM  
Um how can they do this.  If the guy hasn't been convicted of a felony then he still has a second amendment right to own guns.  Mentally ill or not.
 
2013-03-13 08:41:36 PM  

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.



Dude, That's just crazy talk.

Oh, and BTW, you are now prohibited from possessing firearms
 
2013-03-13 08:42:16 PM  

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 constitution applies to crazy people too.
 
2013-03-13 08:42:55 PM  

fnordfocus: OgreMagi: 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.

For anyone who isn't a California resident, a 5150 hold is entirely at the discretion of the Officer and anyone who's ever been evaluated loses their rights to own or use firearms for life seven years.  You're also kept locked up for 72 hours regardless of whether the admitting facility thinks you're at risk.

There is no review available other than habeas corpus, and that's irrelevant since the 72 hours will expire before you could go before a judge.

There's also nothing to keep the Officer from just 5150ing again when you're released, although I haven't actually heard of that happening.


FTFY
 
2013-03-13 08:44:09 PM  
I needs my gun (no I don't) Shut up!... yes we do!...but I is scared of gunz!...no we're not! As long as we don't tell...sshhhhhh....have a cup of hot snow and relax......Ahhhhh... is better now....lock and load!

\bird in tree
\\yummy
\\\ :^-=
 
2013-03-13 08:45:40 PM  
Why stop at just taking the "right to bare arms" from the folks who have been involuntarily committed or medicated?
SHOULD they be allowed to vote if they are "incapable" of exercising all their rights?
Should they be allowed "freedom of speech  considering what they may say may be dangerous to themselves or others.
Can they be entrusted to make any right decisions that could harm themselves or others. Could they have the privilege of driving be revoked  or their right to buy alcohol? Look at what is taken from citizens who have become felons and then released. Should the mentally ill then be placed in that same class? No license to sell alcohol or own a gambling house or a strip joint? Can they be trusted to pay for a mortgage?
So when do we start the slide to fascism? This election cycle or the next?
 
2013-03-13 08:47:34 PM  

OgreMagi: kiwimoogle84: OgreMagi: 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.

That was my personal experience.  I never hit my (ex)wife.  I never threatened to hit her.  I never even thought about hitting her.  But her opening shot at me was to get a restraining order.  In California, a woman can say the magic words, "I don't feel safe", and the courts would grant a retraining order against Fred Rogers himself.  You can't even fight it.  I dutifully turned in my firearms to the local police station thinking I'd have them back in a few days after the hearing.  At the hearing, the judge admited there was no evidence of DV, but chose to leave the retraining order in place "just in case".  When the retraining order expired a few years later I went to get my guns.  The police had turned them into metal filings.

That's AWFUL. :/ biatches be crazy. Thats why I seriously eyeball hardcore feminists, because they're always the ones who beat on their boyfriends and cry DV when they restrain them from hitting any more.

So just a restraining order is enough to get your guns taken? That's not cool. Should need a doctor's diagnosis or something, not the word of a crazy woman who's leaving you and just wants to stick it to you.

She had the nerve to contact me after that demanding money because she was in a tight situation.  Her logic, I had claimed her and her daughter on my taxes.  We filed jointly and I never took the refund and spent it on myself, it always went to the family.  Which I pointed out to her.  Then I mentioned that if anyone owed anyone money, she owed me a few thousand dollars for the firearms I lost because she committed perjury.

If she had simply asked for help, I would have been understanding.  Demanding, however, will never get a good response from me.

Oh, to give you an idea of how one sided this shiat is here in California.  A friend of mine was shot at by a crazy ex-girlfriend (she missed by a mile).  The judge refused to issue a restraining order.


Know how I know you've never read my profile? :P

/CA born and raised
 
2013-03-13 08:55:37 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Know how I know you've never read my profile? :P

/CA born and raised


I've read your profile, I simply forgot you are from around here (hi, neighbor).  Perhaps I should have phrased it more of "to give you an idea of what it's like to be a man in California family courts ...."  Yes, it is very one sided.  Yes, all it takes is an unsubstaniated claim of a single woman to get a restraining order.  Yes, you lose your guns (before you even get a chance to present your side in court).  No, there is nothing a guy can do about it. Ok, maybe if he has a lot of money and can afford a very expensive lawyer he might have a snowball's chance in hell.

BTW, about your retro pinup modeling?
 
2013-03-13 08:59:39 PM  

Pockafrusta: Exactly. Regardless of my mental state, I know enough to know that the LEOs at my door are not my friend and are not concerned with my safety or well being. "No. You may not come in."


You may not have noticed, but y'all tend to lie about whether or not the civilian sheep actually consented.  Google 'knock-and-talk' if the phrase isn't already familiar.
 
2013-03-13 08:59:54 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Um how can they do this.  If the guy hasn't been convicted of a felony then he still has a second amendment right to own guns.  Mentally ill or not.



FTA:  "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're the "government". They have firepower. They can do anything they damn well please.

Any "rights" that The People might THINK they are entitled to are ONLY as good as the ability of The People to defend said "rights" from those who would seek to deprive them thereof.
 
2013-03-13 09:00:48 PM  
OgreMagi:

Again today my coworker was going on about his nonworking ex-wife asking for more money.  It's a long story of crap that she put him through and to think, she was the one who cheated on him.  I asked him why he deals with her so generously and he replies "The moment my daughter turns 18, she isn't getting another cent".

/cheaper to keep her, but sometimes it is worth the price
 
2013-03-13 09:01:37 PM  

swangoatman: Why stop at just taking the "right to bare arms" from the folks who have been involuntarily committed or medicated?
SHOULD they be allowed to vote if they are "incapable" of exercising all their rights?
Should they be allowed "freedom of speech  considering what they may say may be dangerous to themselves or others.
Can they be entrusted to make any right decisions that could harm themselves or others. Could they have the privilege of driving be revoked  or their right to buy alcohol? Look at what is taken from citizens who have become felons and then released. Should the mentally ill then be placed in that same class? No license to sell alcohol or own a gambling house or a strip joint? Can they be trusted to pay for a mortgage?
So when do we start the slide to fascism? This election cycle or the next?


Very well said.

There are no rational reasons we might choose to confiscate firearms from people who've been involuntarily committed as threats to selves or others, but not also deny them the rights to vote, to speak freely, drive, or purchase alcohol. None. Taking away their guns without also forbidding them to vote makes about as much sense as putting violent felons in prison without also jailing parking violators right alongside them. Does anyone in government ever think these things through? How did we get this far as a country?

Thank you for your incisive commentary on this difficult issue.
 
2013-03-13 09:01:41 PM  

Beowoolfie: My wife has been an expert witness in commitment cases, though not in CA. Involuntary commitment is much harder than you're assuming, though doubtless there are a few asshole judges out there who wield it like a weapon. Aren't there always?


In California, involuntary commitment involves the signature of any LEO.  That's it, no judge involved.
 
2013-03-13 09:03:46 PM  

OgreMagi: 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.

That was my personal experience.  I never hit my (ex)wife.  I never threatened to hit her.  I never even thought about hitting her.  But her opening shot at me was to get a restraining order.  In California, a woman can say the magic words, "I don't feel safe", and the courts would grant a retraining order against Fred Rogers himself.  You can't even fight it.  I dutifully turned in my firearms to the local police station thinking I'd have them back in a few days after the hearing.  At the hearing, the judge admited there was no evidence of DV, but chose to leave the retraining order in place "just in case".  When the retraining order expired a few years later I went to get my guns.  The police had turned them into metal filings.


Dude, you're supposed to file the documents (I forget the proper legal numbers or name for them, but I can find out) as soon as your weapons are taken or voluntarily surrendered because it is no longer legal for you to own them. If there is some reason they cannot legally be returned to you at that point in time, you can claim the monetary value of the weapons. If you can't find the original receipt, you can obtain a copy of the federal forms the dealer had to file when you bought them. In this way, they will not be destroyed, but sold on your behalf by a licensed firearms dealer who will be required to give you the money from the weapon - less a small commission.

In cases like yours, there's also another option. You can also ask the courts to release your firearms to a friend or relative who swears under oath not to let you have them back and get all shooty on the biatch. It probably would have worked for you as there was no history of DV, nor was there evidence of DV.

I don't know who your lawyer was, but they weren't very good at the whole gun thingie or that would have been one of your first steps - to provide proof of ownership and let the courts know what you wanted done with your legal property.

/yeah, I'm one of those gun nuts
//but I'm also very into gun control
 
2013-03-13 09:09:42 PM  

fnordfocus: OgreMagi: 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.

For anyone who isn't a California resident, a 5150 hold is entirely at the discretion of the Officer and anyone who's ever been evaluated loses their rights to own or use firearms for life.  You're also kept locked up for 72 hours regardless of whether the admitting facility thinks you're at risk.

There is no review available other than habeas corpus, and that's irrelevant since the 72 hours will expire before you could go before a judge.

There's also nothing to keep the Officer from just 5150ing again when you're released, although I haven't actually heard of that happening.


Actually, it's for five years unless you are deemed mentally ill during/after that little stay. Just being held for observation means you're going to court to get your guns back by providing proof of ownership and filling out the Law Enforcement Gun Release Application. If you don't, you're a total quitter. Or you don't have guns and it is a non-issue.
 
2013-03-13 09:12:09 PM  

kiwimoogle84: OgreMagi: kiwimoogle84: OgreMagi: 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.

That was my personal experience.  I never hit my (ex)wife.  I never threatened to hit her.  I never even thought about hitting her.  But her opening shot at me was to get a restraining order.  In California, a woman can say the magic words, "I don't feel safe", and the courts would grant a retraining order against Fred Rogers himself.  You can't even fight it.  I dutifully turned in my firearms to the local police station thinking I'd have them back in a few days after the hearing.  At the hearing, the judge admited there was no evidence of DV, but chose to leave the retraining order in place "just in case".  When the retraining order expired a few years later I went to get my guns.  The police had turned them into metal filings.

That's AWFUL. :/ biatches be crazy. Thats why I seriously eyeball hardcore feminists, because they're always the ones who beat on their boyfriends and cry DV when they restrain them from hitting any more.

So just a restraining order is enough to get your guns taken? That's not cool. Should need a doctor's diagnosis or something, not the word of a crazy woman who's leaving you and just wants to stick it to you.

She had the nerve to contact me after that demanding money because she was in a tight situation.  Her logic, I had claimed her and her daughter on my taxes.  We filed jointly and I never took the refund and spent it on myself, it always went to the family.  Which I pointed out to her.  Then I mentioned that if anyone owed anyone money, she owed me a few thousand dollars for the firearms I lost because she committed perjury.


I had a Roomate once, LDS, got drunk, was convinced he was going to Hell, take one of my guns and hold the police at bay for several hours. Police took the gun of course and when I inquired about its return, i was told it was destroyed.  My cousins father-in-law was the former police chief, so I called him.  Within 3 hours I got a call to come pick up my gun.

Amusing.
haven't really trusted the police since.
 
2013-03-13 09:13:13 PM  

cptjeff: 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.


In California, the subject of this article, there is no judge involved.  You can be committed under 5150, 5250, etc with only the order of any law enforcement officer.
 
2013-03-13 09:15:27 PM  
Gun enthusiast and retired criminal psychoanalist.  I do not have a problem with this.  Will it drive more guns "underground"?  Yes, of course.  All legislation does that.  Will it save lives?  Absolutely.

If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home.  Period.
 
2013-03-13 09:15:50 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Actually, it's for five years unless you are deemed mentally ill during/after that little stay. Just being held for observation means you're going to court to get your guns back by providing proof of ownership and filling out the Law Enforcement Gun Release Application. If you don't, you're a total quitter. Or you don't have guns and it is a non-issue.


For the record I've never been committed.

However, I can't find any mechanism in state law that allows a 5150 hold to be reviewed, or you to get your guns back.  If there is, I'd love someone to explain it to me.

In fact, the mental health facility can't even refuse to take you because they have no where to put you or they don't think you're a danger.
 
2013-03-13 09:19:11 PM  

Balchinian: If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home. Period.


In California, people are frequently committed for "contempt of cop" rather than any actual mental illness.  It's an easy way to lock someone up for a guaranteed 72 hours with no chance of ROR or bail.
 
2013-03-13 09:21:16 PM  

karlandtanya: iheartscotch: Yeaaaahh; registration can't ever ever ever come back and bite you in the butt!

No, it can't.
The Constitution says they can't just come and take your shiat.  I get a trial and a lawyer and stuff, right?  The police can't just come and take my stuff and trash it, right?  Right?  Guys?  Guys?

Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh .. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eleventh .... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


And where is the payout to the people who had their weapons taken that were NOT given due process such as the woman who lived with the man who was disqualified?  Her weapon was taken for "public use" and was not compensated for it.  Much in the same manner that everybody who owned a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds in NYS just had them effectively taken without compensation.
 
2013-03-13 09:21:59 PM  

Baz744: swangoatman: Why stop at just taking the "right to bare arms" from the folks who have been involuntarily committed or medicated?
SHOULD they be allowed to vote if they are "incapable" of exercising all their rights?
Should they be allowed "freedom of speech  considering what they may say may be dangerous to themselves or others.
Can they be entrusted to make any right decisions that could harm themselves or others. Could they have the privilege of driving be revoked  or their right to buy alcohol? Look at what is taken from citizens who have become felons and then released. Should the mentally ill then be placed in that same class? No license to sell alcohol or own a gambling house or a strip joint? Can they be trusted to pay for a mortgage?
So when do we start the slide to fascism? This election cycle or the next
?

Very well said.

There are no rational reasons we might choose to confiscate firearms from people who've been involuntarily committed as threats to selves or others, but not also deny them the rights to vote, to speak freely, drive, or purchase alcohol. None. Taking away their guns without also forbidding them to vote makes about as much sense as putting violent felons in prison without also jailing parking violators right alongside them. Does anyone in government ever think these things through? How did we get this far as a country?

Thank you for your incisive commentary on this difficult issue.

The point being that the removal of any rights should be based on actual need to deny not just desire to deny. Right now the left desires to remove arms from citizens and others in their immediate household without due process,without habeas corpus. One loss of rights easily evokes another. RE-study what Jim Crow was and not what popular lit tries to show. It was far more than voting rights.
If you want to out-snide remark me you will lose, as I wont play the lefts silly games and you will be left to demand of others what you want without reply.
 
2013-03-13 09:24:57 PM  

Balchinian: Gun enthusiast and retired criminal psychoanalist.  I do not have a problem with this.  Will it drive more guns "underground"?  Yes, of course.  All legislation does that.  Will it save lives?  Absolutely.

If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home.  Period.


So PMS and Postpartum blues makes daddy lose?
 
2013-03-13 09:28:07 PM  

fnordfocus: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Actually, it's for five years unless you are deemed mentally ill during/after that little stay. Just being held for observation means you're going to court to get your guns back by providing proof of ownership and filling out the Law Enforcement Gun Release Application. If you don't, you're a total quitter. Or you don't have guns and it is a non-issue.

For the record I've never been committed.

However, I can't find any mechanism in state law that allows a 5150 hold to be reviewed, or you to get your guns back.  If there is, I'd love someone to explain it to me.

In fact, the mental health facility can't even refuse to take you because they have no where to put you or they don't think you're a danger.


I wasn't committed either. However, my now-ex-husband was on a 72 hour 5150 hold and my guns were seized when they picked him up. When he was released, I read ALL of his paperwork, and one of the forms that he had to sign was that he was aware he was not permitted to purchase, own or have access to a firearm for a period of five years. So it is not the 5150 hold that is in issue. If he's not deemed and certified crazy afterwards he can legally purchase, own and have access to firearms, no judge involved, after that five year period. As someone else pointed out, it was "just a bad day" or whatever. (Actually, in his case, it was a mental illness so he wouldn't have been able to purchase, own or have access to firearms five years later even if he wasn't now also a convicted felon. Boy, I sure can pick 'em!)

In my case, as I was the legal, registered owner of multiple firearms, but also the wife of a dangerously unstable person, I was able to get my firearms back, I just had to keep them locked elsewhere. We moved my gun safe to my Mother's house and when I got my guns back, they all went straight over there. They stayed there until I left him a year later.
 
2013-03-13 09:28:16 PM  
I was once detained for a short time in a mental hospital by a nurse, but I told her I have shoelaces, so she let me go.

(Patients are not allowed shoes with laces, but Visitors are.)
 
2013-03-13 09:34:50 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: And where is the payout to the people who had their weapons taken that were NOT given due process such as the woman who lived with the man who was disqualified?  Her weapon was taken for "public use" and was not compensated for it.  Much in the same manner that everybody who owned a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds in NYS just had them effectively taken without compensation.


In California you fill out an application to have your guns released to a friend or relative that will keep them away from the disqualified individual or you can have them released to a licensed dealer who will sell them on your behalf and give you the $$$. You prove ownership and fill out the Law Enforcement Gun Release Application. You can even ask for attorney's fees, but that's a double edged sword. If you lose, you may get stuck paying attorney's fees for the other side, too.
 
2013-03-13 09:38:10 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Gloomy feelings translated to a two-day stay? Sounds like there's more to the story, but I won't pry. Just seems like the diagnosis didn't justify the stay.


SFW, and mordantly funny, but trigger warning for those with a history of mental-health issues, especially depression and/or suicide attempts:
http://depressioncomix.tumblr.com/post/44684701412/depression-comix- 11 0-nav-1-109-110-111

That comic actually spawned quite a lot of discussion in comments about just when a mental-health professional will decide it's time for an involuntary commit.  It's *highly* variable and depends on the practitioner.  Based on the highly variable experiences of the commenters, it sounds like if you phrase things the wrong way, or try to pass off a bit of black humor, to the wrong person, you could end up an involuntary guest at the Hoo Hoo Hotel.
 
2013-03-13 09:42:45 PM  

geekbikerskum: kiwimoogle84: Gloomy feelings translated to a two-day stay? Sounds like there's more to the story, but I won't pry. Just seems like the diagnosis didn't justify the stay.

SFW, and mordantly funny, but trigger warning for those with a history of mental-health issues, especially depression and/or suicide attempts:
http://depressioncomix.tumblr.com/post/44684701412/depression-comix- 11 0-nav-1-109-110-111

That comic actually spawned quite a lot of discussion in comments about just when a mental-health professional will decide it's time for an involuntary commit.  It's *highly* variable and depends on the practitioner.  Based on the highly variable experiences of the commenters, it sounds like if you phrase things the wrong way, or try to pass off a bit of black humor, to the wrong person, you could end up an involuntary guest at the Hoo Hoo Hotel.


I see. Well glad to know you didn't go off the deep end. I never ended up with anything like that, thankfully.
 
2013-03-13 09:46:16 PM  

Balchinian: Gun enthusiast and retired criminal psychoanalist.  I do not have a problem with this.  Will it drive more guns "underground"?  Yes, of course.  All legislation does that.  Will it save lives?  Absolutely.

If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home.  Period.


If you have a mentally ill person in your home, the police should come and take THEM away.
 
2013-03-13 09:55:39 PM  

kiwimoogle84: SpiderQueenDemon: 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.

Gloomy feelings translated to a two-day stay? Sounds like there's more to the story, but I won't pry. Just seems like the diagnosis didn't justify the stay.


Feeling emotional and having a cruddy assistant manager on at the time led to it. I already knew that if I felt even the slightest bit off the next day I was going to make an appointment with my own doctor ASAP, but my manager said no and called anyways.
Turns out I have a bad premenstrual disorder, and amazingly birth control completely stops what causes it. So... *shrugs* I have an ex-assistant manager to throw the blame on if push comes to shove.
 
2013-03-13 10:23:15 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I see. Well glad to know you didn't go off the deep end. I never ended up with anything like that, thankfully.


Whoops, I think we've got our chain of attribution a little confused here, and maybe that's my fault.  Just to untangle things:

There wasn't any "deep end" for me to go off of. :-) 

It was  Ionessa who made the original post saying that "gloomy feelings" got her a two-day involuntary commit.  A couple of people doubted her story so I put the Depression Comix link up with the attendant personal anecdotes to substantiate the notion that the threshold for putting you in a hospital for a 24/48/72 hour involuntary commit (whatever the limit is where you live, in MA it's 72 hours) can be highly variable, and subjective, lending credibility to  Ionessa's story.

A friend of mine pointed me at "Depression Comix", that's why I started reading.   I have enough friends who've had interactions with mental-health professionals, and who've been in various inpatient facilities, voluntarily and not, that I can appreciate the humor.  Apparently if you're a frequent guest, you develop a real sense of gallows humor about the whole thing, pardon the expression.  Fits in really nicely with my own sick sense of humor, which, I guess, is why my friends in that situation feel it's safe to share with me.
 
2013-03-13 10:24:28 PM  
Why don't they just pass a law that makes owning a gun just like owning a driver's license so everybody can shut up and move on to problems that don't cause such ridiculous nutbaggery? Simple problem...simple solution.

Of course, that doesn't fix the problem of having 300 million guns in this country already but at least we'd know that we had done something sensible to help the problem rather than continue with this ridiculous debate.
 
2013-03-13 10:31:13 PM  

itsanillusionmichael: Of course, that doesn't fix the problem of having 300 million guns in this country


That's not a problem. In fact, it was meticulously planned at the outset.