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  
•       •       •

11879 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:48 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 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.
 
2013-03-13 10:36:06 PM  

itsanillusionmichael: 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.


Because that would give gun owners a lot more freedom than they have now.

No background check to have license or purchase
License is shall issue
No limits on number purchased per period
No limits on fuel tank capacity
No limits on automatics
15-17 minimum age
No license required to own/possess/use on private property
Few size limits on public roads, no size limits on private property
License valid in all states (even Canada and Mexico!)
Few places are off limits

I could get behind treating guns like cars in this case.
 
2013-03-13 10:37:48 PM  

geekbikerskum: 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.


Here in NY they can hold you up to a maximum of 72 hours. And if they feel that you're stable enough they can let you out earlier (which was in my case.) I could have been out even a day earlier, but I couldn't find anyone to pick me up from the hospital that day.

And I don't entirely know what my manager at the time said in her call, but it's general practice to send the police out to the scene, regardless. Not sure if they can deem someone fit to not be taken in from there or not, though.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:40 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.


Sadly that was the case.

But I must admit, that comic made me chuckle.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:50 PM  

pedrop357: itsanillusionmichael: 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.

Because that would give gun owners a lot more freedom than they have now.

No background check to have license or purchase
License is shall issue
No limits on number purchased per period
No limits on fuel tank capacity
No limits on automatics
15-17 minimum age
No license required to own/possess/use on private property
Few size limits on public roads, no size limits on private property
License valid in all states (even Canada and Mexico!)
Few places are off limits

I could get behind treating guns like cars in this case.


Touche, I hadn't really thought about it like that...although you can't get a driver's license at a DMV show without doing paperwork like you can get a gun at a gun show...also the DMV does do background checks they are just configured in a way to keep dangerous drivers off of the road. I was implying that things like background checks etc would remain. I was just suggesting that there should be an actual bureaucracy that handles giving out gun permits, rather than letting private institutions handle it as well. I hope I'm making sense, long day.
 
2013-03-13 10:42:59 PM  
I do consider any solution involving more government coercion to be a moot point though since the government is such an evil communist nazi state hell-bent on enslaving it's own citizenry. At least, that's what I hear every time I turn on the internet...
 
Displayed 50 of 438 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report