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 111
    More: Stupid, California, registered owner, Vice President Joe Biden, probable cause, assault weapons  
•       •       •

11842 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-13 03:57:15 PM
8 votes:

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 03:58:44 PM
6 votes:
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 04:38:31 PM
5 votes:

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 04:21:24 PM
5 votes:

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 03:56:27 PM
5 votes:
Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.
2013-03-13 03:56:15 PM
5 votes:
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 04:17:10 PM
4 votes:

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 04:15:33 PM
4 votes:
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 04:11:48 PM
4 votes:

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 04:00:25 PM
4 votes:

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 03:59:29 PM
4 votes:
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 04:20:46 PM
3 votes:

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 04:12:43 PM
3 votes:
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 04:04:16 PM
3 votes:

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 04:00:41 PM
3 votes:
There's no reason to own a gun anwyays
2013-03-13 03:58:10 PM
3 votes:
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 03:53:53 PM
3 votes:
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 03:52:59 PM
3 votes:
"Better mental health!"

"Wait, I'm crazy? Don't thread on me! Shall not be infringed!" said the Area man.
2013-03-13 08:00:03 PM
2 votes:

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 05:39:15 PM
2 votes:
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 05:18:25 PM
2 votes:
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 05:13:59 PM
2 votes:
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 05:00:15 PM
2 votes:
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 04:59:12 PM
2 votes:

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 04:58:47 PM
2 votes:
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 04:28:45 PM
2 votes:

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 04:19:59 PM
2 votes:

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 04:19:49 PM
2 votes:

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 04:18:04 PM
2 votes:

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 04:10:59 PM
2 votes:
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 04:03:09 PM
2 votes:

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 04:00:08 PM
2 votes:
Oh holy shiat subby was right there's a guy throwing around sieg heil's in their comments.
2013-03-13 03:57:00 PM
2 votes:
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 03:56:57 PM
2 votes:
Oh... this thread will be glorious...

28.media.tumblr.com
2013-03-13 03:54:51 PM
2 votes:
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 03:52:01 PM
2 votes:
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 03:49:18 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-14 03:41:00 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: An involuntary commitment is a court order. Not a "sheet of paper" signed by the nurse, as you claim. Not "Hey, I feel suicidal." Not "I want to check myself into rehab." It is a court order, signed by a judge, under the due process of law that someone poses such a danger to themselves and others that their rights under the law to refuse care must be taken away in the best interest of society at large. It requires the opinion of Physicians, and evidence presented in court to execute.


On more time -- this may be true where you live, but it is absolutely not true in many places.

In California, the subject of the article, an involuntary commitment involves a document signed by a Police Officer.  That's it.  No judge.
2013-03-14 12:34:12 PM
1 votes:
Even though this is dying out, just want to bring up one point.  There are a lot of people here who state that it is rather difficult to get someone involuntarily committed.  This is not true.  The process varies state to state but usually it simply involves a medical health professional (even a nurse) filing a single piece of paper.  That is the case in Pennsylvania.  I actually know somebody who had the following story happen to him:


1)  Mother in law who didn't like the fact that my friend had a pistol called the police and told them, "My stepson is depressed and has a gun.  I'm afraid he is going to hurt himself"
2)  Police show up at friends house.  He tells them he is not depressed, never has been depressed, and no he will not go with them to the hospital.
3)  Police arrest friend "For his own safety" and take him to mental clinic.
4)  Friend spent nearly a day and a half at the mental clinic and spoke to a nurse for about 5 minutes.  He never saw a judge and never signed any forms.
5)  Returns home and found that police had searched his house and confiscated his pistol.
6)  Friend has lawyer inquire as to why police searched his house and took his pistol.  Lawyer finds out they got a warrant which was backed up with a PA302 form stating he had been involuntarily committed because he was a danger to himself and therefore no longer allowed to own a pistol.
7)  Friend spent two years and about $10,000 of his own money to get 302 repealed.  This process involved going into a court and getting grilled about his most personal thoughts and actions by a team of psychiatrists for several hours.


This story is what got me into researching mental health laws, involuntary committments, etc.  Most states follow a process very similar to that of PA.  So that means in most states you can have your rights revoked by someone simply making a phone call.  It should not be this easy for the state to revoke your rights nor this hard to get them back.  That is why I will push for a hearing, in person, before a judge, before anybody can have this done to them.  It solves a lot of the potential problems with people either 1) Abusing the system to get back at someone -or- 2) Some "mental health professional" deciding that they are going to "throw the book" at you simply so they can cover their butts if you do indeed do something later.
2013-03-14 09:20:44 AM
1 votes:
And PS Rik01-

I have a government security clearance. It was required for a high- PHI federal job I got a couple years ago. This was DURING THERAPY. So you're spouting right out your ass, because they don't check medical history for job applications.

Think before you talk, because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
2013-03-14 09:16:58 AM
1 votes:
Rik01-

"If you seek treatment for, say, mild to moderate depression, the chances of you being cured within a year are good...Still, the fact you visited a professional for mental help remains on your record, which now can be used against you."

Um... I've NEVER had my therapy used against me. Never. And I had several doctors over a three year period- one of whom actually DIAGNOSED me with suicidal behavior. Well, YEAH. It made sense. Another TRIED to say that I refused help. I found a new doctor.

So, I'm not really sure why you're trying to stir up crap, because you're confusing "permanent record" with "medical history", which is protected by confidentiality laws.
2013-03-14 12:02:42 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Beowoolfie: duenor: 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.

In an attempt to keep discussing this intelligently, I looked up the actual California law. It turns out the Bloomberg article is just filled with crap! For suicidal threats, they can take your guns ONLY if a licensed psychotherapist has reported you to the police as a danger to yourself WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. As for the "lack of due process" (another farker's phrase, not yours), there's a full set of due process appeals and such spelled out right there in this law. Bloomberg says you don't get your guns back? Look at this:

b) Upon confiscation of any firearm or other deadly weapon from a person who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition, the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall notify the person of the procedure for the return of any firearm or other deadly weapon which has been confiscated.

Either California law enforcement are selectively ignoring huge parts of this law, or the Bloomberg article is nothing but a propaganda piece intended to frighten gun owners. I hate it when they manage to con me and waste my time.

Source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001- 09000&file=8100-8108

I don't know if the cops are or are not selectively ignoring parts of the law on purpose or if they--like probably the writer of this article--are just ignorant of it. I suspect it's the latter. Certainly I knew even without any research that there are mechanisms for having your firearms returned; someone else has already posted repeatedly and without any response that there are ways to have your guns given back; and here you've ...


Alright so there's supposed to be due process but why should a person have to go through it after they've been released from a mental institution? Are they still a danger to themselves or others? If that's the case why release them?
/Just sounds messed up to me.
2013-03-13 11:33:58 PM
1 votes:

Happy Hours: scruffy1: As someone that works at a state hospital

Doing what?

Licensed Psychiatric Technician, California being one of 4 states that offers such license. The job involves working with patients, administering medication, helping them work through their situation and preparing them for re-entry into the free world if they are able to head back out. Most of the time babysitting them, the rest of the time preventing them from hurting themselves, peers, staff or imaginary people.

Why should we trust the opinion of someone who uses "regiment" when the correct word is "regimen"?
I wasn't aware that spelling errors were cause for disavowing someone's personal opinion.

And you also work retail?
Worked. Not work. Worked.

And then you post some ridiculous youtube video.
Welcome to Fark. Didn't they give you your manual and free kitty?

And claim "guns are bad"?
I'm sorry to offend you, I didn't realize that you had been raised by a happy family of Bushmasters.
2013-03-13 10:36:06 PM
1 votes:

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 09:01:41 PM
1 votes:

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 08:45:40 PM
1 votes:
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 08:42:55 PM
1 votes:

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 08:33:54 PM
1 votes:

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 08:00:53 PM
1 votes:
AverageAmericanGuy:
3.bp.blogspot.com
From my cold, dead hands.

image1.findagrave.com
Okay, you win.
2013-03-13 07:57:28 PM
1 votes:

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 07:52:50 PM
1 votes:

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 07:39:15 PM
1 votes:

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 07:22:34 PM
1 votes:

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 07:19:08 PM
1 votes:
How do you tell the difference between a gun owner and a mentally ill person?
2013-03-13 07:02:39 PM
1 votes:
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 06:47:20 PM
1 votes:

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 06:40:52 PM
1 votes:
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 05:58:35 PM
1 votes:
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 05:56:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:02 PM
1 votes:

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 05:49:07 PM
1 votes:

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 05:44:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:37 PM
1 votes:
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 05:20:57 PM
1 votes:
Law enforcement, enforcing laws?

Clearly this is an outrage.
2013-03-13 05:20:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:06:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:47 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:11 PM
1 votes:

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 04:52:20 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:16 PM
1 votes:

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 04:44:17 PM
1 votes:

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 04:43:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:41:41 PM
1 votes:
Ah, California.

imageshack.us
2013-03-13 04:39:44 PM
1 votes:
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 04:39:32 PM
1 votes:

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 04:35:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:07 PM
1 votes:
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 04:28:14 PM
1 votes:

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 04:27:47 PM
1 votes:

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 04:27:32 PM
1 votes:
Getting dizzy from the movement of the goalposts.
2013-03-13 04:27:30 PM
1 votes:

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 04:23:35 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:19:35 PM
1 votes:
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 04:18:57 PM
1 votes:
So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?
2013-03-13 04:17:50 PM
1 votes:
This is why I will never register my guns.

Ever.
2013-03-13 04:14:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:14:49 PM
1 votes:

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 04:11:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:11:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:10:53 PM
1 votes:

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 04:10:44 PM
1 votes:
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 04:10:35 PM
1 votes:

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 04:10:08 PM
1 votes:
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 04:08:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:08:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:07:21 PM
1 votes:

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 04:04:57 PM
1 votes:

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 04:04:53 PM
1 votes:
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 04:04:18 PM
1 votes:
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 04:03:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:56 PM
1 votes:
i970.photobucket.com
2013-03-13 04:01:38 PM
1 votes:
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 04:01:02 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:56 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:41 PM
1 votes:
This thread will be glorious. Discord. Chaos. Chocolate Rain.
2013-03-13 03:59:39 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:23 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:23 PM
1 votes:
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 03:57:18 PM
1 votes:
"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 03:52:17 PM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
From my cold, dead hands.
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report