California Begins Gun Confiscation

[Uncensored2008]

What is your definition of a "gun nut"?

Whatever Common Dreams says it is.

That's were Shortbus gets all her thoughts.....

 

[gallantwarrior]

Shut the fuck up Hitler youth, you live in the Ant Farm known as New York, you've already given up all of your rights.........your pathetic opinion doesn't count. You would have been first in line to bathe Hitlers feet with your tongue.

Anyone feel comfortable with a person with such anger issues as sitarro having guns?

I don't need a fucking gun, I'll use my truck while listening to Mozart on it's outstanding sound system. Do you jaywalk dumb ass? Anger issues....... what a fucking dipshit you are.

My brother was standing in line at what was a metal detector(the TSA crooks didn't exist then)at the airport, he was in his Captain's uniform and was about to fly a quick turn to SFO. A woman that was standing in front of him turned and said...."I'm glad to see that you guys need to be checked too"....... he looked at her and said "I'm the fucking Captain of the flight, if I feel like killing everyone on board, I'll just roll the fucking airplane on takeoff and put it into the ground!" . She turned her naive ass around and shut up. She probably ran to a bar and got drunk after that.

The biggest point the libtard gun-grabbers fail to "get" is the fact that if someone is determined enough to wreak havoc on their fellow men, they will find a way. Take away guns and then what?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Any legislation has a section where terms are defined. In the case of California, the applicable laws will have that term specifically defined, if it's used at all, and THAT is the definition which counts.

He didn't specify. He said "Do you think people with mental illness have the right to own a gun?", not "Do you think people with mental illness have the right to own a gun according to that particular California law?".

Quit whining. Oldguy has it right. So answer the question. Should mentally ill freaks own guns.

I will give the right: of course the fuck not.

Define "mentally ill freaks".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those so defined by law, GW.

You are bound to the law like all of us in a We the People government.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The gun nuts cannot define 'due process'.

They act as if the law does not apply to them.

Due process, at the most basic level:

The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses however more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Civil due process
At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[15] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[16]

Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[17]

Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever. A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process.

The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.

The courts have generally determined that laws which are too vague for the average citizen to understand deprive citizens of their rights to due process. If an average person cannot determine who is regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed by a law, courts may find that law to be void for vagueness. See Coates v. Cincinnati where the word "annoying" was deemed to lack due process insertion of fair warning.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gallantwarrior]

Those so defined by law, GW.

You are bound to the law like all of us in a We the People government.

That is not a definition. Who gets to define "mentally ill freaks"? If the "law" defined everyone who spent any time at all on political forums to be "mentally ill freaks" who should be confined away from society, you'd be fine with being rounded up and placed into internment camps?

 

[PredFan]

Stop the lie. Yes, mental nutters cannot own guns. And that is the way it should be.

End of this story.

Hey retard, if you want to play with the adults, you should probably learn to read. The question asked if "I thought..."

Excuse, I did not realize you admitted that you did not think.

You aren't bright enough to be in on the conversation. Dismissed.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Those so defined by law, GW.

You are bound to the law like all of us in a We the People government.

Not when the law is un-Constitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no authority in making that determination is the point.

You are bound by law, my friend, and break it, and you will really find what "bound" means.

 

[Oldguy]

The gun nuts cannot define 'due process'.

They act as if the law does not apply to them.

Due process, at the most basic level:

The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses however more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Civil due process
At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[15] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[16]

Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[17]

Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever. A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process.

The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.

The courts have generally determined that laws which are too vague for the average citizen to understand deprive citizens of their rights to due process. If an average person cannot determine who is regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed by a law, courts may find that law to be void for vagueness. See Coates v. Cincinnati where the word "annoying" was deemed to lack due process insertion of fair warning.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the woman in question was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED, some sort of legal due process HAD to be used. No police anywhere in this country, that I'm aware of, have the power to commit anyone to a mental institution on their own hook. They MUST follow the law and the legal procedures MUST be followed or lawsuits out the wazoo will follow shortly.

I'm not familiar with what California laws requires for an involuntary commitment, but I'll be surprised if it wasn't followed in this woman's case. I'll see what I can find.

 

[NoNukes]

Shut the fuck up Hitler youth, you live in the Ant Farm known as New York, you've already given up all of your rights.........your pathetic opinion doesn't count. You would have been first in line to bathe Hitlers feet with your tongue.

Anyone feel comfortable with a person with such anger issues as sitarro having guns?

I don't need a fucking gun, I'll use my truck while listening to Mozart on it's outstanding sound system. Do you jaywalk dumb ass? Anger issues....... what a fucking dipshit you are.

My brother was standing in line at what was a metal detector(the TSA crooks didn't exist then)at the airport, he was in his Captain's uniform and was about to fly a quick turn to SFO. A woman that was standing in front of him turned and said...."I'm glad to see that you guys need to be checked too"....... he looked at her and said "I'm the fucking Captain of the flight, if I feel like killing everyone on board, I'll just roll the fucking airplane on takeoff and put it into the ground!" . She turned her naive ass around and shut up. She probably ran to a bar and got drunk after that.

This guy is a perfect example for an argument against gun ownership.

 

[Oldguy]

Ok, here's the California law pertaining to a 72 hour involuntary hold for evaluation. A peace officer may deliver a person to the county's designated mental health facility, but only after having met certain requirements:


CA Codes (wic:5150-5157)

In case anybody wants to raise an objection, you must know that this DOES constitute due process, as the legislature and the courts have defined it for this issue.

 

[Oldguy]

Here ya go. Welfare and Institutions Code of California, Section 8103 (f):

(f) (1) No person who has been (A) taken into custody as provided
in Section 5150 because that person is a danger to himself, herself,
or to others, (B) assessed within the meaning of Section 5151, and
(C) admitted to a designated facility within the meaning of Sections
5151 and 5152 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or
others, shall own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or
attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm
for a period of five years after the person is released from the
facility. A person described in the preceding sentence, however, may
own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own,
possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm if the superior
court has, pursuant to paragraph (5), found that the people of the
State of California have not met their burden pursuant to paragraph
(6).
(2) (A) For each person subject to this subdivision, the facility
shall immediately, on the date of admission, submit a report to the
Department of Justice, on a form prescribed by the Department of
Justice, containing information that includes, but is not limited to,
the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the
person was admitted to the facility.
Any report submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall be
confidential, except for purposes of the court proceedings described
in this subdivision and for determining the eligibility of the person
to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase a firearm.

CA Codes (wic:8100-8108)

That section goes on to say that a person MUST be informed that he/she can no longer possess firearms at the time of release and MUST be told they can appeal the decision if they like. If they want to appeal, they MUST be provided a form to begin that process.


According to this statute, she had to be considered as a danger to herself or others for her to lose the right to have firearms. She said the admitting nurse "exaggerated" her condition, but if that is so, she certainly was informed of her right to challenge their assessment. If that procedure was not followed, she can sue them and probably win.

The bottom line is that, pending such a lawsuit, we must believe she was taken into custody for a reason and denied the right to have firearms because she was deemed to be a danger to herself or others.

Not quite the story originally posted here, is it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

But . . . but . . . but . . . it's the law. I don't need no stinkin' law, just my truck and Mozart.

It must be furlough day for Sitarro and some of the institutionalized crowd.

 

[Samson]

The gun nuts cannot define 'due process'.

They act as if the law does not apply to them.

Due process, at the most basic level:

The courts have generally determined that laws which are too vague for the average citizen to understand deprive citizens of their rights to due process. If an average person cannot determine who is regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed by a law, courts may find that law to be void for vagueness. See Coates v. Cincinnati where the word "annoying" was deemed to lack due process insertion of fair warning.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the woman in question was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED, some sort of legal due process HAD to be used. No police anywhere in this country, that I'm aware of, have the power to commit anyone to a mental institution on their own hook. They MUST follow the law and the legal procedures MUST be followed or lawsuits out the wazoo will follow shortly.

I'm not familiar with what California laws requires for an involuntary commitment, but I'll be surprised if it wasn't followed in this woman's case. I'll see what I can find.

I did not see where she was involuntarily committed, but you could be right. My guess is she tried to committ suicide, and was observed until she wouldn't harm herself (there are few other precedents).

Interesting how a photographer happened to be outside the house when the cops aarrived. I doubt it was a coincidence. If I was some rabid pro-gun advocate, I wonder if I might threaten suicide, then get out in time to call the press?

Regardless of whether or not the story was manufactured, or accusations are fabricated, I feel quite comfortable with this confiscation, and disagree that, as stated in the OP, this will lead to some sort of slippery slope. We're still a long way from adding an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ok, here's the California law pertaining to a 72 hour involuntary hold for evaluation. A peace officer may deliver a person to the county's designated mental health facility, but only after having met certain requirements:


CA Codes (wic:5150-5157)

In case anybody wants to raise an objection, you must know that this DOES constitute due process, as the legislature and the courts have defined it for this issue.

Try again.

That is NOT a conviction, and does NOT adjudicate removal of civil rights.

 

[Circe]

Well........it's started.

Hope you've made whatever arrangements you can make.

First the excuses will seem rational but eventually they will start dreaming up more and more excuses to seize our guns. It's hard to imagine what excuse they'll come up with to take them but the goal is to make private gun ownership a thing of the past.

YEAH --- Just because someone is crazy as a hoot owl and gets locked up in the Funny Farm is no reason to take away all his assault rifles and Glocks and Sig Sauers and hundred-bullet magazines!!!!!! After all, he might need those for self-defense, right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here ya go. Welfare and Institutions Code of California, Section 8103 (f):

(f) (1) No person who has been (A) taken into custody as provided
in Section 5150 because that person is a danger to himself, herself,
or to others, (B) assessed within the meaning of Section 5151, and
(C) admitted to a designated facility within the meaning of Sections
5151 and 5152 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or
others, shall own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or
attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm
for a period of five years after the person is released from the
facility. A person described in the preceding sentence, however, may
own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own,
possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm if the superior
court has, pursuant to paragraph (5), found that the people of the
State of California have not met their burden pursuant to paragraph
(6).
(2) (A) For each person subject to this subdivision, the facility
shall immediately, on the date of admission, submit a report to the
Department of Justice, on a form prescribed by the Department of
Justice, containing information that includes, but is not limited to,
the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the
person was admitted to the facility.
Any report submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall be
confidential, except for purposes of the court proceedings described
in this subdivision and for determining the eligibility of the person
to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase a firearm.

CA Codes (wic:8100-8108)

That section goes on to say that a person MUST be informed that he/she can no longer possess firearms at the time of release and MUST be told they can appeal the decision if they like. If they want to appeal, they MUST be provided a form to begin that process.


According to this statute, she had to be considered as a danger to herself or others for her to lose the right to have firearms. She said the admitting nurse "exaggerated" her condition, but if that is so, she certainly was informed of her right to challenge their assessment. If that procedure was not followed, she can sue them and probably win.

The bottom line is that, pending such a lawsuit, we must believe she was taken into custody for a reason and denied the right to have firearms because she was deemed to be a danger to herself or others.

Not quite the story originally posted here, is it?

{ A person described in the preceding sentence, however, may
own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own,
possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm if the superior
court has, pursuant to paragraph (5), found that the people of the
State of California have not met their burden pursuant to paragraph
(6).}


A 72 hour hold is not sufficient to strip civil rights, there must be due process in addition - including meeting a burden of proof that the accused is a danger to themselves and others.

The Stasi are on shaky ground.

Hopefully a few of them get a face full of buckshot to clarify the concepts of civil rights and due process to them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I did not see where she was involuntarily committed, but you could be right. My guess is she tried to committ suicide, and was observed until she wouldn't harm herself (there are few other precedents).

Interesting how a photographer happened to be outside the house when the cops aarrived. I doubt it was a coincidence. If I was some rabid pro-gun advocate, I wonder if I might threaten suicide, then get out in time to call the press?

Regardless of whether or not the story was manufactured, or accusations are fabricated, I feel quite comfortable with this confiscation, and disagree that, as stated in the OP, this will lead to some sort of slippery slope. We're still a long way from adding an amendment to the Constitution.

I'm sure the photographer was there at the behest of the Stasi. I imagine if the victim had known they were coming, they would have been scarce.

 

[Circe]

That old guy age 64 who shot up Mohawk, New York this morning 3/13 was plainly crazy. He fired his apartment, shot four people at the barbershop, killing two, and then ran to the lube place and killed two more.

Not a robust expression of mental health............

Probably dementia. He had a LOT of guns, incl. the six long guns the police took out of his apartment.

I think old men who get demented should have their guns taken away --- this has been the second such incidence of "age rage" recently in New York State alone. Old people with mental issues don't get their drivers' licenses renewed, and they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, either.