California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.
Dear
whitehall
yes and no.
a. I'd say it should be legally required for families or friends to report someone who is so mentally ill they are dangerous, as a threat to public health and safety. The gun issue should follow from that.
All citizens, if legally competent, should be required to sign financial and legal agreements
to pay the cost of any "premeditated crimes for which that person is convicted."
Then if someone is not legally, mentally, or financially competent, the family or friends, or a sponsoring organization can vouch and "co-sign" for that person. Someone has to take responsibility so it doesn't land on the taxpayer.
If people agreed to these standards, sick people would HAVE to get help BEFORE a crime is committed that costs taxpayers. It could be done through insurance, and screening people for preexisting conditions, similar to how police and military are screened for mental issues.
b. too many people have abused the mental illness claim to take property from family members.
it happened to a judicial advocate I knew, her own children abused that claim, and got lawyers
and judges to declare her mentally incompetent with absolutely NO medical examination by any doctor.
She was at home guarding her property, and fighting with petitions, lawsuits and letters.
So they took away her right to petition by having their BUDDIES in court declare her mentally incompetent
and ban any pro se petitions or filings. She had no lawyer or money to pay one, so she could not sue.
She was competent but just so angry at the injustice, any professional could have evaluated her
and told you that she had Legal Abuse syndrome and PTSD from that. She was still 100% in control
of her memory and was not dangerous or violent, just politically dangerous because she knew her rights
and knew how to defend them. The opposition had to stop her by politically censoring her, taking her
property and kicking her out of her home, to sell the land to developers who helped back the judges
and lawyers including the ones helping her own children to do this.
So until you address the root problems of
a, mental illness and ACCURATE diagnosis and reporting and requiring therapy that CURES it (not just placating or medicating symptoms. For example, Spiritual Healing which is natural and free has been used to cure schizophrenia and other ills and diseases, such treatment once proven medically could be required for people who are criminally a threat to themselves or others, similar to requiring people with AIDS or Ebola to abstain from infecting others)
b. legal abuse for political conflicts of interest
c. conflicts between people over govt regulations and gun rights
You still aren't addressing the real problem.
The above factors if unaddressed will allow any bill to miss the point and also
open the door to abuse. The root issues have to be addressed in order to be fully effective.
