California Begins Gun Confiscation

[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.

Try again.

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

You didn't read the link, did you? No conviction or adjudication is necessary.

 

[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?

{ 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.

"Pursuant to paragraph 5" Here's paragraph 5 of that statute:

(5) Any person who is subject to paragraph (1) who has requested a
hearing from the superior court of his or her county of residence
for an order that he or she may own, possess, control, receive, or
purchase firearms shall be given a hearing. The clerk of the court
shall set a hearing date and notify the person, the Department of
Justice, and the district attorney. The people of the State of
California shall be the plaintiff in the proceeding and shall be
represented by the district attorney. Upon motion of the district
attorney, or on its own motion, the superior court may transfer the
hearing to the county in which the person resided at the time of his
or her detention, the county in which the person was detained, or the
county in which the person was evaluated or treated. Within seven
days after the request for a hearing, the Department of Justice shall
file copies of the reports described in this section with the
superior court. The reports shall be disclosed upon request to the
person and to the district attorney. The court shall set the hearing
within 30 days of receipt of the request for a hearing. Upon showing
good cause, the district attorney shall be entitled to a continuance
not to exceed 14 days after the district attorney was notified of the
hearing date by the clerk of the court. If additional continuances
are granted, the total length of time for continuances shall not
exceed 60 days. The district attorney may notify the county mental
health director of the hearing who shall provide information about
the detention of the person that may be relevant to the court and
shall file that information with the superior court. That information
shall be disclosed to the person and to the district attorney. The
court, upon motion of the person subject to paragraph (1)
establishing that confidential information is likely to be discussed
during the hearing that would cause harm to the person, shall conduct
the hearing in camera with only the relevant parties present, unless
the court finds that the public interest would be better served by
conducting the hearing in public. Notwithstanding any other law,
declarations, police reports, including criminal history information,
and any other material and relevant evidence that is not excluded
under Section 352 of the Evidence Code shall be admissible at the
hearing under this section.


Obviously, she either has not requested a hearing, or it hasn't been held yet.

 

[Oldguy]

By the way...where did all the Nutter's go who were just SURE this was an example of "They're cummin' to git our guns?"

Just like cockroaches, they scatter in the light of truth...every time.

 

[eots]

Again, not seeing the problem here... Crazy people shouldn't have guns.

Of course, it would probably disqualify 90% of the gun nuts on USMB.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

SO WOULD THAT INCLUDED SOLDIERS AND POLICE ???

Psychiatric drug use skyrockets in U.S. military

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/so_am_nationalism/news.php?q=1280643759

 

[JakeStarkey]

eots, please quit revealing your idiocy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

But, guns are illegal in New York, how could he have had guns?

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.

Of course you do. And if they speak against Dear Leader, put them to death. Civil Liberty is for the young.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obviously, she either has not requested a hearing, or it hasn't been held yet.

So, if it hadn't been held, you have no problem with the Stasi removing her civil rights?

 

[Uncensored2008]

By the way...where did all the Nutter's go who were just SURE this was an example of "They're cummin' to git our guns?"

Just like cockroaches, they scatter in the light of truth...every time.

When I first read it, I thought it was just hysteria, but you've convinced me that the Peoples Republic IS pissing on civil rights with no due process.

 

[Uncensored2008]

eots, please quit revealing your idiocy.

Jakematters, please go **** yourself.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, meaning anyone who thinks he needs a gun to fight the government or shoot those hoards of criminals they think are hiding in the bushes.

Here's the problem- the top two reasons you jokers give for why you need a gun are silly.

You'll never be able to effectively take on the government (They'll always have bigger, better guns) and a gun in the home is far more likely to kill a person in the home than a bad guy.

The fact that you guys think that crazy people should have guns because, hey, someone might accuse you of being crazy some day, kind of proves their point.

It is absolute insanity that crazy people have such easy access to weapons.

Problem is in this case the woman wasn't crazy. There's the rub. You don't have to be crazy, just be accused of being crazy.

All it takes is some low-life swearing out a warrant on you or signing some document on you and you're fucked.

She was sufficiently whacked enough to be confined to a mental hospital for a couple of days.

And frankly, if someone swears out a warrent on you, you've probably done something to deserve it.

The only time I've filed a legal complaint on anyone in my life was after everything else I tried failed, and my lawyer told me I had no choice. I can't imagine anyone does this frivolously.

You are a career loser...so nobody gives enough of a shit to bother with you. For people with lives, it can happen. It HAS happened to someone here, in fact.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think everyone has at one time or another been accused of being a little crazy.

yes, we have...

Most of us don't get locked up in psych hospitals, though.

Some should be...and you top that list!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarlaxle, the women was an abuser, abused her kids and abused her husband, refused a plea deal for three years, and the jury decided.

The gun nuts are not going to run this country.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

I don't need a ******* 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 ******* 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 ******* Captain of the flight, if I feel like killing everyone on board, I'll just roll the ******* 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.

Yep.....anyone at all feel comfortable with a person such as the poster above (sitarro) having guns? and maybe being in your neighborhood? or in your business address? or your kids' school?

Sure. I'd rather have him in my neighborhood than you.

 

[JoeB131]

Obamacare has a regulation that encourages you doctor to ask if you have any guns. If you're being treated for depression they can take your guns.

Pretty soon if you're a binge-eater they can take your guns.
If you are diagnosed with Anorexia they might take your guns.
If you got a DUI they might take your guns.
If you're in the military and have been repeatedly deployed they might take your guns.
If you're going through a divorce they might take your guns.
If you buy a bottle of Xanax they might take your guns.

See what this could lead to?

No, of course not.

Well, no, because I can't see a good reason why you should have guns to start with...

But if you are going to insist on having them, I want reasonable assurances you aren't a danger to yourself or others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gun nuts, be assured the JoeBs are not going to take your guns if you act normally.

Gun nuts, be assured that if you act like that woman you are going to jail.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You are a career loser...so nobody gives enough of a shit to bother with you. For people with lives, it can happen. It HAS happened to someone here, in fact.

Says the guy who got fired from his job as a mechanic...

I mean, seriously, how bad do you have to be do that.

Then he went whining to the eeeevil government to make them shut his ex-boss down.

 

[tjvh]

Taking guns away from crazy people?

The fiends!

It says 2 days in a mental hospital. The person doesn't have to be a long-term mental patient, just go in for observation. If she spent only 2 days there it looks like suspicions were unfounded. That doesn't matter now. All you need to be put on the list is an unfounded accusation.

Probable Cause

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

At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.

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.

I suppose we should wait until those folks shoot a bunch of kids in the face.

Only way to be sure.

So you have no problem trampling people's Rights and Freedoms based upon what they might do? Wow, that is just astonishingly wrong and Unconstitutional on so many levels.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, not seeing the problem here... Crazy people shouldn't have guns.

Of course, it would probably disqualify 90% of the gun nuts on USMB.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

You definitely don't qualify for gun ownership you tiny brained ****, you live in shitago!

You mean the most awesome city in the country? Yup.

But seriously, guy, you gun nuts keep proving my point. If your having a gun was left up to anyone else... you wouldn't have a gun.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, I am afraid of what a mentally ill gun nut might do. Take the guns, yes.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

You can be tossed into a nut house for three days in Kalifornia solely on the word of a cop.