Except of course, when it is.
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
You should read the entire article, but I’m going to quote some parts of it.
What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.
This sound reasonable until you read some of the other parts of the article.
“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.
Yep, they consider this a good thing.
The no-gun list is compiled by cross-referencing files on almost 1 million handgun and assault-weapon owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental-health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, according to the attorney general’s office.
So, a two day commitment for observation is enough to disqualify a gun owner without further review? Who made the decision to commit this woman? Why was she committed? We don’t know. What we do know is that she has had property taken from her by the State. As has her husband, although he’s not prohibited and two of the confiscated firearms belong to him. No doubt the State of California is going to reimburse him for his taken property.
Most seized weapons are destroyed, Gregory said.
Or not. So, the agents of the State of California decide that someone who does not fit the federal definition of a prohibited person shouldn’t have guns and then they just go and take them. Can’t be, no, they must have a warrant, right?
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.
So, they can’t even convince a judge that this is legal, so they lie their way into people’s houses to confiscate their property. Yes, that is definitely the way to build up the trust of the public.
So, let’s recap.
The State of California keeps a record of all legal gun owners.
They cross reference that with a data base of people who aren’t supposed to have guns.
They go around to those peoples last known addresses and con their way in because this process is so weak that they can’t get a warrant.
They confiscate firearms owned by that person and those of any other person who lives there, even if those other people are allowed to have firearms.
They destroy that property without compensation to the previous owners.
No, registration can’t lead to confiscation, no way.
What I don’t understand is why no one has sued in federal court over this. Or maybe they have and I just missed it.
Read the whole articles, I’m going to take a long shower.
There’s no problem with convicted felons continuing to possess guns? Psychiatric patients who have already shown themselves to be a danger to self or others (requirement for involuntary commitment in California) should have free access to firearms? Keep in mind, those laws ALREADY EXIST, and not just in California. Isn’t that what the NRA is demanding, that we ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS?
Are there problems with the system? Yes, of course there are. Seizing weapons from people sharing the house is most likely unconstitutional (but may be permissible if they are compensated, along the lines of eminent domain laws). The state get the funds for these seizures from gun licenses instead of the general fund where it should come from. The problems with mental health aren’t in the gun seizure system, the problem is that mental health in general in the U.S. is completely broken.
Does that mean we should simply ignore the problems and allow those weapons to remain with convicted felons or people committed as a threat to self or others?
I suppose it comes down to which error you’re more willing to live with: accidentally punishing innocent people, or allowing guilty people to escape punishment. It’s the trade-off of any judicial system: punishing all guilty people will inevitably trap some innocents; and ensuring no innocent is harmed will inevitably allow some criminals to continue their crimes unpunished.
I didn’t say that letting felons keep guns is OK. Nor did I say that letting people keep guns if they have a mental illness which makes them dangerous OK, either. What I did say is that there are serious due process questions here. If these people are in violation of the law, then getting a warrant should be fairly simple. Yet it doesn’t seem that is happening in these cases. Seizing the property of innocent people without due process, without compensation, and then destroying it is unconscionable. What if a someone is convicted of homicide while drunk driving. Should the state be able to confiscate the car of that person’s spouse because the convict might get his or her hands on the keys?
I’d have to wonder how dangerous the person was to be held for 48 hours and then released back home. “Involuntary commitment” is generally a legal term, not a decision made by a doctor or nurse. A hold for observation, with subsequent release, would be very unlikely to meet that standard.
It comes down to due process. One of the basic tenets of our legal system is that it’s better for 1,000 guilty people to go free than it is to punish one innocent person.
Frankly, I think the reason that they can’t get the search warrant is because of the 2nd Amendment; and the unwillingness of judges to use a gun-registry for confiscation, even if the law is clearly being broken. Personally, I find it odd that evidence of a convicted felon owning a gun (via the registry) is not sufficient for a warrant; maybe it’s because the gun is linked to the person and not to a specific location to search? I agree a restraining order should not be enough to seize firearms; only if it rises to the level of a felony, which disqualifies them from owning firearms at the federal as well as all states’ level, should the guns be seized.
As for seizing the guns of family members or roommates, I talked about eminent domain for a specific reason. It is another situation where the government can violate a fundamental human right (to own property), without due cause (if “fairly compensated”) if it’s in the public interest. Seizing weapons, if properly compensated, could fall under that umbrella. I’m not saying it’s right; just that the precedent is clearly there.
With regards to “involuntary commitment” out here in CA, the 5150 hold form clearly states that the person can be detained in a psychiatric facility against their will for up to 72 hours; any further detention requires a court order. Personally, I think that the 5150 hold should not be sufficient cause to deny gun ownership; but as I said, the system is badly broken. I’ve seen decent people just looking for help with depression get trapped in the system; and I’ve seen some really scary psychotic people yo-yo in and out of facilities on multiple 5150 holds per month.
I suppose I’m just concerned about how vehement you appear to be against this system. While it has flaws, it’s at least going in the right direction: preventing dangerous people from getting guns, instead of banning certain types of guns altogether.
That might be true if only one judge issues warrants, but generally it’s whoever they can find. CA being a big state, it’s likely that they would go to many judges. Nor have I ever heard of a judge denying a warrant for any reason other than specificity or probably cause. I suppose it could happen. A restraining order of any kind requires confiscation of firearms. At least in my state, but I think it’s federal law. If the RO is lifted, the guns MAY be returned. That’s a complicated issue and I won’t go into it here. I share you confusion. If someone is a convicted felon (although federal law doesn’t require a felony conviction, many misdemeanors will fit criteria) and the gun is registered, you’d think that would be enough for a warrant. It might be that the registry is not accurate. Not that it would matter because if anyone, felon or not, wants a gun, they can get one illegally. Felon = criminal. Which means that they don’t much care about the law, if at all.
I’ve never heard of an eminent domain case that hasn’t gone to court. Even if the property owner loses, mostly they sue to block the seizure. I think Kelo was wrongly decided, as have some state legislatures who fixed the defects in their states laws stop that sort of thing.
We have a similar 72 hour hold law and I’ve seen it used Gulag like to get people into an ED for medical examination. The rational being that someone that is ill and won’t seek medical care must be crazy. So, using the CA, not your, logic, a person who doesn’t want to go to the hospital when the EMTs think he should could lose their Second Amendment rights. Which was my point. The lady in the original article was out in 48 hours. So, she obviously wasn’t dangerous enough to be held the full 72 hours and no one thought that she was dangerous enough to petition a judge to involuntarily commit here.
I’m vehemently against it because it sets the bar for denial of a Civil Right too low. To me at least, it’s the same as saying that a person who is arrested, but then has the charges dropped, should be prohibited from having firearms. The standard is just way to law in the CA situation.
I don’t think you know very much about mental health if you think someone who’s a danger to themselves or others gets released after 48 hours.
Uh, that was my point. Someone who is dangerous isn’t going to be released after 48 hours. Or at least shouldn’t be, but it has happened. The woman in the article was held for 48h hours and then released. So, she couldn’t have posed much of a threat to anyone, including herself. Yet, the state of CA saw fit to strip her of her Second Amendment Rights and confiscate (and will destroy), her and her husbands property without either due process or compensation.
Wasn’t meant for you, TO.
Oh. In that case feel free to carry on!
BH,
And if you read my reply, I state that the mental health system in the country is broken. I’ve transported my share of bullshit psych holds; and I’ve also transported some psych holds who would terrify me if they had access to firearms. As I said, the problem is NOT the gun seizure program; it’s an idiotic 5150 psych hold system where it’s easier for ED MDs to just involuntarily commit someone asking for help, than it is to get them to appropriate resources.
I’ll ask you as well, what do you want? These seizures are doing exactly what the NRA asked: ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS. What should be done in these cases, besides make snarky one-sentence posts?
I think that the NRA meant enforcing Constitutional laws, not capricious, arbitrary, and Unconstitutional laws. The BATFE standard for becoming a “prohibited person” due to mental illness requires adjudication. That means that the request has to be submitted and a hearing held before a judge. The CA system doesn’t require that and is ripe for abuse. A nurse or a doctor can do exactly what you point out. That is, they can use what you yourself refer to as “an idiotic 5150 psych hold system”. If someone has to be held for observation, that’s fine. It’s observation, not a final determination.
What I want is a system where people are not denied a civil right because a doctor or nurse is lazy or had a bad day. If it’s that critical that a person be denied the right to possess firearms, then make the case before a judge.
The population density at some point will make free access to guns more harm than help. Nobody’s fault, just reality. It is somewhat ironic that people with mental health issues are much more likely to be the victim of violent crimes, and most violent crimes are committed by the supposedly mentally healthy. The gray area of course would be people on a cocktail of pharmaceuticals, that takes away their soul and has them on a spiral out of control. There are some pretty high powered pellet guns out there that look like the real thing I would be content with for protection… Of course I’m not prepping to overthrow the tyranny or whatever.
Please cite some sort of proof of your first statement. In my experience, it’s the untreated mentally ill that act out violently, not the treated mentally ill. Of course you may have more experience in this than I do, so I’m sure you can share specific examples. As to pellet guns, I doubt that they will have the effect that you desire if you are confronted by a violent criminal. It’s not about killing power, it’s about stopping the criminal, and pellet guns are very unlikely to do that. Again, you might be experienced in combat shooting, so if you are, please educate me.
The lack of compensation and the mandatory seizure are what bothers me…
The lack of due process, the lack of compensation, and the fact that some people think it’s OK are what bother me.