CA Seizes Guns as Owners Lose 2A Rights

[G60]

So, are you really suggesting we should allow mentally ill and mentally incompetent people to purchase and possess firearms simply because in some future scenario they may try use this as justification to seize guns from mentally stable and mentally competent non-criminal people?

As long as there is judicial review, I don't have a problem with preventing the purchase of firearms or possession of firearms by people who are currently mentally ill, schizophrenic, delusional, or incompetent.

Who determines what 'mental illness' prohibits a person from owning a firearm?

Flip through the DSM-IV some time, it's pretty crazy (no pun intended) how many things are considered "mental disorders."

It's a very, very slippery slope, and seeing that there's no evidence that the mentally ill are more violent than anyone else, I don't really have a problem with them possessing arms. I believe the bar needs to be set very, very high to prohibit someone from exercising a right. Otherwise we're gonna get Chuck Schumer in charge of adjudicating us, and anyone who's got some Xanax during the holidays is going to be prohibited.

[rsa-otc]

Who determines what 'mental illness' prohibits a person from owning a firearm?

It's a very, very slippery slope, and seeing that there's no evidence that the mentally ill are more violent than anyone else, I don't really have a problem with them possessing arms. I believe the bar needs to be set very, very high to prohibit someone from exercising a right. Otherwise we're gonna get Chuck Schumer in charge of adjudicating us, and anyone who's got some Xanax during the holidays is going to be prohibited.

I was discussing this very thing with my brother who is a mental health practitioner last night. As he pointed out people in the mental health field were using the fact that statistically the mentally ill are no more likely to commit violent acts then anyone else; just like we use statistics that show ARs are not a problem. His opinion is that we need to start looking at the root of the problems, discuss everything and come to a comprehensive answer and knock the rest of this crap off. Otherwise we will continue to pass ineffective laws and never make a dent in the problems. What is going on now disgusts him. And don't even start him on the Affordable Health care Act.

[fixer]

Correct me if I'm wrong...Wouldn't this type of seizure scenario depend on registration first?

[Tamara]

So, are you really suggesting we should allow mentally ill and mentally incompetent people...

Depends. Who gets to define mentally ill and mentally incompetent? I agree with you about judicial review, and I want that bar set pretty damn high.

And don't be so flippant about "hypothetical future scenarios"; our entire system of government was designed specifically to thwart hypothetical future scenarios. You wouldn't want some future Reich Wing Nehemiah Scudder administration deciding that anybody who'd ever been pro-choice or voted Democrat was mentally incompetent, would you?

[Tamara]

Correct me if I'm wrong...Wouldn't this type of seizure scenario depend on registration first?

Give that man a Kewpie doll!

California: Serving as a consequences laboratory for American gun owners since 1924!

[NETim]

Again, Gaber:

"No matter who you are or what you believe, you have to understand that some day the worst control-freaks among your bitterest enemies will control the federal government, and you better have restored effective, working constitutional limitations on that government before that time arrives." -- Rick Gaber

[Chemsoldier]

You wouldn't want some future Reich Wing Nehemiah Scudder administration deciding that anybody who'd ever been pro-choice or voted Democrat was mentally incompetent, would you?

A Nehemiah Scudder reference? +1 cool point.



Also, as I read the article they cannot search a house without a warrant, so they have to get the occupant to allow the search. It pays to know your rights.

[John Ralston]

So I am a bit confused; is the CA AG truly claiming that an otherwise legal individual is no longer allowed to possess firearms just because a family member has been adjudicated incompetent? What if the sane individual who has a constitutional right for legal firearms ownership has their weapons stored in a locked safe that the prohibited individual cannot access?

What's next--banning firearms for parents who have children in the home, since after all kids are prohibited from having access to firearms...

Guilt by association...

[cclaxton]

Who determines what 'mental illness' prohibits a person from owning a firearm?

Flip through the DSM-IV some time, it's pretty crazy (no pun intended) how many things are considered "mental disorders."

It's a very, very slippery slope, and seeing that there's no evidence that the mentally ill are more violent than anyone else, I don't really have a problem with them possessing arms. I believe the bar needs to be set very, very high to prohibit someone from exercising a right. Otherwise we're gonna get Chuck Schumer in charge of adjudicating us, and anyone who's got some Xanax during the holidays is going to be prohibited.

There absolutely is evidence that certain categories of mentally ill persons are much more likely to be violent. And, the majority of mass murders since 1982 have been committed by mentally ill people. The criteria for disqualification must be specific to the type of disorder AND the degree of the disorder. Also, the disqualification cannot be permanent and must be reviewed on request by the ill person.

Suicide by firearm outnumbers homicide by firearms. A firearm is the most effective means of suicide, and yet 90% of mental/emotional problems leading to suicide are curable. One area where we can save lives is to help prevent suicide by firearm. I am not necessarily suggesting that the State should temporarily take their firearms from them, but in extreme cases perhaps that is an option. Education, better detection, better intervention, public awareness, etc, could provide a huge help. Also, making gun owners keep their firearms locked up at home unless it is under their direct supervision is another option.

As responsible gun owners we should not just sit back and hide behind the 2nd Amendment...I think we need to be willing to demonstrate actions that could save lives while still balancing the right to possess and carry.

CC

[Fly320s]

So, are you really suggesting we should allow mentally ill and mentally incompetent people to purchase and possess books and computers simply because in some future scenario they may try use this as justification to seize books and computers from mentally stable and mentally competent non-criminal people?

As long as there is judicial review, I don't have a problem with preventing the purchase of books or possession of computers by people who are currently mentally ill, schizophrenic, delusional, or incompetent.

A Judge can always rescind that order if the person shows recovery from their illness if there is judicial review. We should speak up if there is no judicial review.

CC

How's that taste?