Confiscation Has Started!

[808racer]

This should totally encourage everyone to seek mental health help voluntarily.....

And I'm sure the doc's at the VA would NEVER be given orders to flag any servicemen/women to remove their 2A rights!

 

[okiebryan]

After reading the article, they cannot legally enter the premises and remove the firearms without the resident's permission. This goes back to what I've always said. If the police knock on your door and you didn't call them, don't answer. They cannot help you in any way whatsoever.

A question. Let's say one refuses to answer the door under these circumstances. Could police then lie and tell the occupants that there is some disaster requiring evacuation, like a nearby chemical release, and scare them into opening the door?

 

[MyMonkey]

Aww man. Here it comes!

 

[cjjtulsa]

Someone please tell Alex Jones to calm down.

The first linked article from TheBlaze had this:

The Blaze; it's not Alex Jones.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

You do know that a person can be involuntarily committed for a brief period of time (usually 24-72 hours) without being mentally incompetent or a threat, right? It's an evaluation period. I guarantee you that had she been an actual danger to herself or others, she would not have been released in 48 hours.

That is an overblown witch hunt my friend. Which is why the federal law has always been explained on the 4473:



She stated that she went to the facility voluntarily. She was released within 48 hours. She's had access to the guns for three months after that with no negative consequences. She ain't nuts. They shouldn't have taken her husband's guns.

Nuff said.

She may have went to the facility voluntarily, but she was committed involuntarily. According to the law (not saying I agrees with it) she can no longer legally own a firearm. California also confiscates weapons of people that have been convicted of felonies. I have no doubt that had this woman gone on a mass shooting after being committed people would be saying, she wasn't a legal gun owner, she had been committed to the funny farm. We have no idea what her diagnoses was. We don't know why she was committed. What we do know is that according to the law she was no longer legally allowed to own a firearm.
And you seem to have completely missed, of have chosen to ignore it, my point that "Confiscation Has Started!" is not accurate.

 

[71buickfreak]

Notice the word involuntarily there, in both articles. So, yeah, according to the law in California, they had the right to take the guns as long as she lived in the house. When a judge rules she's not a danger to herself or others they will get their firearms back. If the husband moves out, he can have his firearms back immediately. They just can't be in the house with her.

Actually, the article said that all confiscated firearms in California are destroyed. They will not get them back and they will not be compensated for their value.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

The Blaze; it's not Alex Jones.

You're correct. It's Glenn Beck, not Alex Jones. My mistake.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Actually, the article said that all confiscated firearms in California are destroyed. They will not get them back and they will not be compensated for their value.

That's simply not true.
http://www.gunlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35
Once the gun is taken, you can apply to get it back. If that request it turned down, you can get a court order to release the gun to a FFL holder who can sell the gun on your behalf and give you the money from the sale.

 

[71buickfreak]

That's simply not true.
http://www.gunlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35
Once the gun is taken, you can apply to get it back. If that request it turned down, you can get a court order to release the gun to a FFL holder who can sell the gun on your behalf and give you the money from the sale.

I was just quoting the huffington article.

 

[10Seconds]

This article brings up a good debate subject and a really touchy issue. After the mass killings at Auora and Newtown, the gun lobby, NRA, et al starting saying we need to focus on the mental health issue not the gun issue.

Here a state is trying to take guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill and people are up in arms over it. I agree that there is certainly potiential for abuse. But such a program, especially the felon part, could end up saving a bunch of lives. And if we can prevent a looney from committing another mass shooting, it will help a ton in the battle for the rest of us keeping our gun rights.

To me, I could support such a program for felons and mentally ill under certain circumstance such as:
1. Person must be adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court after a hearing.
2. Must be mechanism in place to protect ownership rights of the guns, and not a forfeiture situation.
3. Definitions must be clarified so that a person who is legally entitled to possess guns and lives in the same household can still have their guns.

Of course, any such system cannot work with out a gun registry, which I certainly do not support, so its a moot issue for now. My point in saying this is that it is a decent idea to try and keep the really mentally ill away from guns.