Molon labe
I agree with your premise but I foresee the 3rd one being a major obstacle considering the circumstances surrounding the Newtown shooting.
The only solution to gun violence, by criminals or the mentally ill, that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights is to allow people to defend themselves.
Yes, but most officers wouldn't. A civil court might disagree, but who wants to go down that road?
If she and her husband to choose to fight this, again, a civil court might disagree on the legality. It would depend on how the CA law is written. Ultimately, I think their primary recourse should be with the mental health facility. They made the decision to commit her involuntarily when she presented voluntarily. They were instrumental in voiding her constitutional rights, so go after them.
You might be technically correct that it's been going on all along, but now it's stepped way up and there's a lot more media attention. For a lot of people in the public who didn't know, this is a new issue. What this will ultimately bring about is a chilling effect on gun owners who should seek mental health support, but will be afraid to in reasonable fear of losing their rights.
The real issue here is a nurse recommending involuntary commitment, a doctor signing off on it and poof, you lose your rights. That's not how the federal law is written and I fully believe the CA law to be in violation of the US Constitution. It should definitely be challenged. As it is, they have no reasonable case against this woman and her husband. If she was a danger to herself and others, the firearms should've been removed immediately. Three months later, they have three months worth of incident free access to the guns to prove that she is NOT a threat.
Which brings me to my point. Registration is not required. Losing a constitutional right must have a more rigorous process to ensure abuse of the system is not an issue. If one is a danger to themself or others, they should be involuntarily committed. If they are proven to not be a danger or mentally incompetent, they shoud be released and no record forwarded to the government(s). If they are deemed a threat, prior to being released, an emergency ex parte hearing should be convened and a judicial order entered against the person. A full hearing can be scheduled to make the emergency order permanent. Upon issuing the EEP order, law enforcement should be REQUIRED to conduct a threat assessment prior to the person's release. That would include any lethal weapons, not just guns. Yes, access to control over a vehicle should be included.
Coming by on a non-warrant knock & talk three months later, just flat doesn't cut it. Simply put, out rights are much more sacred than the casual CA system treats them. The ultimate issue is how the rest of the country is going to come to grips with this. CA and the NE corridor are usually just the beginning.
Excellent post. I agree with everything except the part where registration is the only way it will work, as I outlined above.
It just occurred to me that if the attempts to limit guns for us "law-abiders" fails in DC then the POTUS has a backdoor he is willing to use, and this thread seems to back it up, he is currently instructing the AG to investigate newly-named classes of people who pose a risk to society (what they really mean is a risk to the government) and one can be put on that list for little, or no reason, or worse, for a trumped up reason with the outcome being the same, outright confiscation of your firearms because you are classified into one of these categories...I think the the healthcare bill will be used in some way to identify people they can target to accomplish this. Some of the descriptions of suspicious behaviors used to classify you include (using cash to pay for your daily coffee run and many more asinine behaviors like this)
Kind of like dumb crap like this from a few years ago...
"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"
http://feralgenius.blogspot.com/2011/12/only-terrorists-have-seven-days-worth.html
Kind of like dumb crap like this from a few years ago...
"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"
Yup, that is exactly what I am talking about! I think they are going to expand these descriptions if gun laws are not passed that the POTUS and his gang approve of. I can tell you one thing, I work in the mental health field now and I would NEVER seek counseling, or tell my physician I feel depressed, let alone take an anti-depressant precisely because of this development. As far as they are concerned, I have no guns!
I find it funny that liberals, who claim to be so fair, open-minded and haters of stereotypes, would use a list of stereotypes that profile "dangerous individuals" and use that to take people's freedoms away!
"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"
Yup, that is exactly what I am talking about! I think they are going to expand these descriptions if gun laws are not passed that the POTUS and his gang approve of. I can tell you one thing, I work in the mental health field now and I would NEVER seek counseling, or tell my physician I feel depressed, let alone take an anti-depressant precisely because of this development. As far as they are concerned, I have no guns!
I find it funny that liberals, who claim to be so fair, open-minded and haters of stereotypes, would use a list of stereotypes that profile "dangerous individuals" and use that to take people's freedoms away!
Yes, but most officers wouldn't. A civil court might disagree, but who wants to go down that road?
If she and her husband to choose to fight this, again, a civil court might disagree on the legality. It would depend on how the CA law is written. Ultimately, I think their primary recourse should be with the mental health facility. They made the decision to commit her involuntarily when she presented voluntarily. They were instrumental in voiding her constitutional rights, so go after them.
You might be technically correct that it's been going on all along, but now it's stepped way up and there's a lot more media attention. For a lot of people in the public who didn't know, this is a new issue. What this will ultimately bring about is a chilling effect on gun owners who should seek mental health support, but will be afraid to in reasonable fear of losing their rights.
The real issue here is a nurse recommending involuntary commitment, a doctor signing off on it and poof, you lose your rights. That's not how the federal law is written and I fully believe the CA law to be in violation of the US Constitution. It should definitely be challenged. As it is, they have no reasonable case against this woman and her husband. If she was a danger to herself and others, the firearms should've been removed immediately. Three months later, they have three months worth of incident free access to the guns to prove that she is NOT a threat.
Which brings me to my point. Registration is not required. Losing a constitutional right must have a more rigorous process to ensure abuse of the system is not an issue. If one is a danger to themself or others, they should be involuntarily committed. If they are proven to not be a danger or mentally incompetent, they shoud be released and no record forwarded to the government(s). If they are deemed a threat, prior to being released, an emergency ex parte hearing should be convened and a judicial order entered against the person. A full hearing can be scheduled to make the emergency order permanent. Upon issuing the EEP order, law enforcement should be REQUIRED to conduct a threat assessment prior to the person's release. That would include any lethal weapons, not just guns. Yes, access to control over a vehicle should be included.
Coming by on a non-warrant knock & talk three months later, just flat doesn't cut it. Simply put, out rights are much more sacred than the casual CA system treats them. The ultimate issue is how the rest of the country is going to come to grips with this. CA and the NE corridor are usually just the beginning.
The hospital was not instrumental in voiding her constitutional rights, federal law is why she lost her right. You seem to be arguing against settled federal law. The question is not if she is a danger, it's that by being committed she's lost her right to own a firearm. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the law, but the SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of denying the right to own a firearm for a person that has been committed. In writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller Justice Scalia wrote; "The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...(A)ssuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights" Federal law holds, very clearly, that being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital is a disqualifying event. Understand that what California is doing is not based on California law. It's based on federal law. Any state could chose to do it tomorrow without passing any law. And it's not new. Keep in mind that there are over 200,000 people, nationwide, that are now disqualified. Last year, about 2000 of them had their firearms confiscated. That's 1% of disqualified people (most are due to felon conviction and VPO's, not mental health issues) losing their firearms. And there is a process in place to get them back, if a judge rules they are legally able to own a firearm. Arguing that this case is the "start of confiscation" is tilting at windmills.
As gun owners and supporters of the 2nd, we need to pick our battles wisely and not buy into the demagoguery of the Beck's and Jones'.
AGAIN, from the 4473:
Let me spell it out in plain English: By federal law, a nurse or doctor IS NOT a lawful authority. Unless California law has by legislative or popular vote MADE doctors and nurses a lawful authority, and the commitment was made in accordance with said California law (if it exists), then the confiscation DID NOT comport with federal law and would be unconstitutional AND unlawful. Notice in the last bolded portion, an observation period IS NOT a commitment in accordance with federal law, regardless of what California says.
Keep in mind that we're not tilting at windmills here. We agree that dangerous persons should be kept away from firearms (and other dangerous items). I clearly spelled out a safe and effective method to do this that doesn't violate a person's constitutional rights. Yet you ignored it completely to suit your own opinion. What we DO want to do is combat shoddy and unconstitutional enforcement of the law(s). We also want to ensure that a mere doctor or nurse can NEVER sign a piece of paper and instantly wipe out a person's rights. That would be a recipe for abuse.
Now if you still disagree, I can't help you unless you can cite a specific law that says otherwise.
