Confiscation in California

[Come and take it.]

Does this really happen? How long has this been going on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqVb1qETLC4

What should be done about this?

A possible scenario they could use easily to get access to those guns is if you have kids. Social services could bully their way in and the cops could take your guns.

I suppose I felt to post this to get some feedback as I myself was shocked that California has been confiscating guns from peoples homes for years and have never heard of it before.

 

[ScottRiqui]

I'd never thought much about that - there are lots of "prohibited persons" who can't *buy* guns (felons, recreational drug users, subjects of a restraining order, adjudicated mentally ill, etc).

But other than felons, are any of them actually legally forbidden to own/possess firearms?

 

[2ndsojourn]

I saw another news item on this a few weeks ago. They showed sheriffs officers going to homes of known felons (or otherwise prohibited persons) who were known to have guns (through CA registry I guess) and the gun/home owners were surprisingly cooperative.

I suppose if LE has a record of you owning a gun, and you're not allowed to have one, and if you don't comply, there would be cause to obtain a warrant. And when you're caught with it, chances are you're guilty of another felony. A gun crime this time, with more severe consequences. So it's better for them to surrender their gun(s) willingly, with no questions asked, than go to jail.

 

[sigcurious]

That judge that was commenting in the video was terrifying. Thinking that because someone owned something at some time in the past, with no proof of current ownership or possession, is valid cause for a warrant...is just stepping all over the 4th. Fortunately, it seems judges in California do not see it as cause. Really nothing can be done because, without further information than the video provides, they're doing it legally and not violating people's rights.

However, it would be worthy to keep an eye on how things go with the procedure they use. In the past CA DOJ changed the rules on people after they legally registered rifles to keep them after the AWB, and used that information to come take the suddenly illegal rifles. I could see similar bending of the rules to make it easier for them to search peoples homes.

 

[seeker_4]

I watched a news program once relating this issue. What completely surprised me was thier confiscating legal guns from legal owners (in this case the husband owned 2 and was completely legal) on the basis the wife had access to them in thier home. The husband was not given an option of removing the guns from the home (take to relatives or where ever). They took them!
In 1969 I went through a Viet Nam outreach program. Does this mean some day I face the possibility of officers showing up and saying you lost your right to own guns because of this issue? And take them? At what point is the line drawn?
I have guns in my safe that belong to my children, and a couple belong to my brothers. Some were my deceased fathers.
I don't believe it would come to that, but it does make one a little paranoia.

 

[rc]

Seeker, when they come knocking don't expect them to stop until satisfied they've confiscated every gun, every round of ammunition and everything gun related including bayonets for your millitary arms. It's about setting legal snares for a free people and seeing how many you can trap.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...What completely surprised me was thier confiscating legal guns from legal owners (in this case the husband owned 2 and was completely legal) on the basis the wife had access to them in thier home...

...Seeker, when they come knocking don't expect them to stop until satisfied they've confiscated every gun, every round of ammunition...

However --

1. The bottom line is that the people losing their guns are legally prohibited, under either state law or federal law, from possessing a gun, and possession of a gun by them is a criminal act. That's current law, and current law can be enforced. No one can have any reasonable expectation that it will not be enforced.
   
   
2. In the case referred to by seeker_4, the wife was a prohibited person, and it appears that the husband did not secure his guns against access by the wife, so the husband arguably allowed his guns to be available to a prohibited person (a federal crime).
   
   When the Third Circuit looked at the issue a while ago, it let stand an indictment for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of a gun by a prohibited persons in a situation in which a gun owner had a cohabitant who was a prohibited person.
   
   The point in that case, United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), was that the gun the prohibited person was charged with possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):

   ...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple‟s Clarion County home. Agents seized an SKS, Interordnance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom.
   
   Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of the raid, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet‟s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall‟s possession....

   
   
3. We should not be surprised to be seeing these laws enforced. If someone thinks the laws are wrong, he needs to get politically active to try to get them changed or eliminated. But while they are in effect, they can be enforced.

 

[dajowi]

Just a thought but isn't alcohol a "recreational drug"?

Lives lost due to alcohol related violence, (let alone drunk drivers) is quite high.

Shouldn't they be confiscating guns from drunks and alcoholics?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just a thought but isn't alcohol a "recreational drug"?

Lives lost due to alcohol related violence, (let alone drunk drivers) is quite high.

Shouldn't they be confiscating guns from drunks and alcoholics?

That is not what the law is.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Just a thought but isn't alcohol a "recreational drug"?

Lives lost due to alcohol related violence, (let alone drunk drivers) is quite high.

Shouldn't they be confiscating guns from drunks and alcoholics?

The simple answer is "no" because alcohol, unlike most of what we think of as "recreational drugs", isn't on the DEA's list of controlled substances, and that's what determines whether a person is prohibited or not.

Now, the question of why marijuana is on the list while alcohol is not is an entirely different subject.

 

[ltc444]

Any person who lives with a person who is on parole is in the same boat. In an AZ case, which I have personal knowledge, we removed all of the Firearms from the home prior to sentencing.

The parole officer made an "inspection" of the residence within days of the sentencing. He specifically searched for guns. He has repeated the inspections routinely.

With legal assistance, the couple are developing a plan which will be submitted to the Parole Officer for approval for returning the Ranchers guns and limiting the wife's access. Until the plan is approved, the rancher does not have the ability to do predator control on his lease.

Hard for them, but I now have access to about 20,000 acres of prime coyote and prairie dog hunting. They also have a lion problem. I may get a chance for my first cougar.

 

[AH.74]

In the case referred to by seeker_4, the wife was a prohibited person, and it appears that the husband did not secure his guns against access by the wife, so the husband arguably allowed his guns to be available to a prohibited person (a federal crime).

Frank, from what I understand about this situation, there are some big questions.

Reportedly, the woman admitted herself voluntarily to address her medications. There was no court order- for temporary observation, or anything else. It was not involuntary. She was also released after 48 hours- a rather brief time. Court-ordered observations are usually somewhat longer, I believe.

There was no court process of adjudication. She was not committed.

Therefore, did the woman actually meet the requirements for disqualification? It does not appear so on the information provided- which, as is usually the case, may not be complete.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Reportedly, the woman admitted herself voluntarily to address her medications. There was no court order- for temporary observation, or anything else. It was not involuntary. She was also released after 48 hours- a rather brief time...

Reported by whom? Source?

...Therefore, did the woman actually meet the requirements for disqualification?...

And that's a different question and beyond the scope of this thread. If she disputes being prohibited, she has remedies and needs to pursue them.

But what is material to this thread is that the authorities had taken the position that she is a prohibited person and therefore it was not legal for her to have access to guns, even guns that belong to her husband.

 

[Jayster]

I just found this site and I can't see where CA has a leg to stand on in this particular case.

The last line of the first paragraph especially, says the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility.

The federal law at the top of the page just says if the person "has ever been committed". So I guess it's a federal thing.They give no time limit or no allowances at ALL. The mental health rights people should be raising hell about this. People can get over mental issues. Many time a mental health issue is the same as any other medical issue in that the person can be gotten back to normal condition with medicines.
The fed law needs re-writing to allow for people that are able to get well.

Yeah right. They won't do that. They will grab hold to every little thing they can to take guns and rights concerning them these days.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

[AH.74]

Reported by whom? Source?

Here's a Bloomberg article claiming it was involuntary.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...wners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

Here's an article with some more info, in which the woman claims it was certainly not involuntary.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...r-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/

And that's a different question and beyond the scope of this thread. If she disputes being prohibited, she has remedies and needs to pursue them.

But what is material to this thread is that the authorities had taken the position that she is a prohibited person and therefore it was not legal for her to have access to guns, even guns that belong to her husband.

What is also material to this thread is if CA law enforcement authorities are making premature determinations simply based upon hospital records, which may improperly be taking peoples' rights of ownership away- and therefore leading to them engaging in improper confiscation of private property.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I just found this site and I can't see where CA has a leg to stand on in this particular case.

The last line of the first paragraph especially, says the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility

Please correct me if I am clueless or just plain can't read....

Sorry. I won't say you're clueless or can't read, but I'm afraid you're wrong on this.

1. The last line of the first bullet point only applies when the person has consented to treatment. It says (emphasis added):

   ...This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;...

   
   
2. The various bullet points and the last paragraph are separated and independent, and each is a separate basis upon which one might be disqualified from possessing a gun.
   
   
3. We don't have any solid information about why this particular woman is considered a prohibited person. Without such information, people are only guessing and assuming. And without such information it is a waste of time discussing whether or not she has been properly classified as a prohibited person.

Here's a Bloomberg article claiming it was involuntary.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...wners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

Here's an article with some more info, in which the woman claims it was certainly not involuntary.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...wners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

It's the same article. You've posted the same link twice.

However, if there's a dispute about whether the commitment was voluntary or involuntary, we're not going to be able to resolve that here. The woman will need to pursue her legal remedies, and a judicial decision will need to be made base on all evidence presented by each side in an adversarial proceeding.

Furthermore, according to the article you linked to, the woman admitted she was confined involuntarily (emphasis added):

...In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition....

So the woman's dispute appears not to be with the involuntary nature of her confinement but rather with her psychiatric assessment.

In that case, she would still need to pursue her legal remedies.

...What is also material to this thread is if CA law enforcement authorities are making premature determinations simply based upon hospital records, which may improperly be taking peoples' rights of ownership away- and therefore leading to them engaging in improper confiscation of private property....

Again, more assumptions and guess work on your part, apparently based on a single, brief, self serving statement of an aggrieved person.

Furthermore, that was not an issue raised by the OP, so it's still off topic for this thread.

 

[jimpeel]

There are two articles, one referencing the other, on this case and asking the veruy appropriate question "Who are the mentally ill and who makes that determination?"

The article in question is HERE

Where Are the 2nd Amendment Rights for the Mentally Ill and Their Families?

Written on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 by Reneta Adamson
Screen Shot 2013-03-13 at 11.55.41 AM

It seems that every mass shooting has taken place by a democrat who was a liberal who was on medications for a psychosis. Well no one will look at the democrat or liberal aspect so everyone is pointing blame at the mentally ill. How fair is this?

Who decides who has a mental illness? In the first DSM (a manual telling what symptoms go with which mental illnesses) the condition of homosexuality was listed as a mental illness. I am sure that a lot of liberals would be upset with that as criteria for a mental illness today.

<MORE>

The referenced story, which is the subject of this thread, is HERE

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
By Michael B. Marois & James Nash - Mar 12, 2013 1:06 PM MT


Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California (STOCA1) Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

<MORE>

According to the story "Most seized guns are destroyed."

So they are not only confiscating firearms without compensation, they are arbitrarily destroying them. The key word in that sentence is "most."

So what if they confiscate a rare and significant firearm worth tens of thousands of dollars? What happens to that firearm? Does it get destroyed or does it end up in some official's collection?

 

[AH.74]

I noticed the link duplication and fixed it prior to your post. Please go back and read the other one.

Again, more assumptions and guess work on your part, apparently based on a single, brief, self serving statement of an aggrieved person.

No, I'm not the only one to make this observation. I have seen the same things questioned on other forums. And am I not allowed to comment on information provided in an article? That's what the op and others have been doing- commenting on info provided in the video.

 

[jimpeel]

The thing I find disturbing in the video referenced in the thread header -- besides the judge being unable to pronounce the word "statute" -- is that these two women want the police to be able to kick in doors. I don't see that ending well for either side of the equation.

 

[jimpeel]

In the one story referenced by AH.74 it states "According to the LA Times, the $24 million would be made over three years from a fee paid for by those registering their guns in the state."

So those who are having their firearms confiscated are paying for the forces which will come for them by registering their firearms and thus assuring their confiscation.

Reread that sentence in a continuous loop.