Confiscation in California

[Jayster]

For future reference do we know if guns are locked in a safe and totally UN-accessible to anyone in a household that has been deemed "prohibited" is that acceptable?

As important as it is to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people it is AS important for people that are NOT mentally ill to be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights as long as their guns are safe from people deemed prohibited.

Also it should be very important to have it defined that people that have HAD a mental illness can also be well again and safely have access to a gun.

And what I really want to see is some high profile hollywood type or CA politician that has spent time in a mental facility be raided and his or her guns taken. Talk about justice.......

I also have found this information which is a little more defined. I'd say we don't know for sure for which reason CA is deeming the woman prohibited.
Some have 5 year prohibitions, some less, some end when the hospitalization ends.

http://www.mabpro.com/resource/docs/cal_firearmsProhibitionForm.pdf


Also as far as the guns themselves one paragraph under "Notifying patients under firearms prohibition" says in these cases, the guns in the household must be removed or secured to prevent access or that they can be turned over to local law enforcement authorities if other arrangements to secure them cannot be made.

So a safe would have been a legal alternative to what these people had to go through.

Also in the same section it states the patient is supposed to be informed many times that they can not have access to firearms when they are released. Do we know if this was done?

Seems these folks were given no choice in the matter.............

If all the rules were not followed by the facility and by law enforcement heads should roll.

But will they in the current environment where gun owner's rights are quickly being the last rights honored?

 

[SHR970]

Jayster wrote:And what I really want to see is some high profile hollywood type or CA politician that has spent time in a mental facility be raided and his or her guns taken. Talk about justice.......

So all you need to do is find that "High Profile Hollywood Type" who has become "prohibited" and afterwards takes a part in a movie filmed in California where they use a gun. The movie and documentation of the guns used in it will be all the proof YOU need to perform a citizens arrest on that person. Then the police have no choice but to give them the ride and refer it to the D.A.

Of course that means that you assume a significant level of civil liability but hey, it will be hard to suppress the movie as evidence that they were unlawfully in possession of a fire arm. As we all know, the part with the serial number is in fact a gun according to Federal Law. All handguns and assault weapons are required to be registered in California so if the props used in the film are real guns (even converted to fire blanks) they should be in California's registration data base. Entertainment Firearms permits are covered in CPC 29500-29535. If the actor becomes "prohibited" their permit is invalid CPC 29530. Relevant CPC's

 

[Frank Ettin]

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

I have now. And each source attributes conflicting statements to Ms. Phillips.

So we only have Ms. Phillips side of the story, and now we can't even be sure what her story is.

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...

A lot of people make a lot of observations in a lot of forums. Many of those observations appear to be made by people who don't don't fully understand the law or who have no evidence upon which to base those observations. Not all observations are equal; and unsupported, or poorly supported, observations don't warrant much attention.

...And am I not allowed to comment on information provided in an article?...

Of course you're allowed to do so. Just as I am allowed to challenge your comments.

...So they are not only confiscating firearms without compensation,...

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that just compensation be paid when taking private property for public use. Taking contraband from someone who may not lawfully possess it is not a taking of property for public use (e. g., Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188 (1925)).

For future reference do we know if guns are locked in a safe and totally UN-accessible to anyone in a household that has been deemed "prohibited" is that acceptable?...

It appears to be -- based on the Huet case I cited earlier as well as some other cases I've seen.

 

[Jayster]

Not at all SHR970. That's quite an assumption. I'll spell it out.

So the issue will get the publicity it requires for reasonable changes to take place to protect the rights of all involved.

 

[AH.74]

So we only have Ms. Phillips side of the story, and now we can't even be sure what her story is.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that it was involuntary. She went there herself but they thought she should stay until they made their own determination. Therefore she was not free to leave.

So- she is held for observation, and then released after 48 hours.

She still was not committed, and she still has not gone through any legal process- so how, according to the state of CA, has she been deemed to be a prohibited person- which justifies confiscation of all weapons in the home?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's say for the sake of discussion that it was involuntary...

No, let's not.

This thread will not deteriorate into some pointless speculation about Ms.Phillips' situation. And when you start framing hypotheticals (in this case really "assuming facts not in evidence"), you may construct your hypothetical to support any conclusion you're trying to reach.

...how, according to the state of CA, has she been deemed to be a prohibited person...

Jayster in post 21 was kind enough to provide this link to a summary of California law on the subject. It appears to be a pretty good overview. Of course a close review of primary sources (statutes and case law) is always best; but nonetheless, it appears to offer a good working understanding of the subject.

How this would apply to Ms. Phillips we can't really know because we don't have all the facts. And if we start assuming facts, we can assume facts that make her a prohibited person as easily as we can assume facts that make her not one.

 

[Jayster]

Even if the lady was prohibited rightly at the worst it would require taking the guns but legally the option of securing them should have been open to them as written in the CA publication I noted.

All things we don't know.

Was the issue with the guns communicated to the patient as is required in that same article?
Was that securing the guns option communicated to the patient so they could secure the guns before the lady was released?
Was she and her husband told nothing and until the raid happened knew nothing?

If that last question is what happened I'd say a lot of failures took place by the facility and the state and these people had the hell violated out of their rights.

Somehow I don't think the facility or the state will be very forthcoming with answers to questions like that..........It will be like pulling teeth.
Or like getting info about fast and furious.....

 

[AH.74]

I'll avoid trying to discuss anything with you from now on, Frank. I can't seem to ever say anything right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...All things we don't know...

Correct -- there's a lot we don't know. All we really is what happened. Whether what happened was right or wrong will need to be worked out elsewhere through a process that will surface all the facts. That's what litigation is for.

...Somehow I don't think the facility or the state will be very forthcoming with answers to questions like that...

Certainly not to us, nor the press. But if Ms. Phillips pursues litigation, the discovery process will pretty much get all that on the table.

 

[Jayster]

I know she can apply to have the prohibition reversed.

Lawsuit? Maybe if she gets backing. What a mess.

The problem is that she could have signed stuff while in the facility about the guns without reading it. I can see where a person could do that. A person likely wouldn't be thinking about stuff like that at all in that situation. All they are thinking about is getting home.

I didn't see anything in that publication about the guns having to be destroyed if taken, just that they can be turned over to local law enforcement authorities if other arrangements to secure them cannot be made.
Pretty benign statement. Doesn't describe what happened.

Page 4 is pretty explicit about what family members should be told to avoid what happened in this case. BUT that the facility is ONLY required to give it to the patient in writing at discharge even though the facility SHOULD review the information with the patient AND family.

Since THAT was NOT required how much confidence do we have that it was done? ummmmm ZERO here.

Since it is that important why not go ahead and require it? Isn't patient, family, and public safety worth it being required?

Can't we see this poor lady with a handful of papers just wanting to get home and her and her family not being made fully aware of the gun issue since it isn't REQUIRED.

And that is what the state will say, "It wasn't required."

Well it should be required for so many reasons. For one like before another raid happens and someone gets shot!

Why do I think that very important information was not communicated to this family? I know it's speculating but dang. If I lived in that house and knew all that I'd do whatever I could to keep from being raided and having my guns taken.

CA get off your bureaucratic butts and take care of your citizens by requiring facilities to inform both patients AND families all the information they need to know to make intelligent decisions concerning these issues.

Here is the link again.
http://www.mabpro.com/resource/docs/cal_firearmsProhibitionForm.pdf

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm working on my phone now so I'll be brief. "Don't know" means "don't know."

Maybe everything that needed to be done was done exactly right, and she didn't understand or fully realize the consequences. Or maybe there were one or more bureaucratic mistakes.

We really have no bases upon which to assume one way or the other.

 

[SHR970]

Jayster wrote:Not at all SHR970. That's quite an assumption. I'll spell it out.

So the issue will get the publicity it requires for reasonable changes to take place to protect the rights of all involved.

We are talking about people who have several attorneys on speed dial; the kind that have 6 digit retainers. In many cases, we are talking about folks who also have staff at their homes..they don't answer their own doors.

Any LEO comes to those homes, they are not going to get "permission to come in and look around". So that leaves us with doing the leg work.

The studios have plenty of council of their own; anyone denied an entertainer permit will get at the very least the 411 from the studios. That will usually get them to talk to their own people.

So to obtain parity look to SB420 and the MMIC issued by CDPH. Cross reference that with the California Registered Weapons Database. Anyone who has their MMIC and a weapon registered to them and is in possession of a weapon is guilty of a FEDERAL CRIME. Then let us see if that information turned over to the USAG office results in anything.

Absent that I hold little hope. I have seen too much deference given to celebrity around here for the last 40+ years by the courts. Celebrity gets all the justice that money can afford.....(ref. Lindsey Lohan, Za Za, et. al.)

 

[Jayster]

correction

I didn't say they would get nailed for it. I know what you mean.

I'd just like the word to get out to the general public and how better than a celebrity.

Really the one big flaw I see in the current game is a facility is not required to do more than give a patient a written form on discharge stating the law. All they are required to do is give them a written form telling them the law and likely that patient has a lot more on their mind than looking at forms when they are being discharged from a mental health facility.

The family should be called in BEFORE discharge and told verbally and in writing what will happen if they take their family member home and there are guns in the home that are not secured. It should be required everyone concerned know what can happen. If they know all that and fail and they get the guns taken they are responsible for not following the law.

The state publication informs us of the importance that the family know yet also says all that is required is a document to the patient upon discharge? That is NOT good enough. It seems they already know they should require more but don't.
That is not good enough to avoid issues like this or the possible issue of a person being discharged and actually using an unsecured firearm to harm someone.

It protects all parties. Not just the patient's and families rights.

 

[SHR970]

Absent a case and ruling such as United States vs. Emerson in the 9th Circuit do I see this coming to fruition.