Thoughts on new CA gun laws?

[L2R]

Been waiting for a cartoon with a man scrunched inside his 36 gun safe with a single shot 22 on his hip, staring out thru the open door.

MY fear that this is their end game to meeting the requirement, 'to keep and bear arms'.

 

[Metal god]

So CA is working on a new bill AB-1927 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1927

This will allow a person to add them selves to the prohibited persons data base . Not only in CA but federally . At first i think ok what ever floats your boat , if you want to do that to your self you deserve the consistency. Upon more thought and the fact you’ll be able to do it online . What’s stopping someone that has your personal info from putting you on that list ?

The example that comes to mind is uber anti gun parents putting there kids on the list . It’s my understanding to get off the list it would take the same procedures it takes if you’re on it now . Meaning you’ll have to prove you’re not a felon or get a doctor to sign off on your mental state .

I’m interested in seeing the actual application and what safegards will be in place to prevent abuses .

 

[ATN082268]

So CA is working on a new bill AB-1927 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1927

It’s my understanding to get off the list it would take the same procedures it takes if you’re on it now . Meaning you’ll have to prove you’re not a felon or get a doctor to sign off on your mental state .

So do you have to prove your identity and that you're a felon to put yourself on the list? My worries are that it will be way easier to get put on the list than taken off it

 

[carguychris]

AB-1927

This will allow a person to add them selves to the prohibited persons data base . Not only in CA but federally . At first i think ok what ever floats your boat , if you want to do that to your self you deserve the consistency.

I think that the impetus for the bill is easily discerned by reading the bill text (my emphasis in boldface):

The bill would allow a person registered on the list to file a petition in Superior Court requesting to have his or her name removed from the registry. The bill would require the court to hold a hearing and order removal of the person’s name if he or she establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is not at elevated risk of suicide.

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.

I've had a person close to me (whose identity will remain confidential) tell a mental health professional that he/she was seriously contemplating suicide. The professional recommended a stay at a local psychiatric hospital for observation. When the subject expressed dismay and hesitation at this suggestion, the professional stated in a roundabout way that if the subject did not agree to stay there voluntarily, he/she might file for involuntary commitment, which obviously would have resulted in the subject becoming a prohibited person (and most likely having problems securing employment and so forth).

The subject complied.

The subtext underlying this bill is that a mental health professional can threaten suicidal persons with involuntary commitment UNLESS they "agree" put themselves on the list.

I have ALL SORTS of problems with this sort of coercion. (FWIW I'm not happy about the actions of the mental health professional discussed above, but that's a different story.)

 

[Metal god]

I don't see anywhere that it states the reason for the list is for mentally unstable persons . Only that to be removed from the list you must prove you're not unstable . Which makes sense right . If you're not prohibited do to a felony or other crimes . That leaves mental stability as the reason you're on the list .

That brings up an interesting point . If you put your self on the list and nothing has come up since making you a legit prohibited person . Why can't you just take your self back off the list . Sounds like that in it self would be unconstitutional . I'd think the application would have you state something like " I metal god feel my metal heath is lacking in such a way I should no longer be able to posses firearms " Please sign below . That way you have informed the state of your instability therefore requiring you to prove you are actually a stable person to get back off the list .

Right ? because you'd have to be crazy to voluntarily give up your 2nd amendment rights

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That brings up an interesting point . If you put your self on the list and nothing has come up since making you a legit prohibited person . Why can't you just take your self back off the list . Sounds like that in it self would be unconstitutional . I'd think the application would have you state something like " I metal god feel my metal heath is lacking in such a way I should no longer be able to posses firearms " Please sign below .

Right ? because you'd have to be crazy to voluntarily give up your 2nd amendment rights

Sounds a lot like the original Catch 22 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

Joseph Heller coined the term in his 1961 novel Catch-22, which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II. The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army psychiatrist who invokes "Catch 22" to explain why any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in creating the request and thus cannot be declared insane. This phrase also means a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

 

[Drae]

Without any extra talk, i'll bluntly address the question in the topic name.
Thoughts on new CA gun laws?
They're dumb, and won't stop the shootings/gun related crimes completely because Americans are too clever.

 

[ATN082268]

Without any extra talk, i'll bluntly address the question in the topic name.
Thoughts on new CA gun laws?
They're dumb, and won't stop the shootings/gun related crimes completely because Americans are too clever.

I suspect the vast majority of gun grabbers fall into two camps. The first camp just wants to grab all the guns they can so it will be easier to enforce their policies which aren't held by a majority of Americans. The second camp somehow believes that grabbing all the guns just from law abiding Americans will largely eliminate gun crimes.

 

[carguychris]

I don't see anywhere that it states the reason for the list is for mentally unstable persons .

True, but the bill DOES state that informational materials will be made available to acute care psychiatric facilities.

While a CA resident would seemingly be able to put him or herself on the list for any reason whatsoever, IMHO it is abundantly clear that this program is aimed (no pun intended) at people who have been admitted, or potentially may be admitted, to acute care psychiatric facilities. Otherwise, what would be the reason for placing the informational materials there?

Also, there's this provision in the bill, my emphasis in boldface:

(2) A violation of confidentiality occurs if a person or entity engaged in any activity described in paragraph (1), other than a healthcare professional, therapist, or counselor, inquires as to any confidential matter described in paragraph (1), or if any person described in paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, a healthcare professional, therapist, or counselor, takes any adverse action based on that information.
(3) The person whose confidentiality is violated by an inquiry or adverse action in violation of this subdivision may bring a private civil action for appropriate relief, including reasonable attorney’s fees, for each violation that occurs.

IOW nobody may check if a subject's name is on the list, or take adverse action based on the list, without committing a privacy violation, UNLESS that person is a mental health professional. Others with potentially malicious reasons to want a law-abiding subject to be prohibited from possessing firearms (such as an anti-gun employer, ex-wife's divorce attorney, etc.) are exposed to civil liability if they attempt to verify whether the subject has listed himself.

If the program is NOT intended to assist mental health professionals, why would this exemption be there?

(EDIT: I'm thinking that this topic may deserve its own thread, given that this thread was originally started to discuss laws that have already been enacted.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

....If the program is NOT intended to assist mental health professionals, why would this exemption be there?

(EDIT: I'm thinking that this topic may deserve its own thread, given that this thread was originally started to discuss laws that have already been enacted.)

Actually, discussing this bill (AB1927) at this time is pretty much a waste of time.

It was just introduced on 24 January. It hasn't even been assigned to committee yet. There's an excellent chance it will stall and die a natural death (many bills do). There's also an excellent chance that even if it does start to move through the process it will be amended so many times that it will be substantially different from this initial version.

But in any case, let's stick with a discussion of actual new law.