CA takes the lead again

[Antares]

Wow another Law in CA that could be a threat to all lawful gun owners legal confiscation. What if they thought someone had too many guns and just felt they could be dangerous?? Plenty of room for abuse.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/new-law-lets ... ut-notice/

[C-dub]

Unless that article has changed since you read it, I don't see anything in there that hints at what you're implying. That being that a persons firearms could be taken just because they had too many and could therefore be dangerous.

[Antares]

The person has no knowledge that it is going to happen. IMHO is that the judge will grant these pretty automatically, so I wonder room for abuse could be really likely, unless you have total faith in liberal judges. I don't think anyone ever expected what happened in New Orleans after Katrina did you?

[C-dub]

Yeah, judges can make some interesting rulings sometimes. And people can lie to judges. I just don't see someone going to a judge and telling them that they think this person has too many guns and that's why they think they are dangerous and should have them taken away and the judge actually going for that. Even a liberal judge.

[FastCarry]

And its for 21 days. Im not opposed to this measure.

[Antares]

And its for 21 days. Im not opposed to this measure.

Everyone is supposedly innocent till proven guilty in our country. To be able to seize personal property without do process is a dangerous precedent to set. Perhaps before doing this we should revamp the mental health system in the US. I'm sorry I don't trust Liberal courts or the current administration with precedents set like this. As stated in the article:


Charles H. Cunningham, a director with the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, wrote, “Without a doubt, AB 1014 is one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties ever introduced in the California Legislature.”

And in 2014, Dr. Jason Kissner, associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno, called the legislation “the most draconian and flagrantly unconstitutional bill in the state’s, and maybe even the nation’s, history.”

Kissner warned “victims of this proposed law might have no idea they have even been targeted until police show up at the door, conceivably in the middle of the night …”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/new-law-lets ... fblu3L6.99

[LSUTiger]

And its for 21 days. Im not opposed to this measure.

I can see the abuse now, this is a SWATTERS dream come true.

It is the "Minority Report". I am opposed to this measure.

[FastCarry]

The family members have to appear before a judge to convince them the person is exhibiting threatening behavior. Mental health is fragile, if someone vulnerable needs to be separated from their guns for 21 days while the situation is reviewed, thats a reasonable compromise while the rest of the country "discusses" revamping mental healthcare. Based on the law, a swatter is a non factor.

Too much speculation. I think this is being over analyzed but only time will tell.

[Archery1]

Texas has had similar written into its Mental Health Code as far back as 2013. Mental health dockets do not work the same as civil or criminal - Due Process according to an individual's rights takes a completely different process towards that end but does not start out on that end.

Rick Perry signed this in back in 9/13: http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/21/ ... al-crisis/

[suthdj]

Texas has had similar written into its Mental Health Code as far back as 2013. Mental health dockets do not work the same as civil or criminal - Due Process according to an individual's rights takes a completely different process towards that end but does not start out on that end.

Rick Perry signed this in back in 9/13: http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/21/ ... al-crisis/

Ya from what i read in that article that is worse, as it is up to LEO judgment call, sorry I don't trust any individual that much.

[K.Mooneyham]

Seems like a divorce lawyer's dream law. First thing, file for a restraining order. As soon as that is granted, petition the judge for the firearms confiscation. Then use that in the divorce proceedings to show how terrible the other party is, "Your Honor, the other party is so terrible, they had to have their guns taken away from them". Yeah, no room for abuse?

[Archery1]

Texas has had similar written into its Mental Health Code as far back as 2013. Mental health dockets do not work the same as civil or criminal - Due Process according to an individual's rights takes a completely different process towards that end but does not start out on that end.

Rick Perry signed this in back in 9/13: http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/21/ ... al-crisis/

Ya from what i read in that article that is worse, as it is up to LEO judgment call, sorry I don't trust any individual that much.

Yes, but that's been the law for Texas forever. In dealing with the firearms, previously the LEO could seize them as well. What was added was a linkage from the court back to LE on the disposition of the mental health matter.

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 573.001. APPREHENSION BY PEACE OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT. (a) A peace officer, without a warrant, may take a person into custody if the officer:

(1) has reason to believe and does believe that:

(A) the person is a person with mental illness; and

(B) because of that mental illness there is a substantial risk of serious harm to the person or to others unless the person is immediately restrained; and

(2) believes that there is not sufficient time to obtain a warrant before taking the person into custody.

(b) A substantial risk of serious harm to the person or others under Subsection (a)(1)(B) may be demonstrated by:

(1) the person's behavior; or

(2) evidence of severe emotional distress and deterioration in the person's mental condition to the extent that the person cannot remain at liberty.

(c) The peace officer may form the belief that the person meets the criteria for apprehension:

(1) from a representation of a credible person; or

(2) on the basis of the conduct of the apprehended person or the circumstances under which the apprehended person is found.

(d) A peace officer who takes a person into custody under Subsection (a) shall immediately transport the apprehended person to:

(1) the nearest appropriate inpatient mental health facility; or

(2) a mental health facility deemed suitable by the local mental health authority, if an appropriate inpatient mental health facility is not available.

(e) A jail or similar detention facility may not be deemed suitable except in an extreme emergency.

(f) A person detained in a jail or a nonmedical facility shall be kept separate from any person who is charged with or convicted of a crime.

(g) A peace officer who takes a person into custody under Subsection (a) shall immediately inform the person orally in simple, nontechnical terms:

(1) of the reason for the detention; and

(2) that a staff member of the facility will inform the person of the person's rights within 24 hours after the time the person is admitted to a facility, as provided by Section 573.025(b).

(h) A peace officer who takes a person into custody under Subsection (a) may immediately seize any firearm found in possession of the person. After seizing a firearm under this subsection, the peace officer shall comply with the requirements of Article 18.191, Code of Criminal Procedure.

This is all outside of having a family member seeking a court ordered warrant, which can be done, and which would be the normal channel - would probably be the only way a LEO would get involved unless he was involved in a direct emergency. The California law is a little different in that the standard seems to have been lowered. IOW, a warrant or restraining order could be obtained off someone's ranting. I would agree that it is ripe for abuse, but so are the similar laws that have been on the books for many decades.

[baldeagle]

This is a duplicate thread of one I posted four hours earlier. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=81296