PDA

View Full Version : Oakland Police 'Gun Sweep' siezures, rewards?


a.tinkerer
05-17-2009, 9:51 AM
I saw this today, anyone here know what premise they're claiming on 'health reasons'?

They've set up a hotline and rewards for reporting gun posession...



From Oakland Tribune:

Oakland police sweep nets 24 guns
By Harry Harris
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 5/15/2009 17.40.13 PDT
Updated: 5/15/2009 21.49.31 PDT

OAKLAND Two dozen pistols, rifles and assault weapons improperly possessed by people with criminal records or health problems were seized Friday in a special enforcement action led by Oakland police.

More than 60 Oakland police, Alameda County sheriff's deputies and other law enforcement officers went to 46 residences in Oakland, Castro Valley, Alameda and San Leandro looking for the weapons. Five people were arrested.

No doors had to be forced open and people were for the most part cooperative, said Oakland police Sgt. Nishant Joshi, who heads the Gangs/Guns Investigations Task Force, which led the sweeps. Joining them were officers with the department's Targeted Enforcement Task Force, Crime Reduction Teams and problem-solving unit as well as sheriff's department deputies and their canines trained in sniffing out bombs and other explosives.

Joshi said that each month the state Department of Justice sends updated lists to local agencies of individuals who used to own firearms legally but should no longer possess them because of criminal convictions or health issues.

Police were allowed to enter the different residences because people they were seeking were either on parole, probation or gave their consent.

Forty residences were visited in Oakland, where most of the guns were recovered, including 16 at a North Oakland house. Other weapons were recovered in Castro Valley, Joshi said.

Joshi said the task force also has reward money available for anyone wishing to report illegally possessed guns.
People with information can call 510-535-GUNS and remain anonymous.



Source: Oakland Tribune Online
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_12380952

mofugly13
05-17-2009, 9:56 AM
Here in the City, I have seen advert's on MUNI busses with a hotline for people to turn in people unlawfully possessing firearms. But how does the typical schmoe know if a firearm is lawfully posessed or not??

hawk1
05-17-2009, 10:02 AM
This looks like the money quote here:

Joshi said that each month the state Department of Justice sends updated lists to local agencies of individuals who used to own firearms legally but should no longer possess them because of criminal convictions or health issues.


And this is what gave them the means:

Police were allowed to enter the different residences because people they were seeking were either on parole, probation or gave their consent.


If you are not on parole or probation, then the last thing you should do is give consent to a search.

HowardW56
05-17-2009, 10:15 AM
That is where many felons (or other prohibited persons) are caught, unanounced probation/parole searches at home.

SkatinJJ
05-17-2009, 10:27 AM
Does Alzheimer's disease constitue a "health Issue" to negate someone's 2A rights?

A lady I work with, her husband is a very involved shotgunner. He competes clays and skeets and is a gun advocate. She expressed her concern that when he ages, and may get the Alzheimer's, how will she be able to be safe if he'd not in his right mind?

Does Alzheimer's disease constitute "mentally defective" as listed in the Gun Control Act?

Centurion_D
05-17-2009, 10:29 AM
Joshi said that each month the state Department of Justice sends updated lists to local agencies of individuals who used to own firearms legally but should no longer possess them because of criminal convictions or health issues.

Well I wasn't aware that having bad health was grounds for having your lawfully acquired firearms confiscated by the police. :rolleyes:

HowardW56
05-17-2009, 10:35 AM
Joshi said that each month the state Department of Justice sends updated lists to local agencies of individuals who used to own firearms legally but should no longer possess them because of criminal convictions or health issues.


That should have read: Mental Health Issues

ac427cpe
05-17-2009, 10:37 AM
Well I wasn't aware that having bad health was grounds for having your lawfully acquired firearms confiscated by the police. :rolleyes:

"health issues" most likely relates to mental health. ;) just wonderfully twisted wording to allow for more finger pointing.

CSACANNONEER
05-17-2009, 10:54 AM
That should have read: Mental Health Issues

Yep! If someone has been 5150ed or even if they commit themselves to an insitution for a day or two, they loose their gun rights! This is a big problem for many vets who may have some problems stemming from their time protecting the rest of us. Yet, now our gubmet feels that we need to be protected from all of them? My guess is that while this may be true in 1 out of 1000 cases, we should not penalize vets for their service! Of course, their are many other cases of 5150s which are not related to service in the armed forces.

MP301
05-17-2009, 12:24 PM
Yep! If someone has been 5150ed or even if they commit themselves to an insitution for a day or two, they loose their gun rights! This is a big problem for many vets who may have some problems stemming from their time protecting the rest of us. Yet, now our gubmet feels that we need to be protected from all of them? My guess is that while this may be true in 1 out of 1000 cases, we should not penalize vets for their service! Of course, their are many other cases of 5150s which are not related to service in the armed forces.

Where do get yor 1 and 1000 statistic? Do you really have a problem with not allowing persons who are not right mentally having a firearm, vet or not? Are you aware of folks with mental health issues killing someone and going to prison for murder instead of getting the mental health help they need?

Sure, they can still kill someone without a firearm, but the victim has a better chance to survive the attack and the impulse of pulling a trigger is a lot easier then beating or stabbing someone to death.

Taking guns from those with mental health issues is not necessarily a bad thing if we are talking about "current" mental health issues. Vet or not, if he is currently suffering from suicidal or homicidal tendencies, then is it not reasonable that he/she not have a firearm until they are better?

Years ago, I had a guy living next door who had a young wife and a newborn baby. I could tell he had issues but was lucid the majority of the time. He was paranoid and thought people were out to get him.

One day, in the wee hours of the morning, I was awakened by pounding on my door and screaming. It was my neighbor, his wife and child in her arms. He had a .38 in his hand (now empty) and he was yelling for help because "they" were trying to get them.

Long story short, this guy woke up and saw people in his livingroom, opened fire with his mossberg cruiser in to his livingroom till it was empty, then started in with his .38 snubby. Then he decided that "they were now in the back of his house, so he ran outside with his snubby and a box of ammo..wife and child in tow, and when he got into his front yard....started pumping rounds into his house..reloading again and again until the box was empty...then he came to my door.

They removed .38 and buckshot out of the playground equipment across the street from his house and .38 slugs out of the bedroom in the house behind him (those people were out of town). If this would have happened during the day, there would have been kids in the playground.

Do you really think this guy should have firearms?

And if the premise reported here is true, then taking guns from prohibited persons like parolee's is not a bad thing either. Im sure I dont need to go into details of all of the guns ive come across in the possesion of people with violent felony records as long as your arm.

Im not saying that the rules are not over done or over reaching and may sweep those into the program unfairly, but there are two sides to this coin..... Its not an easy answer.

Rhys898
05-17-2009, 1:30 PM
Yep! If someone has been 5150ed or even if they commit themselves to an insitution for a day or two, they loose their gun rights! This is a big problem for many vets who may have some problems stemming from their time protecting the rest of us. Yet, now our gubmet feels that we need to be protected from all of them? My guess is that while this may be true in 1 out of 1000 cases, we should not penalize vets for their service! Of course, their are many other cases of 5150s which are not related to service in the armed forces.

I don't believe the part in bold is correct. It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that you have to be adjudicated as a danger to yourself or others. If you check yourself in voluntarily and check yourself back out it does not affect your 2ndAm. rights.

MT1
05-17-2009, 1:40 PM
Im not saying that the rules are not over done or over reaching and may sweep those into the program unfairly, but there are two sides to this coin..... Its not an easy answer.

I love that quote in your sig - did you write that or is there a source?

halifax
05-17-2009, 3:01 PM
Does Alzheimer's disease constitue a "health Issue" to negate someone's 2A rights?

A lady I work with, her husband is a very involved shotgunner. He competes clays and skeets and is a gun advocate. She expressed her concern that when he ages, and may get the Alzheimer's, how will she be able to be safe if he'd not in his right mind?

Does Alzheimer's disease constitute "mentally defective" as listed in the Gun Control Act?

The case you cite is very iffy: "when he ages, and may get the Alzheimer's". But, I know from experience that people with Alzheimer's disease do get paranoid. My mother (RIP) developed very paranoid episodes to the point that she would arm herself with the kitchen knifes and go around the house looking for the intruders she believed she had seen. My dad had to remove most anything dangerous from the house since he was often mistaken to be the intruder. She was placed in a home where she lived for a few more years. After she passed, we found more knives she had stashed around the house.

To answer your question: Does Alzheimer's disease constitute "mentally defective" as listed in the Gun Control Act?

Not by name, but if a doctor believes the patient is a danger to hisself or others, a judge will more than likely agree; thus involuntary committing the patient.

The legal way may not be necessary though. Alzheimer's sufferers are living in an altered state of being and are easily "fooled". The firearms could just disappear and the guy probably would not even notice.

Scout2Diesel
05-17-2009, 3:03 PM
Sure, they can still kill someone without a firearm, but the victim has a better chance to survive the attack and the impulse of pulling a trigger is a lot easier then beating or stabbing someone to death.


This has been repeated and repeated.... I think intent has more to do with it.

MP301
05-17-2009, 3:06 PM
I love that quote in your sig - did you write that or is there a source?

No, I cant remember where I got it, but I didnt write it. Volkh, maybe?

But I do like and it fits!

JDay
05-17-2009, 3:13 PM
This looks like the money quote here:



And this is what gave them the means:



If you are not on parole or probation, then the last thing you should do is give consent to a search.

Don't even open the door, police have a way of inviting themselves in. And if they have a warrant they probably wont be asking you to open the door in the first place, after all they consider every warrant to be "high risk" these days.

MP301
05-17-2009, 3:15 PM
This has been repeated and repeated.... I think intent has more to do with it.

Your going to have to elaborate....

SgtDinosaur
05-17-2009, 7:33 PM
Well, we've been saying they should enforce the laws on the books rather than creating new ones. Sounds like that is what they are doing.

DDT
05-17-2009, 7:40 PM
Don't even open the door, police have a way of inviting themselves in. And if they have a warrant they probably wont be asking you to open the door in the first place, after all they consider every warrant to be "high risk" these days.

Most of the people "interviewed" were on Parole or Probation. They have not had their 4th amendment rights restored in many cases.

Also, notice the article said that of 24 guns recovered 16 were from one house....

Forty residences were visited in Oakland, where most of the guns were recovered, including 16 at a North Oakland house.

SkatinJJ
05-17-2009, 7:51 PM
The case you sight is very iffy: "when he ages, and may get the Alzheimer's". But, I know from experience that people with Alzheimer's disease do get paranoid. My mother (RIP) developed very paranoid episodes to the point that she would arm herself with the kitchen knifes and go around the house looking for the intruders she believed she had seen. My dad had to remove most anything dangerous from the house since he was often mistaken to be the intruder. She was placed in a home where she lived for a few more years. After she passed, we found more knives she had stashed around the house.

To answer your question: Does Alzheimer's disease constitute "mentally defective" as listed in the Gun Control Act?

Not by name, but if a doctor believes the patient is a danger to hisself or others, a judge will more than likely agree; thus involuntary committing the patient.

The legal way may not be necessary though. Alzheimer's sufferers are living in an altered state of being and are easily "fooled". The firearms could just disappear and the guy probably would not even notice.

That was the issue; the timing, the ability to remember, how she would get the guns out of the safe and then, out of the house. I asked her to talk with him, arrange with his friends to help.

I'm a big "informed consent" kind of guy. I've already set up a future for my stuff with those who need to know. I'm a healthy 47-YO. :eek: It's holefully a long time away, but it's going to happen. That's why I married a younger woman. I need someone to drive at night. Problem is getting home from my GF's house...

HowardW56
05-17-2009, 7:58 PM
I don't believe the part in bold is correct. It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that you have to be adjudicated as a danger to yourself or others. If you check yourself in voluntarily and check yourself back out it does not affect your 2ndAm. rights.


I believe that is correct... It has to be involuntary, and I don't think a 72 hour hold is sufficent to deprive you of your rights. If it is extended by a Judge, then it's over!

fairfaxjim
05-17-2009, 8:03 PM
While removing guns from prohibited persons, particularly parolees, who are hopefully being violated and returned to custody, and those judged lawfully to be be mentally unfit is not a bad thing, the manner in which the city and others make belive that this will have a big effect in solving Oakland's gang violence is a major fraud.

They also encourage citizens to either turn in a lawfully owned firearm or to basically "rat out" anyone living in the house with a gun so they can check them out. It encourages others in the household to give them entry without PC to check out some else's firearm. It perpetuates the myth that the guns are the problem and everyone else are victims of the guns.