Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:28 PM
NoNameThanks NoNameThanks is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjjj View Post
Mental illness has a stigma that no other illness has. Yet easily 99% of people with this are not a danger to others. Mental illness is misunderstood, because it makes most people uneasy to discuss and deal with. I served as a volunteer for 4 years at a local hospital where I assisted with groups of such people on a regular basis. For the most part they look and act just like the rest of us, especially when they regularly take their meds and keep up with their grooming, shaving, etc. It was not in the least like the Cuckoos Nest movie of long ago. Not even once did I feel in danger of physical attack.
Awesome, we agree. Those 99% will never have to worry about losing their firearms. It's the 0.01% that make such viable threats for violence that not only are they taken to the emergency room, but that ER doc can't clear them and refers them to psych, and psych can't clear them and involuntarily admits them to a psychiatric hospitalization. Not for observation, but for stabilization. That takes days to weeks, depending on your locale. This doesn't happen to the person cutting themselves after a break-up or the guy who loses his ***** when his football team blows it and gets in a bar fight.

If we want to talk about a process for folks to try to get their firearm rights restored, I'm all for talking about it. I'm also all for restoring different rights lost by those who have been incarcerated for felonies.

But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'll restore those rights given the right process (which no one wants to talk about because they'd rather rail about how the guy fresh from the psych ward for violence should be handed his firearms in a paper bag with his shoelaces and belt), but not get rid of the necessary laws for public safety.

If you haven't met people whose mental illness makes them permanently unsafe to own or handle firearms, you haven't worked long enough with the mentally ill. It's only 0.01%, but they are out there and you do not want them armed.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:43 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Win win win win
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,145
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNameThanks View Post
But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The argument can be made that you're just misidentifying the baby.

Tell us, how accurate is this hallowed psych hold/prohibition process you describe?

IOTW, how many times out of 100 does it capture an "innocent" person?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by teg33 View Post
Welcome, don't listen to readysetgo.
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-17-2018, 9:08 PM
Hinnerk's Avatar
Hinnerk Hinnerk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: East SF Bay
Posts: 540
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNameThanks View Post
...
You lose them when you get decompensated to the point of violence and are at such risk that you are not only placed on a hold and brought to the ER but are then placed in a psychiatric hospital.

Thatís a very high bar of mental illness and itís only applicable to the mentally ill who are violent (to themselves or others), not those admitted because they canít care for themselves. ....
You can be 5150'd in California for the latter ... and lose your gun rights.

Or so I understand.


Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-17-2018, 9:42 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,656
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hinnerk View Post
You can be 5150'd in California for the latter ... and lose your gun rights.

Or so I understand.


Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
Hinnerk,

A person committed under the "Gravely Disabled" clause of WIC 5150 does not lose their firearms rights.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-17-2018, 9:57 PM
Hinnerk's Avatar
Hinnerk Hinnerk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: East SF Bay
Posts: 540
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Hinnerk,

A person committed under the "Gravely Disabled" clause of WIC 5150 does not lose their firearms rights.
Does that require a petition or is it automatic? I was under the impression that the 72 hr involuntary hold was sufficient but perhaps I am mistaken.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:19 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,656
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hinnerk View Post
Does that require a petition or is it automatic? I was under the impression that the 72 hr involuntary hold was sufficient but perhaps I am mistaken.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
Hinnerk,

The firearms prohibitions resulting from a WIC 5150 are laid out in WIC 8103(f)(1). Here is the exact text (with bold font for emphasis):

"No person who has been (A) taken into custody as provided in Section 5150 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or to others, (B) assessed within the meaning of Section 5151, and (C) admitted to a designated facility within the meaning of Sections 5151 and 5152 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or others, shall own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm for a period of five years after the person is released from the facility. A person described in the preceding sentence, however, may own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm if the superior court has, pursuant to paragraph (5), found that the people of the State of California have not met their burden pursuant to paragraph (6)."

Please note that there are three clauses contained in WIC 5150: 1) Danger to self, 2) Danger to others, and 3) Gravely Disabled. Section 8103 only creates a five year prohibition on folks committed under the Danger to self or others clauses. There is no prohibition imposed on folks committed under the Gravely Disabled clause.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:23 PM
Hinnerk's Avatar
Hinnerk Hinnerk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: East SF Bay
Posts: 540
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Hinnerk,

The firearms prohibitions resulting from a WIC 5150 are laid out in WIC 8103(f)(1). Here is the exact text (with bold font for emphasis):

"No person who has been (A) taken into custody as provided in Section 5150 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or to others, (B) assessed within the meaning of Section 5151, and (C) admitted to a designated facility within the meaning of Sections 5151 and 5152 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or others, shall own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm for a period of five years after the person is released from the facility. A person described in the preceding sentence, however, may own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm if the superior court has, pursuant to paragraph (5), found that the people of the State of California have not met their burden pursuant to paragraph (6)."

Please note that there are three clauses contained in WIC 5150: 1) Danger to self, 2) Danger to others, and 3) Gravely Disabled. Section 8103 only creates a five year prohibition on folks committed under the Danger to self or others clauses. There is no prohibition imposed on folks committed under the Gravely Disabled clause.
I stand corrected. Thank you for that clarification.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-18-2018, 7:37 PM
Stanze's Avatar
Stanze Stanze is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,199
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'll just leave this here: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm
__________________
Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin


Quote:
"Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack." -Stanze
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:35 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.