Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[ar15barrels]

The US Army and all levels of Maine Law Enforcement Agencies were given fair warnings about the shooter. The only question is, "was it Incompetence, Malfeasance, or Malice" that kept them from acting on the information?

9 times out of 10, when those are the 3 options, it's incompetence, in the form of lazyness.
There's no incentive to do your job well when you get paid the same to do it poorly.

Those fair warnings get sorted to the "important but not urgent" category on the Eisenhower Matrix.
Everything they actually want to do gets sorted to "important and urgent".
They never get around to the other 3 categories.

[NATO762]

I don?t disagree ar15barrels, I kinda like that matrix. At the risk of going further off-topic though, usually I find the old adage, ?Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance? to be sufficient.

In the case of Lewiston incompetence is just the first cousin of ignorance. Bringing us back to the topic of the 9th (and now 7th) circuit opinions, I do believe they crossed the line into malice a while ago.

[Sgt Raven]

I don't disagree ar15barrels, I kinda like that matrix. At the risk of going further off-topic though, usually I find the old adage, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance" to be sufficient.

That's Hanlon's razor. Heinlein modified it to, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

[NATO762]

Yeah, I thought it might be Heinlein but was too ignorant to look it up

If you think about it, it is really just a derivative of Occam’s Razor

ETA: I just saw your sig, normally view through the iPhone interface

[BAJ475]

I know all about that as I use 50 posts per page.
Tell Baj475 as he is the one still stuck on 40 posts per page.

I did not know that there was this option. I was set to default. I am now 50 posts per page.

[AlmostHeaven]

You're missing one other thing that may have prevented them from acting on the information that they possessed. That is the statutes of the state of Maine.

Even if the authorities had perfect information that Mr. Card was going to commit a crime in the future, they're powerless to do anything in the absence of a statute that would have allowed them to seize Mr. Card's weapons, or to keep him under psychiatric care.

I'm not knowlegable regarding the laws of Maine so I will withhold an opinion as to whether the authorities acted properly or not. But I will invite anyone who believes that the Maine authorities were negligent to cite specific statute(s) they believe were violated.

Several news outlets have published reports, the veracity of which I cannot confirm, that Mr. Card had been subject to a period of mental health institutionalization for evaluation after making violent threats during his time in the Army Reserves. Would this not have made him a federal prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4)?

[RickD427]

Several news outlets have published reports, the veracity of which I cannot confirm, that Mr. Card had been subject to a period of mental health institutionalization for evaluation after making violent threats during his time in the Army Reserves. Would this not have made him a federal prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4)?

No, it would not have made him a prohibited person under 18USC922(g)(4).

The catch is in the requirement under that section that a person be "adjudicated" or "committed" to a mental institution. Both are legal processes, having attendant "due process" requirements and are not satisfied by the simple admission of a patient to a mental health facility.

I've read the same reports, but they only show that he was admitted for treatment. None, that I have read, show that he was "adjudicated" or "committed."

[SpudmanWP]

In CA we have a 48/72 hour hold called a 5150 where there is an accompanying 5-year ban of gun ownership. Does Maine have anything similar?

After a first 5150 hold, the person held is not permitted to purchase, own or receive a firearm for five years. If the person undergoes a second 5150 hold within one year, the ban is for life. A person may request a hearing under Welfare & Institutions Code ? 8103(f)(3) to challenge such a ban within five years of the ban.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/the-right-to-own-or-buy-a-firearm-after-a-5150-hold.html

[WithinReason]

?3862-A. Protection from substantial threats

2. Assessment by a medical practitioner; security; immunity. This subsection applies when a law enforcement officer has taken a person into protective custody.

A. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the law enforcement officer shall provide to the medical practitioner the information that led to the protective custody including, but not limited to, the information that gave rise to the probable cause determination, the person's pertinent criminal history record information and other known history and recent or recurring actions and behaviors. [PL 2019, c. 411, Pt. A, ?1 (NEW); PL 2019, c. 411, Pt. D, ?3 (AFF).]

B. The medical practitioner under paragraph A shall assess whether the person presents a likelihood of foreseeable harm. In assessing the person, a medical practitioner may consult with other medical professionals as the medical practitioner determines advisable. If the medical practitioner finds that the person can benefit from treatment and services, the medical practitioner shall refer the person to treatment and services. [PL 2019, c. 411, Pt. A, ?1 (NEW); PL 2019, c. 411, Pt. D, ?3 (AFF).]

C. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, an assessment pursuant to this section may be performed at a health care facility but, when available and as appropriate, must be performed at an alternative location. If the assessment is provided at a health care facility, law enforcement shall, upon request of the facility and consistent with section 3863, subsection 2‑A, absent compelling circumstances, assist the facility with the security of the person awaiting the assessment under this section.

3. Notification by medical practitioner and judicial endorsement. A medical practitioner shall notify in writing the law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency that, based on the assessment under subsection 2, paragraph B, the person is found to present a likelihood of foreseeable harm. If so notified, the law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency shall as soon as practicable seek endorsement by a Superior Court Justice, District Court Judge, judge of probate or justice of the peace of the medical practitioner's assessment and law enforcement's declarations that the person was taken into protective custody and that the law enforcement officer has probable cause that the person possesses, controls or may acquire a dangerous weapon. The judge or justice shall promptly transmit to the law enforcement officer or agency the decision to endorse or not endorse. A decision transmitted electronically has the same legal effect and validity as a signed original. An endorsement must authorize law enforcement to execute the authority in subsection 4. This section may not be construed to prevent law enforcement from accepting a voluntary surrender of dangerous weapons.

4. Initial restrictions; notice by law enforcement. A person whose assessment is endorsed by a judicial officer under subsection 3 becomes, at the time of notice by a law enforcement officer under paragraph B, a restricted person subject to initial restrictions and subject to the prohibitions in Title 15, section 393, subsection 1, paragraphs E‑1 and E‑2 as follows:
A. The restricted person, after notice under paragraph B:
(1) Is prohibited from possessing, controlling, acquiring or attempting to possess, control or acquire a dangerous weapon pending the outcome of a judicial hearing;
(2) Shall immediately and temporarily surrender any weapons possessed, controlled or acquired by the restricted person to a law enforcement officer who has authority in the jurisdiction in which the weapons are located pending the outcome of a judicial hearing; and
(3) Has a right to a judicial hearing within 14 days of notice under paragraph B; and [PL 2019, c. 411, Pt. A, ?1 (NEW); PL 2019, c. 411, Pt. D, ?3 (AFF).]
B. A law enforcement officer shall, as soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours after the judicial endorsement:
(1) Notify the restricted person that the restricted person:
(a) Is prohibited from possessing, controlling, acquiring or attempting to possess, control or acquire a dangerous weapon pending the outcome of a judicial hearing;
(b) Is required to immediately and temporarily surrender any weapons possessed, controlled or acquired by the restricted person to a law enforcement officer who has authority in the jurisdiction in which the weapons are located pending the outcome of a judicial hearing; and
(c) Has a right to a judicial hearing within 14 days of the notice under this paragraph;
(2) Notify the contact person, if any, disclosed by the restricted person to the medical practitioner and the district attorney in the district of the restricted person's residence of the person's restricted status; and
(3) Report the person's restricted status to the Department of Public Safety

In Maine, there is a ""yellow flag" law. A law enforcement officer must provide information to a medical practitioner. Then, a medical practitioner must assess that the person presents a likelihood of foreseeable harm. Then, a judge must sign off on the matter.

My understanding in this matter is that law enforcement tried a couple of times to contact the person, but were unsuccessful.

[TruOil]

In Maine, there is a ""yellow flag" law. A law enforcement officer must take the person into custody. Then, a medical practitioner must assess that the person presents a likelihood of foreseeable harm. Then, a judge must sign off on the matter.

If you mean that a LEO is required to take a person into custody, that would be incorrect. As the quoted language states, "This subsection applies when a law enforcement officer has taken a person into protective custody." The police have no duty to take a person into protective custody; this section outlines what they are required to do after having done so.

[AlmostHeaven]

No, it would not have made him a prohibited person under 18USC922(g)(4).

The catch is in the requirement under that section that a person be "adjudicated" or "committed" to a mental institution. Both are legal processes, having attendant "due process" requirements and are not satisfied by the simple admission of a patient to a mental health facility.

I've read the same reports, but they only show that he was admitted for treatment. None, that I have read, show that he was "adjudicated" or "committed."

I see. I am glad to learn that 18 U.S.C. S 922(g)(4) contains due process protections.

[WithinReason]

If you mean that a LEO is required to take a person into custody, that would be incorrect. As the quoted language states, "This subsection applies when a law enforcement officer has taken a person into protective custody." The police have no duty to take a person into protective custody; this section outlines what they are required to do after having done so.

Good catch. I updated my post.

As I re-read the statute, I could not find a procedure for situations in which law enforcement did not take the person into protective custody.

[ar15barrels]

I did not know that there was this option. I was set to default. I am now 50 posts per page.

I only found it myself in the last year or two.
It may have appeared with some of the software updates that have killed the site reliability.
50 posts per page was certainly was not an option a few years ago.

[Sgt Raven]

I only found it myself in the last year or two.
It may have appeared with some of the software updates that have killed the site reliability.
50 posts per page was certainly was not an option a few years ago.

Not everyone knew about it, but I have had mine set to 50 for years, probably in or before 2016. I found out about it on another forum that used the same basic software.

[ShadowGuy]

What does this mean?

CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Judgment is in favor of Plaintiff on all claims in accordance with this Court's October 31, 2023, Decision, (Dkt.No. 175 ). Case is closed.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ddf) (Entered: 11/07/2023