Friend saw a psych - Legal obligations?

[Sleighter]

Does the OP actually know what the clinician diagnosed? Can he prove what he was told by Jim? What exactly did Jim tell him? Was it reasonable to rely on what Jim said? We don't know. We certainly don't know what a DA/Jury would make of such facts. I'm sure as hell not being "argumentative" when I say this is a very serious issue and as the OP feels he needs advice about it (as evidenced by his posting here) the advice should come from professional counsel.

Saying, "derp, uhhhh, everyting seems fine to me! lol" is damned annoying. This situation could easily be far more complex, and OP is wise in not posting any further details.

"Saying, "derp, uhhhh, everyting seems fine to me! lol" is damned annoying." I'm not sure where I said that, but your insinuation of my intelligence is rude and uncalled for. Hence my use of the term argumentative. Just because disagrees with you doesn't require you to lash out because you find it "damned annoying", take it down a level.

Further, I agree that if the OP has any doubts about his friend that he should consult an attorney. However, by posting here instead of directly contacting an attorney he is obviously seeking perspectives other than from hired attorneys.

While you assert that the OP has opened himself up to all kinds of grave risk, I don't see the legal standing to support that argument. But as you know better than most, someone acting within the law isn't always safe from prosecution or arrest. Welcome to life in CA. Living without any legal risks as a firearm owner in CA is nearly impossible. Only the OP can determine the level of legal risk he is comfortable with. I just happen to think that you're exagerating his risk exposure to make a point.

As far as the OPs knowledge of his friends diagnosis. Based on his intimate knowledge of his friends progress in this situation so far, I presume that he would have known if his friend was held on a 72 hour 5150 hold.

[Sleighter]

What OP is bound by law to do in his situation is something only his lawyer is qualified to tell him. But certainly the law does not require a person to give a gun to someone he knows will use it for a crime (or suicide).

If he knew it would be used for suicide this whole conversation is moot. To assume that he knows that...well, now who is reaching for facts not in the OP.

[Tincon]

If he knew it would be used for suicide this whole conversation is moot. To assume that he knows that...well, now who is reaching for facts not in the OP.

I don't know all the facts, and neither do you. Nor should OP post them here. This is precisely my point. But it is reckless to say, absent knowing the facts, that:

the OP is bound by law to return a loaned firearm within 30 days.

We don't know what law might apply to OP because we don't know all the facts, and it might well be contrary to OP's best interests to post them. So, OP should talk to one of those people that gives advice in this sort of situation, a lawyer.

[Surf & Turf]

Does he have a kitchen? .... there are other things in there you know....

[Tincon]

Does he have a kitchen? .... there are other things in there you know....

Not the point. If Jim wants to end things I'm sure he will find a way. The issue is OP's possible legal exposure (and Jim being prohibited, which I think we cleared up).

[Sleighter]

Best Answer: Consult an Attorney
Worst Answer: Hand someone a firearm when you have a gut feeling that makes you uneasy.

If I were in a similar situation and decided I was not going to talk to an attorney, I would take steps to show I did something to ensure this person was no longer a danger to others.

At a minimum I would have him/her submit a PFEC to the DOJ. I would take assert I took some steps and used the "system" to check and make sure my friend was not prohibited. (May sound silly to us firearm nerds that know it will come back clean, but at least in a criminal case the judge may hassle the prosecution when the evidence shows that a layperson took such action).

^This is the best advice to follow!

OP while Tincon and I may disagree on the LEVEL of legal risk associated with your position, we both agree that you have opened yourself up to some risk. Not to mention your ethical obligations to your friend, that could fill its own thread by itself. So in closing, be smart, follow your gut and get the best advice from the most qualified person you have access to, even if it costs a little money.

[rootuser]

Tincon you're being overly argumentative on this one. One of the fundamental requirements of criminal negligence is the "reasonable person" test. The OP explicitly stated that his friend has sought professional help and was not deemed a danger to himself or others.

Therefore, for the OP to act negligently he would need to dispute the diagnosis of a trained professional. Does any reasonable person place their own laymans determination of mental fitness above that of a licensed clinician? Obviously not, so the OP can't meet the requirements of criminal negligence.

Dunno about Mr Tincon being argumentative or not, but the "reasonable person" test goes both ways.

The friend felt like he needed to turn over the gun because he did not trust himself with it. This created a responsibility (or liability depending on how you look at it) the minute the OP accepted the gun.

Not knowing if the OP has seen any diagnosis, is it reasonable to assume that his friend is no longer mentally ill? Well, as you point out, the friend says he is fine, but the OP is not a professional so how is he to know for sure? Can he take the word of his friend who had to turn over the gun? If he has seen some kind of paperwork, participated in the sessions or something like that then he could make a reasonable judgment as a prudent person.

My thought is consult a lawyer to be sure. The friend will understand if he really is of sound mind because he certainly wouldn't want to put the OP at any legal risk if they are friends.

If it were one of my friends I would have tried to not take the gun, but perhaps remove all the ammo from the home or the like trying to minimize liability, but if push came to shove, I would have taken the gun. I'd rather deal with it after than have a friend do something horrible.

[Artema]

"Saying, "derp, uhhhh, everyting seems fine to me! lol" is damned annoying." I'm not sure where I said that, but your insinuation of my intelligence is rude and uncalled for. Hence my use of the term argumentative. Just because disagrees with you doesn't require you to lash out because you find it "damned annoying", take it down a level.

Well put. I understand wanting to cover yourself, but based on how the law is written you may also make decisions based on available evidence. Doing so does not make you unintelligent.

[OleCuss]

Oh, for Pete's sake!

The guy showed good enough judgment to give you the rifle for safe-keeping. He got professional help and is telling you that he is fine. Unless you have reason to believe he is not fine, I'd return the rifle.

Tincon is getting rather far out there on this one. You have no reason to believe that the guy is planning to commit suicide.

And if he is smart and he is planning to commit suicide, a .22 rifle is not usually the instrument of choice. . .

Sometimes you can take the legal stuff too far. You go to any restaurant and virtually everything on the menu has too much fat or too much sugar. Lots of people die every year because they've had too much fat and sugar. But the restaurants are not getting their behinds sued off.

Tincon is arguing that it is illegal to commit suicide or to aid that suicide. Well, I've known a whole bunch of people who've attempted suicide and not a single one of them got arrested or prosecuted for it. To be rather blunt, the cops and the DA don't even want to hear about the attempted suicides.

If your friend told you he needed his rifle back so that he could shoot himself in the head - and you loaded the thing and gave it to him (and you were dumb enough to talk to LEA), then there's a pretty good chance you'll get arrested and prosecuted.

But returning a rifle to a gentleman who has enough sense to ask you to hold the rifle for him when things are volatile - then reports he has had the counseling and is now fine? I don't see either an ethical or a significant legal problem with that.

But I'm not a lawyer and I'm not pretending to be one.

[BumBum]

I'm surprised that no one here has mentioned the possibility of a civil lawsuit for wrongful death in the event of a suicide, which seems like a far greater risk than a criminal charge. Tincon is absolutely correct in his analysis, and a grieving family is often quick to point the finger. Family is often in denial that their loved one could have been capable of committing such an act, and may exhaust every available avenue of blame.

Civil negligence requires proving duty, breach, causation, and harm. With OP taking the gun from his friend in this scenario, he has assumed a duty of care. The family would argue that he knew or should have known of the danger, and he breached that duty by giving the gun back. And of course there is harm (injury causing death). That leaves us with causation, which is the issue of contention most difficult to prove here (how much blame to assign to friend versus OP). But what I described is often enough to convince some lawyer to come aboard and get the ball rolling. I have seen cases filed on flimsier facts. Even if you eventually win, you will still be in a situation where you have spent thousands on an attorney defending yourself.

In anticipation of the California cynics pointing out how crazy the law is, realize that this isn't state-specific. This can, and does, happen anywhere. I hate to say it, but the law can be messy and this is why we have lawyers.

And if he is smart and he is planning to commit suicide, a .22 rifle is not usually the instrument of choice. . .

To someone who is in a mental state looking to end their life, they aren't necessarily looking for an optimal weapon -- just whatever is available. To a non-aficionado, a gun is a gun is a gun. My great-uncle shot himself with a .22 pistol back in 2001. I remember when my dad removed the guns from his house prior to that point, but either didn't know about or give thought to the .22.

[OleCuss]

.
.
.
To someone who is in a mental state looking to end their life, they aren't necessarily looking for an optimal weapon -- just whatever is available. To a non-aficionado, a gun is a gun is a gun. My great-uncle shot himself with a .22 pistol back in 2001. I remember when my dad removed the guns from his house prior to that point, but either didn't know about or give thought to the .22.

Yup!

But in this case the .22 rifle isn't actually readily available.

There are a whole lot of other suicide methods which are both more effective and are readily available.

A wee bit of an anecdote? Quite a few decades ago a famous Hollywood movie star got depressed, shot himself in the head (IIRC, it was a .22 pistol) thereby draining his brain abscess and curing his depression!

Yup, shooting yourself in the head with a .22 can cure you! And "NO!!!" I do not advocate this as a treatment.

[Artema]

Yup!

But in this case the .22 rifle isn't actually readily available.

There are a whole lot of other suicide methods which are both more effective and are readily available.

A wee bit of an anecdote? Quite a few decades ago a famous Hollywood movie star got depressed, shot himself in the head (IIRC, it was a .22 pistol) thereby draining his brain abscess and curing his depression!

Yup, shooting yourself in the head with a .22 can cure you! And "NO!!!" I do not advocate this as a treatment.

Wow! Who did that?

[Tincon]

Wow! Who did that?

Busey?

[OleCuss]

Wow! Who did that?

I actually do not know the answer. The person who told the story was involved in the case and knew all the details but would not tell the group who it was. He said that if he gave us the name that we would all immediately recognize that name (the actor was famous) but he wouldn't tell us more for confidentiality reasons.

But it was in the 1980s that I was told the story and I'd guess that the event happened at least one decade before I heard of it. So I don't know if nowadays we would recognize the name - and it could easily have occurred in the 1950s or 1960s and possibly earlier (the teller of the tale was extremely reliable and had a great memory, but he was probably in his 70s when he told us the story).

He also told us of the almost insanely bizarre story of a person who shot himself in the head with a .22 pistol. The bullet hit (IIRC) the Petrous portion of the temporal bone and was deflected upward. It caromed/followed the curve of the skull up and over the brain and then back down the other side to hit the Petrous on the other side and was deflected back out of the skull at that point.

So you had an entry wound on one side of the head, an exit wound on the other side of the head, and virtually no damage to the brain.

It is almost indescribable how utterly bizarre I find that one. I don't think you could reproduce that one even if you had utter disregard for human life and tried shooting people in the head by the millions.

If I'd not known him to be very honest and to have been involved in the right kind of work/job/training I'd not have believed him.

Those were the only two bizarre GSW stories I remember him telling. So no more from me on that.

[mshill]

Me personally... I would have a serious sit down with the friend and get a feel for where his head is at. Tell him that you want to give him the gun back but need to cover yourself legally. Take it to an FFL and PPT it. If he is a good enough friend he will understand and not be offended.

He gets his gun, and the FFL is the one releasing the gun to him after the BC and 10 day wait. He has to go to the effort of paying for the ppt, the 10 day wait, and the trip to the FFL. You are covered legally.