Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Confiscation Has Started!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2137109" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Yes, but most officers wouldn't. A civil court might disagree, but who wants to go down that road?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If she and her husband to choose to fight this, again, a civil court might disagree on the legality. It would depend on how the CA law is written. Ultimately, I think their primary recourse should be with the mental health facility. They made the decision to commit her involuntarily when she presented voluntarily. They were instrumental in voiding her constitutional rights, so go after them. </p><p></p><p>You might be technically correct that it's been going on all along, but now it's stepped way up and there's a lot more media attention. For a lot of people in the public who didn't know, this is a new issue. What this will ultimately bring about is a chilling effect on gun owners who should seek mental health support, but will be afraid to in reasonable fear of losing their rights. </p><p></p><p>The real issue here is a nurse recommending involuntary commitment, a doctor signing off on it and poof, you lose your rights. That's not how the federal law is written and I fully believe the CA law to be in violation of the US Constitution. It should definitely be challenged. As it is, they have no reasonable case against this woman and her husband. If she was a danger to herself and others, the firearms should've been removed immediately. Three months later, they have three months worth of incident free access to the guns to prove that she is NOT a threat. </p><p></p><p>Which brings me to my point. Registration is not required. Losing a constitutional right must have a more rigorous process to ensure abuse of the system is not an issue. If one is a danger to themself or others, they should be involuntarily committed. If they are proven to not be a danger or mentally incompetent, they shoud be released and no record forwarded to the government(s). If they are deemed a threat, prior to being released, an emergency ex parte hearing should be convened and a judicial order entered against the person. A full hearing can be scheduled to make the emergency order permanent. Upon issuing the EEP order, law enforcement should be REQUIRED to conduct a threat assessment prior to the person's release. That would include any lethal weapons, not just guns. Yes, access to control over a vehicle should be included. </p><p></p><p>Coming by on a non-warrant knock & talk three months later, just flat doesn't cut it. Simply put, out rights are much more sacred than the casual CA system treats them. The ultimate issue is how the rest of the country is going to come to grips with this. CA and the NE corridor are usually just the beginning. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Excellent post. I agree with everything except the part where registration is the only way it will work, as I outlined above.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2137109, member: 1132"] Yes, but most officers wouldn't. A civil court might disagree, but who wants to go down that road? If she and her husband to choose to fight this, again, a civil court might disagree on the legality. It would depend on how the CA law is written. Ultimately, I think their primary recourse should be with the mental health facility. They made the decision to commit her involuntarily when she presented voluntarily. They were instrumental in voiding her constitutional rights, so go after them. You might be technically correct that it's been going on all along, but now it's stepped way up and there's a lot more media attention. For a lot of people in the public who didn't know, this is a new issue. What this will ultimately bring about is a chilling effect on gun owners who should seek mental health support, but will be afraid to in reasonable fear of losing their rights. The real issue here is a nurse recommending involuntary commitment, a doctor signing off on it and poof, you lose your rights. That's not how the federal law is written and I fully believe the CA law to be in violation of the US Constitution. It should definitely be challenged. As it is, they have no reasonable case against this woman and her husband. If she was a danger to herself and others, the firearms should've been removed immediately. Three months later, they have three months worth of incident free access to the guns to prove that she is NOT a threat. Which brings me to my point. Registration is not required. Losing a constitutional right must have a more rigorous process to ensure abuse of the system is not an issue. If one is a danger to themself or others, they should be involuntarily committed. If they are proven to not be a danger or mentally incompetent, they shoud be released and no record forwarded to the government(s). If they are deemed a threat, prior to being released, an emergency ex parte hearing should be convened and a judicial order entered against the person. A full hearing can be scheduled to make the emergency order permanent. Upon issuing the EEP order, law enforcement should be REQUIRED to conduct a threat assessment prior to the person's release. That would include any lethal weapons, not just guns. Yes, access to control over a vehicle should be included. Coming by on a non-warrant knock & talk three months later, just flat doesn't cut it. Simply put, out rights are much more sacred than the casual CA system treats them. The ultimate issue is how the rest of the country is going to come to grips with this. CA and the NE corridor are usually just the beginning. :( Excellent post. I agree with everything except the part where registration is the only way it will work, as I outlined above. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Confiscation Has Started!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom