California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

[xchrom]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html


California Department of Justice police agents walk towards a house near Ontario, California on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The agents, working for the only state-level program to confiscate illegal firearms from owners, targeted people who’d once legally purchased firearms and lost the right after being convicted of violent crimes, committed to mental institutions or hit with restraining orders.

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California (STOCA1) Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

hey knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.
California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

[dipsydoodle]

1. It a start

[xchrom]

3. +1

[mwrguy]

57. +2

[chknltl]

63. +3 nuff said!

[Arugula Latte]

78. +4

More, more, more of this, please!

[Peter cotton]

95. If this is a start, what should the end be?

[kysrsoze]

105. When the last illegally owned/obtained gun is rounded up. See? That was really easy.

[Peter cotton]

115. An unobtainable goal, surely.

[graham4anything]

2. Great! Remember, all illegal guns were born as legal guns, and born to kill or hurt something.

[AndyA]

25. That's exactly it!

Guns were designed to kill. That is their sole purpose, they serve no other function. As such, they are uniquely placed in that category.

All guns are legal until they aren't, and everyone is a law abiding citizen or "good guy" until they aren't.

The words "well regulated" are in the Second Amendment for a reason.

[Riftaxe]

77. Not to mention the slaughter of clay pigeons

It is a tragedy that they are not on the protected species list.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

92. Hey! You'll put all the clay pigeon breeders out of business!

[snappyturtle]

4. K&R Kudos to California. nt

[ManiacJoe]

5. Good to see one state tackling the problem.

[Scuba]

6. Getting guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people ....

... is something that both pro- and anti-gunners should support.

It'll be interesting to see how some of the usual suspects respond to this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. I have no objections but I can't help but take note of those upthread and downthread-to-come

Calling for confisaction to be expanded those innocent of any offense.

[Niceguy1]

8. some of those posters

Remind me of the ladies that pushed for the prohibition. And ironically the think that they will have a different outcome.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Now that pot is legal in CO and WA and even some in the GOP are thinking of reclassifying MJ

I guess those cartels will need a new revenue stream -- 30-round magazines and 44-ounce sodas.

[Niceguy1]

12. ha ha

The banned items will still be available just more expensive.

[Ikonoklast]

20. Then they can take the marijuana users place in prison.

Violent convicted felons lose rights, too bad.

[Niceguy1]

22. mere possesion

Of firearms doesn't make a person violent if you are referring to abolition

[Ikonoklast]

24. What part of 'convicted felon' do you not understand?

Or 'violent'?

I hope that you are only pretending to be dense.

[Niceguy1]

27. Try reading the sub thread

Duh....

[Ikonoklast]

31. Buying a banned magazine will make you a felon.

Get convicted, lose your right to own firearms.

'Convicted felon'.

Denser than a neutron star.

[Niceguy1]

32. You have to commit a crime first

People still drank during the prohibition... Grew up in the ghetto and there always was someone who "knew how to get things". Which will never change.

[Ikonoklast]

35. Owning a fully automatic firearm with no tax stamp is a crime, for example.

Owning a banned magazine will be a crime.

Simple possesion *is* the crime.

[Hoyt]

41. Yeah, but gun owners are "law-abiding," or so they keep telling us.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. So was Rosa Parks, until she wasn't

Do you always obediently submit to everything the government tells you like a good citizen?

[The Magistrate]

56. Oh, You Poor, Down-Trodden Fella....

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. I'm not a "fella" and I stand behind my point.

[The Magistrate]

61. You Would Do Better To Sit On It, Fella

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. So, someone who writes in haughty, arrogant, erudite tones

takes his cues from a poorly drawn comic strip.

How cute.

[The Magistrate]

67. One Apportions Effort To The Worth Of the Target....

[Hoyt]

62. Sorry, but your poor pitiful gun plight is not on same level as true civil rights.

Nor would hiding illegal weapons be moral or ethical unless you are one of those who consider randy weaver a good citizen.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Self-defense isn't a civil right?

Does that make you pro-rapist?

[Occulus]

68. Of course it does.

EVERYONE secretly wants to rape. We're just more honest about it.

You mean you don't? Why do you hate my freedom?

[Hoyt]

83. You are not judge, jury, jesus, and executioner, notwithstanding you guns.

Are you afraid of being raped, or just defending your gun fetish?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. But somehow you're supposed to be enlightened enough to be judge, jury and executioner

as to whether or not a person can decide for themselves when their life is in imminent danger. Judge, jury and executioner? I guess that's the privilege of the Y chromosome. Although, I can't blame all men as my husband actively encourages me to safely and accurately handled the guns in our home. For a conservative supposedly waging war on women he seems to think the more capable I am the more attractive I become. He finds self-empowerment to be a virtue.

And then there's you and Bazooka Joe comic who only see a threat.

Lemme guess: women are too hysterical and emotional to know when they're about to be assaulted. A man who is menaciing a woman deserves the benefit of the doubt up to and until he achieves penetration because -- well -- you know how those women are. I guess we can count you among those who think women are too emotional and would just "pop a round at somebody."

What's you're next piece of sexist bilge? Gonna tell women to just lie back and try to relax until the big, burly men can come dashing to their rescue? Because you're smart enough to be judge, jury and executioner about what women do or do not need.

[Hoyt]

103. Ha. Not the same as firing a bullet "center mass" at someone who might not deserve it.

You guys are really amazing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. Why? Because you said so?

Who are you?

[derby378]

81. +100

What you said makes perfect sense. Sometimes defiance is the only way to get things done in this country.

That said, if a felon is in possession of guns, we have to ask ourselves why it took California so long to confiscate that man's arms. Or, more to the point, does your own state have a similar provision to make sure ex-cons can't arm themselves beyond NICS?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. I agree.

People ADJUDICATED to have lost the right to own guns ought to be disarmed.

[Granny M]

97. Good idea. nt

[LAGC]

93. LMAO!

That was good.

[Pullo]

110. Awesome!

well said

[graham4anything]

30. The object is to take the gun/bullet off the street. A gun & a bullet are NOT people.

one can just take the guns and bullets at some point...but not put anyone in jail

The point is not punitive, it is TO SAVE THE LIVES OF THOSE THAT THE GUN AND BULLET
could be used for.

A GUN IS NOT A PERSON
A BULLET IS NOT A PERSON
BUT, GUNS/BULLETS KILL PEOPLE

therefore taking away a gun and bullets are NOT hurting ANY PERSON at all

The goal is a bullet in the streets by private citizens (ala for example say Zimmerman/Paul Blart mall cops/mass shooters) is wellness for everybody.
The object is taking the gun, not the person.

a gun takes 100% of every single right away from a dead person.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. I see your posts everywhere and to be honest, the quasi-maniacal ranting style is

tedious at best. I genuinely sat here wondering how best to respond to someone who refers to Michael Bloomberg as "The Great Equalizer." I can't tell is you're serious or if you're some poser trying to embarrass DU.

a gun takes 100% of every single right away from a dead person.

And sometimes that is a good thing.

[graham4anything]

48. Michael Bloomberg IS the Great Equalizer

one dollar more for every anti-gun anti-NRA candidate now allows candidates NOT to be blackmailed by the rightwing extremist terroristic NRA, who need to be driven out of existence.

Change the candidates
Change the supreme Court to a better one
Change the laws
Re-interpret the 2nd

90% of smokers used to smoke in nyc, now they don't

as the 70s song said "things get a little easier, once you understand ' (c) Stallman of the group Think.


the mayors against guns are a great thing
Have you seen the Time Magzine-
The Vice President (whom I love and everyone here should love) standing side by side Gabbie Giffords (who would possible have attained higher office, and possibly Hillary's VP in 16 and 20 had a gun not ended her thoughts of higher office for now) and The Great Equalizer himself.
Most people who wish guns to begone, like what Meek Mike the private citizen is doing to eradicate the cancer from the streets of the US.
Wellness works.
Most everyone who wants the cancer of guns in the street to end, appreciate what Mike is doing on that issue.
As he won't be mayor shortly, whatever else you don't like, will be gone and your beef would then be with Mayor Christine Quinn, so take it up with her.


and no, vigilante Zimmerman's do not make good people. They are judge/jury/executioner and I do wish he would have been charged with 1st degree murder and not second.
I would find him 100% guilty as the facts show indeed, he is guilty as charged of premeditate murder since he had plenty of time to call police and was told not to continue to follw the nice young man who might have found a cure for Cancer or Parkinson's disease.

Working for Janet Napolitano as VP in 2017-2025, and for Hillary to bring back the legendary Janet Reno as HS to replace Janet when she becomes vp.
[img][/img]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. I rest my case.

[graham4anything]

54. Time for the days of the NRA blackmailing all that speak against guns to be shut down

So are you are against Gabbie Giffords and Joe Biden?

and the 186 other mayors, and Jerry Brown(who I voted for twice for President?)

Do you like the NRA being able to blackmail all candidates as they have for decades now?

time someone fought back.

$1 more than the NRA(which has very limited members, and money)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. You're a little hazy on the definition of "blackmail"

And are you takig advice about guns from someone who suggests blindly firing into the air?

[graham4anything]

60. The NRA blackmails by saying either you block any reform, or we'll fund another

The mayors agianst guns, and Meek Mike, say, we will have the backs of any/all who go agaisnt the NRA and guns in the street, and they will finance MORE than the NRA finances the opposition.

Money talks, and the NRA is going to walk itself out of existence. They are fighting a lost cause with less money and less people.

Common sense shows that soon there will be a new court, and with it, new interpretations
of older laws.
Too bad it can't happen yesterday, but it will happen tomorrow. ( I figure by 2020, about 2 years after President Obama is elevated to the US Supreme Court by President Clinton, being that President Obama's been born to be on the US Supreme Court much like President Taft
went from one to the other.

And its a given with President Clinton, the court will be 7 to 2 or 8 to 1, and a reinterpretation will happen.
Too bad the NRA just doesn't go away now and save 35 lives a day.

[Pullo]

112. Compared to other lobby groups, the NRA's campaign contributions are modest at best

Their power is derived more from an active membership base. Their leadership can rile up membership in the home districts of Congressmen etc. For Bloomberg to truly to match the NRA's influence, he'll need a nationwide base he can call upon in similar fashion.

[graham4anything]

113. Please. The NRA is #1 with a bullet on the charts

[olddots]

55. rest your hands

[Iggo]

75. If only that were true.

[Mojorabbit]

42. Yep. nt

[marmar]

9. k/r

[libtodeath]

10. It is about time,good for them

we need to end the carnage.

[hack89]

13. This is the way it should work. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

14. I've lived here for 57 years

and *I* didn't even know about this. Good on us! (I'm sure the gun lobby won't be sharing my enthusiasm.)

[OldDem2012]

15. Hats off to California for doing it the way it should be done. nt.

[Duckhunter935]

16. why don't they

take the weapons at the time the individual loses the right? Seems kind of odd they wait and then have to go back and use all of those assets to go back and get them after the fact. All of the cases I have heard they had the weapons and then were judged to lose that right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. I'll hazard a guess and suggest this is a relatively new policy program

and as such they're probably 1) testing their legal limits and/or 2) confronting a tremendous backlog.

But that's just my wild guess.

[fasttense]

19. Well usually they don't lose their rights to buy weapons until after they are convicted

Someone buys a legal weapon. The person then beats their spouse. The spouse takes out a restraining order. Then the spouse abuser is out and about doing what they normally do. The police will have to go back to get the weapon.

[loudsue]

23. They probably had to wait until the democratically lead legislature funded the manpower

and training to carry it off. Remember: That is one of the MAIN weapons of the rightwing to make government ineffective...they just don't fund the manpower to provide government services. THEN they convince people how ineffective everything is, and turn around and "privatize" that function, so that it costs 100-times as much as it would have. Prisons, military, and now they're trying it with the post office.

During the Bush administration, there were less than 100 employees (if I remember correctly -- at any rate, the number was abysmally low) nation-wide for inspecting for the environmental protection agency.

[JimDandy]

29. Yes, that's the Republican playbook.

Blech.

[oneshooter]

18. What happens to the removed firearms? Are they destroyed?

Or kept by the Departments for later return to the families? Perhaps they are sold, and the monies used for mental health resources? Anyone know?

[sulphurdunn]

21. Interesting.

Does "confiscation" necessarily mean the permanent loss of personal property?

[petronius]

40. The article says that "most" are destroyed, but you raise a good point:

in the case described in the article, two of the firearms belonged to the husband of the person who had become disqualified - he certainly should have been given an opportunity to make alternate arrangements. And I think every DQ'd person should have the right to appeal that.

I like this program in principle: removing guns from those who shouldn't have them seems to be one of the more potentially-effective violence prevention measures out there, but as described it seems like some changes could be made to respect the rights of mentally ill subjects, and the rights of spouses/families/roommates...

[JimDandy]

26. Can't the gun owners

who have lost the right to possess guns, sell or give their guns to another individual (not in their home), so they can at least get money for them - probably much needed money now that they are convicted felons or mentally unstable. Does CA give those guns back to former mental patients who have recovered from their illness? I'm a gun control advocate, but as long as the new owners also had to pass a background check, I think those measures would be fair to all parties.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

94. If they were that smart they'd probably not commit a crime & get convicted or get committed. nt

[JimDandy]

116. I was thinking more along the lines of

the state giving the gun owner notice that he has so many days to sell or give the gun to someone else, and provide proof he has done so, or they will be on his doorstep on a stated date to pick up the weapons.

[slackmaster]

101. Yes, they can pawn or sell them or even give them to a trusted person for safekeeping

They can OWN a gun but not possess it.

[Buzz Clik]

28. This should thrill the gun freaks: finally enforcing the gun laws we have.

Can I hear an amen?

[Walk away]

34. Amen!

[SunSeeker]

85. Exactly. CA is just enforcing existing laws against criminals possessing guns.

What makes this so radical is that CA is actually providing MONEY to allow officials to enforce the laws that are on the books. It appears most states don't and thus their laws might as well not even be on the books. And the NRA knows this, which is why their call to "just enforce the laws already on the books" is so cynical.

[Buzz Clik]

86. Bingo. +1

[Eleanors38]

106. My god! Cali agrees with the NRA!! nt

[Historic NY]

33. They will do that in my county in NY only after

the person or person fail to comply with the courts order to surrender.

They have been scrutinizing permits also for those weapons. A lots of this has been going on for years in the background.

Mostly its done locally or by the sheriff.

[Oakenshield]

36. That's a pleasant surprise!

Didn't my state was so thoughtful in this regard. Such prudent policy should certainly be a national standard.

[CosmicDustBunny]

37. Well, if they ever do that here they better be pretty good at cracking a safe.

I've got inherited guns (family heirlooms) but no ammunition for them and I keep them in a fire safe. It would take a LONG time to go through every combination. On top of that, it also requires a key so they'd have to find that.

[2ndAmForComputers]

46. Well, let us know how well that goes for you.

Also, you DO know that is only about convicted criminals who were legally barred from having guns, don't you? Do you plan to become one?

[kestrel91316]

38. I fully support this use of my tax dollars.

Waiting for the gun nutters to start wailing about this, though.......

[2ndAmForComputers]

47. Too slow. See above.

[The Magistrate]

39. A Pleasure To See the Law Enforced, Sir

This should indeed be national policy.

[2ndAmForComputers]

43. In that situation, do people get compensated for the lost property?

After all, it was legally acquired and cost money.

[DevonRex]

51. The person may need to document ownership. The guns are transferred

to a licensed dealer if they definitely cannot be returned to the owner. The dealer will sell the guns for the owner for a percentage of the sale.

[petronius]

64. Do you have a source for that? All I've seen are statements like

"most are destroyed," but without real details on the process. More info would be interesting...

[DevonRex]

70. See post below for link to the law.

I didn't want to keep a link up to this guy's law practice up any longer than I had to for reference purposes.

[petronius]

73. Thank you for the follow-up; I appreciate it!

I found the text of the laws on the CA AG site: here's the batch that defines and describes the 'prohibited person' list

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12010.php

and here's the part that includes (buried in the wall of text) the info on reclaiming firearms and/or their sale

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12010.php

It's a lot to read, and it's not stuff I'm good at reading, but as I interpret it you're correct; officers are apparently required to give receipts with info about reclaiming options (and I don't see why officers from the AG task force would be different). It seems that guns used in crimes can be condemned as nuisances pretty quickly - and being a prohibited person in possession seems to be a crime - but it does appear that at least the husband (or a roommate, or similar situation) would have some recourse...

[DevonRex]

74. Ah, great. now i can

Delete that man's link. Appreciate the links to the law. Had they been federal statutes I would have had them up in 2 shakes of a lamb's tail. But CA? Nope. Colorado would have been easy, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. A good first step.

[Tumbulu]

52. Thank you Kamala Harris!

Especially important since there are not enough jail cells in CA- they let all these sex offenders out early.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Anyone have the picture of Wayne LaPierre wetting himself in panic?

[4 t 4]

69. makes perfect common sense ,

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2013, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

very logical and really once you have been in the system in any capacity - though you may be innocent- odds are not on your side. That is reality and if you are living in reality, then no problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. I'm just not really really worried that someone who wants a gun might not be able to have one.

I'm sorry, but it is possible to function in life without access to high-powered weaponry, felon or no.

[SamReynolds]

72. What was he in the mental hospital for?

It didn't occur to me that every admission to a mental treatment facility is a dangerous person. This really changes my views on mental illness if true.

[Witan00]

84. Yeah, this is what really bothers me about the "mental health" caveat

Most people who end up in the psych ward, even under court committal, aren't rabid, homicidal psychos. After discharge, I think it should be viewed on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket "you were court committed once in your life, so you can never own a firearm again".

Looking at the California Welfare and Institutions code, though, it seems like they have a fairly reasonable system in place that protects the public while also preserving the rights of the person in question.

[SamReynolds]

87. Glad to hear it.

Thanks.

[gopiscrap]

76. Good all guns should be banned period!!!

[Marengo]

80. Interesting, I've read this position doesn't exist on DU

[gopiscrap]

82. well I guess it does

there are some on DU who feel this way!!!

[SamReynolds]

89. Oh! I get it!

I haven't been here for long, but I know what this is! It's just like Fox New and the way they say "some people have said that...blah blah".

Good joke! I think I'm catching on.

[Eleanors38]

108. Don't worry, I'll keep it a secret.

[SamReynolds]

88. I'm not invested that much one way or the other on this topic, but that seems just plain naive.

You know that banning guns is likely as effective as banning weed or abortions, right?

[slackmaster]

102. Except, of course, for weapons in the hands of government employees

Who will always need guns in order to enforce such authoritarian laws.

[Thinkingabout]

79. A welcoming move, any start on getting weapons out of the hands of those

Who has lost the right to possess them is a good thing.

[Cali_Democrat]

90. Nice!

[silverweb]

91. I <3 California.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

96. Drive to convict white collar criminals (banksters et al) of felonies & confiscate their guns.

The 1%, especially the 1% that are the f-you 1%, tend to be right-wingers.

Fat cats too big for jail?

Let's have a little more judicial equality and a more level playing field.

[Go Vols]

98. They need more people/agents maybe

California’s system came about through a 2002 law that was even supported by the National Rifle Association, in part because it was billed as a way to protect members of law enforcement. It finally got under way in earnest in 2007.
....
The Justice Department also trained more than 1,300 law enforcement officers around the state on the system in 2007 and plans another round this year.
....
The state Justice Department’s firearms bureau does have a small unit, with 20 agents, that tracks down people on the list. Last year, it investigated 1,717 people and seized 1,224 firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[slackmaster]

100. They're more than a year too late for the friend that I sent to a mental hospital in December 2011

She shot herself seven weeks after she talked her way out of the hospital. She had taken possession of the gun the same day I called 911 to report her first suicide attempt. But I didn't find out about the gun until she was already gone.

While she was hospitalized I searched her apartment for drugs and weapons, but didn't find the revolver. I went over everything with a metal detector. The only place I didn't look was the trunk of her car. It must have been hidden there.

[Deep13]

104. 2 days in a mental hospital? So what?

That's not a permanent disability. Someone with ordinary neurosis had a bad week--maybe a lost job or a death i the family. He may have committed himself and left when feeling better or relatives wrongly committed him.

CA is doing exactly what I was afraid of--making the mentally ill scapegoats. Remember that none of the mass shootings of recent years has been committed by an insane person.

Also, why come at night? Judges usually need a special reason to allow raids at night. It's a pretty well abused requirement and judges tend to allow it automatically based on vague claims like "officer safety" without explaining why reduced visibility makes them safer.

[slackmaster]

111. Good point. Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code allows for involuntary...

...commitment for 72 hours, for observation and testing.

Being taken into custody under 5150 and held for 72 hours or less DOES NOT disqualify a person from having a firearm in California. If a person taken in under 5150 is found to be a threat to him/herself or to others, the person can be kept in for a longer period under Section 5151 or 5152. Either of those DOES disqualify the person from having a gun for five years.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5157

[4Q2u2]

114. Due Process?

From the Article. This woman's husband committed no crime and was never committed to a mental facility. His only crime was being married to her and living the same house. His guns were taken away. Even her case was set in motion by one person who is not a judge. What is next? If she is not fit to own guns, maybe we should have her prove to the government that she should be a parent. Where is the presumption of innocence?

"They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

Involuntarily Held
In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

Todd Smith, chief executive officer of Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, where documents provided by Phillips show she was treated, didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment on the circumstances of the treatment.

Phillips said her husband used the guns for recreation. She didn’t blame the attorney general’s agents for taking the guns based on the information they had, she said.

“I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun,” Phillips said. “I’m not a threat. We’re law-abiding citizens.”

No one was arrested. Most seized weapons are destroyed, Gregory said.

“It’s not unusual to not arrest a mental-health person because every county in the state handles those particular cases differently,” Gregory said by e-mail. “Unless there’s an extenuating need to arrest them on the spot, we refer the case” to the local district attorney’s office, she said. "