A gun law that makes sense

[whitehall]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

 

[pismoe]

naw , not good in my opinion Whitehall !!

 

[Skull Pilot]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Instead of taking their guns why don't they get the poor souls committed?

Seems to me the government cares more about taking a person's guns than actually helping them get well

Imagine that

 

[Lonestar_logic]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Appearances can be deceiving.

 

[Auld Phart]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Instead of taking their guns why don't they get the poor souls committed?

Seems to me the government cares more about taking a person's guns than actually helping them get well

Imagine that

They take away his personal guns, but odds are, he knows a guy, that knows a guy, that knows where a guy with certain merchandise will be at a certain time.

More incompetency by the state

 

[longknife]

And just WHO determines the individual is "incompetent" and based on what?

 

[Defiant1]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

If the intent is to separate a person who appears to be mentally incompetent from their firearms, the law already exists.

It's called the Baker Act.

 

[emilynghiem]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Dear whitehall
yes and no.

a. I'd say it should be legally required for families or friends to report someone who is so mentally ill they are dangerous, as a threat to public health and safety. The gun issue should follow from that.

All citizens, if legally competent, should be required to sign financial and legal agreements
to pay the cost of any "premeditated crimes for which that person is convicted."

Then if someone is not legally, mentally, or financially competent, the family or friends, or a sponsoring organization can vouch and "co-sign" for that person. Someone has to take responsibility so it doesn't land on the taxpayer.

If people agreed to these standards, sick people would HAVE to get help BEFORE a crime is committed that costs taxpayers. It could be done through insurance, and screening people for preexisting conditions, similar to how police and military are screened for mental issues.

b. too many people have abused the mental illness claim to take property from family members.
it happened to a judicial advocate I knew, her own children abused that claim, and got lawyers
and judges to declare her mentally incompetent with absolutely NO medical examination by any doctor.
She was at home guarding her property, and fighting with petitions, lawsuits and letters.

So they took away her right to petition by having their BUDDIES in court declare her mentally incompetent
and ban any pro se petitions or filings. She had no lawyer or money to pay one, so she could not sue.

She was competent but just so angry at the injustice, any professional could have evaluated her
and told you that she had Legal Abuse syndrome and PTSD from that. She was still 100% in control
of her memory and was not dangerous or violent, just politically dangerous because she knew her rights
and knew how to defend them. The opposition had to stop her by politically censoring her, taking her
property and kicking her out of her home, to sell the land to developers who helped back the judges
and lawyers including the ones helping her own children to do this.

So until you address the root problems of
a, mental illness and ACCURATE diagnosis and reporting and requiring therapy that CURES it (not just placating or medicating symptoms. For example, Spiritual Healing which is natural and free has been used to cure schizophrenia and other ills and diseases, such treatment once proven medically could be required for people who are criminally a threat to themselves or others, similar to requiring people with AIDS or Ebola to abstain from infecting others)
b. legal abuse for political conflicts of interest
c. conflicts between people over govt regulations and gun rights

You still aren't addressing the real problem.
The above factors if unaddressed will allow any bill to miss the point and also
open the door to abuse. The root issues have to be addressed in order to be fully effective.

 

[Missourian]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

This is why I like state based laws instead of overarching federal statutes.

We can see how this law is applied, and it's aftereffects for a few years to weigh if it's positive outcome on public safety versus it's negative consequences on personal freedom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Don't even get me started on our idiot sheriff. One of the many downsides of living in the bluest part of the state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And just WHO determines the individual is "incompetent" and based on what?

Well, the courts already have that ability, in theory at least, for involuntary commitment to a mental institution. The legal/justice system would also seem to be the logical choice when discussing restricting someone's rights to protect the safety of society. That's kinda their job.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Dear whitehall
yes and no.

a. I'd say it should be legally required for families or friends to report someone who is so mentally ill they are dangerous, as a threat to public health and safety. The gun issue should follow from that.

All citizens, if legally competent, should be required to sign financial and legal agreements
to pay the cost of any "premeditated crimes for which that person is convicted."

Then if someone is not legally, mentally, or financially competent, the family or friends, or a sponsoring organization can vouch and "co-sign" for that person. Someone has to take responsibility so it doesn't land on the taxpayer.

If people agreed to these standards, sick people would HAVE to get help BEFORE a crime is committed that costs taxpayers. It could be done through insurance, and screening people for preexisting conditions, similar to how police and military are screened for mental issues.

b. too many people have abused the mental illness claim to take property from family members.
it happened to a judicial advocate I knew, her own children abused that claim, and got lawyers
and judges to declare her mentally incompetent with absolutely NO medical examination by any doctor.
She was at home guarding her property, and fighting with petitions, lawsuits and letters.

So they took away her right to petition by having their BUDDIES in court declare her mentally incompetent
and ban any pro se petitions or filings. She had no lawyer or money to pay one, so she could not sue.

She was competent but just so angry at the injustice, any professional could have evaluated her
and told you that she had Legal Abuse syndrome and PTSD from that. She was still 100% in control
of her memory and was not dangerous or violent, just politically dangerous because she knew her rights
and knew how to defend them. The opposition had to stop her by politically censoring her, taking her
property and kicking her out of her home, to sell the land to developers who helped back the judges
and lawyers including the ones helping her own children to do this.

So until you address the root problems of
a, mental illness and ACCURATE diagnosis and reporting and requiring therapy that CURES it (not just placating or medicating symptoms. For example, Spiritual Healing which is natural and free has been used to cure schizophrenia and other ills and diseases, such treatment once proven medically could be required for people who are criminally a threat to themselves or others, similar to requiring people with AIDS or Ebola to abstain from infecting others)
b. legal abuse for political conflicts of interest
c. conflicts between people over govt regulations and gun rights

You still aren't addressing the real problem.
The above factors if unaddressed will allow any bill to miss the point and also
open the door to abuse. The root issues have to be addressed in order to be fully effective.

I'm sorry but that is the most retarded thing you have ever said.

 

[GHook93]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Your family should know best if you are unstable and shouldn't have guns, so it seems like a logical law. If you thought your brother was unstable it makes sense to stop the person from having guns.

However, there is a slippery slope:
(1) Today it's relatives, tomorrow it's co-workers, neighbors, doctors, employers etc. How long before it's gov officials?
(2) How long is the ban? This is CA so you can bet once a person is banned from having guns, you can bet it would be near impossible to get off it.
(3) What happens to people leaving in the small house as the banned person. A kid living in his parent's house. Does that mean one is also banned since he lives with the person!
(4) What about the lone wackjob! Who turns him in?
(5) It is wackjob a to who says it won't be Jews tomorrow? Afterall every great dictators first move is to take guns away from their dissenters.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

California enacted a law that allows relatives (and others?) to petition the court to order the confiscation of firearms from persons who appear to be mentally incompetent. It's the anniversary of the Tucson shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a schitzophrenic and instead of investigating why a person who was clearly mentally incompetent to possess a firearm the local sheriff and the low information left tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.

Your family should know best if you are unstable and shouldn't have guns, so it seems like a logical law. If you thought your brother was unstable it makes sense to stop the person from having guns.

However, there is a slippery slope:
(1) Today it's relatives, tomorrow it's co-workers, neighbors, doctors, employers etc. How long before it's gov officials?
(2) How long is the ban? This is CA so you can bet once a person is banned from having guns, you can bet it would be near impossible to get off it.
(3) What happens to people leaving in the small house as the banned person. A kid living in his parent's house. Does that mean one is also banned since he lives with the person!
(4) What about the lone wackjob! Who turns him in?
(5) It is wackjob a to who says it won't be Jews tomorrow? Afterall every great dictators first move is to take guns away from their dissenters.

Its a stupid law. What are you going to do, follow your brother around 24/7 to make sure he doesn't purchase a gun? Knives kill five times more people than guns and more people in this country are killed with hammers and clubs than with rifles.

So while you're trying to take a gun away from an unstable brother, take all the knives, hammers and anything that can be used as a club too.

 

[pismoe]

this law sucks !!