Shocker: CA proposes unconstitutional measures in wake of shooting

[Anathema]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

So what do you do about the guns he already has, if you can even determine that?

 

[The Rabbi]

If it is unconstitutional....like it sounds....thank goodness for the Constitution and the courts who would shoot it down REGARDLESS of its popularity.

Someone would have to bring an action first. Why is it even considered?

because it's not unconstitutional. and if it is, that is the job of the courts, not just the surmise of pretend constitutionalists.

It is unconstitutional to deprive someone of property without due process, "counselor". Even you know that, with your JC Penney law degree.

 

[The Rabbi]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

Do you know how many people see therapists? Should they all be disarmed?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

Millions of people see therapists. That doesn't make them homicidal killers.

 

[Katzndogz]

The answer is, yes. Under this proposed law, once a professional lodges a concern with law enforcement, not only would gun registration rolls be examined but associates and neighbors would be interviewed. The extent of the mental illness would be determined and the individual approaching psychotic break dealt with.

So, what do you do in states which do not have a gun registry, or which admit that their paperwork is woefully out of date? Massachusetts, for example, could tell you that I have LTC but could not tell you what (if any) firearms I own.

There is no law that can eliminate all threat everywhere. That does not mean we shouldn't eliminate the threats we can. There are guns bought illegally, or guns that might have been stolen. There are myriad ways of getting a gun illegally and would therefore not be registered. In recent cases, people have been killed by deranged individuals who were able to purchase guns legally. Those guns were registered. These incidents could have been prevented by a tiny bit of due diligence.

 

[Katzndogz]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

Millions of people see therapists. That doesn't make them homicidal killers.

That's why merely seeing a therapist should never be grounds to take someone's defensive weapons.

When the therapist gets concerned enough to make a report of possible impending violence that should be enough to trigger some kind of action beyond asking the patient how he feels that day.

 

[Peach]

Why arent people up in arms over this?

Because at this point, nothing coming out of California, or New York for that matter, is shocking or surprising?

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

Two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Another proposal involves establishing statewide protocols for law enforcement officers who are called to check on mentally troubled people.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested that authorities should be required as part of such welfare visits to check whether a person has purchased weapons instead of just talking to them.

Additional steps could include searching the individual's surroundings and talking to roommates, neighbors and relatives, he said.

more at the source

If it is unconstitutional....like it sounds....thank goodness for the Constitution and the courts who would shoot it down REGARDLESS of its popularity.

Yes, nothing but empty PR in this legislation.

 

[Anathema]

....In recent cases, people have been killed by deranged individuals who were able to purchase guns legally. Those guns were registered. These incidents could have been prevented by a tiny bit of due diligence.

I suspected this was the problem, but wanted confirmation..... Just because a firearm is purchased legally does not mean it is registered. Every firearm I have was purchased through a 100% legal format. All state and federal paperwork filed. Yet neither the FBI (which runs NICS) nor the State of Massachusetts (where I reside) could tell you what I own in terms of firearms. Most states do not have a "registry". In fact, CT and NY have seen the general reaction of gun owners to the concept of registering even only particular firearms and accessories in the first half of this year.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

Why?

There are a lot of reasons to see a therapist.

A lot of people see therapists without ever hurting anyone, including themselves.

 

[Little-Acorn]

California legislators propose things like this all the time. They almost always get voted down or die in committee.

This time they might be trying to take advantage of the tragedy to push their usual agenda.

Pretty typical behavior for liberal legislators.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

Millions of people see therapists. That doesn't make them homicidal killers.

That's why merely seeing a therapist should never be grounds to take someone's defensive weapons.

When the therapist gets concerned enough to make a report of possible impending violence that should be enough to trigger some kind of action beyond asking the patient how he feels that day.

I disagree. It should be more than a Therapist's word to infringe on a person's rights.

Only a Judge can has that authority.

Remember the woman just a week or so ago whose therapist thought she was suicidal, and he called the police and they spent hours looking for her.. She wasn't suicidal and told the police that. They arrested her and took her gun, all without a warrant. Simply on the word of a Therapist.

Then the man who lost his entire gun collection because his wife was seeking therapy after the death of their son. Again, no warrant, just the word of the Therapist.

Therapists are not judges and don't have the legal authority to issue such orders, nor should they ever have that authority.

 

[Silhouette]

Not surprising at all that California is given an inch and taking a mile. They just got done performing a coup on the initiative system by telling voters their votes for traditional marriage don't count [in defiance also of Windsor 2013].

Why is the gun lobby shocked that once emboldened, California would stop there?

This type of fascism should have been nipped in the bud loud and clear instead of smoothed over in hopes nobody noticed Windsor's findings...

 

[DiamondDave]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

Two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Another proposal involves establishing statewide protocols for law enforcement officers who are called to check on mentally troubled people.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested that authorities should be required as part of such welfare visits to check whether a person has purchased weapons instead of just talking to them.

Additional steps could include searching the individual's surroundings and talking to roommates, neighbors and relatives, he said.

more at the source

If it is unconstitutional....like it sounds....thank goodness for the Constitution and the courts who would shoot it down REGARDLESS of its popularity.

Except the courts are not always known to do this... they have, in fact, re-interpreted and ruled in favor of unconstitutional acts

 

[Katzndogz]

Millions of people see therapists. That doesn't make them homicidal killers.

That's why merely seeing a therapist should never be grounds to take someone's defensive weapons.

When the therapist gets concerned enough to make a report of possible impending violence that should be enough to trigger some kind of action beyond asking the patient how he feels that day.

I disagree. It should be more than a Therapist's word to infringe on a person's rights.

Only a Judge can has that authority.

Remember the woman just a week or so ago whose therapist thought she was suicidal, and he called the police and they spent hours looking for her.. She wasn't suicidal and told the police that. They arrested her and took her gun, all without a warrant. Simply on the word of a Therapist.

Then the man who lost his entire gun collection because his wife was seeking therapy after the death of their son. Again, no warrant, just the word of the Therapist.

Therapists are not judges and don't have the legal authority to issue such orders, nor should they ever have that authority.

You are misstating or misunderstanding the law. No therapist can order someone's guns be taken. All the therapist can do is notify law enforcement of concern. Using this declaration which would be on the order of any other confidential informant's declaration, they would be able to get a search warrant. Naturally no search warrant is necessary to search public records such as gun registration. No search warrant is necessary to talk to neighbors, roommates or associates.

I question the basis of an "arrest" being a therapist's word. Was there any act? What was the charge? When someone is arrested there is a criminal charge. Your therapist called us isn't a criminal charge.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no right of privacy or confidentiality in a public record. No one's rights are being violated.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no right of privacy or confidentiality in a public record. No one's rights are being violated.

What public record are you talking about?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no right of privacy or confidentiality in a public record. No one's rights are being violated.

What public record are you talking about?

Gun registration records. The proposed law is that upon a psychological professional notifying the police. The police shall review the gun registration records to see if the patient has any guns.

When these random acts of violence occur, the first question is who knew. Someone knew something that indicated the deranged individual was close to a psychotic break. If someone knew, why didn't they do anything about it. All too often, someone did know. The counselor or therapist knew, well in advance. In the case of Rodger's therapist, holding this knowledge should be criminal. The therapist knew Rodger had stopped taking his medication and knew that his social isolation was leading to a break.

Likely when Rodger bought his guns, he may not have been a danger to anyone. He had never been involuntarily committed. He was taking his meds. Something went wrong and he took a bad turn. Had the therapist notified the police and a routine public records check been performed, had the roommates been questioned, all those people shot and stabbed would be alive today. The people he hit with his car would be walking around today.

This is very close to the Aurora Shooting by John Holmes. The school counselor knew, in fact had already been provided with the Holmes "manifesto" outlining his intentions. But, because Holmes had dropped out of school, the counselor felt no further responsibility to warn of the danger he presented. Holmes also purchased his guns legally.

You can go all the way back to the Virginia Tech shooting another looney who bought his guns legally and was known as mentally disturbed his entire life. Counselors and therapists knew, did not disclose, and no one had any idea that Cho had legally purchased guns.

I am as pro gun as you could possibly imagine. This isn't gun control. This is looney control. This is making mental health professionals responsible. Not just for guns, but for knives, cars, machetes and baseball bats. When there is the ability to review public records, review them. When there are no public records, for crying out loud, start asking people if this guy is going off the rails.

 

[OriginalShroom]

That's why merely seeing a therapist should never be grounds to take someone's defensive weapons.

When the therapist gets concerned enough to make a report of possible impending violence that should be enough to trigger some kind of action beyond asking the patient how he feels that day.

I disagree. It should be more than a Therapist's word to infringe on a person's rights.

Only a Judge can has that authority.

Remember the woman just a week or so ago whose therapist thought she was suicidal, and he called the police and they spent hours looking for her.. She wasn't suicidal and told the police that. They arrested her and took her gun, all without a warrant. Simply on the word of a Therapist.

Then the man who lost his entire gun collection because his wife was seeking therapy after the death of their son. Again, no warrant, just the word of the Therapist.

Therapists are not judges and don't have the legal authority to issue such orders, nor should they ever have that authority.

You are misstating or misunderstanding the law. No therapist can order someone's guns be taken. All the therapist can do is notify law enforcement of concern. Using this declaration which would be on the order of any other confidential informant's declaration, they would be able to get a search warrant. Naturally no search warrant is necessary to search public records such as gun registration. No search warrant is necessary to talk to neighbors, roommates or associates.

I question the basis of an "arrest" being a therapist's word. Was there any act? What was the charge? When someone is arrested there is a criminal charge. Your therapist called us isn't a criminal charge.

I'm not stating the "Law" I am stating what actually has happened. A very wide difference between the two.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most states dont have gun registration.
In almost every mass shooting the shooters behavior was seen as indicatve of trouble only in retrospect. There would be thousands of people modeling the same behavior who never shoot or kill anyone. That's what makes it tough/impossible to spot.