It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New California bill lets authorities temporarily remove guns in some cases

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:46 PM

originally posted by: [post=17991339]DocMartiga/post]
a reply to: marg6043

why exactly do you hate cali so much? it is one of the greatest, and beautiful places on earth Its not

Have you been to other parts of the world?

Its really in the eye of the beholder ..

I have been in CA my whole life , its exspesive and most people are jerks on the road.

Oh and the gun laws suck!!

Their are better places out their for sure!

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:49 PM
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

No, I got that. But there were more victims than just the ones that died. I see you clarified your statement in your reply to me; "Half the victims killed were in fact stabbed."

And this is hardly an infringement on the second amendment, especially if it works as intended. Getting guns out of bad peoples hands.

Now, this isn't the be all, end all solution to our gun crime problem in the country. I realize that. I realize that there are various people who kill other people with various types of guns. I do believe that this bill, if it passes, can help reduce gun related deaths.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:29 PM
a reply to: links234

well, maybe i was a bit rude before, but i stand by the constitution. when taken literally, as it was meant to be, it clearly states that you, and me, can keep a gun if we so choose. period. PERIOD. it does not say...... unless the government says differently. in fact, after fighting a war with such an arbitrary, power-hungry, corrupt, out of control gov't, (like our fed. gov't, and especially californias state gov't) it was meant to protect citizens from it happening again. see district of columbia vs heller, for instance.
edit on 2-6-2014 by fixitwcw because: ....

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:33 PM

all this effort to take guns. there must be a reason why

Hm, maybe because crazy people with guns kill people? How's that for a good reason?
Of course gun psychos don't actually give a damn about people being killed, as long as they
can make themselves feel macho.
edit on 2-6-2014 by CB328 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: liejunkie01
That is the whole idea, and it will work if it passes.
Some people are smart enough to not let themselves be disarmed, therefore this will turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.
Bad guy accuses good guy, cops try to disarm good guy, good guy becomes bad guy!
Kalifornia has some bass ackwards politicians, why do people vote them in?
Can a full state be this wholly stupid?
Or is the vote just rigged?

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:38 PM
a reply to: HanzHenry
Naaaah ,China doesn't want the resistance when they land.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:45 PM
a reply to: CB328
Macho is for movies,children and HIGH SCHOOL like the term "Tuff Guy" usually a metro boy term to describe people who fight ,forgetting to separate the fact from fiction,or us from bullies.

It is a PC term to political speak a person down. Outside of college or Washington it simply sounds insipid and puerile.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:27 AM
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

So......if this passes, and you live in California, you can set up your neighbor or family member. Say you want to rob them, or even kill them, but they have guns so you are afraid you'd be shot. Call in the judge, get the guns removed, commit your crime?

California has always been a bit nuts on issues, though.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:49 AM
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I think this Rep needs to see if her proposal is not already included in Californa codes 5150 and 5200.

California law - 5150 and 5200 lays out the guidelines to be used when an issue arises where a person mental status is called into question.

an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, and stating that the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled."

If the person is acting in a manner that violates the section the person can be taken to a medical facility for assistance. Depending on the situation a person can be detained by law enforcement and involuntarily transported to a medical facility. Generally when a person is being seen for psychiatric (or any medical issue) federal law prohibits the release of that info (HIPPA). However if the person with the mental condition states he has a target / intent on killing someone the law allows that information to be released to law enforcement without consent / violating HIPPA.

Based on my experience from my state - MO - I have taken individuals into custody for a 96 hour hold (in California its only 72 hours). I have seized suicide notes as evidence in addition to weapons if the note / statement is a plan of action as a safety precaution. Its logged into evidence and is returned to the individual upon release / cleared by a medical professional.

We have also obtained consent to turn the weapon over to a responsible 3rd party (after they are checked and cleared to be allowed to be around a gun).
*** Probable Cause must exist in order to take the person into protective custody. That Probable cause is determined by the statements / actions of the person with the "mental" issue. If statements against self interest are made to the officer, the officer will fill out the affidavit. If a 3rd party was told they are required to fill out the affidavit.

Hearsay from what I have seen is not an option - IE the officer fills out the affidavit using phrases like "I was told by so and so".

The issues could revolve around how the mental health laws are worded. For all intents and purposes mental health laws are civil in nature and not criminal. Law Enforcement action is extremely restricted in these areas.

When a person is undergoing a psyche evaluation with the determination by the Psyche doctor that the individual needs to be admitted for psychiatric assistance / treatment, and the patient refuses, the 72 hour hold can be invoked involuntarily.

With that said the patient must be informed of their rights and are essentially read a medical version of Miranda rights. Access to legal counsel, ability to challenge the Doctors diagnosis, right to refuse medication etc etc etc.

Finally -

Additionally, when patients who are placed on a 5150 hold for danger to self or danger to others, a notification is filed which results in the person losing the right to purchase or possess firearms for five years. This firearms prohibition may be appealed.

She is essentially reinventing the wheel in such a manner that it creates an ability to take action to prevent a future crime, which is a massive issues and in my opinion unconstitutional.

As always state laws vary from state to state so check your laws in your neck of the woods and talk to a lawyer if your affected.

Hope the info helps out.

edit on 3-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

(post by Onslaught2996 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:26 AM
I can't see this going well at all.

I'm all about being able to own a gun. I'll defend the constitutional right. But...there are people out there that shouldn't have them. This could be a step in the right direction, but I doubt it'll be the right way to go about it. I kind of like the idea, but the execution is going to be all wrong. Guarantee.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:41 AM
Well, if anyone wondered whether or not something shady is going on with all these shootings, this seems to be a real clue. What are the chances all of these things would happen in just a few years right when the political climate was exactly right for loony gun control laws to make it through?

Just remember. They only have to get the door open a crack in order to get their foot in and wedge it open.
edit on 3-6-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:52 AM

originally posted by: marg6043
California needs to fall off in the ocean.

Now as to the topic, this will be challenge and the second amendment will prevail.

That's what we thought about the individual mandate. OK, so we didn't have a specific constitutional provision forbidding it but it didn't matter anyway. When the game is rigged, that's it.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:58 AM
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

the fact that california and mexico have one of the biggest illegal gun trading operations in this hemisphere proves it.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:23 AM
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

cali being so big i am wondering what part ur talking about, I grew up in the Mountains , and i have yet to find a place that compares to the fresh air, clean water , endless forests, crystal clear lakes that cali has to offer, i am not saying there not there, i am saying that california can offer all this and then you can take a drive and be on the coast with the redwoods and that is a sight everyone should see, and then you can take a drive and end up in wine country were the wine flows like beer

as far as guns go you can do what you want guns as long as your not a dumba$$, not alot of over sight, they just set up some hoops that can either be jumped through or u can walk around .its your choice

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:14 AM
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Number of US Military deaths in Afghanistan (2001 - 2014) - 4,423
Number of US Military deaths for all of 2011 - 418

Number of homicides in Chicago - 2011 - 433
Of that number 361 homicides were due to gun deaths.

I can go into more detail that compares US Military deaths in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014 to Chicago homicides (by gun) that will show Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan. What's worse is the fact our military members are armed and are able to defend themselves where as Chicago takes the position that law abiding civilians are threat.

Gun control does not work - Why?
Criminals are called criminals for a reason. Do you seriously think if the government outlawed gun possession that the crime rate would go down?

Criminals wont comply with the law so how can that type of legislation, gun control, be effective while targeting criminals?

The City of Chicago has had more people killed by gun (2001-2013) than the total casualties our military sustained in the same time frame.

Because of that I don't think Chicago government / state government should be trying to claim a moral high ground for gun control. The Illinois / Chicago law on gun control does not work.

edit on 3-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:27 AM
Because we have turned law enforcement into a major player in the mental health system, the bill would fill in a gap. Elliot Rodger had not been and was not deemed a 5150 by law enforcement, but the family had major concerns re their adult family member. If they had had the right to petition a judge for this restraining order, Elliot would still have been allowed to live independently w/o a 5150.

Skinner said last weekend's mass shooting near UCSB illustrated gaps in the state's gun and mental health laws. The family of Elliot Rodger, who police say was the shooter, had raised concerns with law enforcement about his mental state; Santa Barbara sheriff's deputies visited Rodger at his apartment in April, but did not take any action against him.

"Here we had a situation where a mother was aware that her son was a danger to himself and others. She tried to intervene," said Skinner in an interview.

"Because California doesn’t have a gun violence prevention restraining order, she didn’t have the ability to go to law enforcement or petition a judge, and ask to have, in effect, his ability to either possess or buy guns revoked," Skinner said.

"The person who can identify when someone is in crisis the best is a family member. It's important to have a family member have an option go directly to court," said Horwitz.


Text of bill

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:36 AM
This is why I have to laugh when I hear a "good" cop say something like: I'd never confiscate your guns. That's un-Constitutional!

They already violate the 4th and 5th and 1st Amendments with traffic stops, DUI checkpoints, confiscating phones of bystanders, etc....

All they need is the 'lawful' excuse and they'll do whatever they want to or are told to.

By the time they take a break from the ooh-rah door-kicking bull# to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to smell the fresh air they'll have already done all the things they claim they'll never do a hundred times over.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:46 AM
a reply to: desert

Respectfully, I do law enforcement as a living. I can say with certainty that Law Enforcement is not a major player in the mental health realm. The ONLY reason we can become involved is the possibility of a person trying to kill themselves or someone else via a mental issue.

Since civilians cannot force an adult to go to the hospital (you run into the issue of kidnapping and felonious restraint) Law Enforcement was brought into the mix. Its also why the law reads as very specific when it comes to our interaction in that system.

While Mental health issues are outside our jurisdiction and considered a medical issue the initial response to a suicidal person call almost always has law enforcement involved to secure the scene so medical can do there things in a somewhat safe environment. Because that portion is a matter of law, it requires law enforcement.

Law Enforcement cannot "diagnose" a person in a medical capacity. Its like the story of a person in custody in the patrol car that tells cops he is having a heart attack and needs to go to the Hospital. The cop tells him know and books him into the jail. The guy has a heart attack and dies.

When that gets to court and the officer is on the stand they will get this from the attorney -
Did you make contact with my client - yes.
Did you arrest my client? - Yes
Were you transporting my client to be booked into the jail? - Yes
Did my client say he was having a heart attack? - Yes
Did my client request to go to the Hospital? - Yes
Did you refuse the request? - Yes
Did my client have a heart attack and die? - Yes.

Officer are you a medical doctor? - No

My point is law enforcement does not diagnose. Depending on the situation we are often times forced to take someone involuntarily to be checked.

Since we cant diagnose we have 2 choices.
Transport the person to the Hospital where medical will do their thing or clear the scene with no action taken. If we do that and the person kills themselves we are once again back to the officer story above.

Its a catch22 for law enforcement.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:56 AM

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
This is why I have to laugh when I hear a "good" cop say something like: I'd never confiscate your guns. That's un-Constitutional!

Randomly confiscating weapons is a violation - read up on New Orleans Police, their actions with guns during Katrina, and the Supreme Court ruling against NOPD for violating constitutional rights.

Securing weapons as part of a valid contact and custody issue is allowed based on circumstances. The same way we can impound a vehicle for fatality accidents, secure a gun used in the commission of a crime as evidence etc etc etc.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
They already violate the 4th and 5th and 1st Amendments with traffic stops, DUI checkpoints, confiscating phones of bystanders, etc....

Traffic stops are a technical seizure under the 4th amendment established by SCOTUS. They gave a time frame of about 20 minutes for the initial stop, contact, license / insurance / records and citation. Anything going over that time frame requires the officer to justify the delay. The reason for the time frame is based on the concept that a 20 minute time frame does not injure the person stopped in terms of civil rights.

Secondly Traffic stops are in a different field altogether when it comes to the 4th / 5th and 1st amendments.

Scotus has ruled DWI checkpoints are lawful. Most states have some type of requirement for a scene commander at a DWI checkpoint be certified as a checkpoint supervisor. They receive advanced training to create accountability of Police actions.

Please elaborate on the cell phone comment?

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
All they need is the 'lawful' excuse and they'll do whatever they want to or are told to.

not so much no.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
By the time they take a break from the ooh-rah door-kicking bull# to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to smell the fresh air they'll have already done all the things they claim they'll never do a hundred times over.

I will guess that you don't care for law enforcement and had contact with them, most likely bad contact, through the years?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in