Calif. seizes 1,200 firearms possessed illegally

[BrianSW99]

Just saw this article.. hadn't seen anyone mention it here yet:

Calif. seizes 1,200 firearms possessed illegally

[AEA]

Sounds like a job for the ATF, NOT the State!

[SQLGeek]

Kamala Harris as AG...fitting for California. She did a number on San Francisco as their DA and now the whole state gets to enjoy the party. I can't help but feel like one grateful rat off of a sinking ship.

[i8godzilla]

I once read that, "Registration seems to always leads to confiscation".

The system was created 10 years ago to cross-reference five databases to find people who legally bought guns and registered assault weapons but are now barred from owning the weapons.

[RPB]

Most people bought the weapons legally but were later prohibited from owning guns.

Harris said 90 percent of the people who had guns seized were barred from owning weapons because of mental illness

"They were known to be a danger to themselves or society," Harris said.

cross-reference five databases to find people who legally bought guns and registered assault weapons but are now barred from owning the weapons.

found nearly 18,000 people who shouldn't have weapons.

"shouldn't" generally implies that an opinion follows .... as in IMHO, he/she/they "shouldn't" ....
I guess HIPPA Medical Privacy and doctor-patient privilege has a "loophole" for government people taking guns away?


only 18,000 people so far they believe in their opinion, shouldn't be allowed to own a gun? ... Perhaps some "loopholes" may need closing a bit.

A well regulated government force with computers to read everyone's private medical records, and then cross reference medical records with gun registrations being a necessary evil and of great benefit in disarming the populace, whom "the government force" has opined that none of whom "should" be armed, the right of the People ...


I hope they hospitalized and are treating them all so they'll recover, get well, and get their guns back .... that would be their goal right? To have a mentally healthy population, .......... right? I hope they are successfully treated and recover so they are no longer a danger to themselves or others ... they really shouldn't be allowed to drive, have sharp objects, heavy blunt objects, or wear a belt nor shoelaces... .. until they aren't a danger to themselves or others ... they "should" be hospitalized and treated ... otherwise the State foreseeing the danger, and neglecting treatment ... could be negligent (even though immune, they could be negligent)

[The Annoyed Man]

I hope they hospitalized and are treating them all so they'll recover, get well, and get their guns back .... that would be their goal right? To have a mentally healthy population, .......... right? I hope they are successfully treated and recover so they are no longer a danger to themselves or others ... they really shouldn't be allowed to drive, have sharp objects, heavy blunt objects, or wear a belt nor shoelaces... .. until they aren't a danger to themselves or others ... they "should" be hospitalized and treated ... otherwise the State foreseeing the danger, and neglecting treatment ... could be negligent (even though immune, they could be negligent)

Not defending what's going on there....I hate it....but California has a massive homeless population. This is for principally (but not entirely) two reasons: 1) unless a person is violently insane, the courts have forced mental hospitals to release their patients onto the streets. This is supposed to be an act of generosity. However, while many of those released may not be violently insane, neither are they mentally capable of taking care of themselves. They don't take their meds. They have free health care. They can get the meds. But they don't take them because they are not mentally competent to take care of themselves. So they sleep on curbs and in doorways. This is called "progress." Blame California democrats and liberal judges for that. 2) Large numbers of the homeless migrate to California where the livin' is easy. Lots of free state aid.........and nobody to force you to take your meds. Something I hadn't seen much of since moving to Texas, but saw tons of during my recent trip back to Cali, was all the homeless people, most of whom appear healthy and able to work, bumming for beer and cigarette money at all the freeway offramps and major intersections. Blame California democrats and liberal judges for that.

My point is that California doesn't give a rip about those folks. If they did, they would lock them up and force them to take their meds so that they could get their lives back in order. If they did get their lives back in order, they might be able to get their gun rights back. We can't have that now, can we?

[RPB]

California doesn't give a rip about those folks.

That was pretty much what I figured.
"Medi-Cal" was supposed to be so good ...
Sad.

[RiverCity.45]

TAM:

RE: The issue about hospitalization of people with mental illness
All states prohibit hospitalizing people with mental illness against their will unless they are a danger to self or others. That is true nationwide, including Texas, so I don't think that this cause of homelessness is any different there than here. It is certainly true that many homeless people are mentally ill, but they cannot be forced into treatment any more than you or I could be compelled to take blood pressure medicine without our consent.

FYI: I'm a mental health professional and used to work exclusively with the homeless population in a major Texas city.

[Jasonw560]

But what if they aren't capable of making that decision for themselves after they get a check up from the neck up? Can't the courts then involuntarily commit them? I think implied consent or a competent POA would be at work here.

FWIU, many family members commit these people to these institutions because they can't handle them. That's why, when they are released, they're homeless. The families can't (or don't want to) handle their illness.

[RiverCity.45]

But what if they aren't capable of making that decision for themselves after they get a check up from the neck up? Can't the courts then involuntarily commit them? I think implied consent or a competent POA would be at work here.

Sorry about hijacking the thread. We can spin this off if you'd like more discussion.

The way it works in Tx, someone has to convince a judge that the person is an imminent threat to themselves/others. The judge issues a mental health warrant, and the person is picked up for psychiatric evaluation, but cannot be held against their will for more than 72 hours without another hearing to see if it should continue.

In the absence of imminent danger to self or others, if some refuses treatment, they cannot be compelled to do so. Social service agencies try to help as best they can with those folks.

The only exception that comes to mind is that in some states if a person is incarcerated for a criminal offense and is facing a trial, some courts have mandated the accused take their meds if not taking then leaves then unable to participate in their defense, but competent while on the meds.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM:

RE: The issue about hospitalization of people with mental illness
All states prohibit hospitalizing people with mental illness against their will unless they are a danger to self or others. That is true nationwide, including Texas, so I don't think that this cause of homelessness is any different there than here. It is certainly true that many homeless people are mentally ill, but they cannot be forced into treatment any more than you or I could be compelled to take blood pressure medicine without our consent.

FYI: I'm a mental health professional and used to work exclusively with the homeless population in a major Texas city.

I'm not a mental health professional, so you may know better than I do. My experience comes from two different tangents: 5 years of working in a major ER; and 2 or 3 years working with my church's homeless ministry back in California. Obviously less experience than your own. But here is how I see it...

When I worked in the ER, I was told by one of the doctors there that most of those homeless people who were mentally ill (back then) used to be committed into mental health facilities, but that the ACLU had brought suit in federal court and had won a court-ordered release for all except those who were known to be violently dangerous to themselves or others. The problem is that the ruling didn't take into fact that a crazy person who won't take their meds because they are crazy is also a danger to themselves. A mentally ill person who is not necessarily violent but who is far enough gone to not eat, or seek proper shelter, or stop using their britches for a bathroom, IS a danger to themselves. Beyond that, their urine and fecal matter on the sidewalks of Los Angeles is a danger to the public health, but that is a separate issue. The humanitarian thing to do is to incarcerate them in a mental institution—not because I want them to disappear from sight, but because that is where they actually have at least a chance to get better. That is the ultimate desired goal, isn't it? For them to become well and whole human beings if at all possible? But unless they try to cut somebody, nobody is going to lock them up.......at least not in California. Even the Humane Society deals with homeless dogs better than the rest of society deals with the mentally ill homeless. It just doesn't seem right some how.

I have no problem is a mentally competent person decides they no longer want to take their blood pressure medicine or endure any more chemotherapy. Maybe it's not the decision I would reach, but at least I'm competent to make the decision. But a paranoid schizophrenic—and there are tens of thousands of homeless paranoid schizophrenics in California—is not competent to reach the decision to refuse taking his meds.

[WildBill]

Remember that California shut down most of the state mental hospitals back in the 70s. Since then there haven't been many places to house the mentally ill unless they have a lot of money or insurance. Most homeless people have neither.

[The Annoyed Man]

Remember that California shut down most of the state mental hospitals back in the 70s. Since then there haven't been many places to house the mentally ill unless they have a lot of money or insurance. Most homeless people have neither.

True, but they were mostly shut down after the ruling which forced the release of all the inmates.

[Ameer]

From the looks of it, many ended up in California politics.