Article how california seizes guns from disqualified owners

[mike rossi]

On the evening of March 5, nine agents from the California Department of Justice, wearing bulletproof vests and carrying Glock pistols, assembled outside a ranch-style house in a Los Angeles suburb. They were preparing to confiscate weapons from a gun owner who’d recently lost the right to possess firearms after spending two days in a psychiatric hospital. They knocked on the door and asked to come in. These touchy encounters sometimes end in anger and, occasionally, handcuffs. This time, the agents came out peacefully with three guns. Then it was on to the next stop on the list for that night.

California is the only state that takes legally obtained weapons away from citizens who are no longer supposed to have them. There are almost 20,000 such gun owners, state records show, including convicted felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders, or those 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?” California Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote to Vice President Biden after the shootings in Newtown, Conn. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, look to California as a model.

Nationwide, as many as 200,000 people have lost their gun rights but keep their weapons, says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis. Many states lack the ability to confiscate firearms because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most sales to go through a licensed dealer and be reported. “Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” says Wintemute, who helped set up the program.

California’s been going after guns since 2007. Last year agents seized about 2,000 weapons, 117,000 rounds of ammunition, and 11,000 high-capacity magazines, according to state data. The list of those no longer eligible to keep weapons is compiled by matching files on almost 1 million gun owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, the attorney general’s office says.

Showing up at people’s homes and demanding their guns is about as fun as it sounds. A felony conviction or restraining order is flagged as a “disqualifying event” in California’s database, but it isn’t sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant, says John Marsh, a supervising agent who coordinates the seizures. So the agents—there are 33 statewide—often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons. “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun,” says Marsh, who never knows what to expect when he approaches someone’s door. “I got called the antichrist the other day. Every conspiracy theory you’ve heard of, take that times 10.”

During the March 5 outing, the agents visited a home in Fontana, in San Bernardino County. They were looking for a gun owner with a criminal record for running a prostitution business, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh says that while the woman appeared to be home, she didn’t come to the door. Without a warrant, the team left empty-handed.

They had better luck at the ranch house in nearby Upland, where they seized the three guns from the home of a woman who’d been hospitalized for mental illness. One gun was registered to her, two to her husband. “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, says Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

Although violating gun ownership laws is a felony, the agents don’t usually arrest people whose weapons they confiscate unless they’re convicted felons, who are prohibited from buying, receiving, owning, or possessing a firearm, Gregory says. The program has met little resistance from gun groups, which have pressed state and federal lawmakers to enforce existing gun control laws instead of writing new ones. “We think that crime control instead of gun control is absolutely the way to go,” says Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. His only complaint is how the law is funded. On March 7, California’s senate voted to expand the seizure program using $24 million from fees that gun dealers charge buyers for background checks. “This program has a benefit to the entire public,” Paredes says, “and therefore the entire public should be paying.”

The bottom line: In 2012, California seized 2,000 guns and 117,000 rounds of ammunition from people who’d lost their right to own firearms.

 

[jjb4900]

taking guns away from people who aren't legally allowed to own them sounds like a good idea to me........I can't say I'd want to have a mentally unstable neighbor in possession of a firearm. Leave the law abiding, mentally stable alone and go after the ones who are deemed unfit to own guns.

[mtbuck]

I actually do not have a problem with them doing this, and it seems at least according the article that they are not storming into people houses, and they are actually doing it the right way except for the way they are paying for it

[HectorBuckBuster]

Accept if you read the post, it says they even took her husbands legal guns. Sorry, that just does not fly with me. This will just make people that need mental help to just hide it and not ever seek any help.

Edited March 26, 2013 by HectorBuckBuster

[jjb4900]

Accept if you read the post, it says they even took her husbands legal guns. Sorry, that just does not fly with me. This will just make people that need mental help to just hide it and not ever seek any help.

so if your neighbor was a full blown psycho, you would have no problem with guns being in the house? and most people who have mental illness do not seek it on their own, it's usually a third party that takes the initiative to get them help...........if you've ever dealt with the mentally ill, the majority of them don't think there's anything wrong with them.

[HectorBuckBuster]

Yep, my mom worked for 34 years in the NYS Mental Health Services at Willard before the closed it and so did my grandfather and my brother in law.I even have the master key from the building that they let all employees got to keep. She took me there all the time, most of them patients their just need some attention. 99 percent of them where harmless, of course you will have a few that hill hurt someone or themselves. So JJB, if you wife or child was in a mental hospital for 2 days, would you be happy if they came knocking on your door asking for your guns?  I understand the part of getting guns out of the house, but the husband should have the right to decided what should be done with HIS GUNS.

[jjb4900]

Yep, my mom worked for 34 years in the NYS Mental Health Services at Willard before the closed it and so did my grandfather and my brother in law.I even have the master key from the building that they let all employees got to keep. She took me there all the time, most of them patients their just need some attention. 99 percent of them where harmless, of course you will have a few that hill hurt someone or themselves. So JJB, if you wife or child was in a mental hospital for 2 days, would you be happy if they came knocking on your door asking for your guns?  I understand the part of getting guns out of the house, but the husband should have the right to decided what should be done with HIS GUNS.

I don't know, what were they hospitalized for? if my wife or child were hospitalized for a suicidal or homicidal thoughts, I would take them out of the house myself without having to be asked, unfortunately there's alot of irresponsible gun owners out there that probably wouldn't. Maybe if the guy had taken the initiative on his own to remove them from the house and store at a friend or relatives house the police wouldn't have had to take them........it would be helpful to know if they take into account the seriousness or nature of the psych problem.

[growalot]

I see some of you missed some things in that...like ppl that have had restraining orders against them..

 

Experience here...I have a crazy neighbor ...that got a bee in her bonnet because after 9 mos of me calling to ask her to keep her dog off my property...I called the dog warden....The dog was carrying one of my chickens down our drive..

 

Mind you she had told my a dozen times to just shoot the dog...my answer was no I'm not shooting your kids pet....the night we went to court...Oh and she got a lawyer...I get a knock on my door...2 sheriffs...I was being arrested for child abuse..

Oh ya she told her young daughter that I was going to have her dog killed and she needed to tell the police I threatened her...This all went down hill from there...long and short...It was almost thrown out..I'd retained a lawyer...whom by the way never sent me a bill...but I had to demand mediation because of a tip that she had plans to next accuse me of actually touch her kid...In the mean time a restraining order had been placed against me..

 

We went to mediation where the things she said...legally, I can't repeat..but made the mediators face turn red...signed a contract that she would not shoot or run me and my animals or run us over...you can imagine why it was worded that way.... but I also had to sign...

 

So If you think something like this could not happen to you and you have your rights taken away ...for NO REASON...other than a vindictive nut job...Then you are sadly mistaken...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Hector, The article says involuntary commitment is a reason for confiscation. It does not take voluntary commitment as a qualifying offense. This is how the law should work. The husband who had his guns taken should not have had them in easy access to the wife (who was deemed ineligible) Hers should have been taken and she should not have been able to get to his.

 

The portion of this that I am on the fence is the things like temporary restraining orders and having their guns taken. I have never taken one out or had one on me but I don't believe the burden of proof is very much in those situations. I wonder what the people have to do to get the guns back or if they ever can.

 

 I also am wondering about a person arrested for a crime as opposed to those actually convicted of a crime. I would think the confiscation should take place on conviction?

[Mr VJP]

If anyone thinks the government won't find ways to declare EVERY gun owner mentally unstable and incapable of owning a gun, you are already crazy.

[HectorBuckBuster]

I just looking at where this starts and where does it end.  It states CA one of the best archives of firearm owners. So, say one of your parents is involuntary committed, does that send out a red flag and put their kids on a watch list in the future?   

[jjb4900]

I see some of you missed some things in that...like ppl that have had restraining orders against them..

 

Experience here...I have a crazy neighbor ...that got a bee in her bonnet because after 9 mos of me calling to ask her to keep her dog off my property...I called the dog warden....The dog was carrying one of my chickens down our drive..

 

Mind you she had told my a dozen times to just shoot the dog...my answer was no I'm not shooting your kids pet....the night we went to court...Oh and she got a lawyer...I get a knock on my door...2 sheriffs...I was being arrested for child abuse..

Oh ya she told her young daughter that I was going to have her dog killed and she needed to tell the police I threatened her...This all went down hill from there...long and short...It was almost thrown out..I'd retained a lawyer...whom by the way never sent me a bill...but I had to demand mediation because of a tip that she had plans to next accuse me of actually touch her kid...In the mean time a restraining order had been placed against me..

 

We went to mediation where the things she said...legally, I can't repeat..but made the mediators face turn red...signed a contract that she would not shoot or run me and my animals or run us over...you can imagine why it was worded that way.... but I also had to sign...

 

So If you think something like this could not happen to you and you have your rights taken away ...for NO REASON...other than a vindictive nut job...Then you are sadly mistaken...

so at what point should it be ok to take someone's guns away? I'm assuming when all was said and done you were able to legally own guns again...not saying what happened to you was right, but if the shoe was on the other foot would you be ok if the other party was really nuts and they were able to retain the means to do you harm?

[growalot]

There is a difference between being nuts....having a vindictive person manipulate the system....I actually  almost did have our guns taken away because when the justice...(who was a friend of hers)...tried to , she realized they would have to break into Mr B's safe and take his as well....he lived in Colorado at the time....Well she said no.... she never thought I'd be a threat with my guns and her actions were directed at getting me fired from my job...at a high school...yes it was a crazy/bizarre situation...the justice agreed not to order a confiscation ...Actually told me not to get a lawyer...LOL...

 

Let me tell you ppl who have been in the system...they know how to manipulate it...This kind of crap happens all the time...Neighbor...work place disputes /bullies are a low priority to investigate....Until the system can correct it's self .....ppls rights should not be taken away...and there isn't enough money or personnel to keep ppls rights intact...They should worry more about what they are letting out of prison....They should have more parole officers doing a good job instead of teams of officers going house to house without warrants hoping ppl don't know their rights...

 

In my case had the Justice not been blatantly corrupt and had it not been known to my lawyer and the district attorney...things could actually have been very bad for me..by the grace of God..I don't put up with BS...I was going to go to  a judicial review but the lawyer and DA asked me not to because..... he was retiring and they didn't want a can of worms opened up....

 

Now as far as I know all this is still in the records....and may still effect me down the road for a gun permit...for who ever does the vetting will see the charge and the restraining order...and may think..... well where there's smoke there had to be fire...because they see stupid deals done all the time...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Grow, The same ones advocating for gun control are the same groups that would come unglued it an inmates "rightst" were violated. They side more with the criminals than the law abiding citizen. These scum repeat offenders should be locked up in a 4x6 cell with no window and their food slid through the door to them. never to see the light of day and never to be a threat to society again. It is high time to get beyond tough with criminals, I say take off the kid gloves and threat them worse than the animals they are. You get found guilty opf a firearms crime and you are a 2 or 3 time loser, into the box. bye bye. no parole no nothing.

[tuckersdaddy]

lets not forget that family court judges give out restraining orders during divorce proceedings like candy. their thought is keep the conversations between parties in a controlled enviroment until everything is settled. at one point i had to hold a friends collection while he was going through his divorce to keep the police from owning them. he was not violent, nor a threat, and is able to own guns now (per the judge) but until the case was settled there was an active restraining order on both parties. so should these guns have been taken because of a 'preventive restraining order'?

[apoallo]

 I wouldnt mind this program but I agree with the above If my family member whom lived with me was unstable and police came knocking on my door.... I would not be okay with that. Now If I had my firearms in a Safe not a gun locker but an actual gun safe and that was behind another locker door.(in a closet etc...) and my family memeber did not have access then I should be able to keep my firearms.

[Ford]

There is a difference between being nuts....having a vindictive person manipulate the system....I actually  almost did have our guns taken away because when the justice...(who was a friend of hers)...tried to , she realized they would have to break into Mr B's safe and take his as well....he lived in Colorado at the time....Well she said no.... she never thought I'd be a threat with my guns and her actions were directed at getting me fired from my job...at a high school...yes it was a crazy/bizarre situation...the justice agreed not to order a confiscation ...Actually told me not to get a lawyer...LOL...

 

Let me tell you ppl who have been in the system...they know how to manipulate it...This kind of crap happens all the time...Neighbor...work place disputes /bullies are a low priority to investigate....Until the system can correct it's self .....ppls rights should not be taken away...and there isn't enough money or personnel to keep ppls rights intact...They should worry more about what they are letting out of prison....They should have more parole officers doing a good job instead of teams of officers going house to house without warrants hoping ppl don't know their rights...

 

In my case had the Justice not been blatantly corrupt and had it not been known to my lawyer and the district attorney...things could actually have been very bad for me..by the grace of God..I don't put up with BS...I was going to go to  a judicial review but the lawyer and DA asked me not to because..... he was retiring and they didn't want a can of worms opened up....

 

Now as far as I know all this is still in the records....and may still effect me down the road for a gun permit...for who ever does the vetting will see the charge and the restraining order...and may think..... well where there's smoke there had to be fire...because they see stupid deals done all the time...

 

 

 

 

Happens all the time, and you were actually lucky. Speaking of the allegations, not your court case.

 

I have seen it. Say during a split up, or divorce. And if say, a spouse "knows how things work," and is a vindictive type of person, to hurt you they could make a claim that you threatened them. (could be anyone really, not hust a spouse)

 

Order of protection issued, guns taken away. I would say that in most cases, guns are returned, eventually.

 

It is a big problem in law enforcement as well. Spouse makes a claim to get even with significant other. In this case, they are looking at getting guns seized, desk duty, IA investigation, termination.

 

Now someone has to sort this stuff out, and the powers that be, always er on the side of caution.

[Doc]

What an interesting thread. I don't hear too many people arguing with the fact that stark, raving, lunatics should have their guns taken away. But there is also an admission that the process of defining a true wacko and taking appropriate measures can have a whole lot of weak spots and opportunities for mis-use of power. And there are always the possibilities of intentional fraudulent accusations. It's another one of those things that sound good on the surface, but as they say, the devil is in the details.