[SavageOne]

So, San Jose decided to seize the woman's guns since her husband had been under a forced 72 hour observation. They basically say that even guns locked away from some who has been under observation, is a no go.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/23/city-san-jose-seizes-guns-from-woman-prompts-lawsuit/

 

[FresnoRob]

I wish I could say I'm shocked, but this socialist state has some real morons running the show.

 

[BillD]

I wonder how many would surrender their guns upon request from LE?

"City Attorney Rick Doyle told the station the issue is public safety.

“Are we acting with an abundance of caution? Yeah,” Doyle said. “We’re concerned about someone having access to firearms that shouldn’t.”

But, not concerned at all about someone's civil rights. When we start sending TPTB to jail for abridging someone's civil rights, they will start to think before acting.

 

[NonHyphenAmerican]

Anyone wanna bet that those guns will never be returned to their rightful owner?

 

[dsk]

Anyone wanna bet that those firearms have already been destroyed?

 

[NonHyphenAmerican]

Anyone wanna bet that those firearms have already been destroyed?

I think that's a sucker bet.

 

[BoulderTroll]

Anyone wanna bet that those firearms have already been destroyed?

No way. Whether you agree with taking guns from a 5150 or not, no department would be stupid enough to open that can of liability. I've had to take guns from 5150's before, and there is a system in place (mandated by state law) which requires them to be stored for a period of time and for the owner to petition their return. A department that immediately destroyed someone's guns would be opening themselves up for a massive lawsuit as well as violating state law. There are enough problems with the way the system is actually run...we don't need to spread more hysteria based on fiction.

Edited to add; sorry, I saw the 2015 on the link and assumed this had just happened. Given it's been two years, that changes things. I'm surprised they won that lawsuit...we obviously aren't privy to all the facts, but it makes me guess there is a chunk of the story we're not hearing.

 

[L84CABO]

I wonder how many would surrender their guns upon request from LE?

I would...except they all fell overboard last month in a tragic boating accident.

 

[BillD]

I would...except they all fell overboard last month in a tragic boating accident.

Think that s going to work?

 

[Viper_29]

I've read these stories before, in Kommieformnia, and I always see one thing...the owner complies when LE shows up. I have no sympathy for them when they don't demand a warrant and otherwise tell them to take a walk. Common thing in Kalifornistan to info share between medical and LE and a very few people know that they have zero legal standing for seizure and comply without a warrant. LE has been quoted, directly quoted, that they have no legal authority and rely on 1) the registration to know who has what, 2) that a smart citizen demands a warrant.

 

[Bob D.]

I would...except they all fell overboard last month in a tragic boating accident.

Think that s going to work?

It will work, right up to the point they show a search warrant. :hrm:

 

[Dolton916]

It will work, right up to the point they show a search warrant. :hrm:

I too lost all mine while taking them out for a Lake Michigan three hour cruise, a three hour cruise...

Seriously though let them search, if they can't find any then I don't own any...

 

[dyeager535]

This is a bit old, but with the renewed/continuing calls for "mental illness" prohibitions on possession, and California's clear line of reasoning that having guns in the home is possession regardless of who owns them, I wonder if things like Dementia/Alzheimers would also fall under the law as they interpret it.

CDC (blech) seems to consider dementia a mental illness, what I can find of CA's law in terms of prohibition on this particular issue "Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism"

I wonder if this then serves to make families choose between taking care of loved ones in their home, and the caretakers right to firearms. I understand CA is essentially a lost cause (still fighting, and never know, someday SCOTUS may come through) but as this is almost surely to come up in many other states, I think it is important to clarify. I've not seen any mention of court cases in this regard, but it seems possible, if not likely that it would impact quite a few.

 

[153]

I get a little sick to my stomach when pro-gun organizations and advocates start talking about keeping guns from the "mentally ill".

It seems like no one grasps that we now live in an Obamacare world. Do you really want Doctors working under government mandates determining whether or not you can own firearms?

 

[Bob D.]

This is a bit old, but with the renewed/continuing calls for "mental illness" prohibitions on possession, and California's clear line of reasoning that having guns in the home is possession regardless of who owns them, I wonder if things like Dementia/Alzheimers would also fall under the law as they interpret it.

There are different degrees/severities of Dementia and Alzheimer's. A simple diagnoses of mild Alzheimer's disease or even mental illness doesn't make someone prohibited.
What does is a determination of incompetency or danger to self or others by a court or other authority.
It's not just California, see ATF form 4473, line 11.f

CDC (blech) seems to consider dementia a mental illness, what I can find of CA's law in terms of prohibition on this particular issue "Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism"

I wonder if this then serves to make families choose between taking care of loved ones in their home, and the caretakers right to firearms.

I am not aware of any State law prohibiting firearms in the home of someone who is a caretaker for an individual diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. If the person is determined to be mentally defective it is unlawful for them to purchase or possess firearms, but nothing I've read in CA law prohibits the caretaker from owning firearms kept locked at their own home. The guns seized in the above report were owned by the mentally ill husband who sounds like he was 5150ed, and were apparently not stored in a safe. The seizure was imposed by a City Attorney, not the state.

There is likely more going on than meets the eye with Mrs. Rodriguez and her husband. History of domestic violence, threats of violence, children concerned about the safety of their mother etc. Very unusual for a City Attorney to get involved in a matter like this.

 

[dyeager535]

..nothing I've read in CA law prohibits the caretaker from owning firearms kept locked at their own home. The guns seized in the above report were owned by the mentally ill husband who sounds like he was 5150ed, and were apparently not stored in a safe. The seizure was imposed by a City Attorney, not the state.

Yes, I'm cutting part of what you said out, but it's really the crux of the worry here, I think...the State determines a family member to be mentally ill, danger to self, whatever. You want to care for them, or just let them have a place to stay, you know, like when it's their house too. The city attorney is quoted as saying "...storing the guns in a locked safe doesn’t prevent Mr. Rodriguez from gaining access."

The article states (but does not quote an official, how much does one trust a reporter today?) "The city of San Jose seized Lori Rodriguez’s guns after her husband was forced to undergo a psychiatric exam". According to that, the guns were hers. Did you see something different?

 

[bigggbbruce]

No one here knows why the husband was under forced observation.

He may have made threats and references to the wife's firearms.

A safe keeps most honest people out. Crazy and determined are unpredictable.

 

[Bob D.]

The city attorney is quoted as saying "...storing the guns in a locked safe doesn’t prevent Mr. Rodriguez from gaining access."

That part is now moot. The CA Court of Appeal just recently opined in this lawsuit:
"Lori [Rodriguez] has obtained notification from the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms that she is eligible to both possess and purchase firearms".

The article states (but does not quote an official, how much does one trust a reporter today?) "The city of San Jose seized Lori Rodriguez’s guns after her husband was forced to undergo a psychiatric exam". According to that, the guns were hers. Did you see something different?

Although the court documents indicate the guns were technically the husbands, (purchased by him, and where applicable, registered to him) the court and Mrs. Rodriguez agree that since they are married the firearms in question are community property, hence her desire to have them returned.

From the California Court of Appeal,

37. On June 1, 2015, LORI RODRIGUEZ received confirmation of the transfer of community property firearms to her name alone and release documents for the firearms in question from the California Department of Justice.

However the city of San Jose still refuses to return her firearms. So a complaint has been filed in Federal Court against the city regarding the seizure and failure to return the firearms.

 

[deputy]

Since the Ca. court of appeals having heard from both sides and has sided with the wife, then I would say this has been a case of a over zealous city attorney "gun grabber". Maybe a multi million dollar suit against the city attorney will get his attention.

 

[44fred]

I'm not necessarily asking in regards to this specific case (I didn't read about it) but who can argue that the dangerous mentally ill should not have access?
Keeping firearms out of the hands of those that "may" use them for offensive destructive purposes is impossible. The liberals know this as well as the NRA or any other thinking person.
Notice the trend in reporting is "the shooter purchased the gun legally". There is a reason for this statement, it will eventually be used to punish us all.
Kind of like trying to control drunk driving....impossible to "control" so we are educated to not drink and drive. It's going to happen no matter what, just like mass shootings.
The difference is nobody is trying to ban driving in the name of public safety.