Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Wife Receives Mental Health Care - Husband's Guns Seized

Here it comes-


The above scenario was called way ahead of time by quite a few people*. Many chose to write the concerns off as the products of paranoid conspiracy theorists.


The situation reported in The Blaze is exactly what we knew would occur. It happened back in December  A family member requests and receives mental health treatment. Despite her claims to the contrary, the staff report that she may be a suicide risk. Cops are sent to her home. The husband is asked to show the cops where the guns are. The guns are confiscated. At least in California (So far not on an national level), when it comes to second amendment rights, there is no effective privacy in the case of mental health treatment.

"The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm” regardless of who the registered owner is, Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, told to Bloomberg News.

According to the Los Angeles Times last week, budget cuts created a backlog of 19,000 people in the state with more than 40,000 guns that they are no longer legally allowed to own.

Such a Prohibited Armed Persons File is created through the Office of the Attorney General. When a person is entered into the Automated Criminal History System, the Consolidated Firearms Information System is also checked to see if they might have possession of a gun. The same check is conducted for those involuntarily admitted into the hospital for mental illness as well."

What must be remembered above all is that the cops that were assigned to this detail are/were not in possession of a search warrant. The homeowner is not legally required to even allow them in, let alone direct them to the location(s) of his personally owned firearms.

I don't blame the husband/homeowner for this; when a family member is away for any medical treatment, things are unsettled in the household. Loved ones are concerned for the patient's well being and they are not  thinking far enough ahead to plan their response to such an intrusion.

Now. however, that we are aware of the reality, there is time to think.

Here are some thoughts:

Before the cops arrive, one can ask a trusted friend or family member (One who is legally allowed to won firearms) who does not reside with you, to take temporary possession of the firearms. Note that in a state such as New Jersey, where handguns are strictly regulated and registered, this option may be restricted to rifles and shotguns.

In the event that this is not possible or if the police arrive earlier than expected, I would not allow them entry. Depending on the specifics of the laws of individual states (Unless the national government enacts its own version - but at this point you must research the laws of your own state), the police may elect to remain in place outside the home while they have a on-call judge contacted. The next step may either be the issuance of a warrant (In which case they must be allowed in), a possible charge of (In NJ) Obstructing Administration of Law), or a summons to appear before a judge the following morning to answer for your actions. It is then time to get legal counsel.

Neither of these are of course the "A" answer, but the state, the courts, and the police do need to be made aware that people are not going to roll over and submit without any semblance of protest. The vast majority of cops, despite the high-level jerks who get paraded in front of microphones to spew their anti-gun claims, are not in favor of grabbing personally owned firearms. I am am retired officer in NJ and know for a fact that even in our draconian state the police are not calling for this. The myth that cops as a whole are anti-gun is one of the biggest hoaxes ever sold to the American people. It is important to understand the vast majority of them certainly do not relish being sent on such missions of intrusion. When they respectfully tell a homeowner that they are only doing their job, it would be a good thing for them to hear that the homeowner too has a job; the protection of his rights.

Laws such as that of California will not be changed until they are challenged. Criminals will not have registered firearms, nor will they allow the police inside their homes and turn over their weapons to them voluntarily. Their family members will no doubt deny that their homes contain firearms. Laws such as these serve only to take firearms away from those who do not commit crimes.

No comments:

Post a Comment