California Gun Confiscations

[bcksknr]

On last nights CBS News there was a troubling piece about gun confiscation in California. I'm not sure if it involves the entire state or just one county or municipality. The piece described how teams of officers (at one point I'm pretty sure they said as many as twenty) would arrive at a residence in the early morning hours and wake up the inhabitants with bullhorns and spotlights. They would then enter the home and proceed to search for and confiscate all firearms. The homes looked to be regular upscale housing, not run down shacks or crack-houses. The program's stated purpose is to remove weapons from felons and the mentally ill. I got a chill watching what could have been an SS operation from the 40's. My question for the forum is: nothing was said about warrants, nothing was said about how the police "knew" there were weapons on the premises, nothing was said about how they "knew" that some occupants were mentally ill (or to what extent). One of the last images was of armloads of confiscated weapons being put in a police vehicle. Later, on a display table were the usual assortment of "assault style" weapons (which admittedly are banned in California) The interviewed officer in charge said that it took alot of manpower to conduct these potentially high risk raids, because the "homeowners were extremely unhappy with having their guns taken away". I understand that convicted felons can't possess firearms. There was no mention made of any arrests of felons for firearms possession. I'm not so sure about the mentally ill issue. I would think that there is some doctor/patient confidentiality that would preclude divulging medical records to the authorities. I take a common antidepressant for mild depression. Does this define me as mentally ill and how could the police get that information and have the ability to diagnose whether my firearms should be confiscated? If this is a justification for confiscation, I would think we are all in a heap of trouble! Although I don't live in California, I find this extremely troubling from a "slippery slope" aspect. Realizing that we may not be safe from unwarranted search and seizure is enough to depress anyone!

[Cedar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57568069/tense-moments-as-california-agents-confiscate-illegal-guns/
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50140513n

Cedar

[bcksknr]

Cedar, thanks for putting up those links. In rewatching them I seem to have gotten a few facts wrong, but basically I think I got most of it correctly. I still have a "creepy" feeling about this, even though the persons involved have "proven themselves dangerous". I guess it boils down to "if you have done nothing wrong, you have no reason to worry". I would support a system that would guarantee that no one could purchase a firearm who shouldn't have one, while guaranteeing that anyone could purchase a firearm who legally can. All of my firearms have been legally purchased and are legally owned. I think prevention of illegal firearm ownership makes more sense than what this "roundup" attempts to do, rather poorly, after the fact.

[LibertyBelle]

Be aware of the "mentally unstable" part.  During a recent medical check up (required by our health ins com), DH was asked if he ever experienced depression or anxiety. Thankfully we went over this before the appointment because if he were to laugh and say something like "only on bill paying day" (with him only joking and thinking he was being funny as he is wont to do), then he would be flagged.  Have a friend who is a nurse who has seen where a dr has documented such in the chart even though it was blatantly obvious the pt was joking.

[nkawtg]

Those questions in the doctors office on first blush looks like a breach of doctor patient confidentiality.
This is why soldiers are refusing to seek psychiatric help for stress, they don't want their 2nd amendment rights taken away.
Simply the act of seeking help puts it in their records.

[American freak]

What propaganda such as this is designed to do is acclimate less aware people to scenes and ideas like this. They want you to say to yourself "that seems reasonable, felons should not have guns". That is how they turn up the heat slowly to cook the frog.

To address your question of the anti depression medication, yes that will disqualify you from owning firearms under Dianne Fiensteins legislation. I highly recommend that you grab the bull by the horns and deal with your emotions. People have survived and functioned for thousands of years without seratonin re-uptake inhibitors. I promise you that you are not the first person to be sad.

As far as the Gestapo like raids, history shows us that they always practice on criminals and the mentally infirm. These are the exact groups that Hitler targeted for programs that were intended for people of Jewish faith. Let us begin to examine the administration of Government in 1930's Germany and compare to current events in our own Nation. This is one example that will shock a wide variety of people with the similarities.

[soccer grannie]

I'm not in CA but at my last Dr appt, out of nowhere he asked me "How's your mood?" I just said "Fine, except when my back hurts I'm grumpy". The back pain was the main reason for the appt. I'd bet that everybody gets grumpy when they're in pain. The question just seemed a little odd to me or am I being paranoid.
 

[RitaRose1945]

Be aware of the "mentally unstable" part.  During a recent medical check up (required by our health ins com), DH was asked if he ever experienced depression or anxiety. Thankfully we went over this before the appointment because if he were to laugh and say something like "only on bill paying day" (with him only joking and thinking he was being funny as he is wont to do), then he would be flagged.  Have a friend who is a nurse who has seen where a dr has documented such in the chart even though it was blatantly obvious the pt was joking.

Exactly.

I was asked if I ever smoked YEARS ago by my doctor.  I told him I would have a cigarrette once or twice a year when I would drink with friends, and he wrote that in my file (which is all computerized).  Now, every time I see a doctor, they all ask me if I have stopped smoking yet.  The most I EVER smoked was 1/2 of a pack over the course of an entire year!

I also had several "knocked out" concussions as a child (great parents, I'm just really that clumsy), avoided them for decades, then got 2 within a year in my 40s.  I went to the doctor who asked me a lot of questions.  My biggest concerns were depression, irritability and weight gain, but he asked if I had any memory issues.  I said something like "I've always had a crappy short term memory my whole life, so nothing new" and all of a sudden, that's in my file.  The neurologist I was referred to kept talking about my memory issues and I didn't have any!

So... yes, you do have to be very careful with what you say during a doctor appointment, even as a joke.  It's even worse than your school permanent record.

[bcksknr]

The thing about the mental stability label is that depression can be caused by a physical problem. In my case (and I don't want to turn this into a medical thread) I take a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor because, for whatever reason, my serotonin levels are low, causing the symptoms of mild depression. The med just puts me back to a "normal" level so that I function as well as anyone. To me this is a physical problem, not a mental one. I see my use of an SRI in the same light as a diabetic using insulin. It merely treats a physical problem, to bring the person back to "normal" function. Stopping the medication (which I have done several times in an approved manner) has resulted in the recurrence of the symptoms of mild depression. You can't just say "suck it up and get a grip on your emotions". You wouldn't tell a diabetic to throw away their insulin and treat their condition with positive thinking. If there is pending legislation that would deny firearm ownership to a group of people being treated for what IMHO is a physical condition, who are law abiding citizens leading "normal" productive lives, then I would say that those politicians would cheerfully use our Bill of Rights for toilet paper! I wonder how many of Dianne Fienstein's ilk have ever taken a medication to treat their "mental instability"?

[RitaRose1945]

I wonder how many of Dianne Fienstein's ilk have ever taken a medication to treat their "mental instability"?

Or just do something like drinking heavily.

I don't know.  You and I both know that there are some mental issues that can cause people to do things a reasonable person wouldn't.  Depression, in and of itself, doesn't seem to be one of those issues, from what I have seen.

On the other hand, get someone self-medicating with a lot of alcohol, and you never really know what could happen.  And I do wonder if some of the meds (not the type you take, as far as I know) do more harm than good and lead to people being less stable rather than more.

[rikkrack]

 

[bcksknr]

I'd be much more concerned about being injured or killed by a drunk than a "mentally unstable" person. I have yet to see police removing bottles of booze from an alcoholics residence. Come to think of it, why do I keep seeing reports in the paper about 5th, 6th, or even 12th convictions of OWI? How do these people keep driving drunk? Why don't the police confiscate their cars; which are far more deadly weapons than guns, based on numbers of injuries and deaths? I guess the liqueur and automobile lobbies have more clout than the NRA.

[rikkrack]

Hard to defend yourself against the tyrannical government using a car.

[cheryl1]

To be on the safe side-assume your doctor has no sense of humor

[rikkrack]

Has it come to this? We cannot joke, or enjoy the freedoms we once had, because of fear the government will take some action against us? Are we so scared of what they will do we have to change our behavior? Sad but I think it has come to this.

Can't talk about weekend target shooting or hunting at work, because someone will overhear and think you are militia. And you are visited by police for weapons stash. Or have a talk at work about scaring coworkers.

Can't spank your kids for misbehaving because CPS is called.

Can't have preps for inclement weather because you are a doomsday prepper and have weapons stash.

Can't joke with your doctor, be sad on occasion, have a beer after work because you are labeled as mentally unstable.

Can't have security cameras at your property because you are hiding something, and they want to know why

Can't drink softdrinks because if is a health issue.

Can't tell your kids to eat their veggies and nothing else until they do, because that is neglect for not feeding them.

Kids can't challenge what they are told in school because "it is not in the approved curriculum"

Forced to pay for other countries problems, poor, bad government, wars, etc. or go to jail and loose what you worked for for failure to pay tax that is dictated without input from the people.

I could go on, but I think you all get the idea

At what point is it enough? At what point is the line drawn, and statement made you shall take no more.

[EagleSteel]

Hard to defend yourself against the tyrannical government using a car.

You say that but.....

[rikkrack]

pic link malfunction....

[NWPilgrim]

The only bright spot in the gun confiscations is that they are only able to do a fraction of the total felon/mental cases on the books. It takes a lot of manpower to execute one of those operations.

As was mentioned, by being dramatic and overwhelming they send the message of fear. Nominally to other gun owning felons, but subtly to the broader gun owning community.  They do not have the manpower to forcibly confiscate gun from every gun owner, but they hope a show of force will scare multitudes to turn them in voluntarily.

[EagleSteel]

The only bright spot in the gun confiscations is that they are only able to do a fraction of the total felon/mental cases on the books. It takes a lot of manpower to execute one of those operations.

As was mentioned, by being dramatic and overwhelming they send the message of fear. Nominally to other gun owning felons, but subtly to the broader gun owning community.  They do not have the manpower to forcibly confiscate gun from every gun owner, but they hope a show of force will scare multitudes to turn them in voluntarily.

Oh don't under estimate them. Think about it. The full force of the D.H.S., A.T.F., and F.B.I. Plus the help of the National Guard.

[RitaRose1945]

Has it come to this? We cannot joke, or enjoy the freedoms we once had, because of fear the government will take some action against us? Are we so scared of what they will do we have to change our behavior? Sad but I think it has come to this.

Not just government but corporations as well.

Where I work, a guy was fired because they screwed up his paycheck (money was tight due to medical issues with his family) and he said "Sometimes I wish this place would just blow up!"  Maybe not smart, but anyone that worked with him knew he would never do anything violent at all, it was just pissed off venting.  Great worker, good guy, but he was fired, and that was even with the union representing him.

This is the same company that requires the passwords to our personal cell phones be on file with them.  Like that's ever going to happen...

[cpf240]

Just wait... the next thing will be the WHO/AMA etc declaring that an interest in firearms is a sign of mental illness. Thus closing the loop on firearms ownership for everyone.

[nesmuk]

I'm not in CA but at my last Dr appt, out of nowhere he asked me "How's your mood?" I just said "Fine, except when my back hurts I'm grumpy". The back pain was the main reason for the appt. I'd bet that everybody gets grumpy when they're in pain. The question just seemed a little odd to me or am I being paranoid.

"firearms in the home"?? none! Sold'em at a nice profit during the big rush.
"alcohol use"? None: gave it up when I got my ccw."drug use" of course not that's completely illegal.
"depression"? never I get along just fine thank you nurse.
Better responses than:" None of your pharkin' business: I'm a grown ass man.!!!"

even "Winston"  (in Orwells' "1984") realized he Only had privacy in a little corner of his mind.
Sad times....

[Cedar]

I go to a nurse practitioner/midwife and she spends about an hour per visit, actually checks your vitals, looks in your ears, down your throat, checks your back for skin cancer (cause you can't see there very well) and never asks anything weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_practitioner If you are dissatisfied with your doctor, most insurance companies will accept nurse practitioners as your general practitioner. I wish I had known about N.P.'s before.

Anytime I have an issue she cannot deal with in the clinic (which a normal doctor wouldn't either), she sends you off to a specialist. She treats both me and my daughter.

Maybe N.P.'s are not required to ask the questions the other ones are seeming to have to ask?

Cedar

[fred.greek]

Politicians are hypocrites. They have armed security, paid for by the people of America, but want to eliminate the ability of those people to similarly defend themselves.

There is no reason for background checks, or individual possession prohibitions.  “Even” a convicted felon, released after serving a sentence, has the same need for personal and family protection as the retired polite teacher next door.

The greatest blame for multiple victims of violent assault lies with the actions of politicians who create self-defense free zones.

The world is growing more dangerous, not less.  The need for the people of America to be able to respond to serious assault is growing. 

All in government swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

Remind them to honor their oath.

[RitaRose1945]

There is no reason for background checks, or individual possession prohibitions.  “Even” a convicted felon, released after serving a sentence, has the same need for personal and family protection as the retired polite teacher next door.

I don't know.  I do think that you give up certain rights by committing crimes against others.  You also have personal freedom to live your life where and how you want, but you give that up if you commit certain crimes and are then incarcerated.

Freedoms come with responsibilities, and if someone has shown they use those freedoms to cause harms to innocent people, I don't have a problem taking away those specific freedoms from those individuals.  Kind of like how losing your drivers license after DUIs is logical.  If you can do more harm to others than good to yourself, I'm not standing up for your rights.

I do wish there were a time limit on individual prohibitions, though.  People do change, and if someone has kept their nose clean for decades, it's logical to think they're probably not the same person they were back when the crime(s) were committed.

[EagleSteel]

I don't know.  I do think that you give up certain rights by committing crimes against others.  You also have personal freedom to live your life where and how you want, but you give that up if you commit certain crimes and are then incarcerated.

Freedoms come with responsibilities, and if someone has shown they use those freedoms to cause harms to innocent people, I don't have a problem taking away those specific freedoms from those individuals.  Kind of like how losing your drivers license after DUIs is logical.  If you can do more harm to others than good to yourself, I'm not standing up for your rights.

I do wish there were a time limit on individual prohibitions, though.  People do change, and if someone has kept their nose clean for decades, it's logical to think they're probably not the same person they were back when the crime(s) were committed.

So your line of thought is if someone murdered a person with a gun, they should never be allowed to own a gun again. Well I agree with that because that person should be executed! Other felons should be allowed to own guns after they serve their time.

[RitaRose1945]

So your line of thought is if someone murdered a person with a gun, they should never be allowed to own a gun again. Well I agree with that because that person should be executed! Other felons should be allowed to own guns after they serve their time.

Assuming the evidence is really there, then I agree.  Unfortunately, I live in an area where I've actually heard law enforcement say "You have no civil rights."  So... sometimes the evidence conveniently matches the crime and sometimes they really did it.

But if we're going to allow them to own immediately upon release, I think the sentencing should be looked over pretty intensely.  I'm not a fan of plea batgaining down to a week for assault with a weapon, or an overnight stay and a lecture for beating the crap out of an innocent person.

[bcksknr]

I used to tell my students that they could "think it all they wanted, but they couldn't say it". This, of course, was in reference to the kind of adolescent verbal abuse that's pretty common. I also believe that the only truly free place you have is in your own mind. Sometimes it does seem that the government, as an agent of the Corporatocracy, would love to control that too. I've commented before that to control your actions they don't have to be watching you all of the time, they just have to convince you that they are. Are all of the surveillance cameras real or just some? If the sign says that speed is being monitored by radar, is it really? I read a sci-fi short story once about a dystopian future where every word and movement was monitored. There were countless, lethal devices that would immediately execute anyone not in compliance with the government and there were a constant number of "traitors" being killed daily. Everyone assumed that they died because they had said or done something against the government. In truth, no one was being monitored at all and the executions were purely random. However, this system cowed the populace into submission and obedience. As in the Wizard of Oz, when the Great and Powerful Oz says "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Throughout history, no dictatorial system has ever been able to permanently enslave it's people. Eventually, a "tipping" point is reached and either internal or external forces have thrown off the yoke of slavery; many times at a great cost. I don't think we are even close to that tipping point. In a way we have always been slaves, with only an illusion of freedom. If you think you own anything, try not paying taxes. The trick to maintaining control today, is to never let the slaves realize they are enslaved. The greatest tool, unavailable to ancient despots, to control today's populations, is information technology. We may very well be on the verge of a system of "government" that is total in it's ability to gather and use the information it needs to insure a permanent choke-hold on it's citizens.

[nesmuk]

Perfect example: In East Germany Everyone"knew" the secret police (a.k.a. the "stasi") had dossiers on EVERYONE.When the wall finally came down, and Stasi hq was overrun actually only 15% had files. It was enough to  create the impression and  have the desired effect.

[bcksknr]

As I've mentioned in other threads, it's not what the government knows, but what they can make you think they know, that keeps the lid on. My opinion is that it's very difficult to "control" someone who has no regard for consequences. I taught high school for thirty three years, and I guarantee that in order to maintain discipline, I had to run a most convincing bluff the entire time. Unless you are able to physically keep "order", you have to rely on a variety of "mindgames". If they ever realized how powerless you are as a teacher (especially if a student didn't particularly care about "punishments"), they'd eat you alive. This is why laws only apply to the law-abiding. Those who have no respect for the law, i.e. criminals, can't be deterred by laws. We already have laws concerning just about every criminal activity you can think of, so we should have no crime, correct? I don't have to worry about being brutalized or murdered because there are laws against that? The most dangerous people are those who don't fear the consequence of their actions. Ironically, they may be the most free of all of us. Unfortunately, that freedom usually results in their visiting violence on others.