• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California's Gun Repo Men Have a Nerve-Racking Job

foundit66

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
597
Reaction score
381
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
California's Gun Repo Men Have a Nerve-Racking Job - Businessweek

I'm curious how people feel about this program.
People can legally purchase a firearm, then commit an illegal act or be classified as mentally ill such that they can no longer legally possess that firearm.
I see this program as a good thing.
 
The key relevancy is that California registers gun owners and firearms.

That is one reason that nearly all online gun sellers - merchants or individuals - refuse to sell anything to anyone in California, even if legal and thru a federally licensed gun dealer also with background check. I won't. I see selling to California as no different than a foreign and adversarial country.
 
Another reason why no one - ever - should see a mental health professional nor EVER discuss ANY psychological issues with any health care professional under any circumstance - NOR take any child to one.

Be very careful in general what you tell any doctor, counselor or other professional because - for all legal purposes - you are talking to the police and prosecution now and forever in the future. Even you merely talking to a mental health care professional will be used against you.

Also, NEVER use or obtain for yourself or any child of yours and "psychological" related prescription drugs. That also can be later used against you and put front page of the newspaper by the police or a prosecutor.

THERE IS NO PRIVACY with doctors or any other health or mental health care professional in relation to the police, prosecutors or even many civil lawsuit matters.
 
Another reason why no one - ever - should see a mental health professional nor EVER discuss ANY psychological issues with any health care professional under any circumstance - NOR take any child to one.

All well and good for those of you capable of limping through your psychological problems.
 
All well and good for those of you capable of limping through your psychological problems.

I used to think I had psychological problems. That I was depressed, low-self esteem, bipolar and socially awkward, it turned out I was just surrounded by assholes.
 
California's Gun Repo Men Have a Nerve-Racking Job - Businessweek

I'm curious how people feel about this program. People can legally purchase a firearm, then commit an illegal act or be classified as mentally ill such that they can no longer legally possess that firearm. I see this program as a good thing.

IF, and ONLY IF carried out against those who truly should not have the firearms, I have no problem with it.

I truly hope that those officers are provided with the best training, equipment, and support possible from the California Department of Justice. I say that because I know of more than a few legal gun owners around this country who, if they didn't feel there was a legitimate reason to give up those firearms, would react in a rather unpleasant manner to these people showing up at their door. I can't imagine that most of the criminals are really happy to lose their firearms either.

Part of the reason that this isn't done in most other places is simple.... Most states do not have a firearms registry.
 
Another reason why no one - ever - should see a mental health professional nor EVER discuss ANY psychological issues with any health care professional under any circumstance - NOR take any child to one.

Be very careful in general what you tell any doctor, counselor or other professional because - for all legal purposes - you are talking to the police and prosecution now and forever in the future. Even you merely talking to a mental health care professional will be used against you.

Also, NEVER use or obtain for yourself or any child of yours and "psychological" related prescription drugs. That also can be later used against you and put front page of the newspaper by the police or a prosecutor.

THERE IS NO PRIVACY with doctors or any other health or mental health care professional in relation to the police, prosecutors or even many civil lawsuit matters.

You are 100% correct on every single one of those points, joko. If your PCP asks if you're a gun owner the only responsible answer is.... "No, and why do you care?"
 
You see it as a good thing, but I see it as a system abused by anti gun zealots like K. Harris (short list for supreme court nomination by the way FYI). Now I don't think a mentally ill person should save guns, or a convicted felon of any violent crime. However there is a real crime in this state in situations where wives threaten to claim fear of ex husbands to be. The husbands know this means they will lose their firearms and are often forced by that threat to capitulations that should not be.

Another poster made a great point here. People suffering mental illness will avoid getting help. Nice move liberals you just forced them underground where their illness can grow worse and become a very real problem. The real problem in mental illness is that the gun owner may never recover these guns even if treated and returned to normalcy, and so you will have them digging in and not getting help.

Here is the last thing worth noting. Not one of the last big three events, AZ, CO, or Newtown would have been prevented by K. Harris zealous war on gun owners. I honestly feel she is begging for a violent shoot out so she can justify her actions lauded by leftists every where.




California's Gun Repo Men Have a Nerve-Racking Job - Businessweek

I'm curious how people feel about this program.
People can legally purchase a firearm, then commit an illegal act or be classified as mentally ill such that they can no longer legally possess that firearm.
I see this program as a good thing.
 
Sounds like delusional paranoia to me. Perhaps you should seek help...:lamo
Another reason why no one - ever - should see a mental health professional nor EVER discuss ANY psychological issues with any health care professional under any circumstance - NOR take any child to one.

Be very careful in general what you tell any doctor, counselor or other professional because - for all legal purposes - you are talking to the police and prosecution now and forever in the future. Even you merely talking to a mental health care professional will be used against you.

Also, NEVER use or obtain for yourself or any child of yours and "psychological" related prescription drugs. That also can be later used against you and put front page of the newspaper by the police or a prosecutor.

THERE IS NO PRIVACY with doctors or any other health or mental health care professional in relation to the police, prosecutors or even many civil lawsuit matters.
 
Another reason why no one - ever - should see a mental health professional nor EVER discuss ANY psychological issues with any health care professional under any circumstance - NOR take any child to one.

Be very careful in general what you tell any doctor, counselor or other professional because - for all legal purposes - you are talking to the police and prosecution now and forever in the future. Even you merely talking to a mental health care professional will be used against you.

Also, NEVER use or obtain for yourself or any child of yours and "psychological" related prescription drugs. That also can be later used against you and put front page of the newspaper by the police or a prosecutor.

THERE IS NO PRIVACY with doctors or any other health or mental health care professional in relation to the police, prosecutors or even many civil lawsuit matters.


I can't wait for one of these victims who have lost their firearms due to a doctor or psychologist violating their HIPPA privacy rights.
 
All well and good for those of you capable of limping through your psychological problems.

My point is that it was a SERIOUS mistake to allow any exemption from doctor-patient privilege.

About the ONLY legal privilege that still mostly holds up is lawyer-client and clergy privilege. So talk to a lawyer or a priest.
 
Would YOU seek psychological counseling if you knew as a result the police would confiscate your firearms and that what you told the psychologist could be front page news some day - and used against you in a criminal or civil case?

That is my point.

I remember my wife throwing a fit when the school gave all the children a set of psychological questions about their child for parents to answer. It asked questions like at what age did the child stop wetting the bed and has the child ever stolen anything?

She not only refused (as did I), she went and thru a fit about it in general. Imagine that coming out if the child later ran for president? And to the school saying "no, these are confidential?" The government rarely keeps anything really confidential UNLESS it is about the government. Just ask George Zimmerman. Not only were his medical records made public, but also his school records - though supposedly legally protected.

What does not exist in the Bill of Rights - but should be - is a right to personal privacy.
 
Would YOU seek psychological counseling if you knew as a result the police would confiscate your firearms and that what you told the psychologist could be front page news some day - and used against you in a criminal or civil case?

Not only wouldn't I, but I have actively avoided them for that very reason. It's also why my primary care doctor has been told that I have sold my firearms. I no longer trust him any further than I could thrown him.
 
There have been three health professionals in court for 2 different legal matters involving my wife. A medical doctor, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. One was a criminal case matter. The other civil.

The medical doctor technically gave truthful answers, but to questions deliberately meant to paint a false picture for her goals. That was a civil matter.

The psychiatrist gave such wordy and lofty answers (for her benefit) that no one had much a clue of what he was saying. The psychologist openly lied for her and had rehearsed for her what answers she SHOULD give - and that she would back up - when privately her and my wife were in agreement to the exact opposite. That was a criminal matter specifically involved an incident with a gun.

Basically both assured the judge that my wife absolutely would not have pulled the trigger (when in fact she had - and they both had privately assured her what she did was acceptable under the circumstance). While she was not charged with anything (the other person was convicted), the specific question was whether she should continue to conceal-carry and even in a way that allowed her to do so anywhere.

BUT, generally, a person should NOT trust their healthcare professionals with secrets they absolutely want kept secret if there are any potential legal complexities that could later result. Again, I think doctor-patient privilege should be returned to people including concerning legal matters.
 
What the ****? Is that even legal?

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.
 
What the ****? Is that even legal?

It shouldn't be, but in California it is. Basically it's about protecting people from themselves. Obviously there's a much better case to be made if his firearms are stored in a secured area which she does not have access to, but even then he's probably going to have to fight that in court after the fact. It's ridiculous, ludicrous, and downright unConstitutional, but hey, that's CA for you.
 
California's Gun Repo Men Have a Nerve-Racking Job - Businessweek

I'm curious how people feel about this program.
People can legally purchase a firearm, then commit an illegal act or be classified as mentally ill such that they can no longer legally possess that firearm.
I see this program as a good thing.

I oppose registrations period.So I only do not see this program as a good thing.If they can use these registries to confiscate them from felons and people with mental illnesses then they can most certainly use registries to confiscate any firearms that get banned in the future.

Luckily this proposal was scrapped.But considering its California they will propose it again.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...l-introduced-in-california-we-can-save-lives/
 
Last edited:
What the ****? Is that even legal?

That is the one I had a problem with as well. He has done nothing wrong or has no mental issues. There should be a way for him to show they are not available to her or stored off site.
 
That is the one I had a problem with as well. He has done nothing wrong or has no mental issues. There should be a way for him to show they are not available to her or stored off site.

The way is see it, if she is so dangerous to herself and others that her husband can't be trusted to keep a gun in the home, she probably shouldn't be released. What if she finds the car keys? What if she grabs a chef's knife?
 
I think it makes perfect sense. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose it.

I could, depending on the disqualifying illegal act.

For example most people use felony for a standard, but taking away one's rights over a class 5 or class 6 felony? Improper use of a motor vehicle and I can't have my guns? 10 over the speed limit and I can't have my guns? Sorry no, I could understand if it were a violent crime but not anything humble.
 
California's Gun Repo Men Have a Nerve-Racking Job - Businessweek

I'm curious how people feel about this program.
People can legally purchase a firearm, then commit an illegal act or be classified as mentally ill such that they can no longer legally possess that firearm.
I see this program as a good thing.

Government confiscation of private property based on their own definitions. Not a good thing once someone invests 10 seconds thinking about it.
 
a) Because if someone is a felon or that mentally unstable they should be locked up.

Its ironic we find it compelling to take their guns, but not their cars or their hammers. Now I don't support
a felons' right to keep and bear arms mind you, but I don't believe in the states right of taking them without
compensation either. The felon or mentally ill person should be allowed to sell their weaopns or gift them
to a family member.

b) and this poorly written law enables law enforcement to take weapons of co in habitants too, and believe
me the process for getting them back is seriously flawed and can take years.

c) and probably most important, you will find the mentally ill no longer seeking help. Is that what our
society wants?

I think it makes perfect sense. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose it.
 
Ever and always...why dont they send those armed groups into the inner cities and forcibly take the weapons from the people that are killing 11,000 people a year?

I support taking weapons from felons who are prevented from having firearms. On the fence about domestic violence offenders...probably OK with insisting they turn those over to law enforcement until after their case is adjudicated. Mental illness...thats another beastie. There is no crime committed and no reason why reasonable precautions cannot be made by families to secure weapons while the individual is struggling.

Not every patient we commit is dangerously psychotic. And if we seize weapons, how about cars? How about knives? How about access to dangerous chemicals? matches? If the end result of seeking psychiatric help is knowing that the state will seize your property, how many people might refuse to seek help?
 
Back
Top Bottom