I know she can apply to have the prohibition reversed.
Lawsuit? Maybe if she gets backing. What a mess.
The problem is that she could have signed stuff while in the facility about the guns without reading it. I can see where a person could do that. A person likely wouldn't be thinking about stuff like that at all in that situation. All they are thinking about is getting home.
I didn't see anything in that publication about the guns having to be destroyed if taken, just that they can be turned over to local law enforcement authorities if other arrangements to secure them cannot be made.
Pretty benign statement. Doesn't describe what happened.
Page 4 is pretty explicit about what family members should be told to avoid what happened in this case. BUT that the facility is ONLY required to give it to the patient in writing at discharge even though the facility SHOULD review the information with the patient AND family.
Since THAT was NOT required how much confidence do we have that it was done? ummmmm ZERO here.
Since it is that important why not go ahead and require it? Isn't patient, family, and public safety worth it being required?
Can't we see this poor lady with a handful of papers just wanting to get home and her and her family not being made fully aware of the gun issue since it isn't REQUIRED.
And that is what the state will say, "It wasn't required."
Well it should be required for so many reasons. For one like before another raid happens and someone gets shot!
Why do I think that very important information was not communicated to this family? I know it's speculating but dang. If I lived in that house and knew all that I'd do whatever I could to keep from being raided and having my guns taken.
CA get off your bureaucratic butts and take care of your citizens by requiring facilities to inform both patients AND families all the information they need to know to make intelligent decisions concerning these issues.
Here is the link again.
http://www.mabpro.com/resource/docs/...bitionForm.pdf