The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 10, 2016, 10:43 AM   #26
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 947
Invest in a gun safe for the parent that will hold all of the firearms in question and put them in it. Then you "lose" the key/combination. If they are out of sight and out of mind long enough, the parent with dementia may well just stop looking for them, or not even remember that he/she was not the one who put them in the safe to begin with, but the parent will still technically be in legal possession the whole time. It sucks to have to take actions like this, but doing the right and responsible thing will often keep you from winning popularity contests.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old September 10, 2016, 06:34 PM   #27
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,088
cjwils

https://wei.sos.wa.gov/county/lewis/...asure-594.aspx

Quote:
The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Emphasis mine.

On edit. In states with common property laws the spouse of the affected gun owner could give consent to a transfer between family members. But once again a court would probably have to make the final determination.

A person or group could also petition the state government to clarify the law.

Last edited by Buzzcook; September 10, 2016 at 06:42 PM.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old September 10, 2016, 09:22 PM   #28
cjwils
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 336
Buzzcook, I suggest you might want to look at the actual law, and not the summary that you linked to. I think it is clear that the actual law in Washington State does not cover the situation I raised in the original post. I am not talking about a gifting situation, and other exceptions in the law do not seem applicable, if you read the actual language.

I am not sure about how state common property laws would apply. That is a new topic that I would like some knowledgeable people to comment on. Maybe a new thread topic for someone.
cjwils is offline  
Old September 11, 2016, 02:07 AM   #29
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzcook

cjwils

https://wei.sos.wa.gov/county/lewis/...asure-594.aspx

Quote:
The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Emphasis mine.......
Wrong. See the discussion in post 17 about what the law actually says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzcook
...In states with common property laws the spouse of the affected gun owner could give consent to a transfer between family members...
Cite some legal authority for that proposition. And by the way, only nine States are community property States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzcook
...A person or group could also petition the state government to clarify the law.
Really? Exactly how is that done? Can you cite some examples of it having been done?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 11, 2016, 12:33 PM   #30
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 318
no perfect options but.....

Our family went thru this 4 years ago.

Dementia was taking over along with anger issues. He would makes threats with gun in hand and no one knew whether he was just doing to get his way or meant it. He still had the ability and awareness to behave in public.

So, with the family in agreement, I removed all the firing pins.

Felt pretty good about that and it worked for a few months until he started talking about trading in one of them.

Thankfully, mercifully, that passed without him showing it to a saleman. The dementia continued to make things worse until it put him in an assisted living quarters that was locked down.

Not a perfect answer for sure but it gave us what we needed at the time.
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old September 13, 2016, 01:38 PM   #31
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,810
Quote:
Buzzcock...A person or group could also petition the state government to clarify the law.
Really?

Eattin....Exactly how is that done? Can you cite some examples of it having been done?
While I don't think you can petition a state government to clarify a law, in some states you could ask for clarification or interpretation of a law by the state's Attorney General. If you get an opinion, it could be helpful.....or not. http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/knwa...open-carry-law
Skans is offline  
Old September 13, 2016, 02:10 PM   #32
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skans
While I don't think you can petition a state government to clarify a law, in some states you could ask for clarification or interpretation of a law by the state's Attorney General. If you get an opinion, it could be helpful.....or not. http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/knwa...open-carry-law
If you read the article at the link you posted, it's not about ordinary citizens asking the Attorney General for an opinion. It's about state legislators asking the AG for an opinion.

And that's the way it generally works. An AG can provide an opinion on a point of law at the request of one or more legislators, the Governor, or a head of a state regulatory agency. But an AG isn't going to provide an opinion of that sort for anyone other than a state official. An AG opinion isn't binding on a court.

Sometimes a regulatory agency will respond to a formal request for guidance on a matter within the scope of that agency's enforcement authority. So, for example, it would not be uncommon for parties to a contemplated transaction to seek advance guidance from the IRS to assure compliance with the applicable tax rules. Agencies which do that sort of thing have formal procedures in place, and any guidance will be limited to the specific facts set out in the request.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 13, 2016, 04:20 PM   #33
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,810
Frank, generally speaking, I believe you are correct.
Skans is offline  
Old September 13, 2016, 05:48 PM   #34
cjwils
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 336
I know in Washington State, the Attorney General's web page specifically says they will provide a legal interpretation only when requested by law enforcement, elected officials, etc. Ordinary citizens cannot request our state Attorney General to interpret a state law
cjwils is offline  
Old September 16, 2016, 02:09 PM   #35
DA/SA Fan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 661
IMO it doesn't matter what state you live in. Dementia must be officially recognized. Someone should be judged mentally incompetent or someone should already have power of attorney before anyone should be allowed to take someones firearms away from them. Otherwise a son, daughter, sibling, or spouse could justify taking someone's guns because they started showing signs of dementia when they voted for Trump or any reason they wanted to foist on an elderly person who they didn't want to have their guns. Think about these situations before they become a problem that requires ignoring the constitution.
__________________
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
CASTLE DOCTRINE STRONGLY ENFORCED
"Happiness is a warm gun"
DA/SA Fan is offline  
Old September 16, 2016, 02:34 PM   #36
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by DA/SA Fan
....Think about these situations before they become a problem that requires ignoring the constitution.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this issue. The Constitution regulates government and not private conduct.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 16, 2016, 02:57 PM   #37
DA/SA Fan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 661
If done without government consent it is theft. If the the government allows such theft it is unconstitutional. The person having his guns confiscated deserves to be proven incompetent in the eyes of the law (government) before losing his or her right and property.
__________________
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
CASTLE DOCTRINE STRONGLY ENFORCED
"Happiness is a warm gun"
DA/SA Fan is offline  
Old September 16, 2016, 03:14 PM   #38
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by DA/SA Fan
.... If the the government allows such theft it is unconstitutional.....
Nothing is unconstitutional unless/until an appropriate court rules it so. Your opinion on the question really doesn't matter.

The Founding Fathers assigned the authority to determine, among other things, what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Quote:
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DA/SA Fan
.... person having his guns confiscated deserves to be proven incompetent in the eyes of the law (government) before losing his or her right and property.
What you think the law should be is irrelevant. The issue being discussed in this thread is what the law is.

zukiphile, who is a lawyer, provided in posts 3, 19, and 23 some very useful insight into some of the genuine legal issues. Let's stick with trying to address the OP's very real and legitimate concerns in real world terms.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 16, 2016, 05:06 PM   #39
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,128
I think we've taken this about as far as we can go.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06778 seconds with 8 queries