The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 25, 2018, 08:38 PM   #26
rc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 778
My Thoughts if they are allowed to be shared

The new gun laws only creates a new way to tax lawful commerce and hassle/tax people for practicing regularly with their firearm and creates a slippery slope whereby people circumvent the law in the same way people ignored unjust Jim Crow laws in the south during segregation. Criminals will not follow these laws any more than firearms laws. What we have in California is government that is unwilling to keep serious repeat criminals behind bars and instead keep chipping away at civil liberties. There are people in my area with convictions for felon in possession of a firearm running around free with less than 1 year served committing crimes on probation without spending any serious time locked up. rc
rc is offline  
Old January 25, 2018, 09:01 PM   #27
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by rc
...There are people in my area with convictions for felon in possession of a firearm running around free with less than 1 year served committing crimes on probation ....
Prove it.
__________________
"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 January 26, 2018, 02:06 AM   #28
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,056
Move out of California.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 26, 2018, 02:09 AM   #29
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Prove it.
I have arrested numerous people for it who never served time. Many prosecutors are lazy and play way too much "lets make a deal."
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 26, 2018, 02:38 AM   #30
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by reynolds357
I have arrested numerous people for it who never served time.....
So what? Anecdotes aren't data. One's personal experiences aren't necessarily indicative of whatever the sample population might be. Arguing that they are indicative is a form of the hasty generalization fallacy.
__________________
"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 January 27, 2018, 05:29 PM   #31
Old Stony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,584
Is it just me, or does a subject like California laws often seem to go from a simple discussion to a confrontational situation? Somebody on here maybe should mellow down !
Old Stony is offline  
Old January 29, 2018, 02:12 PM   #32
WW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
I went to my FFL to purchase ammo this weekend. Previously the ammo was out on the sales floor. It was labeled and items on sale were clearly marked. I would purchase ammo on sale as I could if it fit my gun. However, now there is no ammo visible. You have to go to the gun counter and ask for the ammo you want. Nothing is displayed and nothing is on sale.

So, I asked for the ammo for my guns starting with .375 Win. The clerk then walked to the room behind the counter, entered his cipher code and disappeared. In a few minutes he returned and said "Sorry, no .375 Win. If fact we are out of any ammo with win after it."

Then I asked for 22LR. He said "Nope, all out." Rather than simply running down my caliber list I asked for my Bersa Handgun thinking they would have that caliber.

So I purchased 50 rounds of .380 ACP. This is my first ammo purchase this year. What a pain! Had to give him my drivers license so he could fill out the log book. This took several minutes. Fortunately, I did not have to do a background check (that comes later) so did not have that fee and wait time.

The clerk did say if I want to order ammo online I can have it shipped to them and they will hold it for me with a $5.00 fee.

I think I will be buying as much ammo as I can before the background checks kick in.

WHAT A PAIN!
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old January 29, 2018, 09:38 PM   #33
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,831
Quote:
have arrested numerous people for it who never served time
Exact same in my neck of the woods. As a matter of fact I distribute dispositions for my agency as I work with an atf liaison. Most of those dispositions see STATE time pretty much equals probation or a year or less active sentence followed by post release probation, unless they are also convicted of habitual felon. Now if a case is adopted federally, that changes things.

Quote:
Prove it.
A link to the NC structured sentencing chart. You will have to click the top link to view the chart. Possession of firearm by felon is a class G felony. An active sentence isn't suggested until an offender has a record level of 5 or 6 (the two highest record levels). Before then it is a judges discretion and/or subject to a plea. I can assure you that a plea will be for a probation sentence 90% of the time, when there is a good chance a judge is encouraged to give it anyway should there be a trial. Even with a record level 6 the bottom of the mitigated range is about 2 years. That being said, this is just one state but it probably it troubles the invocation of the hasty generalization theory.

http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/C...Punishment.asp
5whiskey is offline  
Old January 30, 2018, 12:30 AM   #34
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,103
The subject of this thread is California gun laws. Let's stay on topic.
__________________
"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 January 30, 2018, 12:54 PM   #35
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,831
Quote:
I went to my FFL to purchase ammo this weekend. Previously the ammo was out on the sales floor. It was labeled and items on sale were clearly marked. I would purchase ammo on sale as I could if it fit my gun. However, now there is no ammo visible. You have to go to the gun counter and ask for the ammo you want. Nothing is displayed and nothing is on sale.

So, I asked for the ammo for my guns starting with .375 Win. The clerk then walked to the room behind the counter, entered his cipher code and disappeared. In a few minutes he returned and said "Sorry, no .375 Win. If fact we are out of any ammo with win after it."

Then I asked for 22LR. He said "Nope, all out." Rather than simply running down my caliber list I asked for my Bersa Handgun thinking they would have that caliber.

So I purchased 50 rounds of .380 ACP. This is my first ammo purchase this year. What a pain! Had to give him my drivers license so he could fill out the log book. This took several minutes. Fortunately, I did not have to do a background check (that comes later) so did not have that fee and wait time.

The clerk did say if I want to order ammo online I can have it shipped to them and they will hold it for me with a $5.00 fee.

I think I will be buying as much ammo as I can before the background checks kick in.

WHAT A PAIN!
that sucks. Not that California hasn't been trying to kill the recreational firearms past time for years now, but this has to be dealing a pretty big blow to it.

For local Californians, have you noticed a significant price increase thus far due to compliance costs?
5whiskey is offline  
Old January 31, 2018, 07:21 PM   #36
WW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
I haven't notice price increases. However, the inventory of the LGS is down about 90% with the new Assault Weapon Ban in California. Just now they are starting to get AR15's in stock with the fin attached to the pistol grip. However, when they used to have 20 or 30 ARs they now only had TWO!

It used to be fun to walk in to the gun store and just browse. Now it is just depressing. However, their Archery section and range are great!
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old February 2, 2018, 04:48 PM   #37
Gelrir
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2017
Posts: 12
I use some very obscure ammo: 8mm Lebel rifle, 9mm Browning Long, .455 Webley ... stuff like that will never be "on the shelf" at your neighborhood gun store. It's gonna have to be shipped to the nearest store, and the owner doesn't want to be a public warehouse. I dunno what he's gonna charge, but it won't be free.

--
Michael B., in Berkeley
Gelrir is offline  
Old February 2, 2018, 07:14 PM   #38
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver
On another thread I have been discussing "reasonable vs infringement" with another poster. I've been arguing "reasonable" and he's arguing "infringement". These new ammo regs strike me as total infringement.
What's the argument? The Second Amendment doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be totally infringed." It doesn't even say "shall not be unreasonably infringed." It says "shall not be infringed."

Parsed to the essence, any regulation is an infringement. As to your argument, the word "reasonable" does not appear in the Second Amendment, so a strict and honest interpretation would not even touch on that.

Yes, I am aware of Frank Ettin's past posts to the effect that, historically, all the rights in the Bill of Rights have been subject to "reasonable" regulation. But that history is based on the other rights, not the RKBA. The Second Amendment is the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that states, right in its own language, that it shall not be infringed. Since regulation is infringement, the 2A actually says that it shall not be subject to regulation.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 2, 2018, 07:56 PM   #39
Old Stony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,584
Totally agree !
Old Stony is offline  
Old February 2, 2018, 08:28 PM   #40
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
...The Second Amendment is the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that states, right in its own language, that it shall not be infringed....
Other than the First Amendment (emphasis added):
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And there is a long history of couts sustaining laws (both federal lawa and, after the First Amendment began to be held applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, state laws) regulating (and thus abridging) rights protected by the First Amendment. A few examples are:
  • Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech.

  • If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech.

  • Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:

    • Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
      Quote:
      ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...
      • Cf. McCullen v. Coakley (U. S. Supreme Court, No. 12–1168, 2014)

      • In McCullen the Court struck down a new Massachusetts "buffer zone" law. As noted in the opinion the Court had previously sustained a different sort of buffer zone law in Colorado, and nothing in McCullen casts any doubt on the continued validity of the Colorado law (McCullen, slip opinion at 2):
        Quote:
        ….The statute [the prior Massachusetts law] was modeled on a similar Colorado law that this Court had upheld in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000). Relying on Hill, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sustained the Massachusetts statute against a First Amendment challenge. McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F. 3d 45 (2004) (McGuire II), cert. denied, 544 U. S. 974 (2005); McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F. 3d 36 (2001) (McGuire I).

        By 2007, some Massachusetts legislators and law enforcement officials had come to regard the 2000 statute as inadequate.....

    • Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
      Quote:
      ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...

  • In the leading case on prior restraint (Near v. State of Minnesota Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931)) the Court in striking down a Minnesota statute allowing for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of malicious, scandalous and defamatory news analyzed in considerable detail and depth the scope and extent of the infringement of the freedom of press, the interests served and the availability of other and narrower remedies. And the Court then reached the conclusion that the statute went too far to be a permissible regulation.

    But nonetheless the Court also noted that certain interests, under certain circumstances would justify even prior restraint (Near, 283 U. S. 657, at 715 - 716):
    Quote:
    ...The objection has also been made that the principle as to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly, if every such restraint is deemed to be prohibited. That is undoubtedly true; the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases. 'When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its error that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 249, 63 L. Ed. 470. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.6 On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government. The constitutional guaranty of free speech does not 'protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 139, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874.' Schenck v. United States, supra. These limitations are not applicable here. Nor are we now concerned with questions as to the extent of authority to prevent publications in order to protect private rights according to the principles governing the exercise of the jurisdiction of courts of equity...
  • In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)).
__________________
"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 February 2, 2018, 08:42 PM   #41
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 308
Been waiting for a cartoon with a man scrunched inside his 36 gun safe with a single shot 22 on his hip, staring out thru the open door.

MY fear that this is their end game to meeting the requirement, 'to keep and bear arms'.
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old February 4, 2018, 12:14 PM   #42
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,313
So CA is working on a new bill AB-1927 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1927

This will allow a person to add them selves to the prohibited persons data base . Not only in CA but federally . At first i think ok what ever floats your boat , if you want to do that to your self you deserve the consistency. Upon more thought and the fact you’ll be able to do it online . What’s stopping someone that has your personal info from putting you on that list ?

The example that comes to mind is uber anti gun parents putting there kids on the list . It’s my understanding to get off the list it would take the same procedures it takes if you’re on it now . Meaning you’ll have to prove you’re not a felon or get a doctor to sign off on your mental state .

I’m interested in seeing the actual application and what safegards will be in place to prevent abuses .
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY

Last edited by Metal god; February 4, 2018 at 02:33 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 11:04 AM   #43
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
So CA is working on a new bill AB-1927 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1927

It’s my understanding to get off the list it would take the same procedures it takes if you’re on it now . Meaning you’ll have to prove you’re not a felon or get a doctor to sign off on your mental state .
So do you have to prove your identity and that you're a felon to put yourself on the list? My worries are that it will be way easier to get put on the list than taken off it
ATN082268 is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 11:28 AM   #44
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,527
AB-1927

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
This will allow a person to add them selves to the prohibited persons data base . Not only in CA but federally . At first i think ok what ever floats your boat , if you want to do that to your self you deserve the consistency.
I think that the impetus for the bill is easily discerned by reading the bill text (my emphasis in boldface):
Quote:
The bill would allow a person registered on the list to file a petition in Superior Court requesting to have his or her name removed from the registry. The bill would require the court to hold a hearing and order removal of the person’s name if he or she establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is not at elevated risk of suicide.

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.
I've had a person close to me (whose identity will remain confidential) tell a mental health professional that he/she was seriously contemplating suicide. The professional recommended a stay at a local psychiatric hospital for observation. When the subject expressed dismay and hesitation at this suggestion, the professional stated in a roundabout way that if the subject did not agree to stay there voluntarily, he/she might file for involuntary commitment, which obviously would have resulted in the subject becoming a prohibited person (and most likely having problems securing employment and so forth).

The subject complied.

The subtext underlying this bill is that a mental health professional can threaten suicidal persons with involuntary commitment UNLESS they "agree" put themselves on the list.

I have ALL SORTS of problems with this sort of coercion. (FWIW I'm not happy about the actions of the mental health professional discussed above, but that's a different story.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 12:46 PM   #45
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,313
I don't see anywhere that it states the reason for the list is for mentally unstable persons . Only that to be removed from the list you must prove you're not unstable . Which makes sense right . If you're not prohibited do to a felony or other crimes . That leaves mental stability as the reason you're on the list .

That brings up an interesting point . If you put your self on the list and nothing has come up since making you a legit prohibited person . Why can't you just take your self back off the list . Sounds like that in it self would be unconstitutional . I'd think the application would have you state something like " I metal god feel my metal heath is lacking in such a way I should no longer be able to posses firearms " Please sign below . That way you have informed the state of your instability therefore requiring you to prove you are actually a stable person to get back off the list .

Right ? because you'd have to be crazy to voluntarily give up your 2nd amendment rights
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 12:50 PM   #46
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
That brings up an interesting point . If you put your self on the list and nothing has come up since making you a legit prohibited person . Why can't you just take your self back off the list . Sounds like that in it self would be unconstitutional . I'd think the application would have you state something like " I metal god feel my metal heath is lacking in such a way I should no longer be able to posses firearms " Please sign below .

Right ? because you'd have to be crazy to voluntarily give up your 2nd amendment rights
Sounds a lot like the original Catch 22 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

Quote:
Joseph Heller coined the term in his 1961 novel Catch-22, which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II. The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army psychiatrist who invokes "Catch 22" to explain why any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in creating the request and thus cannot be declared insane. This phrase also means a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 01:37 PM   #47
Drae
Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2018
Location: Somewhere in western Poland
Posts: 46
Without any extra talk, i'll bluntly address the question in the topic name.
Thoughts on new CA gun laws?
They're dumb, and won't stop the shootings/gun related crimes completely because Americans are too clever.
Drae is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 02:06 PM   #48
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drae View Post
Without any extra talk, i'll bluntly address the question in the topic name.
Thoughts on new CA gun laws?
They're dumb, and won't stop the shootings/gun related crimes completely because Americans are too clever.

I suspect the vast majority of gun grabbers fall into two camps. The first camp just wants to grab all the guns they can so it will be easier to enforce their policies which aren't held by a majority of Americans. The second camp somehow believes that grabbing all the guns just from law abiding Americans will largely eliminate gun crimes.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 02:30 PM   #49
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
I don't see anywhere that it states the reason for the list is for mentally unstable persons .
True, but the bill DOES state that informational materials will be made available to acute care psychiatric facilities.

While a CA resident would seemingly be able to put him or herself on the list for any reason whatsoever, IMHO it is abundantly clear that this program is aimed (no pun intended) at people who have been admitted, or potentially may be admitted, to acute care psychiatric facilities. Otherwise, what would be the reason for placing the informational materials there?

Also, there's this provision in the bill, my emphasis in boldface:
Quote:
(2) A violation of confidentiality occurs if a person or entity engaged in any activity described in paragraph (1), other than a healthcare professional, therapist, or counselor, inquires as to any confidential matter described in paragraph (1), or if any person described in paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, a healthcare professional, therapist, or counselor, takes any adverse action based on that information.
(3) The person whose confidentiality is violated by an inquiry or adverse action in violation of this subdivision may bring a private civil action for appropriate relief, including reasonable attorney’s fees, for each violation that occurs.
IOW nobody may check if a subject's name is on the list, or take adverse action based on the list, without committing a privacy violation, UNLESS that person is a mental health professional. Others with potentially malicious reasons to want a law-abiding subject to be prohibited from possessing firearms (such as an anti-gun employer, ex-wife's divorce attorney, etc.) are exposed to civil liability if they attempt to verify whether the subject has listed himself.

If the program is NOT intended to assist mental health professionals, why would this exemption be there?

(EDIT: I'm thinking that this topic may deserve its own thread, given that this thread was originally started to discuss laws that have already been enacted.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; February 5, 2018 at 02:32 PM. Reason: footnote
carguychris is offline  
Old February 5, 2018, 03:18 PM   #50
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
....If the program is NOT intended to assist mental health professionals, why would this exemption be there?

(EDIT: I'm thinking that this topic may deserve its own thread, given that this thread was originally started to discuss laws that have already been enacted.)
Actually, discussing this bill (AB1927) at this time is pretty much a waste of time.

It was just introduced on 24 January. It hasn't even been assigned to committee yet. There's an excellent chance it will stall and die a natural death (many bills do). There's also an excellent chance that even if it does start to move through the process it will be amended so many times that it will be substantially different from this initial version.

But in any case, let's stick with a discussion of actual new law.
__________________
"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  
Reply

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 08:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.10283 seconds with 8 queries