Something IMO noteworthy happened the other day in Granola State, AKA the People\u2019s Republic of Kalifornia.\u00a0 It\u2019s actually been happening there for some time.<\/p>\n
The police went to a person\u2019s home and confiscated their firearms<\/a>.<\/p>\n California requires registration of certain types of firearms.\u00a0 It thus also maintains a database of registered firearms \u2013 close to one million of them at present.<\/p>\n Periodically, they also cross-reference this database against those recently convicted of felonies, and against those involuntarily committed to mental institutions.<\/p>\n In theory, there\u2019s no issue.\u00a0 The Constitution\u2019s 10th Amendment clearly places barring felons from firearms possession or ownership within the scope of state authority; Federal law likewise says felons cannot lawfully possess firearms.\u00a0 Their original criminal trial provided the due process required under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for that to be permissible.<\/p>\n And those who\u2019ve been involuntarily committed \u201cclearly\u201d shouldn\u2019t have access to firearms.\u00a0 Allowing that would be absurd – right?<\/p>\n And yet . . . .<\/p>\n Well, let\u2019s tale a good look at that second part.\u00a0 Because I for one find certain facts regarding and implications raised by one recent case occurring in California disturbing as hell.<\/p>\n And since Jonn lets me post here, you’re gonna hear about my concerns – whether you want to or not.\u00a0 If you keep reading, that is.\u00a0 (smile)<\/p>\n . . .<\/p>\n As the article linked above notes:\u00a0 a lady in California was recently committed \u2013 involuntarily.\u00a0 She remained committed for two days, then was released.\u00a0 Since she was released back to her own home, she\u2019s obviously not a clear danger to herself or others; otherwise she\u2019d presumably still be involuntarily committed.<\/p>\n As far as I know, she\u2019s also not been declared either mentally incompetent or a danger to self\/others by any judge or court.\u00a0 She was (allegedly) involuntarily committed on the word of a healthcare worker who (according to the individual committed) \u201cexaggerated the magnitude of her condition\u201d.\u00a0 (The facility that treated her was apparently contacted for comment but did not release any information regarding her condition or treatment.)<\/p>\n Because she’d been involuntarily committed, she was “flagged” by a later database comparison as someone who wasn’t allowed to own weapons.\u00a0 State police later visited her home.\u00a0 When they did, they confiscated a weapon registered in her name.<\/p>\n They also confiscated two weapons registered to her husband at the same time.\u00a0 They did so because his<\/i> possession of those firearms was deemed to giver her<\/i> \u201caccess to them\u201d.<\/p>\n Think about that for a moment.\u00a0 Her husband (presumably) has committed no crime, nor has he been adjudged mentally incompetent or deficient.\u00a0 But his weapons were confiscated too, because his possession of them might give someone else<\/em> \u201caccess\u201d – in this case, his wife.<\/p>\n . . .<\/p>\n The implications here are to me very disturbing, in three separate ways.<\/p>\n First<\/span>:\u00a0 two individuals\u2019 Constitutional rights have been denied without due process<\/em>.\u00a0 No court was involved in this action (the seizure described above was \u00a0apparently made without a warrant).\u00a0 No judge heard evidence concerning the woman\u2019s condition from her healthcare provider, her, or others.\u00a0 She has not been adjudged to be legally \u201cmentally defective or incompetent\u201d; she was committed for short duration solely (allegedly) on the basis of a healthcare provider\u2019s word.\u00a0 She was also obviously not considered a danger to self or others, as she was released two days later.<\/p>\n Yet her Second Amendment rights \u2013 which have now been held to be binding on the states by the SCOTUS in McDonald v. Chicago<\/a> \u2013 have been abridged by the state.\u00a0 The Fourteenth Amendment requires \u201cdue process\u201d to do that.\u00a0 There hasn\u2019t been any – either procedural or substantial.\u00a0 And since we’re dealing with a Constitutional right, both substantial and procedural due process would seem to be required before that right can be denied by the state.<\/p>\n The same is true for her husband.\u00a0 Here, the situation is even more disturbing.\u00a0 His Second Amendment rights have also been abridged, and his property confiscated \u2013 property that he<\/i> can legally own under the laws of the People’s Republic of Kalifornia.\u00a0 And he\u2019s likewise had not due process before his<\/em> property was confiscated.\u00a0 \u00a0Rather, his<\/em> property was confiscated based solely on the act or condition of another person<\/em> – a condition that is now in dispute, and which apparently has never received an unbiased hearing by an impartial observer.<\/p>\n The “access” part also raises troubling questions.\u00a0 Suppose the man had a friend who was a felon, and who visited him on occasion.\u00a0 Would that also be grounds for confiscation of his weapons \u2013 because his friend would \u201chave access to weapons\u201d during a visit?\u00a0 Using the same logic, the police would be able to confiscate your<\/em> car if your teenage son living at home lost his<\/em> license \u2013 because your having an auto would \u201cgive him access” to an automobile, whether or not he had your permission to use it or even had the keys to unlock and drive it.<\/p>\n It would seem to me that, sans a court order, both of these individuals has a valid claim for denial of Constitutional rights against California.\u00a0 Each of them has had fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution denied them by the state without due process.\u00a0 The opinion of a single healthcare provider or administrative official simply doesn\u2019t appear to me to be sufficient to constitute \u201cdue process\u201d.\u00a0 The US Constitution requires due process before<\/em> rights can be denied.\u00a0 And the SCOTUS has held that both substantive and procedural due process are required when fundamental Constitutional rights are involved.<\/p>\n Second<\/span>:\u00a0 the potential for abuse here is high- high enough to scare the bejezus out of anyone who knows a bit of history.<\/p>\n Bogus mental health diagnoses of \u201cinsanity\u201d are a well-documented tool of modern authoritarian dictatorships.\u00a0 Two of the most odious dictatorships in history \u2013 1930s Germany and the USSR \u2013 used bogus insanity diagnoses routinely against dissidents and other \u201cunfavored\u201d groups.\u00a0 The results weren\u2019t pretty.\u00a0 If you want some details, look up how the USSR treated Andrei Sakharov (and many others).<\/p>\n Further, and with apologies up-front:\u00a0 IMO if any profession rivals the legal profession regarding a high percentage having unwarranted arrogance and delusions of omniscience, it\u2019s the medical profession.\u00a0 Overbearing, arrogant doctors are as legendary and as common as overbearing, arrogant lawyers\/politicians.\u00a0 (Remember:\u00a0 most professional politicians are also lawyers.)\u00a0 And due to their self-perceptions of omniscience, like lawyers and politicians many such overbearing, obnoxious healthcare providers also routinely assume they\u2019re experts not only in their chosen profession but in all fields.<\/p>\n Take that arrogance and self-perception of general omniscience and mix in an anti-gun bias, and you have the potential for abuse.\u00a0 But we don\u2019t have to worry about that, do we – because a healthcare provider would never<\/em> let personal bias and\/or politics affect their professional judgment, or cause them to abuse it.\u00a0 Right?<\/p>\n Yeah, right.\u00a0 For a counterexample, as I said above:\u00a0 see Sakharov, Andrei.\u00a0 And countless others.<\/p>\n Oh, and did I mention that there have been arguments in the recent past in the US in favor of firearms regulation due to public health impact<\/a> \u2013 many of which were made by healthcare experts and\/or practitioners?<\/p>\n Finally<\/span>:\u00a0 the diagnosis of \u201cmental illness\u201d in the US (and the world in general) is \u2013 to be charitable \u2013 elastic and malleable as hell.\u00a0 Indeed, there are currently serious proposals within mental health community for new \u201cmental condition\u201d diagnoses that if adopted could render literally over half the US population subject to being diagnosed as having a \u201cmental condition\u201d.\u00a0 \u00a0Indeed, even the mental health profession is concerned about this seemingly over-broad expansion of diagnoses of \u201cmental disorders\u201d; as of February 2012 over 11,000 mental health practitioners had signed a petition calling for a \u201ccease work\u201d on the newest proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)<\/a> for precisely this reason.<\/p>\n The mental healthcare community\u2019s push to expand their sphere of influence is understandable based on human nature.\u00a0 More possible diagnoses means more work; more work means more employment opportunities, a larger profession, more influence, and more income.\u00a0 \u00a0The why behind this is well-understood.\u00a0 It\u2019s called \u201cfollow the money.\u201d<\/p>\n Yet that also potentially gives that community great influence outside their area of expertise.\u00a0 Suppose for the sake of argument that states begin limiting the rights of anyone with a \u201cmental condition\u201d regarding firearms ownership?\u00a0 Or driving?\u00a0 Or in the management of their own money or property?\u00a0 After all, they\u2019ve been diagnosed by “experts” as having \u201cmental issues\u201d \u2013 so they\u2019re obviously not legally competent, right?\u00a0 Even though that\u2019s not been determined in court?<\/p>\n Think that can\u2019t possibly happen?\u00a0 Think again.\u00a0 It already has – at least twice.\u00a0 For the first example, see above about California, firearms ownership, and \u201caccess\u201d.\u00a0 And for the second:\u00a0 the VA is already reporting those who require a financial conservator as \u201cmentally deficient\u201d to NICS by default<\/a> unless those individuals can convince the VA otherwise.<\/p>\n . . .<\/p>\n The denial of a Constitutional right is not something to be taken lightly, even when it comes to public safety and health. \u00a0In particular, it should not IMO be left to the word or whim of one person.<\/p>\n Per the Constitution\u2019s 14th Amendment, lawful denial of rights requires due process.\u00a0 Further, the SCOTUS has held that both substantial and procedural due process is required for the denial of rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself.<\/p>\n Felons receive that in the trial in which they are convicted.\u00a0 However, I don\u2019t see how someone being involuntarily committed for two days and released – or having a spouse who\u2019s been involuntarily committed, then released – and who has not been determined by a court of law to be incompetent and\/or a danger to self\/others qualifies as \u201cdue process\u201d for the purpose of denying rights protected by the Constitution.\u00a0 The same IMO is true for the determination of financial incompetence by a VA staffer.<\/p>\n Constitutional rights are precious things.\u00a0 They should not be denied based merely on irrational fears, or on the whim of a single individual who may have an axe to grind or an agenda to promote.\u00a0 And California\u2019s practice of confiscating firearms without court orders\u2013 and the VA’s similar practice of reporting veterans requiring financial conservators as \u201cmentally deficient\u201d in the absence of any court determination of same \u2013 establishes the precedent that such a denial of rights without due process is allowable.<\/p>\n All roads do not lead to Rome; some lead to far less desirable destinations.\u00a0 And one rather famous road leading elsewhere is paved with the best of intentions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"