General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter his family died, he threatened to kill himself. So the police took his guns.
By Eli Saslow at the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/after-his-family-died-he-threatened-to-kill-himself-so-the-police-took-his-guns/2018/03/17/38e3138e-26e6-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?__twitter_impression=true
"SNIP......
LISBON, Conn. John McGuire was inside his house with 81 guns when five state troopers were dispatched to investigate a threat he had reportedly made. They drove past a series of frozen lakes and up an unplowed driveway to a house set back in the Connecticut woods. The shades were drawn. A tattered mattress wasted away on the front porch, and boxes of medical equipment cluttered the entryway.
McGuire, 76, came to the door wearing a stained sweatshirt and uncombed gray hair. He hadnt dealt with police in the two decades since he retired from the force himself, but he still knew the legal statutes and understood his rights. He asked the police if he was under arrest, and the officers said he was not. He asked if he had broken any laws, and they said he hadnt. They told him he wasnt being charged, or investigated, or even accused of any crime. Instead, they had come to search his house this winter evening based on a controversial type of warrant, one that represents the United States latest piecemeal attempt to prevent gun violence.
Person Posing Risk to Self or Others, read the bold lettering on top of the warrant.
Probable cause: McGuire stated to a medical technician that .?.?. he was going to kill himself by burning his house down and blowing his head off with a revolver.
.........SNIP"
Demovictory9
(32,417 posts)applegrove
(118,456 posts)she went into the hospital for an operation. He wanted to protect his family metaphorically. His daughter collected fridge magnets. His wife figurines of children.
aikoaiko
(34,159 posts)Not really an astonishing number of purchases for someone who is a middle-class collector.
ginny skinny
(182 posts)Jane broke up with her verbally abusive boyfriend John. Afterwards she bought a gun and took classes to learn how to use it because she had a nagging feeling John might do something violent. John calls the police to report Jane has a gun, she's depressed, she's been drinking and he's concerned she might be a danger to herself or others. The police roll up, see a couple wine cooler empties in the trash bin. What should be their next move?
applegrove
(118,456 posts)ginny skinny
(182 posts)Take her gun? Evidence=Someone reported her, she seems to have been drinking, better safe than sorry?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Statistically speaking that is.
There should be a quick appeals process so she can get her gun back, along with a restraining order.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)But I will say ... it SUUUUUURE would seem a shit-ton less overwhelming of a 'task' ... if a whole shit-ton less people ... had guns to begin with, wouldn't it?
Further, I think it's important that action not be based on NUMBER of guns someone has. That's kinda irrelevant. You can shoot one at a time only. I don't even think that the degree of firepower in that person's most dangerous weapon should play a role in DECIDING if all a persons guns should be removed.
It's just as important to take the ONLY gun away from a 1-gun owner who really needs to have 0 guns ... as it is to take away 81 AR-15's ... from a person who also really needs to have 0 guns.
As long as it's a valid, justifiable reason.
Also we need a reliable system of communication among ALL gun sellers that a person has had their firearms confiscated. The action needs to go into the background check system immediately, and ammo sales must be stopped for them as well. And EVERY ONE needs to pass a check no matter what to buy a gun, none of this 'private sales loophole' BS.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)that any individual "needs" 0 guns? What defines "need?"
As far as background checks (which I agree totally about) what about HIPAA? What about privacy? Should everyone who is selling a gun have access to the medical records that show someone is on antidepressants? I'm asking because I really don't know how far that should go.
ginny skinny
(182 posts)One of my disgruntled exes could call the cops and report that my current and I have a lot of guns (true), that we like to drink (true, but only when the guns are locked up) and that they think we may be a danger to ourselves or others (maybe they think that, maybe they don't, really). One of us has been on anti-depressants in the past.
The cops show up and clean out our gun safe?
applegrove
(118,456 posts)exes or you from lying about anything to the police about anything? We should have no laws if we follow your logic.
ginny skinny
(182 posts)...someone that may or may not have an ulterior motive for reporting them. I live in a very red state. I suspect the local law enforcement would tend to give due consideration to a law abiding gun owner in such a situation but I couldn't count on that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the best thing you can do is inform the cops what and what you feel threatened by. People shouldnt be encouraged to buy guns because something triggers them, like this man with family illness. Something is wrong w how youre living if you need that gun for everyday life.
ginny skinny
(182 posts)I enjoy it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)A pause in your hobby/ leisure activity. Shouldnt be a big deal. The rest of sacrifice knowing there are people with guns all around us, and that makes us less safe.
ginny skinny
(182 posts)For weeks or months or years...No.
Edit to add: Confiscating my guns isn't going to save any lives.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)A relative or friend could have a horrible day and do something stupid. A lot of people dont secure their guns because they feel that it impedes access. Im glad we didnt have any around when I was growing up.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...and before the cops arrest the ex for lying to them.
Besides, do you trust the cops to give the guns back in a timely fashion?
applegrove
(118,456 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2018, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)
Is minute.
ginny skinny
(182 posts)Unless that someone is someone that has a reason to see you disarmed. To be clear, I am not talking about anyone in my life, just speaking hypothetically.
applegrove
(118,456 posts)she was a danger to herself or others. And if she said "no, he is dangerous to me" they would go with who they believed which would be the woman since they rarely assault and kill their ex spouses. While men do. How do the police deal with any law?
ginny skinny
(182 posts)Who do they believe?
sl8
(13,653 posts)And then it was up to the judge. She thought McGuires circumstances seemed potentially volatile. She also said she empathized with him. Connecticut had ruled in hundreds of risk warrant cases during the past decade, with an average of seven guns seized each time. In most cases, judges ordered that the guns would remain in police storage for a year. Ten percent of the time, the guns were returned to owners immediately. In 14 percent, the guns were taken away permanently and then sold or destroyed.
...
aikoaiko
(34,159 posts)I fear this may lead to dead cops and dead gun owners as gun owners see their tin-hat fantasies come true and trigger happy, coward cops shoot first and ask questions later.
I also fear about gun owners being arrested during confiscation for other contraband items like weed or other relatively minor lawbreaking behavior that happens to be felonious.
Due process is important on the front end (leading to confiscation) and back-end (long-term resolution after confiscation).
It feels like threading a dangerous needle, both in terms of physical safety and civil liberties.
ginny skinny
(182 posts)But my neighbor down the road doesn't like the Hillary sticker on my truck so she calls the law and tells them she has concerns that I may be a "danger to myself or others."
applegrove
(118,456 posts)ginny skinny
(182 posts)she didn't "believe" what she said she "believed".
OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)How do you feel about legitimate concerns and threats? Say a guy is drowning his sorrows at the local watering hole, his wife just filed for divorce on the grounds of abuse, he tells drinking buddies, he is going to go shoot the bitch? If the drinking buddies notify law enforcement, who takes their statements and believes there is a legitimate concern, should they confiscate his guns?
Or what if the guy has been down on his luck, lost a job, got divorced and tells friends he wants to shoot himself?
ginny skinny
(182 posts)Yes in some cases it may be justified. A thousand guys, drunk, in a bar, may bloviate about killing their ex. A thousand drunk guy exes may bloviate about their exes being a danger to themselves or others. Doesn't justify confiscating people's guns on the concern of one person.
I'm out of this thread, late, I'm somewhat inebriated (guns safely locked away!), thanks for the discussion.