• Your Activism Helped Kill an Anti-Gun Bill

  • Help Stop the Attack on Concealed Carry

  • Your Effort is Grabbing the Attention of Capitol Hill Leaders

  • Will Congressional Republicans Hand Hillary/Obama an Anti-gun Victory?

  • Does Your Representative Support Concealed Carry Reciprocity?

  • Will Some Pro-gun Reps. Try to Kill Constitutional Carry?

  • Should Your Right to Carry End at the State Border?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

GOA News

  • Hillary Wants to Ban Guns
  • Gun Owners Punished
  • SCOTUS & 2A in 2016
  • Facebook Discrimination
  • Hillary's Stance May Backfire

Hillary Does Want to Ban Guns No Matter What “Politifact” Says

In response to presidential candidate Donald Trump's NRA speech on Friday, the too-clever-by-half Clinton campaign produced an admittedly confused "Venn diagram" suggesting that Americans hate guns, now comes "Politifact" to "inform" us that, in the opinion of the leftist media, Hillary Clinton would not "abolish" the Second Amendment.

Don't believe that.

Read More

How the Anti-Gun Sentencing Bill Punishes Gun Owners

 

Gun Owners of America reported recently that gun owners’ activism has resulted in the death of the anti-gun sentencing bill (S. 2123 in the Senate and H.R. 3713 in the House).

But a number of our members have expressed confusion over how it is that we reached our conclusions with respect to the anti-gun provisions of the sentencing bill (S. 2123 in the Senate and H.R. 3713 in the House).  

We concede that it is pretty easy to get confused if you're not thoroughly conversant with federal gun law.  

But here is why those bills are anti-gun. 

Read More

Supreme Court, Gun Rights Top Concerns in 2016 Elections

 The 2016 election season is the wildest in recent memory, and there’s still a long way to go until November.

After the Indiana primary in May, real estate mogul Donald Trump became the Republican presumptive nominee, wresting control from an establishment class that for years has ignored the pleas of rank-and-file voters to rein in the federal government. 

Read More

On Facebook, critics see long pattern of discrimination


Show Facebook you support GOA - click here to like us on Facebook

"Lots of gun owners have been disappointed with Facebook's policies towards gun rights, and unfortunately, Facebook is alienating a lot of [gun rights] supporters." Erich Pratt said. 


Read More

Hillary Clinton’s fierce anti-gun stance could backfire in general election


 Erich Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Mrs. Clinton is out of touch with reality if she thinks she can change those numbers.

“She is crazy if she thinks that advocating Aussie-style gun confiscation is going to help her win in November,” Mr. Pratt said. “Hillary is in for a rude awakening.”


Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Trigger Finger
  • Not this House
  • Fighting Back
  • Stopping Violence
  • Better Shot

Home Intruder Dead Wrong for Targeting Wheelchair-Bound Veteran

If 22-year-old Andre Smith thought he had found an easy target in 69-year-old Eddie Frank Smith, he was dead wrong.

Read More

Mississippi Homeowner Shoots Alleged Burglar in Driveway

Lee County Mississippi Sheriff Jim Johnson says a local homeowner shot and killed 35-year-old Gary Sneed, Jr. after she caught him inside a vehicle on her driveway.

Read More

Restraining Order Fails To Stop Ex-Boyfriend But Bullets Work

Lexington police confirmed that the man who attempted to invade a woman’s home was subject to a restraining order. By the time they arrived, he was laying out in the front lawn with multiple gun shot wounds. He was evacuated to a nearby hospital in serious condition.

Read More

Concealed Carry Holder Ends Violent Outburst

A concealed carry holder in Texas was forced to make a tough decision Wednesday to end a violent outburst after a man destroyed property and threatened staff.

Read More

Homeowner Better Shot During Gun Fight With Armed Home Invaders

A homeowner proved to be better prepared than the people who invaded his home, leaving one dead and the others fleeing Wednesday night after they broke in and demanded money at gunpoint.

Read More

Hello Larry,

 

I would like to relate to you the general mechanism which under California’s Welfare and Institutions code sections 5150 and 8102 lead to unwarranted gun confiscation.  

 

Following I have attached a short general scenario (Keep and Bear Arms), the petition in the present case along with the related Points and Authorities and “evidence” as well as the psychiatric evaluation.   Further I have provided copies of the relevant statutes.

 

The typical situation is where someone is accused of acting unstable or in a manner which might be deemed, by someone, as being a danger to himself or others.   Under 5150, this is ground for taking the person into a 72 hour involuntary observation during which time a mental health professional observes and evaluates the person.   If the person is deemed to be a danger, then the 72 hour hold can be extended.  If the person is not so deemed, they are released.  

 

The fine print of 5150 is included in my attachments.   

 

Once the 5150 has been effected, 8102 states that firearms in possession, etc. can be confiscated.   This us typically done with the “permission” of anyone else who might give permission to the authorities to “take the weapons for safekeeping.”   This in itself if absurd.  If the person who is a danger is removed under 5150, how can the presence of weapons be a danger?   Well, someone might posit, upon the return of the person, there would be a danger.   But, on the other hand, the 5150, if ended within the 72 hours, deems in itself, that the person is NOT a danger, so the return would not be a danger.   At the end of the first paragraph of 8100 it states that “A person is not subject to this subdivision [prohibition of possession etc. of firearms] once he or she is discharged from the facility.”   This seems to contradict 8102.  If the provision is then terminated, on what ground do the authorities have for keeping the firearms and requiring a hearing for the return of firearms for a person who has been evaluated and released?   This is a fool’s logic, but one which is stripping people of their property outside of the authority of law. 

 

It might be argued, that because there is the option of a hearing, the law provides a reasoned avenue for that person to regain possession.   Why it is fair for a person who has had property seized outside of the authority of law to have to come to a hearing to argue for the return of his property?   But there is a problem with the hearing itself.   In order for the seized weapons to be returned, it is not the government which must show that the person is a danger to himself or others, but rather the judge (yes, only a judge, no jury) must be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the person will NOT be a danger to himself or others.   What has happened to the “presumed” innocent (or in this case competent) until proven otherwise?   In this situation, the judge must be convinced, not of incompetence (the argument of the prosecution), but rather of competence, the argument the person must make.   This is a dire reversal of our typical Constitutional rights.   But, there is yet another twist.   This is NOT a trial, and perhaps not even a superior court proceeding, but might be deemed, instead, an administrative hearing.   Superior court proceedings are governed by the Constitution and accompanying rights; the right to confront our accusers, included.   On the other hand, typical protective procedures mandated under the Constitution are NOT required in administrative hearings.    For example, the judge is free to consider written statements from witnesses not present for cross-examination.   So, if the underlying 5150 and the subsequent confiscation is based upon questionable out of court statements, the accused can be denied the chance to test the veracity of the statements in court. 

This is a serious problem when something as important as Constitutionally protected property and Second Amendment rights are being denied.  

 

Further, the standards of 5150 are ambiguous at best.   What does it mean to be a danger to himself or others?   There is no behavioral standard stated in the code for this assessment.   A lot of what we do on a daily basis, whereas considered safe by us, might be deemed a danger to ourselves or others.   Does this warrant being interred for involuntary observation and perhaps losing Second Amendment Rights?   For instance, some people drive while tired.  This might be a danger to others.   Doing this on a regular basis might be seen by some as being indicative of an ongoing mental problem, maybe even to the point of a 5150.   What about smoking?  What about crossing the street without looking both ways?   If these are seen as being a danger to onself or to others, poorly written 5150 can provide authority for 72 evaluation and perhaps institutionalization.   Because 8102 DOES NOT require a firearms related 5150 to take effect, a 5150 for any purpose can lead to firearms confiscation.   So, it is possible, that any “dangerous” behavior might lead to firearm confiscation.  The present use of  W&I 8102 coupled with 5150 is indeed insidious.    Clearly this cannot be the overt intent of the legislature.   

 

It is not unreasonable that people who have been duly adjudicated in Constitutionally protected superior court proceedings as being a danger to themselves or others to be limited in their access to lethal force.   On the other hand, the misuse of 5150 coupled with 8102 enables law enforcement to seize property and the courts to deny Second Amendment rights based upon the mere unfounded transient accusation of any danger whatsoever, regardless as to how remote from the possession of firearms. 

 

Are we devolving to a position where the mere desire to own firearms will be deemed as evidence of being a danger, and therefore firearms being prohibited from anyone who wants them?

 

The NRA’s current position on the pending bill would, it appears, provide for all courts and law enforcement across the country, the tools which are now so readily abused by those institutions in California.

 

How great is the siren song of safety.    Who was it that said that those who are willing to trade freedom for security are worthy of neither?

 

I hope this material is informative

 

Please let me know the next step.   Let’s try to effect some good.

Regards,

 

W. Michael Becker, Ph.D., J.D., Licensed Psychologist, Attorney at Law

Prof. Mgt & Law, University of San Francisco.

 

TO:   GOA, c/o Larry Pratt

Op-Ed Articles