• Keep Up the Pressure on Obama's Anti-gun 'Legacy' Bill

  • The Second Amendment Made a Huge Difference in Iowa

  • Obama Demonstrates Why Background Checks Suck

  • It's Time to Strike Back Against the Empire

  • Help Me Stop Obama's Gun Grab -- Sen. Steve Daines

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

GOA News

  • Run and Hide
  • Unconstitutional Checks
  • Not Surprised
  • #ENDTHECHECK
  • On the Front Lines

Hide in here, Officer, the bad guys are coming!


GOA's Erich Pratt says it's alarming that Chicago police are being instructed to run and hide from danger, despite the fact that they are fully certified officers.  CNN reported that in case of an active shooter, if evacuation is not possible, unarmed aviation police must "run and hide."   

"That is the most stunning advice that you would give to people supposedly there to protect us,” says Pratt.


Read More

Gun Owners of America: FBI Actions Prove Background Checks Unconstitutional


"The whole National Instant Background Check System (NICS) apparatus needs to be defunded. And once the examiners and analysts tied to that apparatus have been on unemployment for a while, perhaps they’ll understand that they need to do their job. And now I’m dreaming, but maybe the Republicans will actually step up and do this." - Larry Pratt


Read More

Whence a Mexican drug lord's guns came doesn't surprise GOA


 Mike Hammond, legislative council to Gun Owners of America (GOA), says this news comes as the ATF is pushing Congress for more money.

"They're demanding massively more money for the instant check system, massively more money for 200 additional ATF agents, and $500 million -- chump change by Washington standards -- so that they can take people who have problems and want to consult a professional and take away their guns from them," Hammond explains.


Read More

We Don’t Need no Stinkin’ Background Checks


The Obama administration was behind the greatest effort to arm criminals in recent history, but they don’t want you to buy a revolver at a gun show unless government officials approve the sale.  


 

Read More

Gun Groups Launch Campaign to Stop Obama's Gun Restrictions

 


“Gun Owners of America is rallying the grassroots in opposition to the president’s unlawful executive actions. Our hope is to produce enough pressure that either the president backs off of his plans to restrict Second Amendment rights — as he did last year when he withdrew the ban on ‘green tip’ ammunition — or we generate so much momentum that the next president is compelled to rescind Obama’s unlawful decrees during the first week in office," Erich Pratt, the group's executive director, told Newsmax.


 

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • CCW Wins Again
  • Deputy Saved
  • Gun Beats Knife
  • Guns Save Lives
  • Two for One

New Jersey man, 35, identified in fatal barbershop shootout with CWP holders

A 35-year-old New Jersey man has been identified as the armed robbery suspect who was shot and killed in a shootout during a botched robbery attempt at a Fort Jackson Boulevard barbershop.

Read More

Officials: Gun-toting veteran saves life of Bastrop deputy

Not thinking about his own life, a local Marine veteran jumped into action and stopped a man from reaching a Bastrop deputy’s gun as the suspect pummeled the officer during a struggle earlier this month.

Read More

Woman Shoots Attempted Robber

A man was shot after he allegedly tried to rob a woman in downtown Louisville.

Read More

90-Year-Old Pulls Gun For First Time In His Life On Home Intruder

 A 90-year-old man had the first reason in his life to use his .38 spc revolver when an unknown intruder entered his home and attempted to sleep in a vacant bedroom in his house.  As the Daily Breeze describes it, the home owner awoke to find the man in the vacant bedroom.

Read More

Pair Of Concealed Carriers Thwart Armed Robbers In Barbershop, Saving Lives

Two licensed concealed carry permit holders turned the tables on two armed thugs who barged into a barber shop wearing masks Friday night, demanding money from everyone inside.

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