Wisc court rules that taking your License to carry is no big deal ...

View attachment 11605

Pg56 of court decision in case:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...9/C:12-2272:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1342808:S:0

Federal 7th Appellate case

Court found that the taking of the gun was wrong, but it's OK !

What a crock of chit this decision is...a twisted path to nowheresville.

And the court holds the RBKA as valueless.

We're appealing to SCOTUS

Here's the fundraising thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?122026-raising-funds-appealing-to-SCOTUS

And yes, I'm plenty peeved about their decision, for many reasons.

I'm a little curious as to how the heck Wisconsin cops had ANY authority to take her carry permits issued by another state?

mark-in-texas said:

I'm a little curious as to how the heck Wisconsin cops had ANY authority to take her carry permits issued by another state?

Click to expand...

Probably because of agreements between states. No offense but this is what happens when a privilege is preferred over a right. It can be taken away at the whim of government.

Very disturbing.

Police can violate a citizens rights if said citizen COULD be a danger to himself/herself? Folks that MAY HAVE mental issues have NO rights?

I await all comments and opinions on this ruling.

CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

Very disturbing.

Police can violate a citizens rights if said citizen COULD be a danger to himself/herself? Folks that MAY HAVE mental issues have NO rights?

I await all comments and opinions on this ruling.

CCJ

Click to expand...

When you tell your psychiatrist you are going home and blow your brains out you better believe something is gonna go down. As per the statements in the 7ths ruling.

MKE I hope you win out in this, but please be careful in the future of how a liberal can twist what you say. Unfortunately sometimes it does not matter if you say anything though. We had a girlfriend who went through something similar. But there was no doctor involved.

A boyfriend of hers wanted her out of the house, soooo he had his brother call a wellness check on her. The Harnett swat arrived and she locked herself in her bathroom with her two dogs, for fear they would shoot them. After a standoff she agreed to voluntary evaluation, big mistake, she lost her CHP. And in NC because she cannot get a PPP she cannot buy a handgun for open carry. The whole deal became unraveled when it was found it was a false police report, a ruse. In fact all the guns in the house belonged to the boyfriend and since a order of protection was issued for her, he could not return to his house and he cannot get his guns back. But since she volunteered to be evaluated she cannot get her CHP back, without taking it to court.

interestingly, i wonder if due process IAW WI 51.15 was followed, especially provisions of (1)(ag)3 or (1)(ar)1.

as mentioned, i believe civil suit should be brought against the doctor who instigated the initial problem.

best wishes on your challenge

ipse

Franky said:

When you tell your psychiatrist you are going home and blow your brains out you better believe something is gonna go down. As per the statements in the 7ths ruling.

Click to expand...

How about if one tells their bartender or baker the same information, should their rights still be violated? Or only information from a medical person applies?

Regards

CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

How about if one tells their bartender or baker the same information, should their rights still be violated? Or only information from a medical person applies?

Regards

CCJ

Click to expand...

Family counts. So your wife/husband calls and say you said your going to hurt someone or yourself then your getting a visit. The further the person is away from knowing you then the less inherent veracity there is from the "witness".

Don't need to be a doctor to report that someone said a statement. That's just adding to the case when a attained doctor can say it AND throw a diagnosis or history in there.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Family counts. So your wife/husband calls and say you said your going to hurt someone or yourself then your getting a visit. The further the person is away from knowing you then the less inherent veracity there is from the "witness".

Don't need to be a doctor to report that someone said a statement. That's just adding to the case when a attained doctor can say it AND throw a diagnosis or history in there.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

There was no 'Someone" mentioned, only" ones self" was mentioned. Or did I miss something?

I could understand the violation of rights, if the police believed that other people were being held against their will in the home however from the case information that is not an issue.

My .02

Stay safe Primus,

CCJ

Nightmare said:

Long and with lots of case law annotated. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/ch. 905

For instance

.

Click to expand...

Like a lawyer ... you can tell a lawyer anything you did in the past ... but talk about future illegal activities and he just might spill the "beans".

WalkingWolf said:

please be careful in the future of how a liberal can twist what you say.

Click to expand...

correct. there's a whole army of paid dirtbags that look for things to make gun owners look bad and give the media 'hints/cheat sheets' as to what's going on to 'help them'. this is why we firearms owners should be the best representatives for our sector and not give our enemies ammunition and free, cheap shots at us.

countryclubjoe said:

How about if one tells their bartender or baker the same information, should their rights still be violated? Or only information from a medical person applies?

Regards

CCJ

Click to expand...

The troll Doug aka franky doesn't care if your rights are violated by everyone. Don't talk to him too much. I am waiting when they come after his guns and then see what he writes on this blog.

to quantify, CCJ, you used the word medical person when it should be correctly stated a metal health professional, this includes social workers, counselors, therapists, shrinks (can't spell psychicartist), at least trained to the master's level and appropriately licensed, or allowed by state statutes, etc.

at this time i am not aware of any state whose statutes allows a plain olde ordinary medical doctor, GP, skin, baby, surgeon, etc., to recommend or be able to put anyone on a mental health hold as they are not appropriately trained in mental health protocols to facilitate such an action.

and no the persons you referenced do not have a duty to report the mental health professional does, even if they are not in their licensed state but it is an ethical situation not a legal stance. but take the bartender position you referenced, in some states they have a mandatory duty to quit serving customers 'if in the bartender's opinion' the customer is hammered.

ipse

please see 455, 457, and for the life of me i lost the reference which defined psychiatrist as physican with six months specialized residency.

additionally, i believe you have jumped to after the initial call has been made and it now the police's duty to carry out the retrieval of the individual identified by the mental health professional but will investigate further upon return.

ipse

solus said:

to quantify, CCJ, you used the word medical person when it should be correctly stated a metal health professional, this includes social workers, counselors, therapists, shrinks (can't spell psychicartist), at least trained to the master's level and appropriately licensed, or allowed by state statutes, etc.

at this time i am not aware of any state whose statutes allows a plain olde ordinary medical doctor, GP, skin, baby, surgeon, etc., to recommend or be able to put anyone on a mental health hold as they are not appropriately trained in mental health protocols to facilitate such an action.

and no the persons you referenced do not have a duty to report the mental health professional does, even if they are not in their licensed state but it is an ethical situation not a legal stance. but take the bartender position you referenced, in some states they have a mandatory duty to quit serving customers 'if in the bartender's opinion' the customer is hammered.

ipse

Click to expand...

I'll also add a state that doesn't require you to be a Doctor to detain on a Mental Evaluation.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter123/Section12

Section 12. (a) Any physician who is licensed pursuant to section 2 of chapter 112 or qualified psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialist authorized to practice as such under regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of section 80B of said chapter 112 or a qualified psychologist licensed pursuant to sections 118 to 129, inclusive, of said chapter 112, or a licensed independent clinical social worker licensed pursuant to sections 130 to 137, inclusive, of chapter 112 who, after examining a person, has reason to believe that failure to hospitalize such person would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental illness may restrain or authorize the restraint of such person and apply for the hospitalization of such person for a 3-day period at a public facility or at a private facility authorized for such purposes by the department. If an examination is not possible because of the emergency nature of the case and because of the refusal of the person to consent to such examination, the physician, qualified psychologist, qualified psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialist or licensed independent clinical social worker on the basis of the facts and circumstances may determine that hospitalization is necessary and may apply therefore. In an emergency situation, if a physician, qualified psychologist, qualified psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialist or licensed independent clinical social worker is not available, a police officer, who believes that failure to hospitalize a person would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental illness may restrain such person and apply for the hospitalization of such person for a 3-day period at a public facility or a private facility authorized for such purpose by the department. An application for hospitalization shall state the reasons for the restraint of such person and any other relevant information which may assist the admitting physician or physicians. Whenever practicable, prior to transporting such person, the applicant shall telephone or otherwise communicate with a facility to describe the circumstances and known clinical history and to determine whether the facility is the proper facility to receive such person and also to give notice of any restraint to be used and to determine whether such restraint is necessary.


I've bolded the first section that shows what you've been referenicing, the need for it to be a licensed Dr. to assign to a mental hold. I then bolded the second portion where it shows that a police officer can also apply for the same hold if it's an emergency and the other personnel are not present.

So everyone is on same page just different sections of it. It does require a Dr. to make the final decision. But in some states (as others have posted) a non medical person can initiate the detaintment and process.