Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: California city seizes woman's guns over husband's mental health

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269

    California city seizes woman's guns over husband's mental health

    City Attorney Rick Doyle told the station the issue is public safety.

    “Are we acting with an abundance of caution? Yeah,” Doyle said. “We’re concerned about someone having access to firearms that shouldn’t.”

    Doyle said storing the guns in a locked safe doesn’t prevent Mr. Rodriguez from gaining access.

    San Jose prevailed when Rodriguez challenged the seizure in state court.

    “We don’t want to turn the guns over and we don’t have to turn the guns over. The courts have agreed with us,” Doyle told the station.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/23...ompts-lawsuit/
    California jokes aside, this will be a interesting case to follow. Hopefully the feds will inform the city as to the error of their ways. if not...
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    From the link.."Doyle said storing the guns in a locked safe doesn’t prevent Mr. Rodriguez from gaining access...We don’t want to turn the guns over and we don’t have to turn the guns over. San Jose prevailed when Rodriguez challenged the seizure in state court. The courts have agreed with us,” Doyle told the station."

    The husband is not in a hospital or prison and is a freeman, so even he has the right to arms. Did they take all the things that can be used to harm other people, like hammers, knifes, etc.? No. Only guns. Mental health issues easily sway people to agree that the taking of a person's guns away due to mental health issues is perfectly acceptable yet I am not willing to fall into this trap; I am prepared to accept the risk that freedom demands.

    And look, now she is petitioning a government for relief against another government. This is what the governments want people to do in a civilized society. But a little un-civilization is a good thing for freedom I think.

    If the government took your guns away, how long would it take you to re-arm yourself? The answer should be in a matter of days. Firstly, one should not keep all their guns in one place and one should also have the ability to reproduce arms w/o the need for any government interference or approvals.

    Look at what the government does today and this is when the populace has guns; wait until they disarm people, then imagine what they'll do.

    Looks like SAF is also involved...http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300128246.html

    Looks like from the SAF article .. "At that time, a dozen firearms that were locked in a state-approved gun safe were confiscated, although the firearms were never involved in Mr. Rodriguez's incident."

    What, they want this safe inside another safe inside a third safe?


    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=en&as_sdt=4,5

    For more information about the state lawsuit....
    "The trial court also stated: "I'm real concerned about releasing these weapons back to home, even behind the safe, when he's got . . . the ability to, you know, coerce [Lori] somehow into opening that safe. That concerns me." [A]t the end of the day, is what my responsibility is, is public safety. And that's what guides me. And I'm not saying I'm ignoring her Constitutional Rights or anybody else's rights. . . ."

    Anytime I see or hear "at the end of the day" I know anything after that is pure BS.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Thanks for the additional link.

    It also contains a reiteration of the use of an unpublished judicial opinion.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Thanks for links ... we must have been writing at the same time. You fast...me slow.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Well, there it is. Thats how the anti's are going to get us. They dont have to ban the guns, just have us all found to be nuts. Which, considering the state of the injustice system in America, can actually happen.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    Well, there it is. Thats how the anti's are going to get us. They dont have to ban the guns, just have us all found to be nuts. Which, considering the state of the injustice system in America, can actually happen.
    Eating in public in a manner that annoys anyone is now a felony ...
    Walking, beginning with your right leg is now a felony ...
    Walking, beginning with your left leg is now a felony ...

    Or just make everything a felony ...

    I'm crazy .. for freedom....

    Carry on !

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Eating in public in a manner that annoys anyone is now a felony ...
    Walking, beginning with your right leg is now a felony ...
    Walking, beginning with your left leg is now a felony ...

    Or just make everything a felony ...

    I'm crazy .. for freedom....

    Carry on !
    The real truth is those who come for your guns, are committing a felony at that time,
    they swore an oath to we the people, to protect our rights, and our property, so by taking your guns
    they have broke there contract to we the people, also taking public monies under false pretenses (via- oath)
    and that's a felony.
    You could arrest them on the spot !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •