Gun-control advocates see 5150 holds as model

[petronius]

Having achieved something close to mythic status in California pop culture, the state's "5150" hold for people in psychiatric crisis is being looked at by national gun-control advocates and some experts as a way to get help for mass shooters before they open fire.

Named for the section where it appears in California's Welfare and Institutions Code, 5150 lets mental health professionals commit those deemed to be a danger to themselves or others to a care facility for as long as 72 hours.

--- Snip ---

Under California law, hospital admission in these circumstances triggers a report to the state Department of Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons System. Those who have been detained on a 5150 hold cannot possess or own guns for five years, though the law permits them to petition to regain firearms rights.

--- Snip ---

But gun-rights advocates say 5150's gun prohibition has come at a cost to individual rights. There is no provision in 5150 for a due-process type hearing at the front end, they say. While those held for 72 hours can move afterward to have their gun rights restored, the process can be time consuming and costly.

--- Snip ---

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Gun-control-advocates-see-5150-holds-as-model-4891244.php#page-1

California is more active than most states, I think, when it comes to removing guns from people who may pose a danger as well as expanding prohibited persons to gun-related misdemeanors. This article seems like a pretty balanced discussion...

[NYC_SKP]

1. I'm so glad that Jerry Brown didn't cave.

I love that guy as governor, then as candidate for POTUS, and again as Oakland mayor and AG and now, again, as governor.

He told the Democratic Party insiders to fuck off, you gotta love that. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-05/news/mn-576_1_party-chairman

[Eleanors38]

2. I still don't see why a hearing cannot be front-loaded...

If it is because the judiciary cannot handle the case load and expense, then that problem needs to be addressed rather than loading it onto the backs of those "accused" of having a "mental illness" through a petition process.

Most prohibition schemes always go for the weak link: The Fifth Amendment.

[rrneck]

3. I read an article a while back

I think it was in the Washingtopost, that California couldn't begin to keep up with firearms confiscations as a result of 5150's. Sheriffs departments weren't even trying, although I think they have thrown some money at the problem lately.

As the article mentions, there are false positives and there will continue to be. People who are at risk of assault will be more likely to be turned over to the system and be unable to successfully navigate it to avoid losing the right to defend themselves. While those sufficiently motivated to shoot a bunch of people who really need to be 5150'd will still be able to get a gun.

Unless you regulate guns like schedule two narcotics there will be a mass shooting by a mentally unstable person at some point in the future. Until that time, a given number of people will suffer from the disruption in their lives because of the inherent flaws in the 5150 regulations. The number of people who suffer from flaws in the regulation will have a greater political impact than those who hear about a mass shooting on the news. And that's how the NRA makes its money.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. How come the usual suspects aren't applauding this?

Fewer guns = fewer guns. More help = more help

Right?

[rrneck]

5. There is no need to post here.

The only reason they posted here about guns before the advent of GCRA is because this was the only place to do so, and since they were just posting here to kvetch about the evil gun totem they didn't want dissent. But since they have castle Bansalot and GD, there's no point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Ah, but couldn't they champion this in their own forums?

[rrneck]

7. Point you've got.

I'm blocked so I never go over there.



Maybe they just haven't run across it yet.