So I got a 5150 in California, I was admitted to a mental hospital and now I can't own a gun for the next 5 years. I'm 22 right now and I will be 27 when 5 years are up. Is there any way to appeal this? I've read that it is possible to appeal it, but it will involve going to court and fighting with the district attorney. Should I just wait until the 5 years are up, or should I consider moving to another state?

Damn fascists.

Move to Wyoming. We have next to NO gun laws out here.

So you went to a Mental Hospital and now you can't own a gun?

I kind of think it's a good idea to just not own one for 5 years.

Maybe if you overcome your mental health you can lawfully posses an item that can kill people very easily.

The logic in that is flawed anyway...

Criminals, statistically speaking, usually use firearms obtained illegally when committing violent crimes. If he's going to commit a crime, a California Penal Code will NOT stop him from doing so.

You're implying that because of mental instability, he's more prone to use a firearm for violent purposes. I find that to be a pretty moot point, since if an individual is mentally unstable enough to commit a violent crime, certainly they're also unstable enough to obtain a firearm through illegal means. Preventing him from having a firearm legally won't stop that violent crime, it'll just mean he commits another one in the process of obtaining a firearm.

You're implying that because of mental instability, he's more prone to use a firearm for violent purposes. I find that to be a pretty moot point, since if an individual is mentally unstable enough to commit a violent crime, certainly they're also unstable enough to obtain a firearm through illegal means. Preventing him from having a firearm legally won't stop that violent crime, it'll just mean he commits another one in the process of obtaining a firearm.

Well...a mentally unstable person isn't likely to be very social. Probably keep to themselves mostly with few if any friends. So I'm not sure I see a scenario where he would get black market access to purchasing a gun. Perhaps he could break into someone's house and steal their gun, but he would have to get up the nerve to break the law like that, and if he actually did it just to get his hands on a gun, then perhaps he really is too mentally unstable to be possessing a gun and can't be trusted with his freedom outside of an institution.

Well...a mentally unstable person isn't likely to be very social. Probably keep to themselves mostly with few if any friends. So I'm not sure I see a scenario where he would get black market access to purchasing a gun. Perhaps he could break into someone's house and steal their gun, but he would have to get up the nerve to break the law like that, and if he actually did it just to get his hands on a gun, then perhaps he really is too mentally unstable to be possessing a gun and can't be trusted with his freedom outside of an institution.

Not that I support any sort of gun control but perhaps if a mentally unstable person has the gun lying around it's much easier for him to pick it up and shoot someone than it is for him to illegally obtain a weapon.

Not that I support any sort of gun control but perhaps if a mentally unstable person has the gun lying around it's much easier for him to pick it up and shoot someone than it is for him to illegally obtain a weapon.

Right.

I was going to add that a mentally unstable person, most likely with bi-polar disorder, could fuck up much easier with a firearm if they went in to a rage cycle and just picked up and started shooting.

Most pre-planned crimes are done by people who are mentally stable and know exactly what they plan to do.

If you take the time to find an illegal fire arm then you've also taken the time to think about what you're going to do.

I stand by my words. If the state doesn't think you should have a gun then why own one?

I'm not arguing the fact that mentally stable people are capable of committing a crime, I just meant that the logic of assuming a gun law will stop a mentally unstable person from committing a crime is highly flawed. Current enforcement of existing laws would be the simplest way to deal with it, but adding extensive qualifiers to gun ownership has, historically, been unsuccessful in stemming any sort of violent crime.

I'm not arguing the fact that mentally stable people are capable of committing a crime, I just meant that the logic of assuming a gun law will stop a mentally unstable person from committing a crime is highly flawed. Current enforcement of existing laws would be the simplest way to deal with it, but adding extensive qualifiers to gun ownership has, historically, been unsuccessful in stemming any sort of violent crime.
This law isn't based on the assumption that prohibiting gun ownership by crazies will prevent that crazy from committing a crime, but rather that the prohibition will decrease the likelihood of that crazy committing a crime through making it more difficult for her to get a firearm. Don't you think it's worthwhile to keep guns out of the hands of crazies if it saves only a few innocent lives?

I'm not arguing the fact that mentally stable people are capable of committing a crime, I just meant that the logic of assuming a gun law will stop a mentally unstable person from committing a crime is highly flawed. Current enforcement of existing laws would be the simplest way to deal with it, but adding extensive qualifiers to gun ownership has, historically, been unsuccessful in stemming any sort of violent crime.

Old statistics but still credible.

"ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000..."

"...'If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often.' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. 'This has to be treated as a public health emergency.'''

"...Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent... Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year..."

etc.

Source: http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

A simple google can bring up many studies conducted by credible/educated people that shows how gun laws directly effect violence and homicide rates. The propaganda you spew out about gun laws not helping is only perpetuated by a bunch of red necks in the NRA who are not only uncredible but almost laughable at times. Sure other things like education and 'awareness' can help stop violence with guns (Read: Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore) but in the end if you can hinder a crazy from owning a gun in any way you should do so.

I'm not preaching pro-gun laws or anything like that, I'm just noting what works by evidence of success. If you actually need a gun to hunt or you're planning a revolution then by all means, go for it... but if you "just got a 5150" for the hell of it then fuck off.

I'll certainly agree that keeping guns out of the hands of those with a predilection for violent crime is a worthwhile endeavor, but the stats are somewhat misleading. Insofar as the United States is concerned, comparing them to Japan or other nations where guns are highly restricted is comparing apples to oranges. Gun ownership will remain a way of life in the United States for the foreseeable future, and taking them away from the majority of the populace isn't a realistic possibility at present (and I certainly understand that restriction of the entire populace would result in a dramatic downward shift in gun-related crime).

Just as counterpoint for your stats... (http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482)

Some of the things I found rather interesting in this article:

- Despite more than 20,000 gun-control laws nationwide, "firearms are present in about the same percentage of households today as in the 1960s." Furthermore, "these households must be much better armed, particularly with handguns, than they were a generation ago." Yet since 1976 the murder rate of those 25 years old and older has fallen from 7.5 per 100,000 to 5 per 100,000.

As well as...

Comparison with trends in other countries is a poor way to determined whether gun-density or -availability is linked with gun deaths. "Restrictive legal control of firearms is consistent with high rates of homicide and suicide (Russia, Estonia), high rates of homicide with low rates of suicide (Mexico, Northern Ireland), and high rates of suicide with low rates of homicide (Canada, Hungary)."

And

Long-term trends for the U.S. population at large show no positive correlation between guns and intentional gun deaths. "The national rate of suicide has fluctuated little in that period of time, ranging between roughly 10 and 12 in 100,000 of population from 1950 to the present, although firearms have gradually gained ‘market share’ as the self-destructive means of choice," Polsby writes. "The murder rate, however, has gone both higher and then lower, and recently higher again; it is about twice as high today (9 or 10 in 100,000), in a time of pervasive and meaningful legal regulation of firearms, as it was in the 1950s."

(This article is dated similarly to yours, but having looked on the website you cited, evidently the trends are remaining roughly the same in the decade since either of these articles were published. I presume in that last quotation I used that he's referring to 1993 when he says "recently higher again," as homicides reached a high in the United States that year.)

I suppose I'd make a far more informed opinion on this particular subject if I knew more about what the OP's situation entailed. If the person remains mentally unstable (i.e., undergoes no further treatment and is not "rehabilitated"), I don't understand how five years or fifty years will make a difference in the validity of him possessing a firearm. However, if a treatment is successful (and it sounds like it's state mandated), it seems that it would be more prudent to assume his record is clean and that firearm ownership shouldn't be restricted.

The next question in my mind would be whether this was an alternative to a felony conviction, in which case there are far more qualifiers to gun ownership (legal or not) in all states, not just Kalifornia.

Either way, thanks for being civil. Civility and sanity aren't exactly what I've come to expect when discussing gun control/gun ownership with anyone, particularly the crazy rednecks (some who are proud members of the NRA, which I agree, is laughable in it's stance entirely too often) out here in Wyoming.

So I got a 5150 in California, I was admitted to a mental hospital and now I can't own a gun for the next 5 years. I'm 22 right now and I will be 27 when 5 years are up. Is there any way to appeal this? I've read that it is possible to appeal it, but it will involve going to court and fighting with the district attorney. Should I just wait until the 5 years are up, or should I consider moving to another state?

Having looked up "5150" so that I had any clue what the hell you are talking about, since mental instability can be just about -anything-, I got the following...

Section 5150 is a section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code (specifically, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act or "LPS") which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person deemed (or feared) to have a mental disorder that makes them a danger to him or her self, and/or others[1] and/or gravely disabled. A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration. When used as a term, 5150 (pronounced "fifty-one-fifty") can informally refer to the person being confined or to the declaration itself.

If your doctor thinks you're no longer a danger to yourself or others, talk to him about the weapon and why you want it, and get him to sign some kind of discharge statement indicating that he thinks you're safe with a gun.

Then appeal.

Otherwise, wait out your five years. I don't see you winning against someone who thinks you're a risk, and has the expert opinion to back it up.

I'll certainly agree that keeping guns out of the hands of those with a predilection for violent crime is a worthwhile endeavor, but the stats are somewhat misleading. Insofar as the United States is concerned, comparing them to Japan or other nations where guns are highly restricted is comparing apples to oranges. Gun ownership will remain a way of life in the United States for the foreseeable future, and taking them away from the majority of the populace isn't a realistic possibility at present (and I certainly understand that restriction of the entire populace would result in a dramatic downward shift in gun-related crime).

Just as counterpoint for your stats... (http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482)

Some of the things I found rather interesting in this article:



As well as...



And



(This article is dated similarly to yours, but having looked on the website you cited, evidently the trends are remaining roughly the same in the decade since either of these articles were published. I presume in that last quotation I used that he's referring to 1993 when he says "recently higher again," as homicides reached a high in the United States that year.)

I suppose I'd make a far more informed opinion on this particular subject if I knew more about what the OP's situation entailed. If the person remains mentally unstable (i.e., undergoes no further treatment and is not "rehabilitated"), I don't understand how five years or fifty years will make a difference in the validity of him possessing a firearm. However, if a treatment is successful (and it sounds like it's state mandated), it seems that it would be more prudent to assume his record is clean and that firearm ownership shouldn't be restricted.

The next question in my mind would be whether this was an alternative to a felony conviction, in which case there are far more qualifiers to gun ownership (legal or not) in all states, not just Kalifornia.

Either way, thanks for being civil. Civility and sanity aren't exactly what I've come to expect when discussing gun control/gun ownership with anyone, particularly the crazy rednecks (some who are proud members of the NRA, which I agree, is laughable in it's stance entirely too often) out here in Wyoming.

I agree that we do need more information pertaining to the OP. I guess situations like this should be handles "case by case" since you're dealing with, objectively, societies safety as apposed to Constitutional Rights. Hence the never ending battle of Gun Control persists.

I also appreciate the civility. It's rare on &TOTSE especially on topics such as this. I used to live in Kentucky so I know the type of NRA, gun-toting, southern ideologists who could never conceive of forgoing their right to bare arms... no matter what argument is presented. Ignorance is powerful tool.

But yeah, I check this forum every day so I'm sure I'll encounter you again. Gives me something to do at work.

Having looked up "5150" so that I had any clue what the hell you are talking about, since mental instability can be just about -anything-, I got the following...



If your doctor thinks you're no longer a danger to yourself or others, talk to him about the weapon and why you want it, and get him to sign some kind of discharge statement indicating that he thinks you're safe with a gun.

Then appeal.

Otherwise, wait out your five years. I don't see you winning against someone who thinks you're a risk, and has the expert opinion to back it up.

I can do this I guess. I don't think he'll write that because I won't be able to see him face to face. Anyway, if I do appeal, then that would mean I would have to go to court over it. And if I do that, it would be the responsibility of the people and defending attorney (if they have one) to prove that I would not be able to use guns in a safe manner. It is not my responsibility to show that I can operate guns in a safe manner.

Old statistics but still credible.

"ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000..."

"...'If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often.' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. 'This has to be treated as a public health emergency.'''

"...Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent... Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year..."

etc.

Source: http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

A simple google can bring up many studies conducted by credible/educated people that shows how gun laws directly effect violence and homicide rates. The propaganda you spew out about gun laws not helping is only perpetuated by a bunch of red necks in the NRA who are not only uncredible but almost laughable at times. Sure other things like education and 'awareness' can help stop violence with guns (Read: Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore) but in the end if you can hinder a crazy from owning a gun in any way you should do so.

I'm not preaching pro-gun laws or anything like that, I'm just noting what works by evidence of success. If you actually need a gun to hunt or you're planning a revolution then by all means, go for it... but if you "just got a 5150" for the hell of it then fuck off.

I just want you to know that I strongly feel as though you are drawing a conclusion not supported by the bulk of evidence on the topic of firearms violence. More guns do not equal more crime. I do not go so far as to claim more guns equates to less crime, but here is contradictory evidence.

Numerable other sources often claim that crime rates were decreasing before gun control measures were put in place in countries such as Britain, spiked dramatically after the ban where law-abiding citizens were disarmed, and then rose yet remained under-reported. This just makes it even more difficult to compare statistics, and I'm inclined to believe that access to firearms likely does not necessarily affect crime because it is a human behavior distinct from property ownership issues.

In Kennesaw, GA. Residents are legally mandated to own guns, yet a google search will show their crime rate is extremely low.


“Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis”, by Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University claims he found countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.

Mexico: low guns, high crime. US: high guns, high crime. Swiss: high gun, low crime. Japan: low gun, low crime

Texas specifically did a study and found that permit holders who in their state are less likely to be arrested. I know you mentioned them as weird, but here you go: http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm.

Also, North Carolina only revoked .245213309% of their concealed carry permits within the past twelve years:
http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/Default.htm

I'm also interested in your statistics because the UN found that after Scotland, "[b]oth Australia and New Zealand had the next highest proportion of assaults among their population at 2.4%, exactly double the level reported for the United States." This is in comparison to "3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4257966.stm

The FBI crime stats of 1992 found that for that given year overwhelmingly in the US, violence was decreased overall in states with less strict firearms regulations. "Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the (gun) restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000) [...] Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the (gun) restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000) [...] The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the (gun) restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000) [...] The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the states which restrict guns (798.3 per 100,000 pop.)than the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000)"

At University of Utah, students who meet the requirements for getting a concealed weapon permit may carry on campus if they are permit holders. They've done so for over a year now. It was late '06 when they allowed it, and they have no increase in violence, much less gun violence on campus. This is among college students, fraternities, binge drinking, etc.

I stand by my words. If the state doesn't think you should have a gun then why own one?

If the state doesn't think you should be allowed to smoke weed, why do it?

If the state doesn't think you should be allowed to smoke weed, why do it?

Another argument no suited for this thread.

If the state doesn't think you should be allowed to smoke weed, why do it?

A poor argument, IMO. A better one would be "If a qualified medical professional doesn't believe you're safe with a gun, why not work your issues out before getting one?"

So I got a 5150 in California, I was admitted to a mental hospital and now I can't own a gun for the next 5 years. I'm 22 right now and I will be 27 when 5 years are up. Is there any way to appeal this? I've read that it is possible to appeal it, but it will involve going to court and fighting with the district attorney. Should I just wait until the 5 years are up, or should I consider moving to another state?

So, they let you use computers in the loony bin?

So, they let you use computers in the loony bin?

I'd speculate that he's out on his own recognizance and awaiting further proceedings. If it's a state mandated institutionalization, I can't imagine them holding a person all that long if a reasonable argument can be made that they're not a danger to themselves or others. This is the Kalifornia legal system, which is overworked, understaffed, and is quickly developing a reputation (whether deserved or not) of letting people off with partial sentences for non-violent offenses due to overcrowded detention facilities.

I'd speculate that he's out on his own recognizance and awaiting further proceedings. If it's a state mandated institutionalization, I can't imagine them holding a person all that long if a reasonable argument can be made that they're not a danger to themselves or others. This is the Kalifornia legal system, which is overworked, understaffed, and is quickly developing a reputation (whether deserved or not) of letting people off with partial sentences for non-violent offenses due to overcrowded detention facilities.

No, there are no computers in the "looney bin." I've been out of there for about 2 months or so now. All there was was a nurses station- where I spent a lot of time whining and bitching to the nurses.

A hallway, where I spent a lot of time pacing and moping.

An outdoors "patio" with a barred ceiling and cement floors. You could smoke in the outdoors patio during smoke breaks. I did situps on the benches here.

The television room where I spent most of the time watching TV, playing cards, playing puzzles, drawing, and eating. You got to drink as much milk and juice as you wanted, and got to eat as many granola bars as you wanted. Everyone had to share one tv, and there were sometimes fights about the TV. They gave us breakfast, lunch, and dinner here, it wasn't horrible food, but it tasted "plasticky."

And then our rooms, which were actually quite big, they were shared 2 people per each room and 1 bathroom per each 2 rooms.

Despite being locked up here. I was strangely happy most of the time. It was actually, the most friends I've ever had at the same time, and everyone loved me! The other patients were really nice to me, and most really didn't seem crazy at all. A lot of the people seemed perfectly normal.

Well this:

http://www.chaaban.info/wp-content/uploads/virginia-tech-cho-seung-hui.jpg

is the reason state governments are hesitant to give guns to ANYONE with a history of mental problems.

Well this:

http://www.chaaban.info/wp-content/uploads/virginia-tech-cho-seung-hui.jpg

is the reason state governments are hesitant to give guns to ANYONE with a history of mental problems.

Not so much, in that particular case. Horrible unintended consequence of privacy laws.