Firearm Seizures

[GuyRelford]

Did you know that you can have your firearms seized - with no compensation whatsoever - even if you've never committed a crime, threatened anyone, or been determined to be "mentally ill"?

I'm trying to change that.

Guy

Man who alarmed police near Lauren Spierer site appeals gun seizure | The Indiana Lawyer

 

[jbombelli]

I knew that. To a lot of police officers "... shall not be infringed" means "we can infringe on it whenever we want for any reason we see fit."

I wish you success on changing this. I think it's absolute garbage.

 

[Bennettjh]

I hope you get it changed. Good luck!

 

[lonehoosier]

Good luck. I think you are going to have an up hill battle with this one. I total disagree with the courts ruling.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I read the article when they first took his guns. I understand them being "concerned" with a person looking through a rangefinder at a business, but what was their official reason for confiscation?
i sure hope you get this overturned!
thanks Guy!

 

[mrjarrell]

Seizure applies to all of your property, especially money. They're real fond of stealing peoples money and keeping it. Hope you succeed, Guy. We need more success in this area.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Seizure applies to all of your property, especially money. They're real fond of stealing peoples money and keeping it. Hope you succeed, Guy. We need more success in this area.

That's usually confiscation of money or goods that they "suspect" earned from drugs or other illegal activity.
in this case, this guy was doing nothing illegal. Just acting "suspicious".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Did you know that you can have your firearms seized - with no compensation whatsoever - even if you've never committed a crime, threatened anyone, or been determined to be "mentally ill"?

...according to the link you posted he was determined to be mentally ill, specifically a personality disorder called Schizotypal and "perhaps" paranoid and delusional. Is the article wrong?

He had been scoping out the location with a range-finder, and his behavior was erratic, according to police. He told far-fetched stories of having met Spierer, and he asked police about their proficiency shooting at long distances. Redington also later told authorities he’d seen spirits, among other things, that prompted police to detain him on the belief that he was delusional.

Detectives took Redington to IU Health Hospital in Bloomington, where a doctor said Redington suffered from “a type of personality disorder called schizotypal,” and perhaps a paranoid or delusional disorder. A registered nurse assigned to Redington said he “‘appeared delusional, grandiose, and ... religiously preoccupied,’ in that he appeared to be experiencing ‘a break with . . . reality’ and that he claimed ‘he would know things that would happen beforehand,’” according to the prevailing COA opinion written by Judge Elaine Brown and joined with a concurring opinion by Judge Cale Bradford.

While any given hypothetical person with delusions, breaks from reality, and paranoia may not be an IMMEDIATE risk to the community on any given day, I would say that such a person may not be the responsible gun owner we want in our communities. I understand the line can be fuzzy, but if you can't tell reality from fantasy I'm ok with you not having a firearm.

 

[BravoMike]

...according to the link you posted he was determined to be mentally ill, specifically a personality disorder called Schizotypal and "perhaps" paranoid and delusional. Is the article wrong?



While any given hypothetical person with delusions, breaks from reality, and paranoia may not be an IMMEDIATE risk to the community on any given day, I would say that such a person may not be the responsible gun owner we want in our communities. I understand the line can be fuzzy, but if you can't tell reality from fantasy I'm ok with you not having a firearm.

This article doesn't say if he was actually diagnosed with any disorder. It doesn't say what kind of doctor it was that said that he had Schizotypal. Was it an ER doctor? How is he qualified to give a proper diagnosis? I don't see it as a fuzzy line because you either are
legally allowed to own a firearm or you are not. In this case, if he wasn't a danger to society and isn't diagnosed with a mental illness, then why can't he have his firearms back? This article does seem to leave some information out.

The article also said this:

...the psychologist who examined Redington after his involuntary commitment testified that he was released when it was determined he didn’t pose an imminent danger.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The article also said this:

...the psychologist who examined Redington after his involuntary commitment testified that he was released when it was determined he didn’t pose an imminent danger.

I understand that, which is why I said "While any given hypothetical person with delusions, breaks from reality, and paranoia may not be an IMMEDIATE risk to the community on any given day"

Let's play hypothetical for a minute. I'm paranoid and delusional. I believe that Satan is going to spring from the Earth and devour all of humanity on October 30th of this year. Because of this I am planning to kill myself and my family on the 29th of October. I am not an immediate threat today. That certainly doesn't mean that I'm sane or that I should be legally wielding firearms in the mean time. The 'fuzzy line' I am referring to is at what point is the risk to society from someone who's mentally ill enough of a danger to restrict their access to weapons.

As for the rest of your questions, I have no idea what kind of doctor made the diagnosis. I would assume a doctor that is qualified to do so, however, given a lack of evidence to the contrary. I know when we do Immediate Detentions they have to talk to a mental health specialist, either in person or via video conference. Spin it however you like, the article as written clearly paints the picture of someone who is disconnected from reality. Someone who is disconnected from reality isn't someone I want making shoot/don't shoot decisions. I know first hand that even the Army takes a soldier's weapons when he's suffering from heat stroke causing hallucinations or delusions, frankly its common sense.


Frankly, these types of questions are fairly new in our society because we used to have asylums and state hospitals. Cost savings, though, I suppose. Then when someone who's mentally ill shoots up an elementary school in Newtown we all wonder what could have been done differently. The mentally ill continue to have to 'just live with it' and suffer seriously degraded quality of life issues, and the law gets stuck trying to draw the line about how much danger is too much danger to have access to weapons, and the community just has to live with the danger (and regardless of if this particular guy is dangerous or not, there's plenty of folks out there that are, just waiting to be the next Lanza). Frankly, with the current system everyone loses.

 

[BravoMike]

BBI, I understand the concern with not wanting to have people with mental illness owning firearms but shouldn't they be diagnosed with a mental illness? Just like the fact that we don't want violent offenders able to legally buy firearms, they have to be charged with a crime to be considered violent offenders don't they?

In reading the linked PDF file, this case appears to be about sufficient evidence to prove someone as "Dangerous". According to the opinion of the attorney and the dissenting Judge, the State has not done this.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If he is to much of a danger to be in possession of his own firearms he should be locked up and not free to roam around where he can easily get more dangerous weapons. Did they suspend his drivers license and confiscate his car? Did they take his baseball bat, kitchen knives, household chemicals, etc.....?

If he is too much of a danger to own firearms because he is crazy he should be locked up or put down.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's usually confiscation of money or goods that they "suspect" earned from drugs or other illegal activity.
in this case, this guy was doing nothing illegal. Just acting "suspicious".

The problem is the upside-down burden of proof. The police can seize your money on the presumption that it is drug money just because they deem it irregular that you are carrying it in cash and not in a bank account, and you must prove that it is in fact properly acquired. In the event that you cannot prove the legal origins of the $10K that you set aside in your safe in $20, $50, or $100 increments over a number of years, which would be extremely difficult, you are SOL.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If he is to much of a danger to be in possession of his own firearms he should be locked up and not free to roam around

If someone is in that situation, what they should be is treated. I think *everyone*, the person who no longer has to live with delusions, the community who has to live with him, the taxpayer who's overall burden is reduced, etc wins.

Maybe because my ex-wife was a pysch nurse (you know there's jokes to be made there, feel free), or maybe because I've had to see what a reduced quality of life they suffer with and what a disproportionate amount of public resources that the mentally ill require, I see this entire debate as a side show. Yet there is no serious debate over how to get the seriously mentally ill treatment. Oh, we paid attention to it for about 30 seconds after Lanza, but now its well off the front page and can barely see the back burner again.

Whatever, pats on the back all around, who can tell when someone's dangerous right? Until the next tragedy happens, more lives are claimed and ruined, and the hand wringing about every one seeing warning signs and why couldn't someone have just done something comes along. Then, just like with any other violent crime, both sides can endlessly argue access to firearms and completely ignore the root causes.

 

[JimmyR]

I have worked in mental health evaluations for a few years now, and have had to secure my fair share of emergency detention orders- the 3 days of evaluation and treatment Guy's client was placed on. I know that taking out an edo is a serious matter. Unfortunately, making the decision about such a thing is often done with an incomplete history because, let's face it, a person who is psychotic and delusional is not the best historian. Based on what I saw as what attracted mental health attention, I probably would have made the same recommendation.

As to his status with firearms, I can't answer that. If he does not currently need treatment for the psychosis he was experiencing, then I see no reason why he can't own guns. Certain medical conditions can contribute towards this kind of psychosis. If, however, he requires continued treatment, then I would be hesitant. The listed diagnosis of schizotypal personality is odd after a 3 day stay with no previous history.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's look at the other side of the issue. The argument is being made that anyone of questionable stability should be prohibited from exercising a right with no asterisk after it in the Constitution. This is based on a subjective opinion from persons who may or may not be importing a political agenda into the formation of this opinion. Given that DHS has already declared that any one of being a veteran, believing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing illegal immigration, opposing abortion, and believing in the Second Coming of Christ makes a person a terrorist, I should hate to see the things they could dream up to 'disqualify' people from exercising a CONSTITUTION RIGHT toward which they have already displayed clear hostility. If this is allowed, you will see it devolve into a circular argument that (as Richard Lugar suggested when I questioned his support of Clinton's anti-gun agenda) those who would want to exercise their Second Amendment rights are evidenced by such to be unsuitable to be trusted with weapons.

 

[E'villeGunner]

Wow! Minority Report, indeed! Good Luck Guy!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For the sake of arguement, let's say removing the guy's guns is justified. Is there no provision in the law the compensates the person for his property? Alternatively, can the court direct the property be turned over to a responsible party, maybe of the owner's choosing? If not, it seems to me this is an area of the law that should also be addressed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Bloomington police had detained Redington on Aug. 4, 2012, after encountering him in a parking garage near Kilroy’s Sports Bar just off the IU campus. He had been scoping out the location with a range-finder, and his behavior was erratic, according to police. He told far-fetched stories of having met Spierer, and he asked police about their proficiency shooting at long distances. Redington also later told authorities he’d seen spirits, among other things, that prompted police to detain him on the belief that he was delusional.

Detectives took Redington to IU Health Hospital in Bloomington, where a doctor said Redington suffered from “a type of personality disorder called schizotypal,” and perhaps a paranoid or delusional disorder. A registered nurse assigned to Redington said he “‘appeared delusional, grandiose, and ... religiously preoccupied,’ in that he appeared to be experiencing ‘a break with . . . reality’ and that he claimed ‘he would know things that would happen beforehand,’” according to the prevailing COA opinion written by Judge Elaine Brown and joined with a concurring opinion by Judge Cale Bradford.

Let's see...

1. Being present in a bar is not illegal nor it is indicative of mental deficiency.
2. A rangefinder is not a weapon and cannot be used as a weapon unless you have a really old-school artillery rangefinder which is large and heavy enough to be used as a blunt trauma weapon. In the event, no effort was made to harm anyone.
3. Far-fetched stories? That is a matter of subjective opinion. It may be a reasonable conclusion, but does not constitute any form of due process. Prove he hadn't met the girl. If he hangs out at the right bars in Bloomington, it is entirely possible.
4. What are the doctor's credentials? Hopefully not OBGYN! Sworn testimony? Again, that pesky due process thing. What about being able to demonstrate an actual hazard to himself or others? Maybe doc just doesn't like some types of people? The nurse? It is a two-year degree to be an RN, eight years to be an MD if I remember correctly, and even longer to be a psychiatrist. I should hate to think we are subject to having our rights ignored and our property stolen because some proctologist doesn't like what he considers s**t we are saying or the podiatrist doesn't like some of the territory we walk.
5. Claims regarding spirits? Not too far of a stretch to implicate most anyone who is not an avowed atheist materialist. 'Religiously preoccupied'? Last time I checked, that was a constitutional right.
6. Claims of knowing things to happen beforehand and a 'break with reality? Quick, arrest and disarm the psychic network!

All said and done, I am not sure I would want this man for a neighbor, but on the other hand, being strange is not illegal.

 

[Bunnykid68]

All said and done, I am not sure I would want this man for a neighbor, but on the other hand, being strange is not illegal.

Thank God or I might be in trouble