After his family died, he threatened to kill himself. So the police took his guns.

[applegrove]

By Eli Saslow at the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/after-his-family-died-he-threatened-to-kill-himself-so-the-police-took-his-guns/2018/03/17/38e3138e-26e6-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

"SNIP......

LISBON, Conn. — John McGuire was inside his house with 81 guns when five state troopers were dispatched to investigate a threat he had reportedly made. They drove past a series of frozen lakes and up an unplowed driveway to a house set back in the Connecticut woods. The shades were drawn. A tattered mattress wasted away on the front porch, and boxes of medical equipment cluttered the entryway.

McGuire, 76, came to the door wearing a stained sweatshirt and uncombed gray hair. He hadn’t dealt with police in the two decades since he retired from the force himself, but he still knew the legal statutes and understood his rights. He asked the police if he was under arrest, and the officers said he was not. He asked if he had broken any laws, and they said he hadn’t. They told him he wasn’t being charged, or investigated, or even accused of any crime. Instead, they had come to search his house this winter evening based on a controversial type of warrant, one that represents the United States’ latest piecemeal attempt to prevent gun violence.

“Person Posing Risk to Self or Others,” read the bold lettering on top of the warrant.

Probable cause: “McGuire stated to a medical technician that . . . he was going to kill himself by burning his house down and blowing his head off with a revolver.”


.........SNIP"

[Demovictory9]

1. 81 guns

[applegrove]

2. His daughter had cancer for almost 50 years. He bought guns every time

she went into the hospital for an operation. He wanted to protect his family metaphorically. His daughter collected fridge magnets. His wife figurines of children.

[aikoaiko]

6. Started collecting in the late 1970s; so about 2 guns a year.

Not really an astonishing number of purchases for someone who is a middle-class collector.

[ginny skinny]

3. How about this scenario.

Jane broke up with her verbally abusive boyfriend John. Afterwards she bought a gun and took classes to learn how to use it because she had a nagging feeling John might do something violent. John calls the police to report Jane has a gun, she's depressed, she's been drinking and he's concerned she might be a danger to herself or others. The police roll up, see a couple wine cooler empties in the trash bin. What should be their next move?

[applegrove]

4. Go where the evidence takes them.

[ginny skinny]

5. Red Flag law?

Take her gun? Evidence=Someone reported her, she seems to have been drinking, better safe than sorry?

[marylandblue]

7. Probably yes. She is in fact more likely to kill herself with the gun than defend herself

Statistically speaking that is.

There should be a quick appeals process so she can get her gun back, along with a restraining order.

[mr_lebowski]

27. I don't disagree w/the point you're making here, it's a very tricky subject ...

But I will say ... it SUUUUUURE would seem a shit-ton less overwhelming of a 'task' ... if a whole shit-ton less people ... had guns to begin with, wouldn't it?

Further, I think it's important that action not be based on NUMBER of guns someone has. That's kinda irrelevant. You can shoot one at a time only. I don't even think that the degree of firepower in that person's most dangerous weapon should play a role in DECIDING if all a persons guns should be removed.

It's just as important to take the ONLY gun away from a 1-gun owner who really needs to have 0 guns ... as it is to take away 81 AR-15's ... from a person who also really needs to have 0 guns.

As long as it's a valid, justifiable reason.

Also we need a reliable system of communication among ALL gun sellers that a person has had their firearms confiscated. The action needs to go into the background check system immediately, and ammo sales must be stopped for them as well. And EVERY ONE needs to pass a check no matter what to buy a gun, none of this 'private sales loophole' BS.

[MichMary]

28. Who decides

that any individual "needs" 0 guns? What defines "need?"

As far as background checks (which I agree totally about) what about HIPAA? What about privacy? Should everyone who is selling a gun have access to the medical records that show someone is on antidepressants? I'm asking because I really don't know how far that should go.

[ginny skinny]

8. This whole "Red Flag" law thing bothers me.

One of my disgruntled exes could call the cops and report that my current and I have a lot of guns (true), that we like to drink (true, but only when the guns are locked up) and that they think we may be a danger to ourselves or others (maybe they think that, maybe they don't, really). One of us has been on anti-depressants in the past.

The cops show up and clean out our gun safe?

[applegrove]

9. There are laws against lying to the police. What is to stop one of your disgruntled

exes or you from lying about anything to the police about anything? We should have no laws if we follow your logic.

[ginny skinny]

11. Maybe there should be a higher threshold for taking someone's guns than just the say-so of...

...someone that may or may not have an ulterior motive for reporting them. I live in a very red state. I suspect the local law enforcement would tend to give due consideration to a law abiding gun owner in such a situation but I couldn't count on that.

[bettyellen]

17. Whats the huge loss for a temporary loss of privilege? If something is going on that threatens you-

the best thing you can do is inform the cops what and what you feel threatened by. People shouldn’t be encouraged to buy guns because something triggers them, like this man with family illness. Something is wrong w how you’re living if you need that gun for everyday life.

[ginny skinny]

18. Shooting is a recreational activity for me.

I enjoy it.

[bettyellen]

19. So, its an small inconvenience that could save many lives.

A pause in your hobby/ leisure activity. Shouldn’t be a big deal. The rest of sacrifice knowing there are people with guns all around us, and that makes us less safe.

[ginny skinny]

22. For a couple days...maybe

For weeks or months or years...No.
Edit to add: Confiscating my guns isn't going to save any lives.

[bettyellen]

24. Cool- thanks! And I gotta say, you never know about what weird things can happen-

A relative or friend could have a horrible day and do something stupid. A lot of people don’t secure their guns because they feel that it impedes access. I’m glad we didn’t have any around when I was growing up.

[krispos42]

29. Unless the ex acts in the period after the cops leave with the guns...

...and before the cops arrest the ex for lying to them.

Besides, do you trust the cops to give the guns back in a timely fashion?

[applegrove]

10. The odds of someone trying to kill you in the two weeks you don't have your guns

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2018, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Is minute.

[ginny skinny]

12. True

Unless that someone is someone that has a reason to see you disarmed. To be clear, I am not talking about anyone in my life, just speaking hypothetically.

[applegrove]

13. And they would talk to the woman if her estranged husband claimed

she was a danger to herself or others. And if she said "no, he is dangerous to me" they would go with who they believed which would be the woman since they rarely assault and kill their ex spouses. While men do. How do the police deal with any law?

[ginny skinny]

14. Yeah,...

Who do they believe?

[sl8]

16. According to that article, the guns are typically kept by the police for a year.

...

And then it was up to the judge. She thought McGuire’s circumstances seemed potentially volatile. She also said she empathized with him. Connecticut had ruled in hundreds of risk warrant cases during the past decade, with an average of seven guns seized each time. In most cases, judges ordered that the guns would remain in police storage for a year. Ten percent of the time, the guns were returned to owners immediately. In 14 percent, the guns were taken away permanently and then sold or destroyed.

...

[aikoaiko]

15. I think "Red Flag" laws with temporary confiscation is worth exploring.

I fear this may lead to dead cops and dead gun owners as gun owners see their tin-hat fantasies come true and trigger happy, coward cops shoot first and ask questions later.

I also fear about gun owners being arrested during confiscation for other contraband items like weed or other relatively minor lawbreaking behavior that happens to be felonious.

Due process is important on the front end (leading to confiscation) and back-end (long-term resolution after confiscation).

It feels like threading a dangerous needle, both in terms of physical safety and civil liberties.

[ginny skinny]

20. I like blasting empty refried bean cans...

But my neighbor down the road doesn't like the Hillary sticker on my truck so she calls the law and tells them she has concerns that I may be a "danger to myself or others."

[applegrove]

21. She'd get charged for lying or mischief.

[ginny skinny]

23. Someone would have to prove that...

she didn't "believe" what she said she "believed".

[OhioBlue]

25. Your hypotheticals are all based on a person lying about a concern.

How do you feel about legitimate concerns and threats? Say a guy is drowning his sorrows at the local watering hole, his wife just filed for divorce on the grounds of abuse, he tells drinking buddies, he is going to go shoot the bitch? If the drinking buddies notify law enforcement, who takes their statements and believes there is a legitimate concern, should they confiscate his guns?

Or what if the guy has been down on his luck, lost a job, got divorced and tells friends he wants to shoot himself?

[ginny skinny]

26. I guess my worry is that people may lie about their concerns.

Yes in some cases it may be justified. A thousand guys, drunk, in a bar, may bloviate about killing their ex. A thousand drunk guy exes may bloviate about their exes being a danger to themselves or others. Doesn't justify confiscating people's guns on the concern of one person.
I'm out of this thread, late, I'm somewhat inebriated (guns safely locked away!), thanks for the discussion.