Gun Seizures: Will Taking Guns from the Mentally Ill Prevent More Violent Crime?

[Robb]

In California, people in illegal possession of firearms for criminal activity or mental illness will have them seized.

With nearly every tragic mass shooting, the same question emerges — should people with a history of mental illness be allowed to keep their guns?

As investigators release more details suggesting that Aaron Alexis, the gunman responsible for killing 12 in a shooting spree at the Washington Navy Yard earlier this month suffered from mental health issues, law enforcement officials are trying once again to address the difficult issue of gun seizures. California is the only state in which police can confiscate legally obtained guns from individuals who lose that eligibility because they have been convicted of a felony, are under a domestic violence restraining order or have been institutionalized for a mental health problem since their firearm purchase. But with every tragedy such as the school shooting in Newton, Con., the movie theater rampage in Aurora, Col. and the shooting that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and left six dead in Tucson, Ari. — each of which involved a gunman with unstable mental health — more states may be asking whether seizures can improve public safety.

The California Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) was created in 2001 to cross reference court records, mental institution holds and criminal records with lists of gun buyers generated since 1996 by the background checks performed on every resident who purchases a new gun. The process identifies gun owners who may have purchased their gun legally but now can no longer own a firearm. Since 2007, these residents could get a knock on their door from the California Department of Justice task force agents, equipped like a mini SWAT team, ordering them to hand over their weapons.

While the NRA initially supported the seizure law as a way to protect the public, some critics of the program say citizens are not informed by police about the law, so they don’t know that a run-in could lead to a visit by officers and loss of their weapon. California’s officials are undeterred, however, and in March, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill authorizing an additional $24 million dollars to fund the databases and seizure teams. The new funds come from the surplus collected from gun buyers, who pay $22 for background checks.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/23/gun-seizures-will-taking-guns-from-the-mentally-ill-prevent-more-violent-crime/

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I have no idea, but implementing gun control for everyone would.

As demonstrated by Australia and the UK, for example.

[Half-Century Man]

2. If the possession is already illegal, the firearms should be removed.

and stored until mental issues could be resolved one way or another.

[billh58]

3. A much needed step

in the right direction, but we also need to repeal public carry laws, enact universal background checks, and implement mandatory national gun registration.

While implementing a national process of making gun owners accountable and responsible for their lethal weapons, we must also strive to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally challenged and criminals. This is not really the control of guns, but the regulation of who has availability to guns, and the conduct of those who own them.

[BainsBane]

4. the bar should be a danger to self or others

not hospitalization. Does California really want to keep people from seeking treatment for mental illness?

[Niceguy1]

5. many don't care about the net effects

They are obseesed with taking the guns.