Eyewitness News Investigates: Flaws Within California's Gun Confiscation Program

[beevul]

Eyewitness News Investigates: Flaws Within California's Gun Confiscation Program

Is state tracking system targeting the right people?

Angela Greenwood
By Angela Greenwood | [e-mail]

Published 02/07 2016 11:27PM

Updated 02/08 2016 11:56AM

In November, Clovis business owner Albert Sheakalee had his names and 541 of his seized guns put on a big display by state agents. The licensed gun dealer had previously been put on a mental health hold. The state says Sheakalee had been committed involuntarily, but his attorney argues Sheakalee sought help on his own for a temporary crisis.

Sheakalee's attorney Mark Coleman says, "He's never bee adjudicated by the court as being dangerous, he's never been adjudicated by a mental health professional as being dangerous."

According to reports and audits dug up by Eyewitness News, problems with the APPS program run deep, especially in regards to mental health tracking.

State law requires all California mental health facilities to report to the Department of Justice if a person has been involuntarily committed. But, according to a section of a 100-page state audit, 22 key facilities were missing from the DOJ list, meaning potentially dangerous people went unreported. The report went on to say incorrect decisions were being made due to a lack of supervision. But, Hammershmidt says even more alarming is the amount of time, in many cases, it takes for guns to be seized. In Sheakalee's case, the raid didn't happen for six months. For Phillips, it took three months.

"I'm afraid that's going to happen to a lot of people, people who may need mental health attention mentally will not seek it out because of this," says Phillips.

http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/eyewitness-news-investigates-flaws-within-californias-gun-confiscation-program

Lots more at the link. Comments?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. If those with power want to be trusted with that power they must act in a trustworthy manner.

Option B is they will be denied the power they claim to need.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. By the way, this seems like a horrible use of the policy which will deter people from seeking help.

Getting help? You just might be raided by the state police, lose your property and made-into a photo-op so the agency can engage in a little self-aggrandizement at your expense.

Stupid.

[Eleanors38]

3. Most prohibitionists experience highest levels of pleasure when the cops, you know, get in there...

It's not some fanciful public safety promotion, or curbing a media-genic "public health" problem. It's about police getting into the very lives of those who are subject to prohibitionism. There is some cruel satisfaction at getting into someone whose status is prohibited, the thing he/she has is banned, or the behavior is unlawful.

[Marengo]

4. Somehow I imagine our resident controllers have no issue with this.