Posted on 04/15/2020 5:39:18 AM PDT by marktwain
In January, 2013, after a 911 call, a police officer of the City of San Jose seized 12 firearms from the home of Edward and Lori Rodriquez in the City of San Jose, California. No warrant was applied for. The officer claimed knowledge that there were firearms in the house. The firearms were removed under protest, even though one of the firearms completely belonged to and was registered to Lori Rodriquez, who remained in the home.
Edward was involuntarily admitted as a danger to himself and others, and lost his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, for a minimum of five years under California law.
None of the 12 firearms were illegal to own under California law. The City of San Jose asked for a forfeiture order for the firearms from the local court, which was granted.
Lori went through the legal hoops necessary to have the firearms returned to her legal possession.
The city refused to return those firearms. The California Superior Court and Court of Appeals agreed with the city. The argument appears to be the City was under no obligation to return this property, even though there was a legal property right and the property was not contraband.
Lori appealed to the Federal District Court under the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. On 29 September, 2017, the District Court ordered, in summary judgment, for the City of San Jose, that those rights did not apply. From docktbird.com:
(“[T]he Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald did not state that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to keeping and bearing either any particular firearms or firearms that have been confiscated from a mentally ill person.”) (emphasis added). As such, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted as to Plaintiffs’ Second
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Would be nice if they hear it, and hopefully judge against this tyranny.
If they hear the case, what will the outcome be?
They get their guns back and the city walks away to do it again and again to the next person?
Until the USSC rules that there is no exceptions to the 2nd amenmendment, the liberals will never stop.
“”Edward was involuntarily admitted as a danger to himself and others””
Why is there no further explanation of this - admitted where and when and for how long OR WHY? Just that one phrase and no other mention. It’s enough for someone to say he’s a danger??? But even in CA, there has to be more to it than those few words.
The wife should have claimed it was “racist” on the part of “law enforcement” and it would have been all over! The author of this always does a better job than this in filling in details necessary to understand WHY!!
“Lori Rodriguez called the San Jose Police Department and asked that officers respond to her home to conduct a welfare check on her husband, Edward Rodriguez. Officers were quite familiar with Rodriguez as they had been called to the house on numerous occasions for incidents similar to this one. Officers were also aware that there were firearms at the Rodriguez home.
“Upon arrival officers found Mr. Rodriguez pacing around the house mumbling to himself. When the officers engaged Rodriguez in conversation, Rodriguez told them that he was being stalked by the CIA and the Army. Rodriguez also claimed that people were following him and that he had a “safe full of guns” and mentioned “shooting up the school”. Officers then asked Rodriguez if he had any thoughts of hurting himself and Rodriguez responded by trying to break his own thumb.
“Based on this information officers decided to have Rodriguez transported to the hospital for an evaluation under California Code 5150. Similar to statutory language in most if not all states, the statute allows officers to take a person into custody and place them in a medical facility for up to 72 hours when the officer has probable cause to believe the person is suffering from a mental disorder and is a danger to himself or others. Rodriguez was restrained and transported to the hospital by ambulance.
“Mrs. Rodriguez provided the code and keys to the gun safe and the officers confiscated 12 firearms including 1 firearm that Mrs. Rodriguez claimed was hers. While Mrs. Rodriguez did not object to the confiscation of Mr. Rodriguez’s guns, she did object to the confiscation of her handgun.”
one point crazy people don’t often voluntarily admit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.