Posted on 11/19/2015 6:28:45 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
CLOVIS, Calif. -- The biggest weapons seizure ever made in a single home by the California Department of Justice, and it happened in Clovis -- more than 500 firearms and 100,000 rounds of ammunition.
"I believe it makes the neighborhood safer as well as the state of California," said DOJ Special Agent-In-Charge Michael Haroldsen.
State agents arrested 59-year-old Albert Sheakalee at his home last week. Sheakalee didn't deny having the impressive haul of weapons -- including ten assault weapons, 88 shotguns and 234 rifles. But his son tells Action News it was a bogus government gun grab -- even though state agents say Sheakalee isn't allowed to own any guns.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc7news.com ...
Who in their right mind would want a psychologist or psychiatrist employed by the Feds to make any determination about them?
Were the 10 "assault" weapons fully automatic? If not, then they were just another rifle, with an a scary look. BOO!
In my opinion, to be found mentally incompetent to own a weapon should require a jury trial.
Unstable people should not be allowed to own guns. I'm 100% for stable, responsible people to own them.
We've had one suicide in our family, and it was touch and go if others might be killed. Now other family members have begun stockpiling weapons they didn't have money for before. One is on and off of drugs, has been involuntarily committed but past the five year limit. There are other mental health issues with others involved, not to mention securing them away from small children. In my state, if you pass the five-year mark, you can still own guns but doesn't take the drugs into account.
Because of their irresponsible and dangerous and unpredictable activities, I have broken all ties with them, and informed them of my reasons.
If the man has become as unstable as it sounds, I don't understand how people can support his ownership of that many guns and blame the government. I don't know how to compensate the man for his monetary loss, however.
sometime before 1/20/2017, the desire to own a gun will be deemed to be prima fascia evidence of mental illness.
If you'd read this (and I believe this policy is across the nation ... google your own school district ... ACT 71, in Pa) ... you'd find just about every human you know (and especially that creep in the mirror) is a candidate for ...THAT'S the question
The suicide policy is all about surveilance and reporting and "dealing with " someone in an appriate and age correrct way ..... but that way is not defined.
my story is they’re all in a safe in another jursdiction. any other questions are questions about guns outside of the questioners jurisdiction. none of those questions need to be answered.
500 guns and a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition is $100,000 - $200,000 of property for the state to confiscate.
That should be enough for a good lawyer to contest, arguing that the property can be disposed of for the benefit of the owner or his family.
I believe there was a Supreme Court case on this recently, that affirmed that the property could not be confiscated simply because “guns!”.
“I believe it makes the neighborhood safer as well as the state of California,” said DOJ Special Agent-In-Charge Michael Haroldsen.
Yeah? Who is making it safe from the DOJ?
Which is why I’ve never sought treatment for depression. Double-edged sword.
The Feds have been confiscating guns from veterans in California for years. Now they’re going after social security recipients.
There could indeed be danger as you describe. Its unlikely the liberalism from places like kalifornia and massa2shites will be effectively applied everywhere else.
No different from the lib’s using made up mental reasons for confiscation and some on our side giving blanket clearance by pretending that no people with guns are mentally ill.
The reality is that some people do suffer from significant mental illness and definitely should not have access to guns. Our issue here should be to insure that the determination is valid and not just a gun-grabbing ploy.
“I don’t know how to compensate the man for his monetary loss, however.”
With money.
I am reminded of a local news report about a man with a (gasp) “ASS-SAULT RIFLE!” He had an “ASS-SAULT RIFLE!” was seen with an “ASS-SAULT RIFLE!” The police confiscated his “ASS-SAULT RIFLE!”
Finally they showed the rifle, a seventy year old M1 carbine available to anyone at an army surplus outlet.
BUT IT WAS AN “ASS-SAULT RIFLE!”
Notice they never describe or define what the “mental health issues” are...the article just “seeds” the reader the guy was nuts in the headline.
What a crock and an excuse.
Obviously. Whatever the case, they are not going to want to give the man FMV, and he's going to have a fight on his hands to get it, just surmising. He's entitled to FMV.
I am cognizant that maybe it isn't fair to deprive certain types of mental illness people the means to defend themselves. Indeed in some states, they can't. Maybe just temporarily through a crisis and depending on the severity of the illness.
His FFL was still good as of August 2015...some “agent” not telling the truth!
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/listing-federal-firearms-licensees-ffls-2015
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.