Civil asset forfeiture (from Wiki):
“Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture[1] or occasionally civil seizure, is a controversial legal process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.”
Note that it is “controversial” from a legal standpoint. CAV has included vehicles, cash, weapons, property, etc…
Another rat-hole is the Patriot Act.
Poof, you’re a terrorist (US citizen or not): No lawyer; no right to know the charges against you or confront your accusers; strong possibility of a one-way overseas trip. Losing your guns would be a small percentage of your problems.
If a law has already been established stating that someone with a psychiatric diagnosis and/or a psychiatric finding of “dangerous to self and/or others” is not allowed to own a firearm, all we need is a psychiatrist who believes that anyone who exhibits the behavior of seeking and obtaining a firearm is by definition making unsettled and irrational decisions that make them dangerous.
Psychiatrists have viewed other behaviors that a wide swath of Americans engage in as being so inappropriate as to indicate that the patient is in a dangerous state of mind and needs to be detained. (Details upon request) They don’t have to prove anything: their assessment of dangerousness (and of mental illness for that matter) is regarded as a professional opinion and they don’t have to back it with evidence in the courtroom. Involuntary psychiatric incarceration and treatment generally requires a hearing, which is technically adversarial (the patient contesting it is entitled to an attorney) but that’s not necessarily relevant: the laws about mentally ill (or “dangerous” as determined by a psychiatrist) people continuing to possess a firearm may not require that a court agree that the person needs to be held involuntarily in a facility or subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment — a clinical diagnosis may be all that is required and as I said, there’s no review or right to due legal process on that.
I’m not saying this ever has, does, or will happen, mind you —merely that it fits the definition of “under what circumstances could” the right to bear arms be abridged.
Can you cite that the mere opinion of a psychiatrist that is not presented to a judge is sufficient for police to seize firearms in the United States?
This cite says that even in California, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws, a judge ultimately makes the decision on whether to take lawfully owner firearms from an individual who may be viewed as a threat. It also says that Governor Brown vetoed a bill that would allow mental health professionals to petition judges to remove firearms from a person. In short, the article says the exact opposite of what you’re saying, that psychiatrists are loose cannons that can go around seizing guns with impunity.
No, that case says the exact opposite. Jtur88 is talking about situations where one of the Ten Amendments was held NOT applicable. The case you cited held that the 3rd Amendment WAS applicable.
No, certainly NOT. I am not claiming it has ever happened. I am claiming that it could.
A court hearing might be required to remove guns from one’s possession, but who is to say whether the law might not be written such that if you have received a psychiatric diagnosis as either “dangerous” or as “mentally ill” you are by definition not supposed to be allowed to have one?
My claim is that no court hearing is required in order for a psychiatrist to diagnose you in that fashion.
Since we are dealing with a hypothetical law, I would say that such a law would surely have constitutional challenges, and I strongly question whether such a law could be upheld.
They can diagnose you but that doesn’t remove the right without additional action by the courts.
8 U.S.C. § 922(d), “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
Having a doctor diagnose you with a condition doesn’t invalidate your 14th amendment right to Due Process. And it is that 14th Amendment that incorporated the 2nd against the states.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with a second psychiatrist corroborating, you can be placed in a locked facility with no due process, no charges, no hearing, 14th amendment or no 14th amendment. And held indefinitely subsequent to a court hearing in which the psychiatrist’s word is considered expert opinion and doesn’t require corroborating physical evidence.
(If you are so inclined, you are welcome to join us in protest at the annual American Pyschiatric Association meeting May 5-9 in New York City)
Since that is the case NOW, I see no reason to assume that a law could not be crafted and passed that says if you have been diagnosed as mentally ill you can’t legally own or possess a firearm.
You’re absolutely right. I wasn’t thinking about the outcome of that case, rather that all 10 had been to court at one time. I was very proud of my knowledge of that obscure case (one of the few that this non-legal person does know), and forgot to make sure that it met the OP’s question in my rush to show that useless knowledge.
