NYT editorial mentions filling gaps in background checks as one step in improving federal gun regulations but also suggests that another major issue is trying to get guns away from those who should not have them anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06guns.html?_r=1

Unfortunately little is said about how the California law navigates due process and HIPAA issues. While I can see how the example subject, Mr. Perez, had lit up the radar by involuntary commitment, that still leaves those who have avoided contact with the system but are none the less unsuitable candidates for gun ownership.

I don't believe, though I may be way off, that patient confidentiality waivers that cover foreknowledge of intended criminal acts or the presentation of a threat to one's self, can be extended to include "this guy's nuts and he shouldn't have his gun anymore". HIPAA is pretty explicit on these issues.

Anyone know how California does it? How does one find themselves on the banned list without contact with law enforcement?

Aside being a great idea, being a logistical nightmare is probably what the NRA was counting on.

rolandson wrote:Anyone know how California does it? How does one find themselves on the banned list without contact with law enforcement?

Aside being a great idea, being a logistical nightmare is probably what the NRA was counting on.

I know that the Prohibited Armed Persons database can be accessed by law enforcement if someone is pulled over for a traffic stop. The Code states, "12012. The Attorney General shall provide investigative assistance to local law enforcement agencies to better ensure the investigation of individuals who are armed and prohibited from possessing a firearm." I strongly doubt the Atty Gen is providing any assistance, DOJ has few resources as does local law enforcement. Some outside contractor got a nice load of money for building it.

I don't know how someone can get their name out of the database, there might be a system of submitting a request to CA DOJ or possibly it takes a court order. We have another database in California created by the Legislature with the best of intentions, the Child Abuse Central Index or CACI for short. This is a database of investigative reports by social services workers or law enforcement. I'm sure Caliman will have some comments. It rates the reports as "Unfounded"; "Substantiated"; and "Inconclusive". Again the intentions by all concerned are the protection of children which I strongly support, but on an administrative level it has a problem.

The problem as pointed out by the Orange County Grand Jury [CACI: Child Abuse Central Index: Guilty Until Found Innocent] is, "Since CACI listings can be made without a criminal complaint being filed there is no opportunity for the accused to prove innocence in a court of law." Many people have found out that their name was in CACI when they went to apply for a job or for occupational licensing. "A finding of Inconclusive must be reported to CACI and may put the accused at risk of losing the ability to make a living in a job dealing with children. Accused persons may request a grievance to prove innocence. There are numerous examples in which a court finding in favor of the accused did not remove the person’s name from CACI. Children and Family Services is not required to respond to a court action. CFS may determine there are other reasons to retain the name on CACI despite court action." It is an extrajudicial system that can lead to gross violations of civil rights. There have been a number of court cases and some lawyers in California specialize in getting rid of false CACI data.
http://tinyurl.com/6g4gv8n

I don' t believe that there is a way that people are included on the list without contact with the civil or criminal authorities. There is a process for getting your firearms back once certain conditions have been met, but it applies mainly to people who are under the continuing treatment of a psychiatrist or who have been held under 5150 in CA's Welfare and Institutions code.

I am not a proponent of having people on the list who have not had contact with civil or criminal authorities. Like highdesert was saying the CACI database is a good example of the potential for either abuse of power, or just plain inability to maintain the system due to overwhelm.

The problem is communication, sufficient resources to implement the system, and as always, plain human error. Even when a person is convicted, that conviction has to be shared by the State, entered into the database, and accessed by other jurisdictions. Any breakdown of the process lets people fall through the net. Adding people who "are suspicious" or "fly below the radar" would just make the problem worse and in my opinion invalidate the system.

Everyone thinks that lists based on suspicion alone without due process are great until they accidentally end up on one without a clear way of challenging the process.