I like to take guns early, do due process later... Czech experience

[Snejdarek]

I think everyone has already seen this, but just in case anyone is puzzled by the title...



Given that we have gone that way in the Czech Republic, I will share our experience.

In 2015, a guy shot up a restaurant. I think it is not necessary to go into any detail here, you can read it all on wikipedia. The thing is that he was clearly disturbed, and his family actually contacted both police and his general practitioner saying that he may be dangerous. At the time, unless the threat was imminent (it wasn't), the police could only give the guy 30 days notice asking him to produce affidavit from his General Practitioner that he is of sound mind and may thus keep his firearms. The guy was aware that he would not get GP's OK and at the end of the 30 days period (after which the police may have been able to seize the firearms), he committed the mass murder.

As usual, the case (only mass shooting in the country) was politicized and the idea they came up with was to allow police to "tak guns early, do due process later" in case that they have well founded reason to believe that the owner may present danger to others or himself. Our gun lobby felt tha the atmosphere is steered towards "something gotta give" and decided to support it, as they thought that this is a minor measure compared to what someone may come up unless "something" is done.

Personally, I would be fine with that if there would be at least requirement for court order the same as in case of any other case involving non-gun owner.

Anyway, what happens is that the cops take the guns away and then you have time to come back with GP's affidavit in order to get them back.

Now we have first year statistic in. It turns out that the police used the measure in 124 cases (in the country of 300.000 legal gun owners).

I would expect vast majority of members of this forum to have quite one-sided view of having measures like this. What interests me more are those that have some sympathy for Trump's underlying message and who would support change in laws in US in this direction. Would you care to share your opinion?

 

[NWPilgrim]

Is there an English translated version of that article? Also, of the 124 cases which had guns taken away, how many of those had the guns returned after the person got a note from his doctor? That is, did anyone actually lose their guns permanently or long term from this change in law? These events get a lot of publicity, but in actuality very few such event occur over the years and a very small number of people are killed compared to the timeframe and other types of murder. Yet these events get an inordinate amount of press coverage and politician attention.

 

[herrwalther]

Is there an English translated version of that article?

Chrome can translate pages. Not sure how accurately but will post it quoted below.

Every three days the police seize a firearms card for health

In the whole country last year, the possibility of legally wearing a gun was lost by 124 people due to the fact that his health was at risk. The most in Prague - 24, in South Moravia only four less. Among them are those whose underdeveloped health can be a threat to others, or their age's ability to control their weapons.
A fifty-year-old man from Mostargued with his wife so violently that the police had to stop them. When talking to a woman, police told her husband had a gun. The man had to hand over the legally held pistol and weapons license and undergo a medical examination.

Last year, it was every three days the police in the Czech Republic picked up a firearms license because of their health condition. Some were no longer active shooters, such as a man who suffered from Alzheimer's disease and did not even know that he had a license. Some cases were more dramatic. Perhaps in Zlín, policemen withdrew several weapons, men who threatened to use one against one another. His relatives were entrusted to doctors and he immediately turned to the police.

"The doctor has reported suspicion of the patient's acute ill health and the fact that it is in his interest to detain legally held weapons as short as possible," said police spokesman Lenka Javorková.

Psychiatrists must inform practitioners. Often they do not
In the Ústí nad Labem Region last year the police took the armor to five people. "In four cases, there were psychological problems and in one case a loss of memory after illness," said North Bohemian police spokeswoman Šárka Poláčková.

After the events in Uhersky Brod, where in 2015 a mentally disturbed man shot eight people and then himself, it seemed that extraordinary attention would be paid to the psychic health of the shooters. But that is not the case.

This is illustrated by the case of the above-mentioned Mostec, who had to go to the doctor to check if after the conflict with his wife the gun license and the pistol could get back or definitely come. Only a general practitioner decides whether the health condition allows the person to have a weapon.

However, an unexpected complication emerged during the examination - the man was treated to a psychiatrist, and his practitioner, Roman Houska, did not know about it at all. He did not know it, even if he had been given a confirmation that he was in good health, years ago when he applied for a gun. "He told me to do it because we know each other a bit," said the doctor.

Psychiatrists and other specialists are required to inform GPs that their patients are being treated. This applies to each other and to all patients, not just the shooters. But doctors often do not.

 

[AlexanderA]

At the time, unless the threat was imminent (it wasn't), the police could only give the guy 30 days notice asking him to produce affidavit from his General Practitioner that he is of sound mind and may thus keep his firearms.

This is asking the gun owner, after allegation of a threat -- founded or unfounded -- to prove that he is sane. That's very hard to do. Shouldn't the burden be on the authorities to prove that he is insane? In addition, what doctor (especially a GP) would sign such an affidavit, thereby putting his own reputation on the line?

Personally, I would be fine with that if there would be at least requirement for court order the same as in case of any other case involving non-gun owner.

That in fact is due process, provided the owner has an opportunity to present his side of the case.

 

[Snejdarek]

Also, of the 124 cases which had guns taken away, how many of those had the guns returned after the person got a note from his doctor?

I could not find that part of the statistic.

These events get a lot of publicity, but in actuality very few such event occur over the years and a very small number of people are killed compared to the timeframe and other types of murder. Yet these events get an inordinate amount of press coverage and politician attention.

Yes, that may be an issue in a country with high murder rate like USA (compared to rest of developed countries). Czech Republic has one of the lowest so you can probably imagine that every single homicide with legally owned firearm (there's just about 6 of them in a good year) gets extreme amount of coverage.

That's very hard to do.

Well it is considered a medical issue then. Not something you can prove or disprove, just something that an expert can attest to in either way.

But yes, I agree.

In addition, what doctor (especially a GP) would sign such an affidavit, thereby putting his own reputation on the line?

In general, if you have extreme anti as a GP, you just change your GP.

Then of course his willingness after an incident will be lower anyway.

 

[Walkalong]

I would expect vast majority of members of this forum to have quite one-sided view of having measures like this. What interests me more are those that have some sympathy for Trump's underlying message and who would support change in laws in US in this direction. Would you care to share your opinion?

Unfortunately it has already happened in "emergency" situations where authorities" went around taking guns. It's illegal and should not be tolerated. Trump will live to regret what he said, even though at first glance it doesn't sound all that bad, The issue is who decides when and why and who. Maybe you think Bob would do a good job of deciding, but Bob lost the election to Charles last year, and OMG, you don't trust Charles at all. If only Suzie had won instead.

This is why we need law, and not politicians and/or bureaucrats making those decisions.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

Unfortunately it has already happened in "emergency" situations where authorities" went around taking guns. It's illegal and should not be tolerated. Trump will live to regret what he said, even though at first glance it doesn't sound all that bad, The issue is who decides when and why and who. Maybe you think Bob would do a good job of deciding, but Bob lost the election to Charles last year, and OMG, you don't trust Charles at all. If only Suzie had won instead.

This is why we need law, and not politicians and/or bureaucrats making those decisions.

I think it was a stupid thing for Trump to say. I believe his core base gets that he says stupid stuff like that in these televised meetings.

The question is, what is going to happen, and how will he actually act. If history is an indicator (and “The Past Is Prologue” usually is) then as long as an AWB, magazine limits and the main things we find objectionable dont get passed, then he should be fine.

I suspect we will see bump stops banned and there’s a possibility the age to buy guns will go up to 21. I also suspect some background check revision will happen. I don’t think these will harm Trump too bad. Yes it’ll upset us, and we won’t like it but we don’t always get what we want.

As we saw with Obama, we don’t see the worst of a president until their second term. So while I think Trump won’t sell us out now, I have no idea what he’ll do if he’s re-elected. There I pray for the best and we prepare for the worst.

 

[stchman]

My take on this is that if the police or FBI had received info that this guy was unstable and was going to do possible harm, did they keep an eye on this person. My guess is they were too busy with Russian collusion investigation? I am sure it would have been pretty easy to get a warrant(due process would have been followed) to investigate this person.

My take is that the authorities "dropped the ball" and somehow now it's honest firearms owners and the 2nd Amendment's fault.

 

[JTHunter]

My take on this is that if the police or FBI had received info that this guy was unstable and was going to do possible harm, did they keep an eye on this person. My guess is they were too busy with Russian collusion investigation? I am sure it would have been pretty easy to get a warrant(due process would have been followed) to investigate this person.

My take is that the authorities "dropped the ball" and somehow now it's honest firearms owners and the 2nd Amendment's fault.

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

Or someone had a political agenda? Very political Sheriff who was a Clinton supporter, and FBI agents with hands tied from the political left over heads.

Maybe not only does the swamp need to be drained, but maybe all of politics.

 

[Danoobie]

My problem with this "medical intervention" is that a lot of doctors here, I suppose because they got a large dose of liberal BS
in college, are rabidly anti-gun. The chance for abuse here is astronomical, either by anti-gun doctors instigating confiscations
without cause, or refusing to co-operate with patients who should have their firearms returned. This procedure assumes
objectivity, on behalf of the doctors.

 

[Walkalong]

Try to keep the politics out of it, as this is barely on topic to begin with.

 

[WestKentucky]

It is not hard to get a short term protective custody order. This solves the issue if it is used correctly. I have seen it a couple times where a person who is unstable for some reason is placed in temporary guardianship of someone else and at that point they should be taking control of any weapons, car keys, etc which the unstable individual may use to harm themselves or others. Not a huge ordeal to get a county attorney or similar person to sign such an order. Not permanent, nor are any legal charges filed, but there is a form of legal responsibility established and the individual is subject to the will of his guardian.

 

[TomJ]

Foregoing due process makes this ripe for abuse. Depending on how this type of legislation is written, potentially anyone with an axe to grind can report a gun owner, placing the burden on the gun owner to prove they are not mentally ill or a threat. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. To be clear, a person who's a danger to others due to mental illness or other reasons should not be allowed to own guns. The question is how to accomplish this without trampling the rights of lawful gun owners who are not a threat and opening this process up to abuse.

 

[Cayce Charles]

I had a neighbor who not long ago WENT CRAZY on me and a few other elderly residents. Screaming, yelling, swearing at the top of her lungs. After the fact I called the local LEO's. They said if it happens again, in front of witnesses they would arrest her and hold her for a Psych evaluation.

 

[CapnMac]

temporary guardianship of someone else and at that point they should be taking control of any weapons

Tricky part of this--as we can see in California, the authorities do not allow a "guardian" to merely be a custodian; all firearms are removed from the home, particularly if the TRO is upon a dependent.

So, you're the uncle living in the garage (CA has a lot of "multiple generation" homes due to the outrageous prices for housing) all of your guns get grabbed by the local LE just because the nephew has a TRO.

This is thorny ground, and must be tread with great care--care well beyond what average lawmakers are wont to execute.

 

[Snejdarek]

Tricky part of this--as we can see in California, the authorities do not allow a "guardian" to merely be a custodian; all firearms are removed from the home, particularly if the TRO is upon a dependent.

So, you're the uncle living in the garage (CA has a lot of "multiple generation" homes due to the outrageous prices for housing) all of your guns get grabbed by the local LE just because the nephew has a TRO.

This is thorny ground, and must be tread with great care--care well beyond what average lawmakers are wont to execute.

That might be when obligatory safe storage laws might come in handy - you don't need to make the household gun free if the guns possessed by other people are safely stored. Or do you?

 

[FROGO207]

Snejdarek that is dependent on the more oppressive laws in each local area. The non free states you might have to surrender them as in CapnMac's example. In the free states (no oppressive laws locally) you can just secure them so the individual cannot get to them or the car keys etc. Trouble is there is a patchwork of stupid laws to navigate through in the not free states. Like if you do not report a firearm stolen when it happens (within a set number of hours) you can become a felon and loose your gun rights for life as well for one example.

 

[Zendude]

How many psychiatrists would be willing to risk certifying that a person is sane enough for the purpose of returning the person's firearms? That would create a tremendous unfair liability for the doctor or psychiatrist. Certainly that would seem to steer the diagnosis to a "no gun" decision just to avoid liability.

 

[TomJ]

Snejdarek,
One of things that play into this, as others have touched on, is the differences among our states. I live in Illinois and the state is heavily controlled by the Chicago politicians who are against private gun ownership. We have a bill pending in our state legislature allowing for anonymous reporting of someone who owns guns and is alleged to be dangerous, followed by confiscation of that person's guns prior to any type of notice, hearing or due process. I'm assuming getting the guns back will be time consuming, expensive and made as difficult as possible. Their goal is not to prevent people who are a danger to others from owning guns, but combined with other current and pending laws to make gun ownership here as difficult as possible. If they were concerned about human life they would have done something to stop the epidemic of shootings here a long time ago. The silence regarding that has been deafening. Other states may be run by legislators that have good intentions, but here that type of law is ripe for abuse.
Tom