“There are literally hundreds of CIA spies in Richfield alone that harass me. There are thousands of these people in the south-suburban area. I am certain I will be murdered some day.” – Ralph Gilbertsen, quoted in Richfield gun seizure raises question of mental illness and 2nd Amendment rights [via startribune.com]
I read this a couple days ago. I did not see any mention of threats or acts of violence on his part. It seems that he keeps a pretty level head for a guy surrounded by spies.
Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you…
Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean other people can’t be paranoid – schizophrenic.
“Minnesota law allows the seizure of firearms on mental health grounds only if an individual has been committed to a mental institution or has been ruled by a judge to be a public danger.”
^
This here is what infuriates me. They can’t meet either of these criteria, but “f*ck it, we’ll take his guns anyway.” And I agree with his lawyer… It really does sound like they don’t like what he believes in. Jeezus, WTH is this country coming too!?
…..it’s sense??
…..it’s sense??
Rather than devoting resources toward a person who has no apparent intention to harm anyone, how about if government instead devotes their resources toward violent criminals who have already harmed someone? Maybe violent criminals like Rafael McCloud who escaped from jail in Vicksburg, Mississippi?
Oh, never mind, We the People took care of Mr. McCloud when he decided to try his hand at home invasion and the homeowners shot and killed him.
(TTaG this would be an excellent Defensive Gun Use of the Day post … reference the Vicksburg Post News for details.)
Excellent indeed. I emailed the link to TTAG yesterday.
As did I. That story is right in TTAG’s wheelhouse.
Well there’s one vote for Trump.
Well, if we are going to play the guessing game, I’d say there was also one vote for Mittens and McCain, and likely two for the The W (Bush Jr.)
If believing in ufos or Bigfoot disqualified you from gun ownership, than 99% of Washington, idaho, Montana and everyone in Roswell, NM would be without guns. I used to pack a ruger super duper hawk in .454 exclusively for protection from Bigfoot. And a .50 BMG for ufos.
But now I just carry a cellphone because Bigfoot and space aliens avoid anyone with a camera.
Until your phone’s camera gets scratched or damaged to the point that it only takes blurry pictures. 😛
Soon not accepting climate change could be illegal, and who knows, probably carry a “no guns for you” penalty…
I guess questioning conventional wisdoms and ideas or seeking contradictory data, which is the basis for all scientific discovery, is taboo, again.
Screw the Enlightenment and the Renaissance! Yay, medieval philosophy – burn ’em at the stake!
“Soon not accepting climate change could be illegal”
Soon?
Here’s an article about the Department of Justice’s Loretta Lynch discussing prosecuting climate-change deniers:
“Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting ‘Climate Change Deniers’”
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/
Oh yeah, I saw it.
Wouldn’t want people to hear contradicting ideas. It could frighten and confuse them.
I come face to face with the chupacabra himself one night whilst I was investigating whether this gecko was hiding his treasure from me.
Given what we now know about the CIA and the NSA aren’t we all being watched, tracked and spied on by agents of our own government?
I guess reading the governments own documents and believing them is insane now?
Or is it just taking objection to the spy state that is insane?
Oh, last week the feds jettisoned the drug crme focus, and “parallel construction” faery for stuff channeled from N S A to the local po-po … regarding internal civil n criminal “suspicions.”
Congress, out loud, not some stealth admini-policy deep in the surveillance apparatus.
Every time something like this happens, I think about options for off-site gun and ammo storage.
You just never know when the jack boots will show up.
I don’t trust a man that doesn’t have something strange going on about him, cause that means he’s hiding it from you. If a man’s wearing his pants on his head or says his words backwards from time to time, you know it’s all laid out there for you. But if he’s friendly to strangers and keeps his home spic-and-span, more often than not it means he’s done something even his own ma couldn’t forgive.
and the scary part is how often no-bark was right. occasionally the details were a little off, but quite often he had the gist of it right
I don’t know…I live real close to the Richfield border and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen several saquatches around here. I’m with the old guy.
Unfortunately I’ve had to remove firearms from the home of a relative. In the last few months of his life he became a batshit crazy drunk.
I took them because it was an unsafe situation. .gov didn’t have to tell me to.
But we wouldn’t want to burden people with REAL common sense and personal responsibility.
He’s a medicated lune and the cops are wrong to take his guns. Warrant supported by a judge then take his weapons.
Sorry, but no. A judge doesn’t have the authority to preemptively deny somebody their rights. That’s a judge that needs a first hand understanding of the purpose of the 2nd amendment vis-a-vis tyranny.
Fearing death by government minions (or rather stating it) is a self fulfilling prophecy if their ever was one. If you state it then the odds of it coming true just went up by a huge margin. It could still happen if you keep quite, it’s just that it’s less likely.
Since we are donning our tin-foil hats and entertaining conspiracy theories, how do we know that Mr. Gilbertsen is not a paid actor for gun-grabbers? Are gun-grabbers paying Mr. Gilbertsen to make outlandish comments in order to paint firearms owners as paranoid conspiracy freaks who cannot be trusted with firearms?
Looking at the source story in the Star Tribune, Mr. Gilbertsen provided all the important talking points:
old white guy — check
concealed carry license — check
paranoid — check
conspiracy theory — check
spies — check
patriot — check
Christian — check
Bible — check
handled guns all his life — check
has a psychiatrist — check
saw a UFO — check
owned multiple firearms — check
But, but, but … our police might have to give his gun back to him! Ahhhh!!!!! We need laws to disarm such crazy, CRAZY I TELL YOU, people as Mr. Gilbertsen!
We’re through the looking glass, here, people.
Never mind bigfoot or space aliens. Its Hilloraly Clitnon, you cant take a picture of it because it turns you to stone. The media have special glasses that prevent this. That woman thing sure is ugly, and I quesstion if its even a woman thing, I think its a space alien from the planet, Uhglay. Its the last of its kind because they were to ugly to reproduce. It was sent to earth to combat common sense and freedom. Its super powers are uglieness, deceat, lies and ugly.Even Bill the horn Dog Clitnon wouldnt screw it. Monica was a bueat compared to IT.
Zero due process. Cops arrived and seized his firearms without warrant or court approval. Ridiculous.
He may be bonkers, but last I heard, people who are bonkers have due process rights too. If a government entity can take guns or any other freedom away just because some bureaucrat declared the person crazy, then we have become no different than the former Soviet Union where anyone that disagreed with its leaders were declared insane and sent to the Gulag to live a miserable life until they died. Is this where we want to go as a country? Apparently, in some states, yes, that is where they want to go.
Only part you got wrong was “where they want to go” when the facts on the ground show us that is where they are taking us. From speech codes and limited “free speech” zones at various colleges to the US Attorney General looking at prosecuting climate deniers we are well on our way down that road!
““The street cops nowadays have to be a psychologist,”
Nope, nope, nope. If there is suspicion of mental health issues (there was in this case) then a qualified professional should make that call. 24-48 hour evaluation if a Judge and Dr. (or 2) will sign off, guns to be left the hell alone until a medial judgement is made saying they should be taken, not before. A lot of checks and balances need to be in there.
Why is a “mental health SWAT team” in existence without actual psychiatrists? Just to be seen to be doing something? Asking a street cop to do the job because mental health is underfunded is beyond a joke.
All this court and officer time could have paid for the correct medical staff.
It’s funny how that works, isn’t it? Whenever the police want to justify something they’ve done, someone trots out a line like that, that “street cops nowadays have to be a psychologist.” Oh those poor, poor, put upon police. We just unfairly keep piling on hats for them to wear and they dutifully carry out our unreasonable mandates, you know, because they care….
Yet, when the same police need to evade responsibiity for not having acted, they turn it around and reject those alleged roles: “You can’t expect us to be psychologists, social workers, lawyers and replacement parents, can you?”
For my part, I’m not claiming to have the answers as to what’s best. I just don’t like cops making stuff up when it comes to people’s lives and freedoms.
I don’t really know much about this story, admittedly, but I will say this, I fear an oppressive gov’t run amok more than one looney tune with a few rifles and some ammo…
The State Dept. and DOJ aren’t even asking to look at people’s BookFace page or Twatter account before we handout work visas, yet due process for a citizen isn’t even an afterthought, let alone a forethought.
Ahhhh, nothing quite like the smell of Statism in the morning.
What is this “Blue Force Gear” I keep seeing here…Are they like a TTAG sponsor or something?
The Star Tribune article is a good read to see how a Citizen can be deprived of his lawful property and natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms. It illustrates how easy it is to “decide” that a person “might” be dangerous, and how that decision can be terribly wrong. I am sorry for Mr. Gilbertsen’s trouble and hope he gets his firearms returned to him.
It also shows how any one of us, gun owner or not, can be subjected to the denial of rights and the seizure of our lawful property at the whim of a few people who make a judgement about us.
Under these circumstances one can only conclude that our “freedom” is tenuous and delusional at best. The curse of freedom is that the interests of the individual are always at odds with the interests of the collective. Perhaps, it cannot be any other way. This, in essence, is what fuels the thinking of those who want to infringe and deny our right to keep and bear Arms and what makes the debate so intractable and never-ending.
That guy is a total maroon! He probably thinks that the NSA can monitor all our phone calls or something.
He is eccentric, not dangerous. It you have trouble understanding, just go to a meeting of Everytown for Gun Safety. The women there all believe that they will be one of the less than 2000 “innocent” victims murdered by a human being using a gun. And that murderers pay attention to the law. Nuttier than fruitcakes but dangerous only to your rights.
Comments are closed.