Albert Sheakaleee was arrested Nov. 12 for illegal firearms possession, and his lawyer argues it’s bogus. (Photo: Composites from CA DOJ and Fresno Sheriff)
Guns dot com
An attorney representing a California FFL holder whose extensive firearm collection was seized in dramatic fashion by authorities is claiming his rights have been violated.
The Clovis area man, Albert Sheakalee, 59, went through mental health treatment last summer, which, unknown to him, landed him in the California Department of Justice’s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) database. This, as touted in a press release Wednesday by state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, barred him from firearms ownership and triggered a 12-hour raid on his home from Bureau of Firearms Special Agents on Nov. 12, which ended in his arrest for possessing illegal firearms.
"The thing is, argues Sheakalee’s attorney Mark Coleman, is that the weapons are legal and the state violated not only his Second Amendment rights to possess them, but also as he wasn’t aware he had been placed in the database, was denied his right to due process to clear up any misunderstanding before the raid."
ReplyDeleteWe seem to be seeing more and more of this. Recall the retired police officer in New York that had his guns confiscated due to a clerical error?
"Although DOJ officials claim Sheakalee’s FFL was revoked last year and repeated that assertion to media, Guns.com performed a quick search of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s online public database and found Albert Sheakaleee listed with a Type 1 license (line # 1683 ) on the most current FFL list for the state, dated this August."
This is a very good question. I imagine we'll see some clarification soon since there would be a paper trail of the BATFE notifying Mr. Sheakalee that his FFL was revoked. And then if I remember correctly, there is a process that gives the FFL some time to sell off his stock. Though I imagine that the stock would then become his personal property and he could sell it then. And Guns.com thoughtfully provided a link to the listing of FFLs and he is on it.
https://www.atf.gov/file/96661/download
Hopefully, the lying fanatics will be punished, and forced to return the victim's guns, but I'm of course not counting on it.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know what he sought help for, but regardless this is absolutely atrocious. What do you think the repercussions will be for turning someone like this into a criminal for seeking help? What are people supposed to think when deciding whether or not to take steps for positive mental health? They don't want to end up like this guy. Arrest, legal fees, loss of livelihood, loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property... all without due process.
ReplyDeleteAlthough DOJ officials claim Sheakalee’s FFL was revoked last year and repeated that assertion to media, Guns.com performed a quick search of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s online public database and found Albert Sheakaleee listed with a Type 1 license (line # 1683 ) on the most current FFL list for the state, dated this August.
Who are the filthy lying fanatics again?
"I'd be interested to know what he sought help for,"
DeleteThat would be interesting. Notice how Guns dot com gave it such short shrift: "went through mental health treatment last summer." Not a word more.
If it had been such a minor thing they would have elaborated.
That would be interesting. Notice how Guns dot com gave it such short shrift: "went through mental health treatment last summer." Not a word more.
DeleteIs that information even made publicly available? That would be disgusting even by California standards.
If it had been such a minor thing they would have elaborated.
Or, vastly more plausibly, they had no idea of the particulars of his mental health treatment, and are "guilty" only of failure to adhere to the Mikeb playbook: engage in rampant speculation (always biased against the individual), then present that speculation as absolute fact.
Notice how the CA DOJ didn't say either? They're the only ones privy to that information. Gun.com was just reporting on what they released. So maybe it was something as major as insomnia.
DeleteI noticed how both you and the state make the assumption that treatment is useless. You say he has "mental health problems" because he received treatment last year. So the treatment did no good?
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary. Maybe he's cured, but how can we know. We must fault on the side of caution. Mental health problems = no more guns.
DeleteBut that's not what you said. You said "man with mental health problems". You didn't say he might have been cured. But really? If a person gets cured of a problem they should never be allowed to own guns? And to top it if, they should be arrested and have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property seized without compensation? Seriously?
DeleteAnd one more time, do you not see the unintended consequences of this? This is story is a huge discouragement for those considering getting help. Yea for you, you got this guy's guns. Now how many others will be scared to get treated so they won't get help- and they'll get to keep their guns. Big winner for you, huh?
Regarding mental health, everyone else is working towards encouragement, privacy, and ease of access to care, except for you gun control fanatics.
You're right about the deterrent factor, but what's your solution? We keep doing what we're doing - since it's working so well?
DeleteWe keep doing what we're doing - since it's working so well?
DeleteWe eliminate the concept of "prohibited persons" altogether. Problem solved.
Well, my solution wouldn't be to make things worse, which is the effect of stigmatizing mental health treatment. Look, you already have the power to disarm crazy people so long as due process is followed- that means adjudicated as a danger in a court of law. What's wrong with following due process?
DeleteIf by "due process" you mean we should continue to allow guys like Lanza and Loughner and Holmes have access to guns, I say your a crazy fanatic.
DeleteKurt, that's brilliant. No one is prohibited - guns for everyone. I suppose I should never call TS a fanatic as long as we have you showing us what true fanaticism is really like.
So we can add the 5th Amendment to the list of amendments you hate and find anachronistic. Who's the fanatic again?
DeleteI know how much disarmament excites you, but answer me this:
DeleteIf a gun owner is having mental health troubles, would you rather them:
A) seek treatment, and maybe be cured, maybe not, and they keep their guns.
or
B) They don't seek treatment, don't get cured, AND keep their guns.
A.... or B....?
. . . guns for everyone.
DeleteJust to clarify, I'm not proposing that anyone be given free guns on the taxpayers' dime, if that's the impression I gave. That would be crazy (and socialistic, and thus disgusting and wrong).
Kurt: "We eliminate the concept of "prohibited persons" altogether."
DeleteThis statement seems pretty darn clear to me, Kurt. I don't know how anyone could conclude this involves some kind of mass gun handout.
Right TS, How could Kurt have arrived at that nonsense? You see what I have to put up with?
DeleteAbout your bullshit A and B question, here's what I say. People who have mental health problems should seek help. If they don't because they fear disarmament, we'll deal with them as they break the rules. And before you go frothing at the keyboard, only they will be responsble for their behavior - you can't blame the laws.
How could Kurt have arrived at that nonsense? You see what I have to put up with?
DeleteOh, put away your victim card, you little crybaby. I never claimed that you or anyone else was accusing me of advocating government subsidized private gun ownership. I merely meant to clarify that I was indeed not doing so, because your "guns for everyone" had me thinking that perhaps you might have thought so.
Remember, after all, that when the self-proclaimed "progressives" talk about "universal health care" (another way of saying "health care for everyone"), they're not saying that it's needed because of any movement to ban health care for certain people, but that some people cannot afford it, and will thus need some degree of taxpayer-funded assistance.
Hey, if you can blame me for psychopaths getting a hold of a gun, then you can blame yourself for those psychopaths avoiding treatment. It's only fair.
DeleteFor what it's worth, I'm not blaming any laws in this case. Kamala Harris is operating outside of the law when she arrests people and confiscates property without due process. But you think bad laws should be damned, don't you?
DeleteMikeB: "If they don't because they fear disarmament, we'll deal with them as they break the rules."
DeleteWhat a foreign concept for you... agreeing to wait for someone to do wrong before you punish them.