GUNS/RLTD Richfield MN man's seized weapons at the center of 2nd Amendment dispute.

tech020

Senior Member
Just saw this in the Sunday paper on-line. As I am in my 70's, it does bring up issues.

http://strib.mn/1nmGVr5

By John Reinan Star Tribune
March 6, 2016 — 7:33am

Ralph Gilbertsen says the CIA has been stalking him for two decades. He believes in Bigfoot. He has seen a UFO.

And he wants his guns back.

Richfield police came to his door one day last year and took them away. Now Gilbertsen, a 74-year-old former security guard and Marine Reservist, is in court to force police to return the three handguns they seized.

His case raises the question of how to balance mental illness with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

He has alarmed Richfield police, city officials and managers of his apartment building with a series of letters alleging constant and escalating harassment by the CIA.

But Gilbertsen has a state-issued permit to carry that’s good for another three years. He has no criminal record, and none of his letters threatened violence toward anyone. He usually gets around by bus, carrying his Smith & Wesson .40-caliber auto pistol because of its compact profile.
Ralph Gilbertsen stepped over and around documents and other objects on his living room floor last week. His attorney says police had no right to take his guns over what amounts to his beliefs.
Ralph Gilbertsen stepped over and around documents and other objects on his living room floor last week. His attorney says police had no right to take his guns over what amounts to his beliefs.

“To me, it’s just a common-sense precaution,” Gilbertsen said. “Criminals don’t announce their intentions to you.”

In his letters, Gilbertsen identified specific residents and staffers at his apartment building as CIA agents, and warned that “they will lie and deny it.” He also identified specific Richfield police officers as CIA spies.

In neat, precise handwriting, he keeps a list of the license plate numbers of more than 75 vehicles that he believes have followed him recently.

“There are literally hundreds of CIA spies in Richfield alone that harass me,” he wrote in one letter. “There are thousands of these people in the south-suburban area. I am certain I will be murdered some day.”

Cops as psychologists

When three Richfield police officers knocked on Gilbertsen’s door last May, they were there at the request of Hennepin Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies (COPE). The 30-person agency is a sort of SWAT team for mental illness, handling more than 13,000 cases last year, about one-third of them in person.

The managers of Gilbertsen’s apartment building called COPE after his latest series of letters. When they warned he might have guns, COPE called for a police escort.

Lt. Mike Flaherty, a Richfield Police Department spokesman, said officers are often forced to make snap judgments about an individual’s mental health.

“The street cops nowadays have to be a psychologist,” Flaherty said. “People don’t wear nameplates saying ‘paranoid schizophrenic.’ So the police have to go in there and make judgment calls.

“Is he crazy dangerous or is he the crazy uncle? We have to make that decision and let the legal system sort it out.”

In Gilbertsen’s case, Flaherty said, police acted properly in seizing the weapons. In addition to the .40-caliber pistol, they took his Smith & Wesson .357 magnum and an RG .22 revolver.

“I’m confident our officers seized the weapons with the best intention,” Flaherty said. “It was a mental health issue, and I think the cops responded appropriately. The process is being followed. If the court rules that we have to return his weapons, then we will return them.”

Police can never be entirely sure when someone will misuse guns. For example, before Brian Short killed his wife, three children and himself at their Lake Minnetonka home in September, there was little reason for anyone to suspect he’d turn violent.

‘An unusual situation’

In person, Gilbertsen — his friends call him “Gil” — is friendly and talkative, eager to share his thoughts and opinions on various topics. He grew up in Richfield and graduated from high school there. In court documents, he’s described as suffering from “a mild bipolar condition that is well-controlled.”

Gilbertsen has lived in numerous places across the country, working as a taxi driver, preacher, armored car guard, funeral home attendant and Wal-Mart greeter. He moved back to Minnesota in 2000 and has lived in Richfield for the past three years, getting by on about $900 a month in Social Security payments.

Gilbertsen calls himself a proud patriot and a Christian whose biblical beliefs forbid him from lying or injuring anyone. He said he’s handled guns all his life and knows how to use them properly. His psychiatrist sent a letter to the judge saying that Gilbertsen is compliant with his medications and poses no danger to himself or others.

That leaves a case, according to Gilbertsen’s attorney, in which police took away a citizen’s guns simply because of his beliefs. They’re unusual beliefs, acknowledged his attorney, Paul Baertschi.

“He’s what some people would say is a conspiracy theorist. It is an unusual situation,” Baertschi said. “But really, the police acted unilaterally in deciding that a person who has these beliefs can’t be trusted with a gun. And so they just took them, without a warrant.”

In a court filing, Baertschi wrote that Gilbertsen “is an able-bodied senior citizen who lacks the physical strength to defend himself from an attack and has the constitutional right under the Second Amendment to have a weapon for personal protection. The police have no right to confiscate his weapons based on the speculative worries of anyone.”

Citing Jesse Ventura

There’s no decision yet in Gilbertsen’s case, but he appears to have a good chance of getting his guns back.

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. That requires a legal finding that the person has tried to harm others or that there’s “a substantial likelihood” of harmful behavior.

Gilbertsen notes that many Americans share his concern about government spying, including Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee who revealed widespread surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency.

As further proof, Gilbertsen points to former Gov. Jesse Ventura’s book “American Conspiracies,” which he owns and refers to frequently.

“A lot of people believe these things, but they don’t want to talk about it,” he said. “I could see people being skeptical if I was saying something really outlandish, like space aliens with big heads were visiting me every night. But nobody can believe the CIA is squeaky clean.

“The people who think these things can’t happen, I think they’re the ones living in Alice-in-Wonderland world.”
 

Illini Warrior

Illini Warrior
this is a real tough one - right along with taking away driving privileges from someone tooooo incapable of save driving .... sounds like the guy definitely has a screw loose - but the BIG problem is that the coppers are acting as judge, jury and DOCTOR .... let the coppers find a a doctor that disagrees with the old guy's doctor - judge & court needs to be involved ....
 

West

Senior
Many people today believe that, believing in bigfoots and space aliens is just as crazy as believing in God, or even the 2nd amendment.
 

kyrsyan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
He may have a screw (or two) loose. But all he has done is write complaints. Despite fearing that he's being followed everywhere he has yet to draw a weapon or attack anyone in any way. He hasn't threatened or even hinted at threatening. So, the guns are his and they need to be returned.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
He thinks residents of his apartment complex are CIA agents out to get him. Only a matter of time before he snapped and shot someone. Definitely a tough call, but the guy is nutty as a fruitcake.
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
“There are literally hundreds of CIA spies in Richfield alone that harass me,” he wrote in one letter. “There are thousands of these people in the south-suburban area. I am certain I will be murdered some day.”

Sounds like a certain Hawk I once knew.



“The street cops nowadays have to be a psychologist,” Flaherty said. “People don’t wear nameplates saying ‘paranoid schizophrenic.’ So the police have to go in there and make judgment calls. “Is he crazy dangerous or is he the crazy uncle? We have to make that decision and let the legal system sort it out.”



It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't. You have the individual right to keep and bear arms. OTOH we've all seen the results of those who are truly mentally ill and have access to firearms. You might have a crazy uncle who believes in all kinds of inane things but would truly be of no threat to anyone. And then you might have another one who is on dangerous psychotropic drugs or even a veteran with PTSD who is having flashbacks and really thinks people are trying to kill him and he is going to react according to his prior training.

If the cops take away firearms from the crazy uncle who is truly no threat you have people screaming bloody murder because people are being denied their second amendment rights on a whim. In the other case if they don't take the firearms away and a week later the guy goes psychotic and kills somebody then you have the public demanding to know why they didn't take the firearms when they had the chance. If the guy isn't dangerous enough to bring in for a mental evaluation then I don't think you can seize a firearm. People still need to be granted due process when it comes to their civil rights. If you think someone is really that dangerous then take them in for an evaluation but then I think it needs to go before a judge with no skin the the case to make the evaluation along with the professionals of the guys mental condition. Real fine rope to walk here.
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
The reporter who wrote the story in the OP, myself, Illini Warrior and West are all CIA spies working on Gilbertsen's case. We are spying on him and we'll be spying on you if you don't watch your Ps and Qs! Big Brother thanks you for your cooperation in this matter.

Best regards
Doc
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
The way the law reads right now, he will probably get his guns back - and he should. He hasn't hurt anyone, and he hasn't threatened to hurt anyone.
 

West

Senior
Until he does....

Just musing...

Over the years, some of the statements you have made on these boards where probably archived and arranged to make it sound like you're plumb crazy too. In the same boat though, since they took my CIA papers away...
 

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
Read in the Unex. room here...

There are only shades of difference in some of the things there and the subject of the OP.

Or in all reality, most anybody here might have their opinions screwed around by the legal system to be construed as "dangerous".

I sure don't want street cops making that determination.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Perhaps West. But I don't have a long history of tinfoil wackadoodle statements. Nor do I think CIA agents, chupacabras, Reptilians, jews or masons are out to get me.

Just sayin....
 

Dosadi

Brown Coat
Innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe's do not trump God given rights, nor do opinions.

Return the guns and leave him alone.

Or admit we live in a police state where the opinions of others rule the lives of free men.
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
On a serious note, Millwright and West are absolutely correct about the dangers of psychiatric review of political (and other) statements that members here might make. The Soviets and other governments - including, to a much lesser degree, the US - have a disgraceful history of using psychiatric assessments to strip citizens of civil rights and/or incarcerate them. Members of non-mainstream boards and groups - such as TB2K - should be more aware than most of the danger. It's not only governments who can present this danger: It happens often in the realm of civil law, as well.

I went through this during the custody battle over my son decades ago. The ex and her lawyer decided to adopt an "throw the cr*p and see what sticks" strategy, including making allegations of my supposed mental instability. Interestingly, (and to my surprise) my firearms didn't really come up in the litigation, but other innocent actions and events did. As one example, a perfectly innocent halloween costume was used as ammunition! How? I had somehow come into possession of a really ugly, orange motorcycle helmet which I never wore and which stayed buried in a closet. On Halloween I decided to wear the helmet, paint my face matching orange and make my face up like a jack-o-lantern. The costume was a hit and everyone who saw it thought it was hilarious. I wore it one time, on Halloween night, not before or since. This was a actually brought up in court as an example of my supposedly hideous and demonic nature!

The whole thing backfired on the ex, as the court ordered a psychiatric review of both myself and her and - in part - as a result of that assessment, I was awarded custody instead of her. My point though, is that anything, no matter how innocent or innocuous can be brought up in allegations of psychiatric instability and it works in two parts; the first is the allegation or smear - which the public will remember irrespective of the final disposition - and the final psychiatric evaluation which can be used to remove civil rights, incarcerate a subject or destroy a career.

It's not overly-paranoid to suggest that people who hold opinions out of the mainstream and publicly express them should be aware of these possibilities.

Best regards
Doc
 

Illini Warrior

Illini Warrior
The way the law reads right now, he will probably get his guns back - and he should. He hasn't hurt anyone, and he hasn't threatened to hurt anyone.


unfortunately it probably won't go that route .... they'll declare him a threat to himself and possibly society - nutz in other words - and lock him away where guns aren't allowed ... there's ALWAYS ways around the laws that get in the way of doing the simple things .... he'll lose his freedom over his demands
 

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
I doubt that he has the money to get his property back, unless one of the gun rights .orgs steps in.
 

West

Senior
I got chores to do, but feel the need to add on the subject of self incrimination. If any one of you know of a family member or friend that, screws up and gets busted (felony) for one thing or the other many stupid things that can get you a felony charge... They will give you a mental/psyche test ect... The test questions (say for drug/dwi, etc..) will be questions like..

When did you stop beating your wife? The answers will be multiple choice... A. last year. B. only once. C. she asked for it. There will be no correct answer. If you do answer any of these trick questions they WILL also make you go threw all kinds of psychiatric schooling etc... that you will also pay for and will need to do before you can get off probation etc...

Don't answer any questions that could incriminate your self in any way, and the more crazy tinfoiler (keep that to your self) you are the better, and flow with the PC BS when in their courts/houses..
 
Last edited:

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
If he's dangerous enough to have his guns taken away, he shouldn't be loose among the populace. If he's sane enough to be walking free, he should have ALL his Constitutional rights. Not just he ones the government feels they want to grant him.
 

bbbuddy

DEPLORABLE ME
Drip drip drip, this is how we slowly descend into darkness.

Unfortunately life begets death, and freedom is dangerous, but so is totalitarianism. Taking away a constitutional right because you don't like the way a person thinks is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Until he makes threats, or harms another, he should be as free as anyone else.

Anything else is against his God given constitutional rights. And they'll come for YOU next.
 

West

Senior
Drip drip drip, this is how we slowly descend into darkness.

Unfortunately life begets death, and freedom is dangerous, but so is totalitarianism. Taking away a constitutional right because you don't like the way a person thinks is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Until he makes threats, or harms another, he should be as free as anyone else.

Anything else is against his God given constitutional rights. And they'll come for YOU next.

Sad part is, he/she doesn't have to "makes threats, or harms another" there are many other crimes one can do to be a felon where making threats or harming people or even their private properties was/is not the crime the individual gets busted for.
 

Sasquatch

Veteran Member
So now a "possible threat" or "being odd" is now punishable (without trial) by ones loss of Individual Rights.
 

Txkstew

Veteran Member
My 85 year old Dad, was in a steep decline from Alzheimer's in it's later stages. My Mom was his primary care giver. I lived next door and was backup caregiver. One day he showed up at my front door just before dark. He was wearing only shorts with no shirt. In his hand, he had an open 4 inch Buck knife. He was rambling about someone trying to kill him. I took the knife out of his hand, and started walking him back next door to his house. Before we got there, my Mom was outside calling for him. We went inside, and I walked straight into were he kept his gun, which I picked up, and stuck it in my back pocket. He asked for it at a later date, but he never got it back. I told him I'd let him see it, but no, he could not have it back. My brothers backed me up.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
If he's dangerous enough to have his guns taken away, he shouldn't be loose among the populace. If he's sane enough to be walking free, he should have ALL his Constitutional rights. Not just he ones the government feels they want to grant him.

I know a NUMBER of folks who can more or less live in society but who damn sure should NOT have firearms due to their mental state, which when well medicated is functional but isn't ALWAYS well medicated.

MY issue here is that I don't see due process haivng been completed yet...He needs to be adjudicated before they remove his guns permanently. I can (BARELY) justify a SHORT TEMPORARY holding but he should be SPEEDILY brought into court for adjudication
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
I know a NUMBER of folks who can more or less live in society but who damn sure should NOT have firearms due to their mental state, which when well medicated is functional but isn't ALWAYS well medicated.

MY issue here is that I don't see due process haivng been completed yet...He needs to be adjudicated before they remove his guns permanently. I can (BARELY) justify a SHORT TEMPORARY holding but he should be SPEEDILY brought into court for adjudication

Agreed
 

Vtshooter

Veteran Member

Not saying there aren't stupid laws, but the "eavesdropping" they're referring to is recording conversations without notifying all parties that they are being recorded. Some places, that is illegal, some places not.

I think the gentleman should have had his day in court, before his guns were taken. Just think about how some of the folks on this board sound right now, then throw a little more age and crankiness into the mix. It has become entirely too easy to pull out the psych card, and use it to take peoples firearms.

It also seems like a good reason to have a couple "back ups" stashed somewhere safe, just in case.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
This should be like determination of guilt.

Unless the case is IRONCLAD - then the defendant walks.

In this case with his guns.

Determination of mental capacity to hold and use COULD be made by an expert - but like a search warrant (which is judicial permission to look for incrimination), a judge should be the authorizing factor. AND like a search warrant, the outcome of that search for mental illness could be contested in court of law.

Sorry. When it comes to human rights to err on the side of too much freedom is a good thing.

Dobbin
 

Snyper

Veteran Member
I don't see how they have any legal justification for taking his guns without having him declared mentally incompetent in court
 

iceblue

Senior Member
A loaded firearm in the hands of someone who believes in either," bigfoots and space aliens, God, or even the 2nd amendment" is a laydown misère to disaster unfolding.

Why would anyone need a weapon if they absolutely BELIEVED in God?

The 2nd Amendment: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined" ... armed and disciplined, anybody have the legal interpretation? Only shoot when threatened? Only shoot to protect?
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
Heck....a huge chunk of the folks driving on the highways in this country shouldn't have drivers licences judging by the way they drive and act in public!! So are we going to take away their cars? Nope....because they haven't done anything outrageously stupid....yet. And yes....if you believe all the intelligence gathering capabilities we learning the government has, we're all probably being watched by someone in some way or another. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.
 

DryCreek

Veteran Member
Why would anyone need a weapon if they absolutely BELIEVED in God?
Do you mean like the slingshot David used to kill Goliath? Or the sword Peter used to defend the faith? Or do you think maybe the Canaanites were tickled and pinched until they just gave up and left with their wickedness?
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
Innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe's do not trump God given rights, nor do opinions.

Return the guns and leave him alone.

Or admit we live in a police state where the opinions of others rule the lives of free men.

THIS + 1
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Not saying there aren't stupid laws, but the "eavesdropping" they're referring to is recording conversations without notifying all parties that they are being recorded. Some places, that is illegal, some places not.

I think the gentleman should have had his day in court, before his guns were taken. Just think about how some of the folks on this board sound right now, then throw a little more age and crankiness into the mix. It has become entirely too easy to pull out the psych card, and use it to take peoples firearms.

It also seems like a good reason to have a couple "back ups" stashed somewhere safe, just in case.



If he is aware of the fact they owe him due process of law before they can take his stuff and rights he is far from crazy. Where is his falmily?
 

iceblue

Senior Member
Do you mean like the slingshot David used to kill Goliath? Or the sword Peter used to defend the faith? Or do you think maybe the Canaanites were tickled and pinched until they just gave up and left with their wickedness?

Yeah, perhaps, but I am thinking that life here is so short, so temporary and so quick for some that the need to protect and kill to stay here seems a little like an oxymoron or basically a lack of deep faith. It is just a thought process I am throwing out because no one has it fully figured out yet and a christian carrying a weapon when one of the commandments says - don't kill - and then we can diverge on what killing actually means.

I can remember a mountain climb that I did once when I realised that that mountain had sat there for such an immense amount of time that my period of existence was smaller than a grain of sand in retrospect.

Analyse, question, discuss and analyse some more.

SWAG....They only need a weapon if they wish to try to delay their meeting with God. Just procrastinating believers. My best guess.

Yes, something like that.
 
Last edited:

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
The commandment is more accurately translated as "Thou shalt not murder"...IIRC

I would hope a good Christian would carry to not only save himself, but some other innocent person too.
 

Garryowen

Deceased
Yeah, perhaps, but I am thinking that life here is so short, so temporary and so quick for some that the need to protect and kill to stay here seems a little like an oxymoron or basically a lack of deep faith. It is just a thought process I am throwing out because no one has it fully figured out yet and a christian carrying a weapon when one of the commandments says - don't kill - and then we can diverge on what killing actually means.

I can remember a mountain climb that I did once when I realised that that mountain had sat there for such an immense amount of time that my period of existence was smaller than a grain of sand in retrospect.

Analyse, question, discuss and analyse some more.



Yes, something like that.

Or, perhaps he would like to allow his children to grow up with both parents, or maybe keep his neighbor from being raped and killed by some Jihadi or doper. I have no quarrel with someone who feels convicted to be non-resistant, but am not convinced that particular position is a requirement. JMO
 

Cyclonemom

Veteran Member
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



This famous poem could be rewritten as:

First they came for the UFO believers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a UFO believer.
Then they came for the Religious, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Religious.
Then they came for the Patriots, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Patriot.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Where's the "then they came for the mentally ill" in your requote, cyclonemom? Perhaps because that wouldn't support all the chest thumping and mouth breathing....
 
Top