Huh.
So, I was poking through previous entries, and the whole "should not!Harry be allowed to carry a gun because of the whole PTSD thing" issue continued to bug.
So, I looked again. And this time, Google was my Very Good Friend. Because it led me to this:
California Firearms Laws.
And, on page 30, I found what I was looking for. Specifically:
No person who is receiving inpatient treatment because he or she is a danger to self or others may have in his or her possession or under his or her custody, or control, nor may he or she purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearm. This applies even though the person has consented to the treatment. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 8100.)
No person who communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a victim may purchase, possess, control, or have custody of any firearms for a period of six months after the threat is reported to a local law enforcement agency. Attempts to purchase, possess, or control firearms are also prohibited. Persons prohibited under this section may petition a court for restoration of firearms privileges. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 8100(b).)
No person adjudicated by a court of any state to be (a) a danger to others as a result of mental disorder or mental illness, or (b) a mentally disordered sex offender shall have in his or her possession, custody, or control any firearm. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 8103(a).)
So, I bolded the parts I think are relevant to not!Harry's particular case, and I think he's all right, legally speaking. It's entirely possible that he's communicated to a licensed psychotherapist that he's a danger to himself, sometime, but it's interesting that that part of the statute doesn't say anything about someone being a danger to himself--it's only if a person is receiving inpatient care because he's a danger to himself that the law applies.
Little details, man... Because if you get the little things like firearms laws right, then your readers will trust you with big things like, say...nanotech that creates werewolves.
So, I looked again. And this time, Google was my Very Good Friend. Because it led me to this:
California Firearms Laws.
And, on page 30, I found what I was looking for. Specifically:
No person who is receiving inpatient treatment because he or she is a danger to self or others may have in his or her possession or under his or her custody, or control, nor may he or she purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearm. This applies even though the person has consented to the treatment. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 8100.)
No person who communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a victim may purchase, possess, control, or have custody of any firearms for a period of six months after the threat is reported to a local law enforcement agency. Attempts to purchase, possess, or control firearms are also prohibited. Persons prohibited under this section may petition a court for restoration of firearms privileges. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 8100(b).)
No person adjudicated by a court of any state to be (a) a danger to others as a result of mental disorder or mental illness, or (b) a mentally disordered sex offender shall have in his or her possession, custody, or control any firearm. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 8103(a).)
So, I bolded the parts I think are relevant to not!Harry's particular case, and I think he's all right, legally speaking. It's entirely possible that he's communicated to a licensed psychotherapist that he's a danger to himself, sometime, but it's interesting that that part of the statute doesn't say anything about someone being a danger to himself--it's only if a person is receiving inpatient care because he's a danger to himself that the law applies.
Little details, man... Because if you get the little things like firearms laws right, then your readers will trust you with big things like, say...nanotech that creates werewolves.