Court Opinion

ID: 9885190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:42:44.573587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:46.161807
License: Public Domain

GILBERT, P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the majority decision. But I likely would have reached a different conclusion than the trial judge. Psychologists at the Ventura County Behavioral Clinic concluded Mr. Keil was not a danger to himself and released him. The same conclusion was reached by Keil’s treating psychologist, Dr. Hale. After six months of therapy she concluded that he is “not suicidal” and “he does not have suicidal tendencies.” The guns were locked in a safe and unloaded. Keil made no attempt to open the safe and was cooperative with the police and gave them the combination to the safe.
However differently I may view the evidence, I am compelled to agree substantial evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. In a thoughtful statement on the record the trial court acknowledged many of the points I have raised. It expressed concern about how Keil “may be prone to depression which can be poorly released.” The court noted a lack of certainty regarding Keil’s ability to handle recurrent and stressful family conflicts while suffering from “major depression or an adjustment disorder.” These concerns are based on information in the psychological reports and support the judgment and finding that Keil would constitute a danger to himself and others. (See Rupf v. Yan (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 411 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 157].)
The trial court may have lacked the expertise of the professionals who interpreted Keil’s psychological profile, but the court was free to reject some or all of their conclusions.
*40I write separately to voice my concerns that because of Keil’s psychological condition he must forfeit an expensive gun collection on which he has spent “thousands of dollars restoring and refinishing.” I would urge the Legislature to consider amending Welfare and Institutions Code section 8102 to give individuals such as Keil the opportunity to sell or otherwise dispose of their weapons in a manner that assures compliance with the statute.
Another option would be to allow such persons to relinquish control of their weapons and have them stored at their own expense for the five-year period of probation provided in Welfare and Institutions Code section 8103, subdivision (f)(1). At the end of the probationary period the matter would be subject to reevaluation.
These approaches give individuals subject to the statute an opportunity to preserve their property rights without undermining the public safety the statute is designed to protect.