VPC Albert Sheakalee

California Department of Justice agents have seized more than 500 firearms from a Clovis man who is prohibited from owning guns, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced Wednesday.Albert Sheakalee, 59, was arrested Nov. 12 for illegally possessing the firearms. He was released from jail after posting $11,000 bail.

State Department of Justice agents seized 209 handguns, 88 shotguns, 234 rifles, 181 standard capacity magazines, 10 high capacity magazines, 100,521 rounds of various ammunition and 10 assault weapons, including a .50 caliber bolt action rifle, from Sheakalee’s home in Clovis. Sheakalee is in an Armed & Prohibited Persons System (APPS) database due to a prior mental health hold, which prohibits an individual from possessing firearms, authorities said. But as of Wednesday, Sheakalee has not been charged, according to Fresno County Superior Court records.

Source: Clovis man banned from owning guns had 500 firearms, state AG says | Fresno Bee

Here is where it gets interesting.

According to Coleman, in the summer of 2015, Sheakalee went through a stressful time and sought treatment. “He has never been adjudicated as any sort of threat to anyone,” Coleman said. “And despite his desire to find help, Sheakalee found himself on a government list which the Department of Justice claims denies him the right to own firearms.”

Source: Lawyer: DOJ violated Clovis gun collector’s constitutional rights | Fresno Bee

The following day, Sheakalee’s lawyer reiterated their position:

Sheakalee’s attorney Mark Coleman says his client is not high risk, like investigators imply. “This is a 59-year-old man who has never committed a crime before in his life. He’s never been adjudicated by any court as being dangerous, he’s never been adjudicated by any mental health professional as being dangerous,” said Coleman.

Source: Sheakalee to fight state for his 541 guns – Story

This one stinks to high heaven, but we are going to need more details. Specially with the last part, if neither a judge, nor a mental health professional had him adjudicated, who did and why?


Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

7 thoughts on “California Confiscatory Overreaching? The Case of Albert Sheakalee.”
  1. Aside from the other obvious problems with all this I have another gripe…

    When, exactly, did a bolt action rifle start being considered an “assault weapon”? Seriously? Just how “flexible” is this term? Using it in this way they might as well be admitting that the definition of an “assault weapon” is that it’s whatever sounds scary to them at the moment.

    “Hmmm, it’s 50 caliber…that sounds like it meets the scary threshold even though it’s just a bolt action…we’ll count it.”

  2. The media threshold for ‘assault weapon’ varies with the times. The new term is ‘Paris-Style Assault Weapon’ apparently.

    That being said, this is a perfect example as to why gun owners are hesitant to go to a mental health professional for even the slightest ailment – they are afraid of being placed on a no-go list.

  3. Registration leads to confiscation. “Mental health” is not the road the NRA or gun owners should be taking because “it’s a trap”. A bolt action rifle (.50 Cal or not) is as much an “assault weapon” as an 870 is a “police-style” shotgun.

  4. Quick question: Given this case’s location, does “181 standard capacity magazines, [and] 10 high capacity magazines” mean the normal definition or the Kalifornistan definition?

    Put another way, was that 181 12-18 round pistol magazines (or 30-round AR mags) and 10 30-round pistol magazines (or 50-100-round AR mags)?

    Or was it 181 6-10-round mags and 10 that hold 11 or more?

    DO NOT let them abrogate and take over the terms, “standard capacity magazine” and “high capacity magazine”. The actual definition and the media/Kalifornistan definition are two VERY different things.

  5. If they can’t look at something with a unbiased investigation then it is not a legal investigation and should not be allowed a legal decision. Yea right this will happen, when will the left be interested in legal or rights.

Comments are closed.

Login or register to comment.