Pelosi and Cuomo Sign Gun Confiscation Bill into New York State Law

And its funny that the protected class "Politicians , Celebrities" push for gun control , when they pay for armed security of have SS protect they for life / they don't think care for the "real people "

The law LE yes , teachers, family should not be able to ,they should stay in there lane .
Just thing u piss some one off and they talk guns and "hold for 72 hours "mental , should again only be LE / Judges

^^ and yes to IB read history the Nazis started taking guns ( no constitution ) and controlling media. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

You missed the words "can seek to get guns confiscated". I can't legally take away guns from a family member who has the right to have them. Under such a law, I could get the proper authorities to remove the guns from that person.

The Nazis exterminated those they determined had mental health issues -- they did the same with those who disagreed with them politically. These "Red Flag" laws open the door to legalizing 'swatting' leaving the accused person with meager resources to defend himself in court against the state. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I love how some people continue to compare simple laws that will hopefully protect people from themselves or others to life in Nazi Germany.

A few years ago a family member was put into a nursing home, an incredibly nice nursing home, by other family members due to that person's failing mental situation and her inability to take care of herself. Given the choice at the time, the woman did not want to be put into the nursing home. Right decision or not?

Certainly if mis-administered such laws could be bad. If administered correctly, lives could be saved.

Yeah right...I see the left has officially indoctrinated you.
I guess by your logic the law should specify...hurt others with...knifes,ice-picks,chains,bats,hammers,cars or guns...take your pick, hell maybe bombs!! So as looooong as the threat is with any other deadly weapon...all's well!!
Lord knows it just those eeeeeeeeeevil guns!!
Fucking get real!! Originally Posted by bb1961

I proved you wrong. The 2 laws are not the same. You're upset. Live with it!

You missed the words "can seek to get guns confiscated". I can't legally take away guns from a family member who has the right to have them. Under such a law, I could get the proper authorities to remove the guns from that person. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That's called 'swatting'.

I love how some people continue to compare simple laws that will hopefully protect people from themselves or others to life in Nazi Germany.

A few years ago a family member was put into a nursing home, an incredibly nice nursing home, by other family members due to that person's failing mental situation and her inability to take care of herself. Given the choice at the time, the woman did not want to be put into the nursing home. Right decision or not?

Certainly if mis-administered such laws could be bad. If administered correctly, lives could be saved. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What lib-retard politician could resist the temptation of mis-administering such laws any more than Hitler and his cronies similarly 'resisted' mis-administering such laws? FYI, Hitler didn't make those laws. He just 'selectively' enforced them.

So you have a problem with this because you support the right of the mentally ill to bear arms?

The story you posted is easier to read.

Fully support.

Why do you support mentally ill people bearing arms? That's the real question.

"The law adds New York to about a dozen states that have enacted similar measures to get guns out of the hands of mentally ill people or where there is evidence a person could harm themselves or others.

So police, district attorneys, family or household members, or school administrators or their designees could petition a court to have an order of protection issued to a person to prevent them from:

"...purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun."

To grant the order, a judge must find probable cause to believe the respondent "is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others" as defined by the state's mental hygiene law."

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

1. If the person is likely to egage in conduct that would result in serious harm to themselves or others, taking their guns does NOT eliminate that threat.

It could be the last straw, too.

If they are threat, they should be institutionalized. They can drive a car, use a knive, make bombs, use a baseball bat, or any number of things to kill people.

2. It does not prevent the from purchasing or possessing any firearm.

It MAY, prevent them from going to a Walmart to buy it.

Nothing is going to prevent them from obtaining a weapon if they are bent on getting one.

3. The EPROs are ex parte. That probable cause mentioned is horseshit. The subject cannot object or defend himself prior to the order being placed.

The subject doesn't get to face his accusers or stand trial and be convicted before their rights are stripped away.


It's a gun grab, plain and simple.

That's called 'swatting'.


What lib-retard politician could resist the temptation of mis-administering such laws any more than Hitler and his cronies similarly 'resisted' mis-administering such laws? FYI, Hitler didn't make those laws. He just 'selectively' enforced them. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The first time you hear of the law being mis-administered, you let me know. Until then. . .

And you didn't comment on my family member who was put into a nursing home, seemingly against her will, by other family members. Right or wrong? Should they not have had the authority to do that? Damn Nazis!!

The first time you hear of the law being mis-administered, you let me know. Until then. . .

And you didn't comment on my family member who was put into a nursing home, seemingly against her will, by other family members. Right or wrong? Should they not have had the authority to do that? Damn Nazis!! Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Already happened. Gary Willis was 'swatted' by a disgruntled relative.

Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man

Willis "became irate" when officers attempted to serve the order....

Michele Willis, the man's niece, told The Baltimore Sun that one of her aunts requested the protective order against Willis, but she declined to say why....

Willis said her uncle "likes to speak his mind," but [he] "wouldn't hurt anybody."

(CBS)

Already happened. Gary Willis was 'swatted' by a disgruntled relative. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

How many times on this forum have people, probably including you, say that you always obey the orders of a law enforcement officer? Right or wrong. Object later. Willis got irate with gun in hand, threatening the officers. Not the brightest move.

At the time of the shooting, there had been 114 "red flag" petitions made in Maryland. I assume no incidents in the other 113. Impossible to know if any of the other "red flag" confiscations saved lives.

And you didn't comment on my family member who was put into a nursing home, seemingly against her will, by other family members. Right or wrong? Should they not have had the authority to do that?

How many times on this forum have people, probably including you, say that you always obey the orders of a law enforcement officer? Right or wrong. Object later. Willis got irate with gun in hand, threatening the officers. Not the brightest move.

At the time of the shooting, there had been 114 "red flag" petitions made in Maryland. I assume no incidents in the other 113. Impossible to know if any of the other "red flag" confiscations saved lives.

And you didn't comment on my family member who was put into a nursing home, seemingly against her will, by other family members. Right or wrong? Should they not have had the authority to do that? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Here's another book you should read. Therein, you'll discover that most individuals didn't have the financial resources to fight the system; so, they lost their guns as well as their homes.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." 4th Amendment.

The Nazis exterminated those they determined had mental health issues -- they did the same with those who disagreed with them politically. These "Red Flag" laws open the door to legalizing 'swatting' leaving the accused person with meager resources to defend himself in court against the state. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

you and your ilk know a lot about Nazis. You voted for one

you and your ilk know a lot about Nazis. You voted for one Originally Posted by themystic

You're a miseducated individual. Everyone with a real education knows that hildebeest was the one advocating state control -- i.e., Nazi -- of all aspects of the economy, society and the citizen's daily life.

I proved you wrong. The 2 laws are not the same. You're upset. Live with it! Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You didn't prove shit...you shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing of!!
You're like the rest of the left...talk a lot, but say nothing...you're are going to "protect us for our self's".
How fucking thoughtful of you!!
You bleeding heart LIBS...such pure intentions!!

But, But, Just one more piece of legislation and it'll all be better. We've heard that before.

Trump scardy cats. I hope they do not take your guns. You would never leave home