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

That is ALREADY law...you are a typical left wing bot!!
47 states can put a mental hold on ANYONE at ANYTIME NOW...you don't know your stuff!!
http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.e...ental-illness/
This is the camels nose under the tent legislation by the left!! Originally Posted by bb1961

BB posted this on the first page and yet people argue.

Red Flag Laws take property. They don't remove any threat, Is the point
To speed racer, weapons do make it easier To defend yourself

To Grean -This. It's already on the books. It commits the person to an institution so THEY are no longer a threat. And it's not ex parte.

The judge talks to the person to be committed.



Thank You for posting the relevant Sections - a careful reading reveals no requirement for a judge to personally speak to an affected, accused individual prior to action. The sections are about "application" regarding an individual.

In my reading - an individual can be detained and confined for mental evaluation without any knowledge of the process, and no legal representation.
It does state - a Judge " may interview the applicant" Not required!

And that's the issue with the red flag laws ,, There a end play around Due Process

To Grean -This. It's already on the books. It commits the person to an institution so THEY are no longer a threat. And it's not ex parte.

The judge talks to the person to be committed.



Thank You for posting the relevant Sections - a careful reading reveals no requirement for a judge to personally speak to an affected, accused individual prior to action. The sections are about "application" regarding an individual.

In my reading - an individual can be detained and confined for mental evaluation without any knowledge of the process, and no legal representation.
It does state - a Judge " may interview the applicant" Not required! Originally Posted by oeb11

You are correct. It doesn't require a judge to do so.

However, it does require:


(e) A person apprehended under this section shall be transported for a preliminary examination in accordance with Section 573.021 to:

(1) the nearest appropriate inpatient mental health facility; or

(2) a mental health facility deemed suitable by the local mental health authority, if an appropriate inpatient mental health facility is not available.


The person is however, completely removed from society while he is examined and kept out if he fails.



This law achieves what the Red Flag Laws don't!

Why more laws?

Thank you for thoughtful, documented posts, Grean
Agreed with above!

Didn’t you once say you’re in your 70’s? You ain’t no spring chicken. Originally Posted by bambino

Very true. But I consider myself to be in excellent physical condition and unlike IB I think young.

This. It's already on the books. It commits the person to an institution so THEY are no longer a threat. And it's not ex parte.

The judge talks to the person to be committed.

SUBCHAPTER B. JUDGE'S OR MAGISTRATE'S ORDER FOR EMERGENCY APPREHENSION AND DETENTION



Sec. 573.011. APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY DETENTION. (a) An adult may file a written application for the emergency detention of another person.

(b) The application must state:

(1) that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the person evidences mental illness;

(2) that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the person evidences a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others;

(3) a specific description of the risk of harm;

(4) that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the risk of harm is imminent unless the person is immediately restrained;

(5) that the applicant's beliefs are derived from specific recent behavior, overt acts, attempts, or threats;

(6) a detailed description of the specific behavior, acts, attempts, or threats; and

(7) a detailed description of the applicant's relationship to the person whose detention is sought.

(c) The application may be accompanied by any relevant information.


Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.




Sec. 573.012. ISSUANCE OF WARRANT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an applicant for emergency detention must present the application personally to a judge or magistrate. The judge or magistrate shall examine the application and may interview the applicant. Except as provided by Subsection (g), the judge of a court with probate jurisdiction by administrative order may provide that the application must be:

(1) presented personally to the court; or

(2) retained by court staff and presented to another judge or magistrate as soon as is practicable if the judge of the court is not available at the time the application is presented.

(b) The magistrate shall deny the application unless the magistrate finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that:

(1) the person evidences mental illness;

(2) the person evidences a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others;

(3) the risk of harm is imminent unless the person is immediately restrained; and

(4) the necessary restraint cannot be accomplished without emergency detention.

(c) A substantial risk of serious harm to the person or others under Subsection (b)(2) may be demonstrated by:

(1) the person's behavior; or

(2) evidence of severe emotional distress and deterioration in the person's mental condition to the extent that the person cannot remain at liberty.

(d) The magistrate shall issue to an on-duty peace officer a warrant for the person's immediate apprehension if the magistrate finds that each criterion under Subsection (b) is satisfied.

(e) A person apprehended under this section shall be transported for a preliminary examination in accordance with Section 573.021 to:

(1) the nearest appropriate inpatient mental health facility; or

(2) a mental health facility deemed suitable by the local mental health authority, if an appropriate inpatient mental health facility is not available.

(f) The warrant serves as an application for detention in the facility. The warrant and a copy of the application for the warrant shall be immediately transmitted to the facility.

(g) If there is more than one court with probate jurisdiction in a county, an administrative order regarding presentation of an application must be jointly issued by all of the judges of those courts.

(h) A judge or magistrate may permit an applicant who is a physician to present an application by:

(1) e-mail with the application attached as a secure document in a portable document format (PDF); or

(2) secure electronic means, including:

(A) satellite transmission;

(B) closed-circuit television transmission; or

(C) any other method of two-way electronic communication that:

(i) is secure;

(ii) is available to the judge or magistrate; and

(iii) provides for a simultaneous, compressed full-motion video and interactive communication of image and sound between the judge or magistrate and the applicant.

(h-1) After the presentation of an application under Subsection (h), the judge or magistrate may transmit a warrant to the applicant:

(1) electronically, if a digital signature, as defined by Article 2.26, Code of Criminal Procedure, is transmitted with the document; or

(2) by e-mail with the warrant attached as a secure document in a portable document format (PDF), if the identifiable legal signature of the judge or magistrate is transmitted with the document.

(i) The judge or magistrate shall provide for a recording of the presentation of an application under Subsection (h) to be made and preserved until the patient or proposed patient has been released or discharged. The patient or proposed patient may obtain a copy of the recording on payment of a reasonable amount to cover the costs of reproduction or, if the patient or proposed patient is indigent, the court shall provide a copy on the request of the patient or proposed patient without charging a cost for the copy. Originally Posted by grean

Thanks but totally different in my opinion than the Red Flag law which will temporarily take a gun from someone deemed mentally unfit to have one. The person will not be institutionalized.

Also your family member either did go willingly or she went through this. Age doesn't mean less rights. Originally Posted by grean

She was confused due to her diminished mental capacity and resisted to some degree. BTW. I attended her 100th birthday a couple of weeks ago and she is definitely where she belongs.

Very true. But I consider myself to be in excellent physical condition and unlike IB I think young. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You think and advocate jackboot Fascism which was nouveau in the 1930's. Mature, sentient beings reject jackboot Fascism. Immature, non-sentient beings embrace jackboot Fascism. You are, in this instance, confusing "immature" with "young".

Speed,

Do you see now why the Red Flag Laws are nothing more than a gun grab?

We already can get people who are unstable and a danger to themselves completely off the streets, not just their guns.

And we do it with legal due process. Originally Posted by grean

I disagree but I'm sure the court system will be the eventual decision-maker as to whether or not the law is constitutional.

Thanks but totally different in my opinion than the Red Flag law which will temporarily take a gun from someone deemed mentally unfit to have one. The person will not be institutionalized. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If they are unfit to have a gun, why are they not institutionalized? If they are a danger, then whether or not they have a gun is of no matter.


How does not having a gun make them not dangerous?

What's the point in just taking their guns?

How do the authorities know they seized all of them?

For laughs, let's say they do seize all the guns they own.

How does it really prevents someone from hurting themselves or others? That's the point right?

It seems as if it's a half measure to me.


If that's not the point, then it's just an illegal gun grab.

She was confused due to her diminished mental capacity and resisted to some degree. BTW. I attended her 100th birthday a couple of weeks ago and she is definitely where she belongs. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

SR - glad You had a family gathering for 100th birthday in your family!
I pray let this forum stay on point - which the redflag laws, and respectfully leave your family out of the all too often snarky nasty posts seen in this forum.

If they are unfit to have a gun, why are they not institutionalized? If they are a danger, then whether or not they have a gun is of no matter.


How does not having a gun make them not dangerous?

What's the point in just taking their guns?

How do the authorities know they seized all of them?

For laughs, let's say they do seize all the guns they own.

How does it really prevents someone from hurting themselves or others? That's the point right?

It seems as if it's a half measure to me.


If that's not the point, then it's just an illegal gun grab. Originally Posted by grean

I've already addressed most of your comments. Certain individuals are already not allowed to purchase/own guns. Every point you've made applies to them also.

"Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any felony crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Fugitives from justice
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
Illegal aliens or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

In addition, most persons under 18 years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

These federal laws impose a life-long ban on gun possession by anyone convicted of a felony, as well as those merely under indictment for a felony. In addition, the federal courts have held that under the Gun Control Act, persons convicted of felonies are banned from owning guns even if they never serve jail time for the crime."

All your points would relate to these individuals also. For various reasons it has been determined that the U.S. is better off not allowing these people to legally own guns.

Again, guns make it much easier for a person wanting to kill another person to succeed. That is why of the approximately 15,000 murders in the U.S. in 2017, almost 11,000 were done with firearms of some type.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

So in my opinion if guns can be kept out of the hands of those that have a higher likelihood of committing such crimes, I'm all for it. But in the case of Red Flag laws, every case should be double-checked at the very least, it should be temporary, and there should be an appeals process.

SR - glad You had a family gathering for 100th birthday in your family!
I pray let this forum stay on point - which the redflag laws, and respectfully leave your family out of the all too often snarky nasty posts seen in this forum. Originally Posted by oeb11

I added one comment that was off-subject. Sorry if that offended you. The discussion was about that family member being a subject of a Red Flag law.