http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/16/ny-...ctive.html

Quote:Don Hall and his girlfriend were sitting in their living room earlier this year when they noticed police lights flashing outside the couple’s upstate New York home.

When the 70-year-old Army veteran greeted Oneida County sheriff’s deputies he was given a document saying that Hall had to hand over his six guns – four long guns and two pistols -- to law enforcement because he had been deemed “mentally defective.”

Shocked, Hall told the police he had no history of mental issues. The deputies asserted that he must have triggered the order under New York state’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, and then the officers left with his guns.

Quote:The so-called SAFE Act, which was implemented in 2013 in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut, includes a provision that allows heath care providers to report patients that they think may be a risk to themselves or others.

In Hall’s case, however, the sheriff’s deputies were wrong. He hadn’t triggered an order under the SAFE Act.

New York’s Office of Mental Health found that Hall’s case originated with a report to the system set up under the federal government’s Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act – a law that includes a provision making it mandatory that a hospital or other medical facility report anyone who is involuntarily committed or has been ruled mentally defective by a court or similar legal body.

Hall hired a lawyer and – after receiving a number of affidavits proving he hadn’t been treated for mental illness – convinced a judge that a hospital worker must have confused him with someone else and got his guns back.

Quote:In April, a California family has won a fight forcing the return of 500 firearms seized by the state's Department of Justice two years ago.

The weapons were confiscated on a report that Albert Sheakalee was barred from owning guns because he was in the state's Armed Prohibited Persons database.

His attorney, Mark Coleman, said Sheakalee did not know that he was in the database. Sheakalee maintained the Justice Department broke a promise to keep the raid confidential until a court hearing determined whether he was mentally fit to own guns.

The California case was followed by one in June where a New York court sided with a woman whose guns were picked up by law enforcement five years earlier.

A panel of judges in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision that there is no apparent reason why Christine Panzella shouldn’t receive a hearing to get her firearms returned by Nassau County Sheriff’s Department. Panzella had her guns seized in 2012 by the agency, while she was the subject of a protective order filed by her ex-husband.

“Such a hearing would provide Panzella with a timely and inexpensive forum to challenge the County’s retention of her long arms,” wrote Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi.

Quote:In 2010, Michael Roberts surrendered 21 firearms that were family heirlooms to the Torrance Police Department.

The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctor’s staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and obtained two court orders for the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.

With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.

I swear, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you" is rarely more apt than in asset or firearm forfeiture.

(08-16-2017 05:29 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I swear, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you" is rarely more apt than in asset or firearm forfeiture.

that's why #2 is better than #1 (amendment)....still don't understand how they fuxxored that wife-swap.....

This is what you get when you take the "moderate" Republican approach.

They will come for them by the same tactics the radical left has manged to institute their insane agenda, through incrementalism.

(08-16-2017 10:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  They will come for them by the same tactics the radical left has manged to institute their insane agenda, through incrementalism.

Exactly!

What happened to "Out of my cold dead hands"?

(08-17-2017 11:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  What happened to "Out of my cold dead hands"?

I'll tell you when you go provde the links you were supposed to provide.

Seattle passed a very similar law not to long ago as well, but something else was also passed by Seattle (dont' remember what), so very few people paid attention to it.

It was a mistake. It doesn't mean it's a bad law.

I wish I could find my posting on the Seattle one on these forums Fit.

But the law basically says that if _anyone_ (even non-relatives and non-medical personnel), warn authorities that you are a mental health risk to yourself and others, the Seattle PD has the right to confiscate your personal guns.. No ifs, and's or buts.

I get the feeling the NY one is written the same way.. which is basically a _bad_ law.

(08-17-2017 03:25 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I wish I could find my posting on the Seattle one on these forums Fit.

But the law basically says that if _anyone_ (even non-relatives and non-medical personnel), warn authorities that you are a mental health risk to yourself and others, the Seattle PD has the right to confiscate your personal guns.. No ifs, and's or buts.

I get the feeling the NY one is written the same way.. which is basically a _bad_ law.

Maybe they simply need to change the language of the law. The PD still has to make that determination right?

I doubt that Police just take your guns because the neighbor told them to. Surely they investigate the matter and make a decision then.

(08-17-2017 12:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Exactly.

And I never see women like those in your sig at any of the ranges I go to, damnit! I'd pay good money to watch that on in the thong shoot a gun. The closest I got to it was a friends daughter came out to our farm and shot my AR while on her belly in a pair of skimpy shorts. I couldn't really look at her and appreciate it though...

(08-17-2017 03:38 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 12:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Exactly.

And I never see women like those in your sig at any of the ranges I go to, damnit! I'd pay good money to watch that on in the thong shoot a gun. The closest I got to it was a friends daughter came out to our farm and shot my AR while on her belly in a pair of skimpy shorts. I couldn't really look at her and appreciate it though...

Glad you like them!

(08-17-2017 03:38 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  And I never see women like those in your sig at any of the ranges I go to, damnit! I'd pay good money to watch that on in the thong shoot a gun. The closest I got to it was a friends daughter came out to our farm and shot my AR while on her belly in a pair of skimpy shorts. I couldn't really look at her and appreciate it though...

lol

Last time I went to Range USA, there was a rather large black lady who came to the lane next to me as I was finishing my last box. She scared the crap out of me because she acted like she'd never shot before and I thought "there's no telling where this is going". However, all 300+ of her was packed into a lime green pair of stretch pants so tight that you could see the print design on her undies. I just laughed to myself (was shooting alone) and finished up quickly. She certainly didn't look like the girls in Phantom's sig

(08-17-2017 03:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:25 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I wish I could find my posting on the Seattle one on these forums Fit.

But the law basically says that if _anyone_ (even non-relatives and non-medical personnel), warn authorities that you are a mental health risk to yourself and others, the Seattle PD has the right to confiscate your personal guns.. No ifs, and's or buts.

I get the feeling the NY one is written the same way.. which is basically a _bad_ law.

Maybe they simply need to change the language of the law. The PD still has to make that determination right?

I doubt that Police just take your guns because the neighbor told them to. Surely they investigate the matter and make a decision then.

The police should never be put in a position of making that kind of determination.

(08-17-2017 03:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:25 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I wish I could find my posting on the Seattle one on these forums Fit.

But the law basically says that if _anyone_ (even non-relatives and non-medical personnel), warn authorities that you are a mental health risk to yourself and others, the Seattle PD has the right to confiscate your personal guns.. No ifs, and's or buts.

I get the feeling the NY one is written the same way.. which is basically a _bad_ law.

Maybe they simply need to change the language of the law. The PD still has to make that determination right?

I doubt that Police just take your guns because the neighbor told them to. Surely they investigate the matter and make a decision then.

Nope.. the way the law is written (as I read it) if the order comes through that they're a danger, then a judge simply signs off on it (there's no court case fort the determination)., and the PD has to take them. Like I said, this law was written as a pure assault on the 2nd amendment.. and they (Seattle city council) wasn't evne hiding it.

(08-17-2017 03:59 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:25 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I wish I could find my posting on the Seattle one on these forums Fit.

But the law basically says that if _anyone_ (even non-relatives and non-medical personnel), warn authorities that you are a mental health risk to yourself and others, the Seattle PD has the right to confiscate your personal guns.. No ifs, and's or buts.

I get the feeling the NY one is written the same way.. which is basically a _bad_ law.

Maybe they simply need to change the language of the law. The PD still has to make that determination right?

I doubt that Police just take your guns because the neighbor told them to. Surely they investigate the matter and make a decision then.

Nope.. the way the law is written (as I read it) if the order comes through that they're a danger, then a judge simply signs off on it (there's no court case fort the determination)., and the PD has to take them. Like I said, this law was written as a pure assault on the 2nd amendment.. and they (Seattle city council) wasn't evne hiding it.

Then the law should be rewritten. What I am saying is that there should be a law stating that someone's guns can be taken if there is evidence of mental problems. How that is determined should be revised.

Any other Constitutional rights you want to give the police the power to take? Vote? Free speech?