If this becomes law in NY, you're guns can be taken very easily.

[Mr VJP]

The Calif law that just passed, allowing anyone to complain you are a danger, makes it legal to take all your guns without any due process, until you can prove you are not a danger.

 

A NY lawmaker has introduced a bill in NY to do the same thing.  If this passes, it would be wise to head for the nearest exit right away.

 

http://www.guns.com/2014/10/04/new-york-next-to-pursue-gun-violence-restraining-order-legislation/

[jrm]

Wow. According to the article, the guy who introduced this bill is also responsible for many others. He should be an election day target for replacement.

 

In general, you can't prove a negative. I don't know what constitutes "proof" that you are a danger, but it would seem very difficult to "prove" you are not. Based on the views of many an anti, the simple fact that you own a gun makes you a "threat" or "danger."

 

If a bill like this was ever signed, you could say that two branches of government - leg and exec - agree with that premise. That means you have to roll the dice with the judicial branch to "beg" for return of your rights (and property). 

 

Would be nice to see the bill include stiff penalties (large punitive damages and/or jail time) for falsely accusing someone of being a danger. Without that you are left with a well-funded group on antis with access to a pistol license holders list.

 

[fasteddie]

I wonder if a person could sue his accuser for defamation of character if he / she claimed you are a danger . Could it be termed as slander ?

[Two Track]

I say false accusations (no matter whom - doctor, lawyer, neighbor, etc) should have a 2 year mandatory jail sentence for attempt to strip someone of the Constitutional Rights, and filing a false report.  No early parole either.  If their accusation takes someone to court and it is proven false, they automatically go to jail (no trial) something like being in contempt of court.

 

What liberal, city-dwelling, city-centric mindset of an idiot. He is also trying to ban 50 cal rifles and have them confiscated.

 

Guess he doesn't know the most common .50 rifle used in NY is a muzzle-loader.

 

Guess everyone will have to trade-in for a .42 and not be able to hunt deer/bear with it.

 

Idiots like this need to be sent to live on kodiak island with a pen-knife (no gun, no pepper-spray), just how he likes to keep people "safe".

 

[growalot]

What happened to innocent...UNTIL PROVEN  GUILTY?

[Doc]

Yeah, I think such a law could be easily challenged in the courts.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

What happened to innocent...UNTIL PROVEN  GUILTY?

Gone Bye bye, Grow.

 

Sad part is there will be no recourse for the people accused if the threshold is "I felt/thought  he was a danger" "he scared me the way he was talking" I can see this being very abused in domestic case.

[Mr VJP]

In NY right now, if your spouse says they are afraid of you and you own guns, the cops can take them away from you under current domestic partnership laws.  You get to go to court in 2 weeks and a judge will hear your side of the story.  Most often they grant a restraining order to protect their own butts.  Few accused have their guns returned by judges until after divorces or partnership arrangements are dissolved and the accuser agrees to it.

 

This law is a real danger because it would allow ANYBODY to claim you are a danger and let the cops come for your guns right away.  I suspect few judges will allow them to be returned when you get the chance to tell your side of the story in 2 weeks.  Long, expensive legal battles would become the norm.  the anti's see this as a big win, because the more they can scare gun owners, the fewer gun owners there will be.

 

It's another end run around the 2nd Amendment by the Police State Progressives.

 

[Two Track]

It will violate the 2nd and 4th amendments.  And by searching and seizing without a warrant, it will violate your civil rights.

 

The writers of unconstitutional laws should be removed from office and banned from future pubic office as a violator of their constituents civil rights. But I doubt we could get that passed.

[Mr VJP]

Sorry, but the courts have already ruled it doesn't violate your rights in domestic violence cases.  And, when the cops come for your guns, they will have a warrant.  They will be issued with 24 hours of the complaint by a judge.

 

One thing I've always noticed about NY gun owners is their stubborn insistence any new gun ownership threat isn't a real concern.  They will quote laws, precedents and the Constitution for their lack of concern and apathy.  That's exactly how the SAFE Act got passed.  Too much apathy.

 

[philoshop]

None of it will or would ever hold up in a court of law (today's courts, not sure about tomorrow), but in the meantime you will be left defenseless, possibly for years. And probably penniless as well. In this case an ounce of prevention is definitely worth a pound of cure. Don't let these people into office to begin with. We the people are the ones who empower them, with our votes.

[Mr VJP]

I disagree this stuff won't hold up in a court of law.  I've seen too many infringements on firearm ownership in my lifetime to think the courts will defend my individual firearm ownership rights.

 

[philoshop]

I've experienced the infringements on my rights as a gun owner as well. It would depend on the particular judge hearing the case locally, but

I believe a truly innocent person (with the requisite funds) could beat this with the current SCOTUS were it to get that far. My concern is that the lineup of the supremes is hangin' in the wind right now.

[HuntOrBeHunted]

Anything is possible. Theres threads on here from years past and many.. And I mean many people said I was nuts for thinking they would possibly take semi-autos or ban them and.... End of story !!

[Two Track]

 

Mr VJP

Posted Yesterday, 08:21 PM

Sorry, but the courts have already ruled it doesn't violate your rights in domestic violence cases.  And, when the cops come for your guns, they will have a warrant.  They will be issued with 24 hours of the complaint by a judge.

 

Wasn't referring to domestic abuse cases - bedsides that is already on the books.  Anyone just claiming someone is a threat to themselves or anyone else should not be immediate confiscation - investigated yes.

 

False claims need to be prosecuted.  After all, the false claim leads to defamation of character, stigma, and perhaps slander to the accused.  All it will take is a neighbor who is anti-gun make a claim because they saw you carry a gun case into your house.  You have gun therefore you are a threat to their views.

[jrm]

Wasn't referring to domestic abuse cases - bedsides that is already on the books.  Anyone just claiming someone is a threat to themselves or anyone else should not be immediate confiscation - investigated yes.

 

False claims need to be prosecuted.  After all, the false claim leads to defamation of character, stigma, and perhaps slander to the accused.  All it will take is a neighbor who is anti-gun make a claim because they saw you carry a gun case into your house.  You have gun therefore you are a threat to their views.

 

Exactly.

 

Look at the recent case of the gun range that was forced to close. 

 

Gun range was there "forever." Developer came in and built new homes nearby. Residents didn't like the range. One resident claims she was hit by a "stray bullet." From everything I read, this claim was never proven - only alleged. Town board gets together and attempts to close range. ConEd (owner of property) agrees to non-renewal of lease. Right/wrong isn't a factor - gun range lost the war.

 

These people were fully aware they were buying homes next to a gun range. However, their "rights" suddenly became more important than those of the range owners/users. Their "fears" - regardless of how unfounded - took priority.

 

This thinking is a big problem. A person sees a gun or finds out their neighbor is a gun "enthusiast" and they get scared. Their "fear" is very real, even if it is irrational. The "system" will often side with the person who is afraid. The actions are often justified by the well publicized cases which could have been prevented. No one wants to be that judge/police officer who ignored that one claim which was valid. Kind of a "boy who cried wolf" in reverse - even knowing that 99% of claims are false, they treat every claim as if 100% accurate.

 

Ironically, this is the opposite of our system which is based on "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

 

 

The more gun owners are driven "underground" and portrayed as "crazies" in the media, the more the non-gun owner becomes "afraid" of guns. The ones who fear guns greatly outnumber those who don't in NY (in my experience). It is this fear that the politicians exploit when they write new laws and what the judges use to justify their upholding of these right-stripping laws.

[Mr VJP]

The only way to prevent these types of laws from passing, is for every gun owner to be constantly vigilant, constantly involved and never skeptical any looney law will ever pass!