How to lose your guns

[Mr VJP]

It's gotten to the point in NY State where your guns will all be taken if you ever need to shoot someone in self defense, even if they break into your home with a gun after midnight.

There needs to be due process and proper legal procedure followed in all cases involving a firearm. You are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law!

Your 2nd Amendment rights are INHERENT RIGHTS, they are not a privilege granted to you by the state!

But in NY, the state laughs at your belief you have such a right. I believe this is because most NY State gun owners have allowed the state too much infringement without any complaint. Some NY gun owners actually think their gun ownership is a privilege granted by the state, so what can you expect.

[Doc]

where did you get the information that I'm legally powerless as a homeowner to stop your dog from running around my property?

Well, I'm certainly willing to listen to any scenario where you can legally force the dog off your property and legally ensure that he will not return. Tell me how that works. I have some occasional canine visitors that don't seem to pay a lot of attention when I tell them not to come back .... lol. I would love some legal recourse.

[growalot]

Well considering a couple was just awarded 10's of thousands dollars for a dog barking over the years...A good video camera and turning the dog in would help...dogs chasing deer illegal...dogs being aggressive illegal dogs doing damage illegal...I was told by officers to get it on "film" and that was before they had such good cell phone cams. When going after the owner a shot to the wallet does wonders to instill brains. I have taken a for ppl to court for their dogs running my land...

[Five Seasons]

The Alarming thing is its to easy to take a right away and hard to take privileges. Now I think this story is missing a lot of back ground on the people involved for 1 and it was just plain stupid and lacked common sense. Its deeper than the dog. As I read story after story of gun owners having guns removed for some non violent use of them is disturbing. If a person is mentally ill and owns guns lets give them the legal due process in court to disarming them not just attack there right's to bare arms. What about there License to drive revoked it, and being able to drive or hunt. Until we address the real problem this will still go on. Look at the pilot he killed 150 people his weapon a plane into a mountain, they say mental illness not planes. Now if he would of shot everyone with gun it would be Gun Control lobbyist and groups yelling take the guns. Address the real problem not what is used to do the killing 150 plus by nut with plane 21 killed in Newtown by a Gun.

Removed from some nonviolent use. Post of the year right there.

[Five Seasons]

Well, I'm certainly willing to listen to any scenario where you can legally force the dog off your property and legally ensure that he will not return. Tell me how that works. I have some occasional canine visitors that don't seem to pay a lot of attention when I tell them not to come back .... lol. I would love some legal recourse.

Call the police, animal control etc. I actually sat in court for a speeding ticket once and saw a lady lose her dog for repeated violations.

[Huntscreek]

Belo without due process with true facts, your just rioting in the street.

Honest Gun owners guns are being illegally confiscated everyday. You are a gun owner on a Hunting site, in favor of Gun control? You do realize your bunny gun is next. 

We’ve heard it over and over again, particularly on shows like Morning Joe. Anyone who thinks that the government is “coming to take your guns” is a paranoid loon, watching for black helicopters and guarding their sheep from soldiers. Unfortunately for those formerly right leaning, Second Amendment minded folks who bought into this story, reality has come screaming up from behind well ahead of schedule.

Following the passage of “The SAFE Act” in New York State, Big Brother got busy pretty quickly grabbing up the guns. Of course nobody was reporting on it very much until they managed to collect them from the wrong guy and a judge made them give them back.

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Thursday, a state Supreme Court Judge ruled guns seized from David Lewis, 35, must be returned to him after he was incorrectly identified as violating the mental health provision of the SAFE Act.

“We know that from the health care agency to the State Police, there was some kind of breach,” said Lewis’ attorney, Jim Tresmond.

I don’t know how much more chilling that lede could be, really. This isn’t some worry about the government possibly confiscating guns. These are guns that were already confiscated by the government. But if you think that’s as bad as it gets, guess again. Here’s why his guns were taken.

Tresmond says his client was ordered to turn in his weapons last week because he was once on anti-anxiety medication, which is a violation of the SAFE Act. Wednesday, State Police informed the Erie County Clerk’s Office that it made a mistake when it said Lewis was in violation of the state’s new gun law.

For all of our more liberal leaning readers who continue to ask “what’s so bad” about universal background checks before we’ve even seen the specifics, this is your answer. In New York, you can be placed on a “list”of people with no Second Amendment rights on the say so of any doctor who has questions. And it already happened to David Lewis. Thankfully, he’s getting his guns back… for now. But what is the larger effect of this if we put it on a national scale?

The NY SAFE Act requires “mental health professionals, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, to report if an individual they are treating is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to him- or herself or others.”

If such a determination is made, “the Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person possesses a firearms license and, if so, will notify the appropriate local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person’s firearms will then be removed.”

The law has come under fire from gun-rights advocates as well as mental health professionals, who fear the new law discourages people from seeking professional help for mental health issues.

Okay, I can see your point about the adverse effect on those seeking help for mental disorders. If you know that you’ll have your constitutional rights curtailed if you tell a doctor you are depressed or filled with anxiety, you might not go seek help. But that also sort of buries the lede here…

They’re Already Taking Away Guns From People For Having ONCE Been Prescribed ANTI-ANXIETY MEDICINE.

Doug Mataconis gives the legal beagle perspective on catching up people seeking medical help in a legal net. (Read the whole thing.)

The SAFE Act in particular seems to me to be overly broad in defining what qualifies as a reportable condition. It’s one thing for a person who is delusional on the level of a Seung-Hui Choi or Jared Loughner to be caught up in the net, it is quite another for someone who was apparently merely on an anti-anxiety drug to have their Constitutional rights limited. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? History is replete with examples of psychiatry being abused by the state, and the danger of abuse becomes even higher when the law broadens the number of conditions that are reportable to the state.

We have thus far been unable to get anyone from New York to own up to how many people have had their guns taken away this year under the new SAFE Act. Neither has the YNN news team. But the facts in evidence are not in dispute. The law is still so new that the “new law smell” hasn’t worn off it yet but they are already going around and confiscating guns.

This new universal background check bill is the hot ticket in DC right now. You can read the full text of it here, which thus far contains nothing about expanding how one qualifies as “mentally ill” but there are multiple amendments to come, so we don’t even know what will be in the final version. A repeating theme is that it will have to “do something” about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But how is that to be accomplished? Will it only affect those who have been adjudicated in court to be proven, dangerous, unstable individuals and who have had the opportunity to object to their classification? Or will it be something that slides closer to what we now have in New York?

And yet… we’re all paranoid. Right, Joe Scarborough? I could insert one clip after another of the insulting, uninformed comments in the mainstream media made toward those who expressed concerns over this type of unbridled nanny state activity. But you’ve seen them all before. and there’s no use boring you with them here again now. As for me, I’ll stay in my basement, eating my Cheetos, cleaning my Glock and guarding the sheep. You never know.

UPDATE: (Jazz) From the comments. An excellent question.

Number one question for those who favor “universal background checks” – how do you enforce them?

In other words, how will authorities know if an individual who possesses a firearm submitted to a background check?

If they can answer this question without needing to resort to a database, or a registry, then I am all ears.

dugan on April 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM

 

 

 

[Doc]

Well considering a couple was just awarded 10's of thousands dollars for a dog barking over the years...A good video camera and turning the dog in would help...dogs chasing deer illegal...dogs being aggressive illegal dogs doing damage illegal...I was told by officers to get it on "film" and that was before they had such good cell phone cams. When going after the owner a shot to the wallet does wonders to instill brains. I have taken a for ppl to court for their dogs running my land...

How about a dog that just continually uses your yard for a latrine, which apparently was the case here?

 

To bolster my original assertion that dogs have more rights than people, let me pose a scenario. A guy comes over and takes a dump in your yard. You have an armful of violations that are legally actionable. Somebody's dog comes along and constantly does exactly the same thing, you have no legal grounds for action. Dogs are legally forgiven all kinds of things simply because they are a dumb animal, but that doesn't change the fact that legally they have more rights than people. It's kind of a hard point to argue.

[Doc]

Call the police, animal control etc. I actually sat in court for a speeding ticket once and saw a lady lose her dog for repeated violations.

Yes, I too can site cases where dogs have bitten people, menaced people, killed other people's pets, damaged livestock, etc., etc., and their action was something that could be sorted out legally. But I have tried to keep the discussion relevant to the situation that was mentioned in this thread. And my contention is still that dogs have more rights than people. For one thing, unless the town has a leash law, dogs have the right of trespass that is not afforded to humans, and that apparently was the crux of the problem mentioned in the original post.

[Five Seasons]

Belo without due process with true facts, your just rioting in the street.

Honest Gun owners guns are being illegally confiscated everyday. You are a gun owner on a Hunting site, in favor of Gun control? You do realize your bunny gun is next.

What you fail to realize is that not all hunters believe in a free for all.

Regardless, you still said shooting a dog, regardless of why was a non-violent act lol. I don't even need to go any further.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Belo

[Five Seasons]

How about a dog that just continually uses your yard for a latrine, which apparently was the case here?

To bolster my original assertion that dogs have more rights than people, let me pose a scenario. A guy comes over and takes a dump in your yard. You have an armful of violations that are legally actionable. Somebody's dog comes along and constantly does exactly the same thing, you have no legal grounds for action. Dogs are legally forgiven all kinds of things simply because they are a dumb animal, but that doesn't change the fact that legally they have more rights than people. It's kind of a hard point to argue.

Let's use your same analogy. You shoot and kill the guy dumping in your yard who poses no threat to you. Which penalty is worse, shooting the dog or the human?

[Doc]

Let's use your same analogy. You shoot and kill the guy dumping in your yard who poses no threat to you. Which penalty is worse, shooting the dog or the human?

Unlike the animal rights crowd, there is never any confusion for me as to the value of human lives vs. the value of an animal's life. In terms of prosecution, the dog and his owners always get the pass but not the human, because the dog and those who should be responsible for it have the right to ignore trespass laws and other such infringements.

 

Yes, if I were king, there would be universal leash laws across the state (dogs and cats). And they would be vigorously enforced making pet owners dearly responsible for infractions of that law. And the penalties would be stiff.

[Doc]

What you fail to realize is that not all hunters believe in a free for all.

Regardless, you still said shooting a dog, regardless of why was a non-violent act lol. I don't even need to go any further.

But, the reality of the situation is that it is not, and will never be, a free-for-all regardless of what the people want. There are already laws and multiply duplicated laws forming volumes and volumes of worthless laws where guns are concerned, and no credible documentation that any of them do any good. So the constant fascination that people have with adding unlimited additional laws that will have the same worthless results does lend credence to that old Einstein quote about repeatedly doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Yes, many of us do believe that we have the gun thing regulated right to death and the addition of more laws that impact only law abiding legal gun owners and are aimed at feel-good emotional responses is a mis-directed act of insanity .

[Huntscreek]

What you fail to realize is that not all hunters believe in a free for all.

Regardless, you still said shooting a dog, regardless of why was a non-violent act lol. I don't even need to go any further.

What I do realize, that will be all your down fall. I would also say if your logic towards firearms is systemic NY is worse off than we think. I'm so glad we are out of NYS in 2mos, you and like minded are very confused as to privilege's and Constitutional rights and will learn it the hard way. 

Reasons to kill a dog would be attacking me on my property, Attacking a loved one on my property, Attacking one of my dogs or animal's that stay on my property.

[Mr VJP]

What you fail to realize is that not all hunters believe in a free for all.

Regardless, you still said shooting a dog, regardless of why was a non-violent act lol. I don't even need to go any further.

He never said that at all. He was referring to others who have been victims of over zealous gun control and confiscation.

I'm not surprised you didn't see that. When it comes to 2nd Amendment violations, you don't seem to see any.

[Five Seasons]

Unlike the animal rights crowd, there is never any confusion for me as to the value of human lives vs. the value of an animal's life. In terms of prosecution, the dog and his owners always get the pass but not the human, because the dog and those who should be responsible for it have the right to ignore trespass laws and other such infringements.

 

Yes, if I were king, there would be universal leash laws across the state (dogs and cats). And they would be vigorously enforced making pet owners dearly responsible for infractions of that law. And the penalties would be stiff.

 

Doc,

 

You'd make a hell of a politician. You didn't even come close to answering my question. Please try again. What penalty is worse?

 

What I do realize, that will be all your down fall. I would also say if your logic towards firearms is systemic NY is worse off than we think. I'm so glad we are out of NYS in 2mos, you and like minded are very confused as to privilege's and Constitutional rights and will learn it the hard way. 

Reasons to kill a dog would be attacking me on my property, Attacking a loved one on my property, Attacking one of my dogs or animal's that stay on my property.

 

1. I left NY over a year ago. I enjoy all the freedoms of the second amendment. I'm not sure what your point is.

2. It's our understanding that this dog was tresspassing and nothing more. So please, explain why the dog deserved to die; instead of following the law and reporting the issue to the police and animal control. I've already mentioned how I've personally experienced someon lose their dog via the courts.

 

He never said that at all. He was referring to others who have been victims of over zealous gun control and confiscation.

I'm not surprised you didn't see that. When it comes to 2nd Amendment violations, you don't seem to see any.

 

I'm confused then. what does this mean?

 

 As I read story after story of gun owners having guns removed for some non violent use of them is disturbing.

 

Edited May 3, 2015 by Belo

[Mr VJP]

It means he's read plenty of stories about people having their gun rights violated for non-violent offenses regarding gun laws. You do know your guns can be taken for violating gun laws that have nothing to do with violence, right?

[Huntscreek]

Belo I told you in another post that there is more to the shooting of the dog. I also Told What it would take for me to kill another's dog. If you read and comprehend only your view and can't understand I can't help you there. Your view on guns in America and history is a delusion, in your own mind, none based on fact. Also when your led to the facts you fail to read or only want to see your View. There is an old saying you can lead a horse to water but can't force him to drink, you are the horse.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Huntscreek

[jjb4900]

the fact that the dog was left in a ditch to suffer, plays a big part in how this played out, it's not just the shooting of it that got the guy into major trouble.........

[Doc]

Doc,

 

You'd make a hell of a politician. You didn't even come close to answering my question. Please try again. What penalty is worse?

The answer to such a goofy question should be  obvious to you without my help. I didn't think it was a serious question. The fact that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion also made me think it didn't warrant any consideration or any answer.

[Five Seasons]

Belo I told you in another post that there is more to the shooting of the dog. I also Told What it would take for me to kill another's dog. If you read and comprehend only your view and can't understand I can't help you there. Your view on guns in America and history is a delusion, in your own mind, none based on fact. Also when your led to the facts you fail to read or only want to see your View. There is an old saying you can lead a horse to water but can't force him to drink, you are the horse.

I own many guns. I belong to the NRA. Your extremist attitude and the extremist views of the anti-gun group is the problem. It's the problem with politics in general. Everyone is so entrenched that they refuse to budge and common sense laws never become reality, and goofy do nothing laws do.

As to your comment, I don't see what your statement of people's guns being take for nonviolent acts has anything to do with the subject of this post where a guy shot a dog and left it in the ditch to die.

The answer to such a goofy question should be obvious to you without my help. I didn't think it was a serious question. The fact that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion also made me think it didn't warrant any consideration or any answer.

If the answer is so obvious why do you feel that pets have more rights than humans? Clearly the value of the humans life is greater as the penalty for taking one is higher.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Doc]

I've already mentioned how I've personally experienced someon lose their dog via the courts.

And I saw no particulars as to the circumstances involving this case that you are talking about. I have seen dogs taken away also and even destroyed for attacking children and disfiguring them. And here was another case where the dog had a history of attacking and killing other neighborhood dogs. But It doesn't have a damn thing to do with case we are talking about and again is another irrelevant little anecdote thrown in for, no one knows why. Tell me of a case where a complainant was even listened to by someone of authority when the offense was simply repeated use by a dog of a neighbors property. That will be a case of note that does have some relevance. As I have repeatedly said, the dog/dog-owner has all the rights and good luck trying to change that through the courts and unless the dog does something dramatic that will always be the case without a statewide leash law. As it stands right now, cases of this nature are stacked in favor of the dog and its owner. I repeat yet again, the dog has more rights than the landowner.

 

And in case anyone is thinking that I believe that that fact justifies shooting the dog, given the sparse facts that we have, I do not believe so.

[Five Seasons]

I've said my peace. The thread has run its course.

[wolc123]

 Anyone who would shoot a dog for pooping in their yard is a loon, and loons should not have guns, so it sounds like justice was done.   Could they have taken his guns without the SAFE act?  If not, then score one for the act.  I am 100% for taking guns out of the hands of proven loons.   This guy certainly proved what he was. 

 

I have been on the giving and receiving ends of dog attacks, so I can understand both sides.   The first was when I was about 13 years old, sitting on the bank of our neighbor's pond, fishing with our family pet (black lab) by my side.    The pond had nice paths around it and was used as sort of a neighborhood park.   A pretty girl, my age, who I knew from the school bus ride, came walking by with a young, miniature Siberian husky on a leash.    When she got right next to us, my dog lunged with no warning at the little white husky, tearing a chunk of flesh out of the side of its neck with a single lunge.   I will never forget the sight of that red blood all over the white fur.   I apologized and said my folks would pay the vet bill.  A couple stitches and the little husky healed up good.  I was very thankful that no charges were filed, and that our dog was not taken away.  

 

The other attack came a few years ago, and it happened on our farm.   I was deer hunting on the last afternoon of gun season, from a ground blind near the center of our land.   Reluctantly, I had posted the farm that year, at the urging of my wife.  I had never had any luck with posting in the past, and without exception, have had more trespassing issues with the signs than without.   About a half hour before legal sunset, I looked up toward the road and saw two women and two dogs come walking down our lane.   I could see a big, loose German shepherd and a small "yip-dog" on the leash.  

 

They had no idea I was in the blind, located right near the center of our "back 40".   When they were about 30 yards away, on the other side of a thick hedgerow, the big dog must of picked up my scent.   He began barking loud, and when he saw me, he charged through the hedgerow.   I timed my shot perfectly, just as he jumped into the back of my blind.   My placement was a little off though, just to the side of his head, close enough to likely cause a little hearing damage, possibly some powder burns, but no bodily damage.   He let out a yelp and turned tail at the mighty report of my 12 gauge, 3" slug.

 

The women said "that shut him up".   I asked them if they had noticed the posted signs and they said that they didn't think I would be back here.   That was the last year I put up posted signs and I have not had any trespassing trouble since.   That "miss" was a heck of a lot more effective than any posted sign ever was.  I won't call it a warning shot because I heard they are illegal.           

 

     

[jjb4900]

 Anyone who would shoot a dog for pooping in their yard is a loon, and loons should not have guns, so it sounds like justice was done.   Could they have taken his guns without the SAFE act?  If not, then score one for the act.  I am 100% for taking guns out of the hands of proven loons.   This guy certainly proved what he was. 

 

I have been on the giving and receiving ends of dog attacks, so I can understand both sides.   The first was when I was about 13 years old, sitting on the bank of our neighbor's pond, fishing with our family pet (black lab) by my side.    The pond had nice paths around it and was used as sort of a neighborhood park.   A pretty girl, my age, who I knew from the school bus ride, came walking by with a young, miniature Siberian husky on a leash.    When she got right next to us, my dog lunged with no warning at the little white husky, tearing a chunk of flesh out of the side of its neck with a single lunge.   I will never forget the sight of that red blood all over the white fur.   I apologized and said my folks would pay the vet bill.  A couple stitches and the little husky healed up good.  I was very thankful that no charges were filed, and that our dog was not taken away.  

 

The other attack came a few years ago, and it happened on our farm.   I was deer hunting on the last afternoon of gun season, from a ground blind near the center of our land.   Reluctantly, I had posted the farm that year, at the urging of my wife.  I had never had any luck with posting in the past, and without exception, have had more trespassing issues with the signs than without.   About a half hour before legal sunset, I looked up toward the road and saw two women and two dogs come walking down our lane.   I could see a big, loose German shepherd and a small "yip-dog" on the leash.  

 

They had no idea I was in the blind, located right near the center of our "back 40".   When they were about 30 yards away, on the other side of a thick hedgerow, the big dog must of picked up my scent.   He began barking loud, and when he saw me, he charged through the hedgerow.   I timed my shot perfectly, just as he jumped into the back of my blind.   My placement was a little off though, just to the side of his head, close enough to likely cause a little hearing damage, possibly some powder burns, but no bodily damage.   He let out a yelp and turned tail at the mighty report of my 12 gauge, 3" slug.

 

The women said "that shut him up".   I asked them if they had noticed the posted signs and they said that they didn't think I would be back here.   That was the last year I put up posted signs and I have not had any trespassing trouble since.   That "miss" was a heck of a lot more effective than any posted sign ever was.  I won't call it a warning shot because I heard they are illegal.           

you should have used a crossbow on that Shepherd..........much more effective. 

[Huntscreek]

What your saying Belo is people like me are the problem? Why because I believe in the US Constitution I' am a Extremist, No That use be called being an American at one time. More Laws and bigger government regulating meddling in your life is not freedom nor American. The next time I fight for your rights I'll make sure I only fight for part of them you like LOL.

Belo if being a Extremist means not compromising nor allowing infringements of OUR rights, than so be it. Now What are you?, do you even know, 1/2 pro 1/2 anti only for what gun control you see fit. There is already a little north Korean fellow who runs a country that way.Rest assured when your handing you bunny gun over mine will be in my cold dead hands, now that's extreme.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Huntscreek