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

[grean]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

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.

That process was not ex part though, was it?

She was evaluated by a medical professional or a few actually to determine that she suffered a diminished capacity. Before any action was taken they had to do that.

If the family just wanted her out of the way, and she wasn't of a diminished capacity, she had the chance to prove that she wasn't and would be left alone.

The Red Flag laws do not afford a person that right. Without an opportunity to argue on their own behalf, a convincing story can strip a person of the rights.

It's not just 2A. There is no due process. There is no right to privacy.

If they did give a person that opportunity, and instead of seizing their property, they were admitted for treatment, then that would be different.

The laws would remove the actual danger.

These laws just want to grab guns and leave a potentially dangerous person to their own devices, and now probably pissed off enough to hurt someone or themselves.

You don't need a gun to be dangerous.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

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!!

Please. The 2 laws you cited were totally different. End of discussion.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by grean

That process was not ex part though, was it?

She was evaluated by a medical professional or a few actually to determine that she suffered a diminished capacity. Before any action was taken they had to do that.

If the family just wanted her out of the way, and she wasn't of a diminished capacity, she had the chance to prove that she wasn't and would be left alone.

The Red Flag laws do not afford a person that right. Without an opportunity to argue on their own behalf, a convincing story can strip a person of the rights.

It's not just 2A. There is no due process. There is no right to privacy.

If they did give a person that opportunity, and instead of seizing their property, they were admitted for treatment, then that would be different.

The laws would remove the actual danger.

These laws just want to grab guns and leave a potentially dangerous person to their own devices, and now probably pissed off enough to hurt someone or themselves.

You don't need a gun to be dangerous.

I'll run the same scenario by you that I ran by IB.

After every major gun tragedy like Las Vegas, Florida and Texas, people ask for answers to end such tragedies from reoccurring. Gun rights advocates say don't blame the guns, but rather try to keep guns out of the hands of those that are most likely to commit such crimes. I see the NY law doing that. You say admit the person for treatment. And if they say "No thank you"? The red flag law gives certain individuals the ability to obtain a court order to keep a person from TEMPORARILY purchasing or possessing a firearm. I would hope that the court would evaluate each case impartially. If you have better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are thought to be dangerous to themselves or others, I'd like to hear them.

In the case of my family member who was placed in a nursing home without her permission -- she was mid-nineties, husband had recently died, could not drive, had no relatives within 1 1/2 hours of her, and her mental capacity had decreased quite a bit in recent years. So yes, she was stripped of her rights. But the right decision was made. If you think the family members who made the decision to put her into a fantastic nursing facility should not have had the right to do so, let me know.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'll run the same scenario by you that I ran by IB.

After every major gun tragedy like Las Vegas, Florida and Texas, people ask for answers to end such tragedies from reoccurring. Gun rights advocates say don't blame the guns, but rather try to keep guns out of the hands of those that are most likely to commit such crimes. I see the NY law doing that. You say admit the person for treatment. And if they say "No thank you"? The red flag law gives certain individuals the ability to obtain a court order to keep a person from TEMPORARILY purchasing or possessing a firearm. I would hope that the court would evaluate each case impartially. If you have better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are thought to be dangerous to themselves or others, I'd like to hear them.

In the case of my family member who was placed in a nursing home without her permission -- she was mid-nineties, husband had recently died, could not drive, had no relatives within 1 1/2 hours of her, and her mental capacity had decreased quite a bit in recent years. So yes, she was stripped of her rights. But the right decision was made. If you think the family members who made the decision to put her into a fantastic nursing facility should not have had the right to do so, let me know.

No one was aware of what the Las Vegas shooter was doing or intended. Your "new law" wouldn't have stopped it.

The laws already on the books should have stopped the Texas church shooter and the Parkland High School shooter, but they weren't enforced ... and you think more bureaucracy and violating the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens is the answer.

Meanwhile, there's a dead man in Maryland because a disgruntled relative swatted her kin.

[rexdutchman]

^^ IB sadly most people here don't have the understanding of the 4 ad and 2 ad and don't even know about FEMA being able supersede the constitution and more laws to regulate good people isn't going to help anything they need to stop believing Hollywood and the media

[rexdutchman]

Again I will ask for people that think the gov can protect them ?
Do you trust your life to the Big -T or whoever is POTUS , Just ask the people in New Orleans how that worked out ( if history cant repeat its self , just think Nazis )

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

^^ IB sadly most people here don't have the understanding of the 4 ad and 2 ad and don't even know about FEMA being able supersede the constitution and more laws to regulate good people isn't going to help anything they need to stop believing Hollywood and the media

The law isn’t intended to regulate good people.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No one was aware of what the Las Vegas shooter was doing or intended. Your "new law" wouldn't have stopped it.

The laws already on the books should have stopped the Texas church shooter and the Parkland High School shooter, but they weren't enforced ... and you think more bureaucracy and violating the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens is the answer.

Meanwhile, there's a dead man in Maryland because a disgruntled relative swatted her kin.

No one knows the intent of a shooter before they commit a crime. Unfortunately. The investigation into Stephen Paddock, the LV shooter, described him as being "in financial trouble and had difficulty coping with his age." Probably not a reason to believe he was capable of such an act. You think the NY law is not good. I think it might save lives. So be it.

The dead man in Maryland would still be alive if he followed the instructions laid out by everyone on this forum when ordered to do something by a law enforcement officer -- obey the command!

[grean]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'll run the same scenario by you that I ran by IB.

After every major gun tragedy like Las Vegas, Florida and Texas, people ask for answers to end such tragedies from reoccurring. Gun rights advocates say don't blame the guns, but rather try to keep guns out of the hands of those that are most likely to commit such crimes. I see the NY law doing that. You say admit the person for treatment. And if they say "No thank you"? The red flag law gives certain individuals the ability to obtain a court order to keep a person from TEMPORARILY purchasing or possessing a firearm. I would hope that the court would evaluate each case impartially. If you have better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are thought to be dangerous to themselves or others, I'd like to hear them.

In the case of my family member who was placed in a nursing home without her permission -- she was mid-nineties, husband had recently died, could not drive, had no relatives within 1 1/2 hours of her, and her mental capacity had decreased quite a bit in recent years. So yes, she was stripped of her rights. But the right decision was made. If you think the family members who made the decision to put her into a fantastic nursing facility should not have had the right to do so, let me know.

I think you missunderstood me.

I completely believe your family had that right. They had to go through a process though, and the lady in her mid nineties was evaluated before she was placed into care. If she proved to be competent they could not place her in care against her wishes.

I think that same process should be applied in lieu of the red flag laws.

Why is the new law needed? It doesn't do what it is intended to do anyway.

As far as Vegas or any other tragedy, we cannot be timecops. God knows I wish we could.

Perhaps he would have passed an evaluation. Being evil doesn't mean a diminished capacity exists.

Maybe he wouldn't.

Who is to say?

Who is to say he would not do something else if his guns were seized? HE IS THE THREAT. Red Flag Laws would not remove him. Current laws would remove him IF he failed the evaluation your family member was givebln.

THE GUNS ARE JUST TOOLS.

Without a person to give purpose, a gun is harmless.

He could have used any number of different tools to hurt and kill those people just as effectively if not more so than a gun.

Cruz, in Florida, gave numerous reasons for police to arrest him prior to the massacre. However, they did nothing.

The report made by the commission, in the aftermath , is now available to the public. It's a good read.

It is illegal, on California to have extended magazines in pistols. That didn't stop a former marine from killing 12 people in a California bar a few months back.

The guy in Illinois still had his gun even though he was sent a letter ordering him to turn it in. How did that happen???

Assume we could destroy every single gun from existence. Evil men will still do aweful acts against good people. Good people would just be less able, without having guns themselves, to thwart off the attacks of those evil men.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No one knows the intent of a shooter before they commit a crime. Unfortunately. The investigation into Stephen Paddock, the LV shooter, described him as being "in financial trouble and had difficulty coping with his age." Probably not a reason to believe he was capable of such an act. You think the NY law is not good. I think it might save lives. So be it.

The dead man in Maryland would still be alive if he followed the instructions laid out by everyone on this forum when ordered to do something by a law enforcement officer -- obey the command!

Your info on the Las Vegas shooter is 20/20 hindsight; hence, no red flag law you crafted could have stopped him.

The man in Maryland surmised he had violated absolutely not one single law; yet, cops burst into his home to steal his property in violation of his 4th Amendment rights. People like you put him up against the wall and executed him for their own pathetic sense of peace of mind.

[rexdutchman]

Again the lack of understanding that the laws will hurt good people is just amazing

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Please. The 2 laws you cited were totally different. End of discussion.

As long as you and the rest of the left "feel good".
Don't worry about knifes,bats,chains or any other deadly weapon...because that's not in the law!!
And your words..."End of discussion".

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bb1961

As long as you and the rest of the left "feel good".
Don't worry about knifes,bats,chains or any other deadly weapon...because that's not in the law!!
And your words..."End of discussion".

More moldy NRA talking points.

Find something new, please.

Like guns don’t kill guns. Laws do!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[grean]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

More moldy NRA talking points.

Find something new, please.

Like guns don’t kill guns. Laws do!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Yssup,

How does the law remove the threat?

[Austin Ellen]

What are you talking about here? The law is intended to regulate "bad" people? Yeah, I'd love to see how that's working out for ya.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The law isn’t intended to regulate good people.