well isn't this great. We are seizing weapons in NY.

[Darwin333]

Actually I believe that is the very law I linked to.

Again, if you think I'm looking in the wrong place, a link would be helpful, because I don't think it's useful to describe what other people claim these laws say when we can easily look at the laws themselves.

The majority of "may issue" states require approval from your local sheriff to get a permit. Some states have certain guidelines that are supposed to be followed while others require you to actually have what they consider a "good cause". Regardless, in most of the may issue states the Sheriff can get away with denying you simply because he doesn't like the way you look or because he is mad that his wife didn't give him any the night before.

 

[Darwin333]

I did. The language I quoted is from that law. I don't see how the law permits the authorities to refuse a permit application based on a minor mental health history. I'm wondering if the LEO you spoke to just didn't know what he was talking about.

Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#May-Issue

 

[Darwin333]

This is not true. Read the article I linked to above. Even the guy's lawyer admits he had a past MH issue requiring medication.

Here it is again:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ork-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/

I was going off the OP who said they had the wrong guy. My apologies if I was citing bad info.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I did. The language I quoted is from that law. I don't see how the law permits the authorities to refuse a permit application based on a minor mental health history. I'm wondering if the LEO you spoke to just didn't know what he was talking about.

Since the people I spoke to are in the sheriff's department it seems that they should know.

 

[woolfe9998]

Since the people I spoke to are in the sheriff's department it seems that they should know.

You and DVC are both correct. You're just talking about 2 different things. Unfortunately, what you're talking about isn't relevant to the incident you posted about.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0400.00_400.00.html

That is the complete Sullivan Act. While the portion DVC quoted pertains to the mental health exception, it's paragraph 2 which generally explains the standards for issuing various firearms licenses. NY is a "shall issue" state when it comes to the right to possess firearms in your home, and in certain other defined situations. It's a "may" issue when it comes to concealed carry. I'm afraid Darwin above is also conflating the two. The story you were discussing in your OP has to do with a man having his guns confiscated and his permit to own them revoked. Regarding that issue, DVC has cited the most relevant portion.

In sum, the statute says "shall issue" for simple ownership, but there is a mental health exception defined in the statute. It says "proper cause" must exist for concealed carry, which is really a "may issue." This is probably what your LE contacts were talking about. In any event,correct me if I'm wrong, but the case you brought up has to do with the right to own and whether the mental health exception applies, not concealed carry.

For the impatient, the relevant portions are:

A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper

(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You and DVC are both correct. You're just talking about 2 different things. Unfortunately, what you're talking about isn't relevant to the incident you posted about.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0400.00_400.00.html

That is the complete Sullivan Act. While the portion DVC quoted pertains to the mental health exception, it's paragraph 2 which generally explains the standards for issuing various firearms licenses. NY is a "shall issue" state when it comes to the right to possess firearms in your home, and in certain other defined situations. It's a "may" issue when it comes to concealed carry. I'm afraid Darwin above is also conflating the two. The story you were discussing in your OP has to do with a man having his guns confiscated and his permit to own them revoked. Regarding that issue, DVC has cited the most relevant portion.

In sum, the statute says "shall issue" for simple ownership, but there is a mental health exception defined in the statute. It says "proper cause" must exist for concealed carry, which is really a "may issue." This is probably what your LE contacts were talking about. In any event,correct me if I'm wrong, but the case you brought up has to do with the right to own and whether the mental health exception applies, not concealed carry.

For the impatient, the relevant portions are:

You have it right. I was addressing more than one issue. First was the seizure which happened because of what I believe is an incredible misuse of HIPAA. Accessing health care information simply because NY says it's in the public interest leaves no real protection. Second was that even minor issues would now prevent or seriously hamper obtaining a legitimate permit and as Dr Pizza pointed out individuals are now have to hide their conditions because of a stigma attached to them. We made some progress over time and now people will once again have to go underground or untreated.

 

[Staples]

Don't worry, as much as gun nuts seem to believe, guns are NOT necessary for survival.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don't worry, as much as gun nuts seem to believe, guns are NOT necessary for survival.

Nor are most things. You don't need privacy to survive. You don't need to vote or have free speech. Most abortions aren't needed either. Private property.

You can survive many things. Is that how you want to live?

 

[spidey07]

Nor are most things. You don't need privacy to survive. You don't need to vote or have free speech. Most abortions aren't needed either. Private property.

You can survive many things. Is that how you want to live?

You don't need (insert thing liberal doesn't like).

It's not about need. Shall not be infringed.

This is the back door confiscation Obama wants.

 

[Staples]

Nor are most things. You don't need privacy to survive. You don't need to vote or have free speech. Most abortions aren't needed either. Private property.

You can survive many things. Is that how you want to live?

No but I find those things actually have an effect on society. Armed civilians have little to no effect on society.

Gun owners dream of the day they get to stop a crime by killing a bad guy but it is extremely rare that actually happens in the modern world.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No but I find those things actually have an effect on society. Armed civilians have little to no effect on society.

Gun owners dream of the day they get to stop a crime by killing a bad guy but it is extremely rare that actually happens in the modern world.

No, but you seem that you have to believe that. You ignore the means by which your apparent wishes are carried out. I don't worry about people with guns as much as those who approve of the abuse of power.

 

[classy]

Haven't time to find the link but in Buffalo a man was ordered to surrender all weapons because he was mistaken for another who was on depression meds. There's no legislation that allows this so the government used an incredibly bogus logic for employing HIPAA. Worse, it's tough enough to get a carry permit, but now people who have had mild SAD are disqualified. Lepers again.

I do not see the problem here, if you are on meds, no you shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do not see the problem here, if you are on meds, no you shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

Why don't you show where people treated for minor depression represent a greater threat than yourself.

 

[shira]

You don't need (insert thing liberal doesn't like).

It's not about need. Shall not be infringed.

This is the back door confiscation Obama wants.

No it's not. This entire thread (except for your irrelevancies) has been about NY state law, not proposed federal law. And nowhere is any of the proposed laws supported by Obama is there any indication that he's advocating seizing guns.

Why do you find it so difficult to stay focused? Why do you insist on making wild accusations unsupported by documented facts? One might think that you've neglected to take your anti-psychotic meds.

Ohhhh. THAT'S why you're so stirred up.

 

[monovillage]

I do not see the problem here, if you are on meds, no you shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

What meds? Aspirin? allergy meds? Ohhh those evil diabetics are taking insulin! Take their guns away! Uh-oh, a woman taking Midol! No way should any woman with PMS be allowed to own a firearm........right classi?

 

[Siddhartha]

I knew a guy in New Haven, CT who had his guns taken away by the cops. We were not friends but we went to the same neighborhood pub. Since I had met him, killing and hurting people was a constant theme in his conversations.

After his girlfriend dumped him, he started to talk about killing her and himself a lot. His ex-girlfriend and maybe some other people went to the police about this and they took his guns away. He actually pulled a knife on a guy who showed up at the pub with his ex-girlfriend. They scuffled, he dropped the knife. and left the scene. Good thing he did not have his guns.

Personally, it was a relief that they took his guns from him. It would not been too big of a strectch of the imagination that this guy would show up with weapons and resolve his problems by killing a lot of people. Once he yelled at me for openning the bathroom door too loudly. So I would not be surprised, if he had really gone crazy, that I was on his enemies list.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I knew a guy in New Haven, CT who had his guns taken away by the cops. We were not friends but we went to the same neighborhood pub. Since I had met him, killing and hurting people was a constant theme in his conversations.

After his girlfriend dumped him, he started to talk about killing her and himself a lot. His ex-girlfriend and maybe some other people went to the police about this and they took his guns away. He actually pulled a knife on a guy who showed up at the pub with his ex-girlfriend. They scuffled, he dropped the knife. and left the scene. Good thing he did not have his guns.

Personally, it was a relief that they took his guns from him. It would not been too big of a strectch of the imagination that this guy would show up with weapons and resolve his problems by killing a lot of people. Once he yelled at me for openning the bathroom door too loudly. So I would not be surprised, if he had really gone crazy, that I was on his enemies list.

People who have serious issues are a genuine concern. It's when we go from reasonable to ridiculous that I have objections.

 

[nehalem256]

I knew a guy in New Haven, CT who had his guns taken away by the cops. We were not friends but we went to the same neighborhood pub. Since I had met him, killing and hurting people was a constant theme in his conversations.

After his girlfriend dumped him, he started to talk about killing her and himself a lot. His ex-girlfriend and maybe some other people went to the police about this and they took his guns away. He actually pulled a knife on a guy who showed up at the pub with his ex-girlfriend. They scuffled, he dropped the knife. and left the scene. Good thing he did not have his guns.

Personally, it was a relief that they took his guns from him. It would not been too big of a strectch of the imagination that this guy would show up with weapons and resolve his problems by killing a lot of people. Once he yelled at me for openning the bathroom door too loudly. So I would not be surprised, if he had really gone crazy, that I was on his enemies list.

I think there is a pretty big difference between a guy who talks about killing his ex-gf and a person with depression.

 

[werepossum]

Makes perfect sense. Why on Earth would a state who does not trust half its citizens to select a suitable beverage with lunch trust them with a deadly weapon? Just recognize that the price to be paid for a better welfare state is that you are the property of the state and to that state, your life is no more valuable than that of the armed robber, rapist or murderer you might shoot in self-defense. Right now the focus is on anyone with a discernible mental problem, but rest assured they'll get around to all of you soon enough.

 

[fskimospy]

Makes perfect sense. Why on Earth would a state who does not trust half its citizens to select a suitable beverage with lunch trust them with a deadly weapon? Just recognize that the price to be paid for a better welfare state is that you are the property of the state and to that state, your life is no more valuable than that of the armed robber, rapist or murderer you might shoot in self-defense. Right now the focus is on anyone with a discernible mental problem, but rest assured they'll get around to all of you soon enough.

You are confusing NYC regulations with state regulations.

I think I'm still waiting on you to describe when the US is going to turn into Red China. While you're doing that timeline can you maybe add in when you think that all weapons will be confiscated too?

I'm just trying to track the insanity so that I can point you back to it when your crazed predictions invariably are wrong.

 

[BoberFett]

Voting is far more dangerous act than owning a gun. Democrats themselves talk about the damage that was done to this country by electing Dubya. A few firearms deaths are nothing compared to the damage done to hundreds of millions of lives under Bush.

So any time a "liberal" wants to take a stance on guns, they should see if the same idea would be OK with them by voting.

No person on meds should be able to... vote.

You should require training and a license in order to... vote.