Well that's racists... oh Red Flag gun law goes into effect in New York

#1



More states are enacting “red flag” laws that seize guns from erratic people in the hopes of staving off massacres like those in Texas and Ohio.
Seventeen states have now passed red flag laws. The back-to-back shootings that killed 31 people this month in El Paso and Dayton have given new momentum to such proposals.

New York’s Red Flag Law went into effect Saturday.

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo says the laws are needed due to a lack of effort from the federal government stopping gun violence.

“Nearly half of all perpetrators of mass shootings exhibit warning signs before the shooting; this new law will help keep guns away from those dangerous people in the first place and prevent needless tragedies,” the governor said in an official press release.

Since most of the laws are new, research on their effectiveness is limited. A study published last year estimated that the two states with the longest-standing laws, Connecticut and Indiana, may have had 500 fewer gun suicides over a decade as a result of the measures.

A study published this week about California’s law found 21 examples in which people who had threatened public shootings were successfully disarmed.

Critics of the laws say they can result in the seizure of guns from law-abiding citizens based on thin claims of danger or false and exaggerated allegations.
Link

You sir have commited a thought crime so give us all your guns... hang on you don't want to give us your guns... well we are going to have to send people to your house to forcibly take your guns... and why wouldn't that be a good idea sir?

This is going to end badly... as you know some cunt is gonna call the cops on her ex bf and say something stupid.
 
#3
The fact that you want a gun proves you're paranoid and shouldn't have one.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
#4
Ehhh, I’m kind of in the middle on this one. I don’t believe in punishing people who didn’t do anything wrong, but on the other hand when you have a weirdo (and we know goddamn well who the weirdos are, clue, it’s never the captain of the football team) saying on social media that they admire mass shooters and have weapons caches, I’m not necessarily against sending those types to the nuthouse either.

It seems that since El Paso and Dayton they have been actually catching some of these mental cases (one right next to where I live) before they strike. I’m not actually opposed to it. Essentially it’s profiling.
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
#5
Ehhh, I’m kind of in the middle on this one. I don’t believe in punishing people who didn’t do anything wrong, but on the other hand when you have a weirdo (and we know goddamn well who the weirdos are, clue, it’s never the captain of the football team) saying on social media that they admire mass shooters and have weapons caches, I’m not necessarily against sending those types to the nuthouse either.
Bullshit. Go fuck yourself. If you open that door you'll never be able to close it and I guarantee rights will be violated, it's the first step toward future crime prosecution.
 

Hog's Big Ben

Getting ass-***** in The Octagon, brother.
Donator
#6
It seems that since El Paso and Dayton they have been actually catching some of these mental cases
They were catching them before, too. Only difference is CNN didn't do these Police Blotter articles about it.

At least 27 people have been arrested over threats to commit mass attacks since the El Paso and Dayton shootings
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
#7
Bullshit. Go fuck yourself. If you open that door you'll never be able to close it and I guarantee rights will be violated, it's the first step toward future crime prosecution.
I don’t disagree with that either.

Stop being such a dick.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
#8
They were catching them before, too. Only difference is CNN didn't do these Police Blotter articles about it.




At least 27 people have been arrested over threats to commit mass attacks since the El Paso and Dayton shootings
True
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
#9
I don’t disagree with that either.

Stop being such a dick.
Do you honestly believe someone should be prosecuted for a crime because someone thinks they might commit one, even though they never planned to commit that crime?
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
#10
Do you honestly believe someone should be prosecuted for a crime because someone thinks they might commit one, even though they never planned to commit that crime?
I didn’t say procecuted. Admittlely I did say nuthouse. But what should be done about fucktards that proclaim on social media that they admire shooters. Fuck yes they should be profiled.
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
#11
I didn’t say procecuted. Admittlely I did say nuthouse. But what should be done about fucktards that proclaim on social media that they admire shooters. Fuck yes they should be profiled.
If someone starts spouting off about committing crimes I have no problem with them being monitored and investigated. You can't arrest or prosecute someone until they actually do something. It's that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
 
#12
Your both right.

But in this case it has to be proven in court that the person is a danger to himself or others. Until that is established he isnt losing his guns.

And even then he can appeal. And it's a year ban on the guns.


Its basically a mental health hygiene warrant with the added stipulation about the guns.
 
#13
Well I'm seeing it being used during a divorce... I think Misery was gonna pull that. She asked where all the guns were told her my buddy Wayne has them in his safe until this is resolved.

She was not happy... even had him take her pink air rifle... cunt.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
#14
All my guns sank to the bottom of the ocean on that golf outing...........
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
#15
If someone starts spouting off about committing crimes I have no problem with them being monitored and investigated. You can't arrest or prosecute someone until they actually do something. It's that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
Correct. But the question is what constitutes a threat.
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
#16
Well I'm seeing it being used during a divorce... I think Misery was gonna pull that. She asked where all the guns were told her my buddy Wayne has them in his safe until this is resolved.

She was not happy... even had him take her pink air rifle... cunt.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
It seems fairly common for temporary restraining orders being used during the beginning of a divorce, they're easy to get and all of your firearms have to be surrendered based on one persons statements, true or not.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
#17
Sonny Cuomo has been goose-stepping all over the Bill of Rights. And the Circut Court just rubber stamps everything in favor of his buffoonery.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
#18
Its an excuse to further violate 2nd amendment rights.

In the old days they would send these people to a nut house to be watched and evaluated. Now we are to believe its ok for nuts to be on the street as long as we have less rights.

Its classic libtardism, free the criminal and lock up the gun and there will be no crime. Like that guy in Philly, free him and tell him hes not allowed to have a gun.
 

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
#19
Man, I really hope the kind of guy willing to go commit mass murder obeys the gun laws. What if we make mass murder illegal?
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Donator
#20
And when someone makes a false accusation about someone what happens? Do you think they just hand back your guns? How many times is someone allowed to make a false accusation? Are you allowed to refuse an investigation? Can they come to your place of work and force you to come in for questioning? How much money will it cost? Do you need an attorney? That's a lot a bullshit for your constitutional right.
 
#21
Did y'all even read any of it?

The link I had was an old bill from 2018. No bueno.

Tryna find recent version.. . on phone so working on it
 
Last edited:

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
#22
Man, I really hope the kind of guy willing to go commit mass murder obeys the gun laws. What if we make mass murder illegal?
First they'd have to make murder illegal, oh, wait, never mind............
 
#23
It seems fairly common for temporary restraining orders being used during the beginning of a divorce, they're easy to get and all of your firearms have to be surrendered based on one persons statements, true or not.
I had the feeling she was gonna call the cops and do the "he was threatening me with a gun schtick" and who are some small town cops gonna believe a shady Canadian or a Sworn Federal LEO...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
#24
Found the application link here

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/erpo

And saw this question listed

What happens when I get to court with my papers?

The clerk will take your papers, assign an index number to the case, and bring your papers to the judge. The judge will decide if a temporary ERPO will be issued on the same day that you file the papers. If the judge issues a temporary ERPO, a police officer will bring a copy to the respondent and remove any guns that the respondent owns or possess.

NOTE: If you are a private school official or a member of the respondent’s family or household, the judge will also decide your fee waiver application. The judge’s decision on the fee waiver application is completely separate and has no impact on the judge’s decision on your ERPO application

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
#25
Found the application link here

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/erpo

And saw this question listed

What happens when I get to court with my papers?

The clerk will take your papers, assign an index number to the case, and bring your papers to the judge. The judge will decide if a temporary ERPO will be issued on the same day that you file the papers. If the judge issues a temporary ERPO, a police officer will bring a copy to the respondent and remove any guns that the respondent owns or possess.

NOTE: If you are a private school official or a member of the respondent’s family or household, the judge will also decide your fee waiver application. The judge’s decision on the fee waiver application is completely separate and has no impact on the judge’s decision on your ERPO application

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
It can also fuck over a responsible citizen depending on where they live. What if that respondent has a firearm that might be questionable due to the convoluted restrictions. I have an AR-15, it looks like any other AR except I've modified it so you have to break the action to release the magazine so it's technically legal. I can't legally transfer it to anyone in this state so my only choice would be to turn it in to the sheriff and chances are I'd never see it again. They're in it for the long game, they'll never ban guns outright, they'll just make it so fucking complicated to stay legal that it's just not worth it.
 
Top