With eye on Supreme Court, Cuomo pushes state legislators to act on gun bill

[Madmallard]

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo reiterated his call Saturday for the GOP-controlled State Senate to return to Albany to pass the "red-flag" bill, which is aimed at blocking dangerous people from having access to guns.

At a news conference in a Manhattan hotel with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Cuomo also spoke out against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. U.S. appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, would vote to overturn state gun-control laws such as the 2013 SAFE Act, which bans assault-style weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, Cuomo said.

Kavanaugh’s possible ascension to the high court makes passage of the red flag bill an urgent priority, he said.

“I want the New York State Senate to come back to Albany and pass the red flag bill now, before the Supreme Court decisions are made,” Cuomo said. “I want to have an in-state law. I want to make it so they have to overturn a state law if they’re actually going to trample states’ rights.”

The Red Flag Gun Protection Bill would allow teachers, school administrators and parents to ask a judge to prevent people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others from buying or possessing firearms.

“You look at these mass shootings, you look at these school shootings and you hear the same story in every case: The teacher, the school will say, we knew that young person had issues. We knew there was a problem,” Cuomo said. “Parents will say we knew there was a problem. But they had no ability to do anything.”

The governor said the red-flag measure would allow teachers “to step in before the violence happens.”

The bill is one of the "critical measures that will keep guns away from our communities and those who may cause harm," New Yorkers Against Gun Violence Executive Director Rebecca Fischer said in a statement.

Eye on top Court, Cuomo calls for action on guns

 

[Defilade]

So your SAFE Act won't curb these problems is what your are saying Clown Cuomo?

 

[Deplorable Me]

Andy should be picking out his prison cell.

 

[Cooolone]

Doesn't the Putz understand that passing a law before SCOTUS decisions are made doesn't mean a thing if it is in fact contradictory to those decisions, ie, Unconstitutional!

What a moron!

 

[96coal449]

Andy should be picking out his prison cell.

Only so he can have a place to stay while waiting for the gallows to be built.
Fuckin treasonous traitor.

 

[Steal2B]

CUOMO's KAMPF TO CAPTURE ALLEGIANCE FROM THE BUGEYED LEFT

 

[Mosinitis]

What is NY GOP doing to walk back the SAFE act and punish republicans who voted for it?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Glad to see he is worried. Maybe he isn't so dumb after all.

 

[Robin]

Now there is a law just waiting to be abused. I bet the NYS chapter of the ABA is giddy with excitement, lawsuits out the wazoo in this one.
Robin

 

[Celt]

Just what we need. Liberal,socialist teachers deciding which families should be allowed to have guns based on their child's behavior.

 

[RBean]

Here is how it works. Your child tells teacher, "my daddy talked mean to me" (because you found child didn't do home work last week). Teacher asked "does you daddy have any guns?". Child says "yes." SWAT team at your house. "Come out with your hands up". They throw you on the ground on your face, handcuff arms behind back and feet in leg irons. Then they ransack your house. They find your guns. A .22 rifle you used to hunt squirrels when you were a kid, and a 12ga shotgun you use once every two or three years for duck hunting when you can find time from earning a living. They take your two guns and politely tell you to have a nice day.

The law is constitutional because it provides "due process". Your are supposed to have a hearing w/in 14 days (like in the Family Code). You are not arrested, there is no Order of Protection by a family member. (Teacher filled out a half page form and give to the principle who e-mailed to Court that issued order).

You appear without a lawyer because you know this is all BS. You testify that you are a veteran, you had firearms training, you were honorably discharged. You support your wife and children, own your own home and pay your taxes. Never threatened anyone with a gun or otherwise. You have no criminal record, not even a parking ticket. Your wife testifies on your behalf, but the state objects as she is an "interested witness" and/or is testifying "under duress" (one or the other).

State puts on phycologist (who has never seen you before) who testifies that your talking mean to you child is evidence of underlaying anger management issues. That because of these underlaying issues you have a potential for violence. Therefore you are a danger to others and the retention of your guns continues.

The judge, in an effort to be fair, sends you to a physiatrist for a second opinion. His report says you are "normal". However, now since you have been involuntarily sent to a "mental health care" clinic, you are prohibited from possessing guns permanently under the SAFE ACT.

The teacher, a registered democrat and member of the Brady Gun Violence Policy Center, get a commendation (and a raise) from the school system for her selfless act of bravery and is encouraged to "do more" in this regard as are all the other teachers in the school.

THE SYSTEM WORKS AS INTENDED.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Here is how it works. Your child tells teacher, "my daddy talked mean to me" (because you found child didn't do home work last week). Teacher asked "does you daddy have any guns?". Child says "yes." SWAT team at your house. "Come out with your hands up". They throw you on the ground on your face, handcuff arms behind back and feet in leg irons. Then they ransack your house. They find your guns. A .22 rifle you used to hunt squirrels when you were a kid, and a 12ga shotgun you use once every two or three years for duck hunting when you can find time from earning a living. They take your two guns and politely tell you to have a nice day.

The law is constitutional because it provides "due process". Your are supposed to have a hearing w/in 14 days (like in the Family Code). You are not arrested, there is no Order of Protection by a family member. (Teacher filled out a half page form and give to the principle who e-mailed to Court that issued order).

You appear without a lawyer because you know this is all BS. You testify that you are a veteran, you had firearms training, you were honorably discharged. You support your wife and children, own your own home and pay your taxes. Never threatened anyone with a gun or otherwise. You have no criminal record, not even a parking ticket. Your wife testifies on your behalf, but the state objects as she is an "interested witness" and/or is testifying "under duress" (one or the other).

State puts on phycologist (who has never seen you before) who testifies that your talking mean to you child is evidence of underlaying anger management issues. That because of these underlaying issues you have a potential for violence. Therefore you are a danger to others and the retention of your guns continues.

The judge, in an effort to be fair, sends you to a physiatrist for a second opinion. His report says you are "normal". However, now since you have been involuntarily sent to a "mental health care" clinic, you are prohibited from possessing guns permanently under the SAFE ACT.

The teacher, a registered democrat and member of the Brady Gun Violence Policy Center, get a commendation (and a raise) from the school system for her selfless act of bravery and is encouraged to "do more" in this regard as are all the other teachers in the school.

THE SYSTEM WORKS AS INTENDED.

@RBean you have again nailed it!

Been there, seen it myself. Several years ago a man who had threatened my life multiple times, showed up at my house uninvited.

I called 911 after I told him to stay the fuck off my property and away from me. I was carrying concealed, and had 2 spare mags on me. Cops came, disarmed me, and sent him away, and then gave me my stuff back. I thought that was the end of it. But noooo...

Six months later my permit was suspended and I had to turn in my guns, and then hire a lawyer, go to court and a bunch more hassle and about 6 months to get my permit and my guns back.

And what precipitated all of that? My local PD Chief had his panties in a bunch, and wrote a letter to the PPO demanding revocation of my permit BECAUSE I had the nerve to use PROFANITY to keep asshole John P. off my property and away from me (without ever drawing or threatening him in any way), AND because I was carrying ammo for my gun!

These red flag orders are going to get out of hand EXACTLY as @RBean notes.

Fuck the NY state anti’s. I’m out.

 

[MadScientist]

So when this bill had just passed the assembly, I had emailed my state senator DeFransisco in opposition to this bill. Got this response:

“This is in receipt of your email in opposition to A.11148.

I also oppose this legislation. Although the bill passed in the Assembly, it was not taken up by the Senate.

I appreciate your input.

Very truly yours,

John A. DeFrancisco”

Very short, sweet, and simple. Good to know we have allies, not all are turncoats. Shame he is retiring as he was vocal against SAFE act when it passed. And according to some articles I read he was influential in stopping the ERPO bill from even being considered.

Best I can say is keep the pressure on your reps. My state assemblyman (GOP) did vote for ERPO. If this comes up again I will express my dissatisfaction. In this area, which can be a swing area, he will feel the heat.

 

[RBean]

As a lawyer I can see that this law is fertile grounds for abuse. This ex parte order is issued on "probable cause". A very low legal threshold. The person contesting the seizure must (prove a negative) show he is not a danger by "clear and convincing" evidence. This is a very high threshold, just below "beyond a reasonable doubt". This reversal of the burden of proof is already contrary to the multiple decisions of federal courts re gun confiscation "due process" requirements. The difference is that the federal courts recognize at least in theory that one has a constitutional right to possess a gun, at least at some level. While NY does not recognize it as a right at all.

In addition, there is no penalty for false charges in the bill. In the event to order is vacated, the gun owner's attorneys' fees and cost should be paid and the party guilty of perjury punished. If this passes, it will provide a framework for state wide piece meal gun confiscation and plenty of work for lawyers, with very little effect on anything else. We will need judge Kavanaugh more than ever on the Supreme Court.

 

[Robin]

Thank you RBean, I rest my case.
Robin

 

[Mr. terzmo]

They try to pass,and some do, laws that are 'gun control" when they ignore child abuse by giving backpacks of school supplies and weekend food for starving children of parents who don't give a $hit. Good thing We have Channel 4 and Wegmans to keep the County jail at a proper low capacity.

 

[thegatman]

It goes to show you that any gun owners including Fudds must get out and vote before you end up like Venezuela.

 

[RBean]

I read the entire Bill. A little more nuisanced than indicated. The petitioner must swear to the complaint. The ex parte order is issued on "probable cause".
Then at the hearing on the temporary order the petitioner has the burden of proving the respondent is a danger by "clear and convincing" evidence. The respondent can request a hearing again after the temporary order is issued but now he has the burden of proving a change in situation, that he is not a danger by "clear and convincing" evidence.

Unlike the Family Court Act if the order expires or is vacated the judge is to order the return of the guns. He can also order a return of a pistol license, but the pistol licensing officer can cancel that out. Any one think your pistol license would be returned?

No penalties for false allegations and the petitioner does not have to pay the usual filing fee to file the petition. I can see it being abused on a regular basis by an any person who has a problem with the "respondent" and wants to stick it to him. Ex spouse, divorcing spouse, neighbor, teacher etc, parents, children, police officer, employer, past employer, business associate, competitors, opposite party in civil litigation. The list is unending.

 

[Brian Colt]

Speaking of "trampling on Rights". Cuomo is the biggest stomper around.

 

[Acer-m14]

Unlike the Family Court Act if the order expires or is vacated the judge is to order the return of the guns. He can also order a return of a pistol license, but the pistol licensing officer can cancel that out. Any one think your pistol license would be returned?

pp revoked you lost all guns per safe .. correct ??

 

[Saltwater60]

Doesn't the Putz understand that passing a law before SCOTUS decisions are made doesn't mean a thing if it is in fact contradictory to those decisions, ie, Unconstitutional!

What a moron!

I don’t think he does. The Supreme Court can’t change an unconstitutional law that’s not on the books right?

 

[Twogunwilly]

I don’t think he does. The Supreme Court can’t change an unconstitutional law that’s not on the books right?

No, The SCOTUS decisions are the ultimate law of the land.

 

[RBean]

Acer-m14, the SAFE Act actually does not prohibit one from possessing long guns while their pistol license is suspended or even revoked. Rifles and shotguns must be surrendered if ordered by the Family Court in an Order of Protection. But once the Order of Protection ends the prohibition to possess long guns ends even if the pistol license is still suspended. However the Nassau County PD claims that the prohibition against long gun possession continues as long as the pistol license is suspended. And the pistol license is suspended as long as they want because of their unlimited discretion. Thus giving themselves the power to completely deny one's 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights to bear arms, possess property and due process. This is an issue in the Napolitano case. Attached analysis below. I asked the County Attorney who handles such cases to point me to the provision supporting the PD's position. He could not.

The so called SAFE Act is not actually one statute but minute and obscure changes to many different statutes, making it extremely difficult to research.