In NY, the "Supreme Court" is actually the trial level court. Above that is the Court of Appeals. This was a trial court case.

Ex-boyfriend requested a red flag order for a woman, which was granted. Judge found that RKBA is a fundamental right, not subject to such action without due process, and simply filing a request doesn't make muster. He ruled that the required due process has to be on a par with the requirements for imprisoning someone.

"Some arms I keep- - - - -Others I bear!"

And the ATF just changed the definition of a frame or receiver yet again today.

More winning.

But, will the NY Appeals Court uphold his decision? Will this have to go to the US District Court, then to SCOTUS?

All red flags laws are unconstitutional.

SCOTUS as it stands today will not hear this case, they will remand for reconsideration as they have already ruled on the issue in Bruen.

There were no EPOs in the era of the Founding, just as the Western District of Texas Federal Court found US Code 922 (g) (8) unconstitutional because it did not comply with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, there were no restraining orders in 1789.

If we can get cases with plaintiffs with standing in the pipeline this is how we will gain back our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Back to the drawing board for NY yet again for unconstitutional weapons laws. Win win!

Hopefully something positive for second amendment rights will come of it. But you can bet that the powers that be in Noo Yawk politics are already working on a plan to get around the ruling.

Make that All laws that infringe on RKBA are unconstitutional.

when has Democrats ever cared what the Constitutions said?

This.

Excellent news. This has always seemed a no brainer to me. They all need to fall now, like ducks in a row.

Let's hope so. It needs to be a US Supreme Court decision, so all of them can go at once.

Gives the schitbirds something to do.....

I have to be honest with you, as someone with bipolar in the family, it would scare the hell out of me to not have any recourse in disarming somebody having a manic episode.

You’d need to live with full blown mania to understand the precarious situation a firearm in the mix would have.

So let me put it to you folks, should there be recourse to disarm somebody in mental distress? What should the criteria be for disarming somebody who is hearing voices?

Barkoff, I believe that what you are describing was the original intent and you are correct in what you’re saying.

The problems begin when these laws take on a life of their own and go far beyond original intent like most all restrictive firearms laws tend to do.

There are no easy answers to the issue.

I think the person should get to defend themselves against the order, the presumption should not be that the person in the submission is incompetent to have a firearm. The burden of proof should be on the person or state submitting the order.

Its wrong that in many places the first a person learns of a red flag order is a knock on the door at 4am

Exactly. Yes, there should be a process and it needs to be rapid and it needs to be accountable and responsive to the defendant as well. The current systems are rife for abuse and not accountable to anyone.

If you're going to take their guns, shouldn't you take the car? Knives? Baseball bats? Lighters? Gasoline? Hockey sticks? Axe? Hammer? Nail gun? Acetone? Bleach? Sticks? Steel toed shoes? Glass? Kitchen utensils?


There is nothing confusing about the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

Let's let any Karen with a bag full of issues decide who gets to own a gun. Yeah, that'll work.

Here's a tidbit from NY's ERPO application:


I have no proof that I own any of my guns. I have no bill of sale or receipts and Idaho doesn't require them to be registered. There's no paper trail. If this law was in effect here in Idaho, I wouldn't be able to get my guns back. Then, if whoever filed the application doesn't want you to get them back, regardless of legal ownership, he can drag you through a hearing process.

No one ever claimed that living within societies that respect basic rights, and have rule of law, creates perfect safety for all. Just that it's far better than the alternative.

Well said.

Thank you.

YES, we have taken keys and put kitchen knives in the safe, and locked bedroom doors.
We are talking about people who belong in a hospital, but the system is geared to allow them NOT to be hospitalized.
Straight up, you are given the choice of dealing with it in your home, or pushing your child into the street, really, those will be your choices. If your loved one lives alone it’s just as hard. Think Berkowitz, or any others who had voices tell them what to do, it’s scary schitt, trust me.

Let me give you an example, my daughter once in full mania, took a frozen Turkey out of the freezer, put it on her front lawn, doused it with lighter fluid and lit it on fire. She told the neighbors she was cooking it, and asked them if they would like some when it was done cooking.
Cops were called, she was 5150’d, we begged the hospital to keep her in until she is medicated, three days later the released her, still manic as hell. Should I have recourse to get her guns from her?

She is doing well today, on her meds, back in school, very mellow and clear headed, but the monster is always there under the surface.

So Barkoff, do you live with someone or have a family member who is bipolar and they have access to guns?

The result of liberalism. The solution to liberalism isn't more liberalism.

WTF are you talking about, I don’t give a schiit how you want to label it.

Well, yes, I live with somebody bipolar, she is doing well for the last year, but yes, I still lock up my all firearms. Before she was medicated and moved back home, she lived on her own in a condo, if she would have had a firearm which legally she could have obtained, I would have done everything in my power to get it from her.

To most of you this is an exercise in constitutional debate, for others a F-ing nightmare that gives you a personal insight.

I fully understand how these laws will be misused and agenda driven, all I’m asking for is a solution, one that defines real mental illness from a pissed off ex-wife

The NY ruling pretty well resolved the standard for taking the firearms of someone who has mental issues.

The existing law is unconstitutional because there is no due process. A simple request by just about anybody, with no evidence, and no right for the accused to present a defense does not meet the bar of due process.

The judge ruled that the standard for confiscating firearms has to be as high as the standard for involuntarily committing someone or sending them to prison.

Why am I not surprised?

So you locking up your guns keeps her from getting a different gun?

If they have been adjudicated mentally deficient by a court of law, they can legally told they cannot have a firearm. Just like any felon released from prison, that works doesn't it.

You become a bigger dipshit by the day.

Naturally, your ilk would feel that way.

That's all too inconvenient for the likes of Barkie.

No, too slow. When some people go manic, they can go from normal to out of their gourd in a matter of a few days, what would work is if the law maintained you could take the guns so long as the person is guaranteed a hearing within three days.
There are a lot of laws I would like to see put on the books, if anyone is 5150'd more than twice in one month, the family can petition the court to h ave their loved one institutionalized. As much as I hate the hell out of Gavin Newsom, he is finally seeing the light..

Up to two years forced treatment. Most people would respond in under six months. My daughter was 5150'd EIGHT TIMES in one year, every time they let her out in three days, AGAINST our pleas to keep her in.



 Excerpt.

People could come into the program through short-term involuntary hospital stays (also known as “5150s”), through the criminal justice system or at the recommendation of family members, mental health providers or first responders, among others. They would not need to be homeless to participate.

The court would order a tailored plan involving some combination of housing, medication and services, and would offer the support of a full clinical team, as well as a public defender and a “supporter” who could help a participant make care decisions and prepare advanced mental health directives.

Unlike with conservatorships, which can be indefinite, participation would be time limited – one year, with the possibility of an additional one-year extension.

A stream of state and local leaders spoke to the urgency of the need at the news conference, held on the San Jose campus of Momentum for Health, a behavioral health treatment organization. 


 Before this when a person was 5150'd they would get a hearing in three days. Only the bad cases would be held over on a 5250, which is a three week hold. after that, 95% are right back out on the street, but I would say 90% never even get 5250'd It is a worthless revolving door, and it gives families NO recourse, NONE!

I'll say it again, Barkie: No one promised that living within a free society that respects rights and the rule of law, would result in a perfectly safe place to live. It's only promised that it's much better than any other alternative.

OK Hawk, bury your head in the sand and miss the good old days. Let the mentally ill go on shooting up society until the public has had it's fill, they you'll see how bad it gets. You either get proactive, or sit on your laurels and wait to be defeated.

You know I wonder, what do you think about America in the last 200 years locking away the mentally ill in asylums for life? Take away their freedom, but not their firearms?

Your meme is idiotic as it pertains to this discussion.

The overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones, i.e., where liberalism prevails. That's a huge clue to a major solution.

Did I at ANYTIME make the case for gun free zones? How in the hell are you going to drag into this conversation gun free zones with discussing the mentally ill and preventing them access to firearms. That is it Hawkeye, because I am vocal on one aspect of red flag laws, I'm now categorized as anti-gun, anti-constitution, in support of gun free zones?
You see, this is why some here see you as extreme, there is no room for movement.

I gauren-damn-tee you, were ANYONE in this conversation go to sleep at night with a severely manic person in your home, your first order of business would be to lock up everything in the house that could be used as a weapon..it's that spooky.

I've said enough on the issue, I'm bowing out.

Good day gentleman, have a good New Years.

Why don't you fund her treatment yourself, if the powers that be in CA think she needs hospitalization, why not pony up the money?

If you are locking up your guns, what is the problem? Did you need the State to tell you to?

And that's why the Founders codified the right to Bear Arms.

There are lots of reasons to disarm the people and tyrants will always find a good one.

The risk of armed peoples doing bad things with those arms is real.

But as TRH says it's a much better option than disarming the people for their safety.

Barkoff--I'm sorry to hear about your daughter, I hope she gets well.

Only a moron would think otherwise

There is legal recourse through due process, in a court of law just show proof that they are mentally not allowed to possess


Plus don't be a wimp

That is a whole bunch of words to tell the Campfire that you squat to pee.

You are the biggest Karen I know...

Make your decision yet if we can have guns?

Yesterday, a NY judge struck down a restriction on having firearms in a place of worship, there should be lots of changes to carry restrictions in 2023.

My church has as many folks with firearms... as they have Hymnals...

It is a good thing...

The world is getting right sporty.

AN ARMED POPULATION... IS A POLITE POPULATION.

Always has been... always will be.

LOL,
You do realize that by the time this and others reach the SC, the make-up of the SC will have dramatically changed, either, by assassinations, court packing, or both.

Be careful what you wish for.

If the SC rules this way, DeSantis will be very Sad.

Although he did not sign the FL Red Flag Law, he supports it 100% and encourages other States to build their RFL based on FL law.

Steve...

You are a pisspot...

As we call it in the South

Check out my predictions, not batting 1000, but damn close.

Wake the Fu*k Up, or don’t, the choice is yours.

Yeah, there are a couple of issues on which he's really bad. That's one. The other is Israel.

Which SC Justices will be assassinated?

Will you be yanking the trigger?

Share your details on the web...

Steve... you approach Ballz level stupid sometimes...

That was not an insult...

Moreover just a fact.

The govt got this. They just need to pit one group of gun owners against another, then let one side kill the other from 1000 yards away.

When they aren't Fat...

Drunk...

Stupid...

Stoned on NyQuil...

Hanging with Kyle...

...and ain't detoxing so bad that opening a can of sardines seems utterly impossible.

Good news in a good news drought.

MM

Thomas, Kavanaugh in that order.

Wake the fu*k up.

That! This decision, hopefully, will be the death knell of these red-flag laws...

LOL

I feel for you Barkoff as I've experienced similar with a loved one. Long story that I'll not share details here. The system template of three day <or similar short period of time> for psyc triage care is nothing short of irresponsible for these caregivers. You/we have so little control or influence to provide collaborative decision making as to the care our loved one receives from these folks. In my experience the medical insurance provider <who is paying the psyc facility> drives the timing of inpatient care.

Barkoff, ignore Hawkeyes insults, etc. Be mindful that years ago some here nominated him for KOTY awards for opinions he expressed.