Firearms confiscation has started in New York

J

jimpeel

New member
SOURCE

There is an interview with the attorney, Jim Tresmond, HERE.

There is a longer interview with Jim Tresmond the following day (29:31) HERE.

I can't believe this has not yet been addressed on TFL. A search turned up nothing.

This validates my question on the current rush to relieve firearms rights from those who are deemed to be insane. My questions is "Who makes this determination; and will they consider a person who, as a child, was on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, to be unfit to own a firearm?

Under the New New York SAFE law there is this little paragraph which states that if one is on a psychotropic drug, or anti-anxiety/anti-depressant medications, their firearms permits will be voided and they will be ordered to turn in all of their firearms. There is no provision for the state buying the firearms, just confiscating them.

It seems that this person was on a psychotropic drug for treatment at one point and he received a letter of demand that he turn in his lawfully owned firearms. This he did after hiring an attorney versed in firearms laws. The attorney took him, and his firearms, to the PD and he turned them in and received a receipt. He fully expects that he will have them returned after a hearing.

The rub is this: How did the police find out that he had been on a psychotropic drug in the first place? This appears to be a violation of the HIPPA law. If that is so, and it appears to be so, the state is in violation of HIPPA.

So when Gov. Cuomo stated that there was no movement to confiscate anyone's firearms, he lied.

I fear that this entire movement to exclude the "insane" will backfire on us; and we will have bureaucrats deeming anyone they feel like to be insane just as they used to do in the USSR with political dissidents.
 
Thanks for posting that ! My questions have been similar.A few years back a fellow in Italy [socialized medicine] spoke to a doctor while getting some treatment and casually mentioned he had at one time taken anti depressants .The use was short term and successful. When the doctor heard that the patients permit was taken away.
There was a recent and similar case in Europe in the news.
The decisions are going to probably be made by a bureaucrat with no re-examination.
We're facing some very hard times now especially here in NY.
BTW if the Gov't has your private information ,it's no longer private .For example the EPA has admitted it collected private info on farmers and sent that to enviromental groups !
 
I'm sure they will not just use the term "insane" when they can use a broader term like "at risk" to include more people in a ban and lessening their burden of proof needed.
 
His rights are supoosed to be reinstated today by the judge that took them away - Appears the NYS police made a mistake! Go figure!
 
Good Lord Almighty! It's like some of the states are playing a giant game of "Let's Violate Those Rights!" Just from that article alone, I can see possible violations of the:
A2
A4
A5
A14 (x2)
HIPAA
 
Article said:
Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:

The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.
Click to expand...
RNs are now "mental health professionals"? I suspect that's going to come as a surprise to a lot of RNs.
 
the latest is the county clerk is blaming the state police....and admit a mistake was made. A lawsuit is still coming on the issue.

another posted.."when the government does somthing wrong; it's a mistake
when a citizen does somthing wrong; it's a felony"

with the safe act in mind....guilty til proven innocent is the way it goes.
 
jimpeel said:
So when Gov. Cuomo stated that there was no movement to confiscate anyone's firearms, he lied.
Click to expand...

Of course he did. To believe otherwise would be the height of naivety.

When they say they're not taking anyone's guns, it's just "these" evil ones, "these" magazines, just "these" people, just "this" compromise, they're lying.

That's what they do.

That's why we lose every time we compromise. That's why we lose when we don't care what they're doing because we don't own "that kind" anyway.

It's only felons that can't have guns.... oops, it's only felons and really serious misdemeanors.... oops, it's only felons and really serious misdemeanors and any other crime with a POTENTIAL jail time over a certain, arbitrary and capricious number.... oops... it's only all those people and the really crazy ones.... oops.... and anyone who's ever taken a psychiatric drug....

They lie and it's never the last lie. They always come back for more.

That's why the blindness of so many on "our side" is so damn frustrating. "Why can't we just compromise?", they say. "Where is the middle ground?!", they say.

We've BEEN compromised since the 1930s, AT LEAST. We passed the middle ground DECADES AGO! That's why you can't find it! It's in the rear-view mirror! Open your eyes, people!
 
Last edited:
Nice post Brian. I used to think the compromise road too a few years back. But it doesn't take long to see the pattern and the long term goals. I agree that if the middle ground isn't in the past, we are at least at it already without any of the proposed legislation (some states are well past).

On a positive note, I contacted all of my representatives and senators and was happy to get positive responses from all but one of them. I thanked the positive responses for doing a good job and politely told the one senator that she has to do what she feels is right but that i was watching how everyone votes on the issue and it will affect not only who my family votes for but also who we support in the upcoming elections (2014, 2016, ect). The original bill has already been killed in MN.

I did take the time to explain what was wrong with the bill including some personal examples (my family target shoots and also collects firearms and the bill would have confiscated a number of my father-in-laws guns from the family). But I also kept the letters to under a page (half a page for Bachmann as she's busier). And they did get read as I got personal responses back from all of them including the standard form letter from Bachmann's office but then a personal letter on the subject re-affirming her support a week later.
 
As I understand it, here's how this went down.

Someone at the NY Dept. of Health Services gathered up a list of those who had used or were using anti-anxiety drugs - specifically, SSRI's. This list was handed over to the State Police who matched names with those who have firearms permits. When a match was found, a letter was issued to the individual, to the local Firearms Board and local Police.

We know what has happened, in at least one case, after this.

What we don't know is how many matches were found, how many permits were revoked and how many people were forced to give up their arms... Magazines were also confiscated, under the pretext that the subject(s) would no longer need them.

Nor do we know who initiated this records search. State Police? Some "well meaning" bureaucrat at the Dept. of Health? The office of the Governor?

Yes, this appears to be a State violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). It would also appear to be a violation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA - aka, obamacare).
 
[Yes, this appears to be a State violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). It would also appear to be a violation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA - aka, obamacare).
Click to expand...

I don't expect NY state cares. This is why I think the real thrust of the new disarmarment program is at the state level.

It will take a long time and lots of effort to reverse unconstitutional laws at the state level. In the meantime, many law-abiding citizens can be hassled, firearms siezed and "lost" or otherwise retained by authorities, who will tell taxpayers "sue me, and give me the money to fight with you".

I could be wrong, would like to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is exactly why I disagreed with centralized electronic health records here...

It was sold as for "the convenience of patients to move from doctor to doctor without having to bring stacks of paper with them"...
 
Al Norris said:
As I understand it, here's how this went down.

Someone at the NY Dept. of Health Services gathered up a list of those who had used or were using anti-anxiety drugs - specifically, SSRI's.
Click to expand...
Question #1: How did the Dept. Of Health Services get that information?
 
That's why we lose every time we compromise. That's why we lose when we don't care what they're doing because we don't own "that kind" anyway.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Compromise works very well for the party who wants to take something, because they get something, just not everything they wanted to get. It works very badly for the party who wants to keep something, because they lose something, just not everything they could have lost.
When they say they're not taking anyone's guns, it's just "these" evil ones, "these" magazines, just "these" people, just "this" compromise, they're lying.
Click to expand...
I was proud to be among those who stood up for the .50 BMG crowd when they were small in number and in a position to be 'compromised away' by us who shoot more typical firearms. Standing together is what we need to do now.
 
"Question #1: How did the Dept. Of Health Services get that information? "

I would imagine a "helpful" drone at HHS was more than happy to provide them with this information, HIPAA or no HIPAA. You have to remember that DHHS considers firearms a public health issue and are no doubt working closely with those state agencies looking to expand gun control efforts.
 
csmsss said:
I would imagine a "helpful" drone at HHS was more than happy to provide them with this information, HIPAA or no HIPAA. You have to remember that DHHS considers firearms a public health issue and are no doubt working closely with those state agencies looking to expand gun control efforts.
Click to expand...
Of that, I have no doubt. Frankly, I would love to be the guy writing some Requests for Admissions for the (no doubt coming) lawsuit.
 
Nice post Brian. I used to think the compromise road too a few years back. But it doesn't take long to see the pattern and the long term goals. I agree that if the middle ground isn't in the past, we are at least at it already without any of the proposed legislation (some states are well past).
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the current legislation by the Fed. See the strategy?

States like NY and CO pass really draconian laws, laws that probably won't stand if challenged in the courts.

Then the Fed "compromises" and passes something minor, background checks, whatever else, even passing some things that look pro-gun.

But while the really bad State Laws are slowly over turned, the very reasonable Federal Law is unchallenged while establishing that the Federal Government has authority to regulate firearms ownership, trade, etc for the entire nation.

It's a Bull Fight and they have us watching the cape while they aim the sword at our heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top