NY state has started to take firearms.

[RED333]

A Form of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun in New York State — Here’s the Justification Being Used

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/a-form-of-gun-confiscation-has-reportedly-begun-in-new-york-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/

 

How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs.

 

It is coming, contact your Reps, TODAY and every day

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, as much as I heard about HIPAA being the secrecy for medical records, that is now officially

dead.

[npgunner]

Only a matter of time ...
There's a reason one of Obama's EO's clarified that care providers can ask if you own guns and its not for "safety."
Letting the government so far into so many details of our lives is only going to result in more things like this.

[Chief07]

"No we don't want your guns"

"It's all about safety and the children"

 

Yea............I got a bridge for sale too

 

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

[TripleDigitRide]

And how easily they give them up.

[rugerla1]

And how easily they give them up.

Scary huh? History repeats all while saying, " Yeah, but that was there and this time its different"

[npgunner]

And how easily they give them up.

True. It sounds like this guy did everything he could have done "legally" to prevent it and (hopefully) get his guns back. Besides not volunteering his guns and having a shoot-out when the cops came to take them what else could be have done? (I doubt the shoot-out would do much for our cause either).

[Raoul]

.. Edited April 10, 2013 by Raoul

[xjsnake]

Makes you wonder what happens to the people that are on SSRI's for things other than psychiatric problems. Some of the SSRI's are fantastic blood pressure stabilizers for people with low blood pressure or neurocardiogenic syncope.

[GKar]

If you aren't eligible to own a firearm if on SSRI's, then you shouldn't be eligible to hold public office if you take them, either...just sayin...

[RED333]

Stuff has me worried a good bit, shame they will come after us one at a time, but that is what it is.

[RED333]

If you aren't eligible to own a firearm if on SSRI's, then you shouldn't be eligible to hold public office if you take them, either...just sayin...

Hey you just might be on to something.

[dats82]

Let this be a lesson to all those who think the government should be responsible for providing healthcare to the public.  That opens the door to just about anything that they can twist into being detrimental to your or anyone else's health.  This does not even scratch the surface of things that can be mandated or regulated if you think the government should be responsible for your health. 

 

Just another argument in support of the statement, "Big government equals less freedom."  I personally do not find this surprising from the state that thinks it's both acceptable and  curative to regulate the size of the soft drink a person can buy. 

Edited April 10, 2013 by dats82

[Guest Cami]

"I'm from the government and I am hear to help you".

[JohnC]

They'll start with this and then move to every other drug or medication they can to revoke your 2A rights.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn]

True. It sounds like this guy did everything he could have done "legally" to prevent it and (hopefully) get his guns back. Besides not volunteering his guns and having a shoot-out when the cops came to take them what else could be have done? (I doubt the shoot-out would do much for our cause either).

Just handing them over doesn't help our cause either.

[npgunner]

Just handing them over doesn't help our cause either.

So what is the reasonable option?

 

As I see it, these are the options:

1. Hand them over and fight it in through the system, which I agree with you is likely to result in actions/decision we find unacceptable (i.e., taking our guns, not getting them back, undue hassel, etc.)

2. Refuse to hand over your guns, peacefully resist, but ultimately will likely result in your arrest.  Depending on your location, the people around you may or may not be sympathetic to your cause

3. Refuse to hand over your guns, and resist with whatever force is available to you.  This for sure is unlikely to result in good consequences.

 

I think they would be equally as happy if the endgame is either gun confiscation and/or the need to send in the troops against us.  The only way for us to fight this is to vote in politicans sympathetic to our cause and to the Constitution. 

[Glenn]

I agree. There doesn't seem to be a good option. one or even 100 people refusing to cooperate just makes their actions seem more necessary.

[Guest MilitiaMan]

We recently switched to a new pediatrician for our daughters. They asked, among other ridiculous things, "Are there any guns in the home?". My answer, "None of your business."

 

I have taught my children to respond with the same if they are asked that when we are not around, such as in school. And if they are asked more than once, to then respond "I want my mom and dad." And then to sit quietly and do not say another word until we arrive.

 

 

 

Oh, one of the other retarded questions asked was:

 

"Are the parents related in any other way other than marriage?" - Really?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So what is the reasonable option?

 

As I see it, these are the options:

1. Hand them over and fight it in through the system, which I agree with you is likely to result in actions/decision we find unacceptable (i.e., taking our guns, not getting them back, undue hassel, etc.)

2. Refuse to hand over your guns, peacefully resist, but ultimately will likely result in your arrest.  Depending on your location, the people around you may or may not be sympathetic to your cause

3. Refuse to hand over your guns, and resist with whatever force is available to you.  This for sure is unlikely to result in good consequences.

 

I think they would be equally as happy if the endgame is either gun confiscation and/or the need to send in the troops against us.  The only way for us to fight this is to vote in politicans sympathetic to our cause and to the Constitution. 

Should be number and 3, only. That law is unconstitutional and those people in New York state should just

say "Come and get it!" I am really surprised Cuomo isn't readying his attorney general for one Hell of a lawsuit in the Federal court system, because he is fixing to have one. The 2nd Amendment is not a state's rights argument, except that the state should fight to uphold a fixed in concrete amendment to the Constitution. The courts have already done their job respecting the 2nd, and if people don't stand up

to these criminals running their state, they should suffer the consequences of their outright stupidity.

 

That's the mild version of what I think.

Edited April 10, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[npgunner]

6.8 I agree with you on many levels.  Reading your post made me think about, and realize something.  At least in certain states, there seems to be a disappearing line of "state" and "federal."  It's almost as if these states (NY, CO, CA, etc.) are just "mini-feds" and have aligned policies to execute the will of the ever growing federal .gov.  Can't get it through the federal congress, ok, we'll just pass the same laws (if not stricter) through the state congresses; almost as if, in their mind, the state power comes from federal power.  That's a scary thought.  More states need to create backlash against this type of situation with all the might they have (although, likely very little in NY and CA).  I'd also like to see more verbal responses against the encroachment on our rights from military and LE leaders.

 

As Glenn mentioned above .. there doesn't seem to be a good option if the Police knock on your door and want your guns.  Do you shoot the people there to take them?  We all know how the media will portray that (also, IMO, the .gov/media complex is one of THE biggest problems facing us now).  I'm not sure what I'd do ... 

[Guest ab28]

Makes you wonder what happens to the people that are on SSRI's for things other than psychiatric problems. Some of the SSRI's are fantastic blood pressure stabilizers for people with low blood pressure or neurocardiogenic syncope.

I think that mentally ill people still have the right to defend themselves. Stuff like this is going to make people not seek help because they are worried their rights will be taken away from them.

[Wingshooter]

They took the ones they knew about, anyway I guess.

 

If I were him, I would be spending my money on three things right now...

 

1) attorneyS,

2) moving to another state,

3) purchasing more guns than they took from the next non-NY gunshow

[JohnC]

We recently switched to a new pediatrician for our daughters. They asked, among other ridiculous things, "Are there any guns in the home?". My answer, "None of your business."
 
I have taught my children to respond with the same if they are asked that when we are not around, such as in school. And if they are asked more than once, to then respond "I want my mom and dad." And then to sit quietly and do not say another word until we arrive.
 
 
 
Oh, one of the other retarded questions asked was:
 
"Are the parents related in any other way other than marriage?" - Really?

Flat out no would be best. Trust me, they probably have another box to check like "refused to answer" which will basically mean a yes to the folks looking at this info.

[rugerla1]

Even if you say no, if the doctor thinks you're lying, what's stopping him from checking "Replied Yes" and you would never know what he checked off? Nothing. I'm saying no regardless but just saying.