New York flags 278 gun owners as mentally unstable.

[The Legion]

New York State’s tough new SAFE Act gun control law has flagged 278 gun owners who could lose their weapons because they have been deemed mentally unstable, a new report shows.

 

 

Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged lawmakers to pass the SAFE Act quickly after the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

 

 

 

The Syracuse Post-Standard reported last week that since the law’s enactment, the state has collected 38,718 names in a database of individuals who have been found at-risk for owning guns by psychiatrists and other health professionals.

The paper said when the database was checked against a list of pistol permit holders in the state, there were 278 matches, less than 1 percent.

Monroe County had the most matches at 36, followed by Westchester, 17, Suffolk, 16 and Dutchess, 14.

The paper said it obtained the county-by-county breakdown from the state in response to a public records law request.

The paper reported that the state does not tally how many individuals in the database have had their permits suspended and guns confiscated. The names in the database are confidential. Judges have to sign off on the suspensions and confiscations, and someone who faces the loss of their permit and weapons can challenge the order.

Cortland County Clerk Elizabeth Larkin told the Post-Standard the police confiscated the guns from a least one permit holder whose name was in the database.

“We had another man who came in and voluntarily handed us his permit and gave his weapons to the police and said, ‘I don’t want them anymore,’” Larkin said.

The size of the database troubles some mental health providers and patient advocates.

“It’s bigger than I thought,” Harvey Rosenthal, executive director of the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilition Services in Albany, told the Post-Standard. “It sends a message to those who might need care that there are a lot of people who are going to be in a database.”

Gun control advocates say the number of names in the database is small compared to the size of the state’s population, which is 20 million.

“It only takes one individual to wreak mayhem and tragedy if they have access to a firearm,” Leah Gunn Barrett, of the group New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said. “These are individuals who, under no circumstances, should have guns.”

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/07/new-york-safe-act-flags-278-gun-owners-as-mentally-unstable/

[Hozzie]

I don't really have an issue with this.  Isn't this what we expect, to keep guns out of mentally unstable persons hands?  It has to go through a judge and they can appeal.  You can argue about how people get put on the mentally unstable list, but we can't bitch about crazy people having guns and using them and also that a state shouldn't use the data they should be using to try and prevent unstable people from obtaining or having access to guns.  

 

There is a lot of gray area of course, but I think the number seems pretty reasonable.

[Hershmeister]

Well i sure feel safer knowing that no more shootings by crazy people will happen in new york!

[VERO1]

I guess all those HIPPA rules are just out the window then?

[hipower]

Wasn't there a provision in this legislation that allowed individuals to point fingers at others? Not just the medical people?

[Ugly]

But what do they consider mental defectives? I bet it's folks with add and the like.
It should be those registered as LWT's I mean dem's.

So there are extreme lefties deciding who is a mental defective? Hahahahahaha

Go before a lefty court to try to get em back, again hahahahahaha

Pure grab! IMHO Edited December 8, 2014 by Ugly

[RED333]

Mentally unstable, If you own  a firearm, you have to be crazy, if you want to own a firearm, you have to be crazy.

Sounds strange, well just wait.

Take a drug for depression, get your firearm taken.

It wont be long before you medical records can be cross referenced, can you say OBAMA CARE!!!

The left will come up with a way to take all firearms.

[nightrunner]

This is why I dont go to the doctor unless im about to die.

[Ugly]

The article states that these people may not even know they have been listed as mentally unstable since the state doesn't require notification.

Sounds like the powers that be are living in a parallel universe where they rule in the dark, because the people need to be ruled.
The comments about the topic are classic, it's nice to know not everyone is a "defective"
There is something seriously wrong with lefties! Edited December 8, 2014 by Ugly

[Hunter444]

But what do they consider mental defectives? I bet it's folks with add and the like.
It should be those registered as LWT's I mean dem's.
So there are extreme lefties deciding who is a mental defective? Hahahahahaha
Go before a lefty court to try to get em back, again hahahahahaha
Pure grab! IMHO

I agree 100 percent.

[E4 No More]

I don't really have an issue with this.  Isn't this what we expect, to keep guns out of mentally unstable persons hands?  It has to go through a judge and they can appeal.  You can argue about how people get put on the mentally unstable list, but we can't bitch about crazy people having guns and using them and also that a state shouldn't use the data they should be using to try and prevent unstable people from obtaining or having access to guns.  

 

There is a lot of gray area of course, but I think the number seems pretty reasonable.

How would you feel if you had to go through the expense to hire an attorney to fight an unjustified claim? What would you do if you didn't have the funds to appeal?

[Hunter444]

And who the heck knows how long the appeals process would take? 6 months?  a year?

I don't want mentally unstable people to own guns but I also dont trust the powers at be in NY to decide who they are.

[Hozzie]

How would you feel if you had to go through the expense to hire an attorney to fight an unjustified claim? What would you do if you didn't have the funds to appeal?

 

I am sure I would be pissed, but I also would do what I had to do to protect my rights.  This isn't the only issue where you may have to defend yourself from something unjustified (in your opinion) someone else has accused you of.  I think we all know plenty of people who think they are always right when there is truth somewhere in the middle.  For me, that is why we have a legal system to sort it out.  It doesn't always get it right, but it is the best system we have.

 

I am not arguing that there aren't cases where this can be abused.  All I am saying is that gun owners can't complain that it is the mentally unstable causing all of these issues and then complain when a state tries to do something to keep people who really shouldn't have a gun from getting or having one.  I realize this is NY and there is plenty of room for suspicion, but we can't (well some can, but it doesn't make it right either) just unilaterally say that because it is NY that we shouldn't somehow try to keep mentally unstable people from having guns. 

Edited December 8, 2014 by Hozzie

[E4 No More]

I am sure I would be pissed, but I also would do what I had to do to protect my rights.  This isn't the only issue where you may have to defend yourself from something unjustified (in your opinion) someone else has accused you of.  I think we all know plenty of people who think they are always right when there is truth somewhere in the middle.  For me, that is why we have a legal system to sort it out.  It doesn't always get it right, but it is the best system we have.

 

I am not arguing that there aren't cases where this can be abused.  All I am saying is that gun owners can't complain that it is the mentally unstable causing all of these issues and then complain when a state tries to do something to keep people who really shouldn't have a gun from getting or having one.  I realize this is NY and there is plenty of room for suspicion, but we can't (well some can, but it doesn't make it right either) just unilaterally say that because it is NY that we shouldn't somehow try to keep mentally unstable people from having guns. 

And what happens when the "slippery slope" takes effect? All it takes is an activist doctor colluding with an activist judge. You can't say that it won't happen since special interest groups judge shop all of the time.

 

Irony: It's illegal to doctor shop but legal to judge shop. The former pretty much effects the individual whereas the latter effects pretty much everyone.

Edited December 8, 2014 by SWJewellTN

[peejman]

I'm guessing the doctors aren't required (or obligated) to inform their patient that they've been labelled as such.  The patient finds out when the Gestapo shows up to confiscate.  So much for innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  One can now be proven guilty in a doctor's office.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping guns away from the insane asylum, but I lack confidence that this would be handled appropriately. 

[DaveTN]

Judges have to sign off on the suspensions and confiscations, and someone who faces the loss of their permit and weapons can challenge the order.

They should have to do like they do with your driver’s license; they send a notice of the hearing to the address on the permit, and then it’s up to you to be there.

[daddyo]

Living in a free society carries risk. I'm not in favor of this... at all.

[Randy W]

I don't believe that the Connecticut shooting he owned the weapons. They were his moms. So now what are they going to check to see if any family and friends have guns  the "mentally unstable" might have access to......  Personal Responsibility---- 2 words most dems have no clue about.... 

[Grand Torino]

I'm sure this law won't be used and abused by those with an agenda.

[Hunter444]

Living in a free society carries risk. I'm not in favor of this... at all.

A great Point and solid truth. No where does it say this life is free from risk or danger. If we went by the death and injury numbers, you might as well confiscate everyone's car. No chainsaws, sports, stairs, no swimming, and dang, for sure no alcohol.

[Ugly]

I don't believe that the Connecticut shooting he owned the weapons. They were his moms. So now what are they going to check to see if any family and friends have guns the "mentally unstable" might have access to...... Personal Responsibility---- 2 words most dems have no clue about....

Exactly! They've been doing it in Cali for a couple of years now. Let's say wife admits herself, means that when she comes home guns can no longer be in the house. I believe another scenario in the libs eyes would be if a kid in the house was on Ritalin, or any psyc drugs. There was an investigation done by the NRA investigator, Ginny Simone
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/22/aggressive-gun-confiscation-in-california-out-of-control-81999

http://www.nranews.com/home/document/aggressive-gun-confiscation-in-california-out-of-control

[Worriedman]

Let's just lock all the mentally unstable people up, take care of them, feed them and give them phones and free medical care.  That will fix it.  If their every need and want is met, and they are controlled, they will not be out looking for a gun for any reason.

[Hershmeister]

A great Point and solid truth. No where does it say this life is free from risk or danger. If we went by the death and injury numbers, you might as well confiscate everyone's car. No chainsaws, sports, stairs, no swimming, and dang, for sure no alcohol.

A world managed to be without risk is by definition tyrannical as it removes free will.

Here is your risk free world:

[E4 No More]

A world managed to be without risk is by definition tyrannical as it removes free will.

Here is your risk free world:

Mother!!

[Dustbuster]

All they did was make a list of all the divorcees that live in that state. Voila!