How can they deny them their gun rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.
I can understand denying someone's gun rights if they have been convicted of a felony or tell a psychiatrist that they are crazy and want to hurt themselves or others. But if they are just saying they have 'stress' than that shouldn't be enough to take their gun rights. How many cops don't have stress?


Maybe the article just isn't explaining it well enough. But legally, that shouldn't be enough to take someone's gun rights, should it?






http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-cops-firefighters-massive-911-fraud-indictment/story?id=21445783



.
New York Cops, Firefighters in Massive 9/11 Fraud, Indictment Says

Jan. 7, 2014
By AARON KATERSKY

And some of the retired officers retained their gun permits. Retired officers cannot possess guns if they are being treated for stress.
.
Click to expand...
.
 
You need to look at NYS or NYC laws and departmental policies for that one.

If they are claiming enough stress to need significant treatment, that might trigger SAFE or some other NY policy. It might be police specific.

Or the article could be incorrect.

Someone expert on the nuances of NY might speak to legality. Look at

S 9.46

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S02230&Summary=Y&Text=Y

S 9.46 REPORTS OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK OR THREAT OF HARM BY MENTAL HEALTH
12 PROFESSIONALS.
13 (A) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM "MENTAL HEALTH PROFES-
14 SIONAL" SHALL INCLUDE A PHYSICIAN, PSYCHOLOGIST, REGISTERED NURSE OR
15 LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER.
16 (B) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW TO THE CONTRARY, WHEN A MENTAL
17 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL CURRENTLY PROVIDING TREATMENT SERVICES TO A PERSON
18 DETERMINES, IN THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT, THAT
19 SUCH PERSON IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS
20 HARM TO SELF OR OTHERS, HE OR SHE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPORT, AS SOON
21 AS PRACTICABLE, TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, OR THE DIRECTOR'S
22 DESIGNEE, WHO SHALL REPORT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES
23 WHENEVER HE OR SHE AGREES THAT THE PERSON IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN SUCH
24 CONDUCT. INFORMATION TRANSMITTED TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
25 SERVICES SHALL BE LIMITED TO NAMES AND OTHER NON-CLINICAL IDENTIFYING
26 INFORMATION, WHICH MAY ONLY BE USED FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A LICENSE
27 ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 400.00 OF THE PENAL LAW SHOULD BE SUSPENDED
28 OR REVOKED, OR FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS INELIGIBLE FOR A
29 LICENSE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 400.00 OF THE PENAL LAW, OR IS NO
30 LONGER PERMITTED UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW TO POSSESS A FIREARM.
Click to expand...

That might be the rationale. Just a guess as I'm not a SAFE expert or the nuances of the retired police permit procedures.
 
I'm sure they'll do what ever they want to, as this is after all, New York City. :banghead:

That is until a judge tells them not to. :uhoh: ;)
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
Maybe the article just isn't explaining it well enough. But legally, that shouldn't be enough to take someone's gun rights, should it?
Click to expand...
I thought the article was pretty clear, I don't think you're understanding it completely.

But if they are just saying they have 'stress' than that shouldn't be enough to take their gun rights. How many cops don't have stress?
Click to expand...
We all have stress, it's just part of any job. But the officers being charged were claiming to "suffered from debilitating stress." Plus it is likely departmental policy
 
The article from the OP's post does not relate to RKBA. If it does, I don't see it. However, I think the OP is concerned at having RKBA taken away as a result of PTSD. This article. . . http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_24840259?source=bb

The preceding article is one of the few mainstream publications covering the DOJ & DHHS proposal. The gun forums and sites are claiming Obama's issued an Executive Order on this... Not true but also not too far from the truth.
 
Does anyone supporting or enforcing this policy know the definition of "counterproductive"?

How likely is a person potentially benefiting from treatment for stress likely to seek such treatment if it means being subjected to microscopic, bureaucratic examination?

A stressed person with a gun is a LOT safer to all concerned WITH treatment than without.

Lost Sheep
 
9mmepiphany said:
I thought the article was pretty clear, I don't think you're understanding it completely.


We all have stress, it's just part of any job. But the officers being charged were claiming to "suffered from debilitating stress." Plus it is likely departmental policy
Click to expand...
Agreed. Noise.
 
9mmepiphany said:
I thought the article was pretty clear, I don't think you're understanding it completely.


We all have stress, it's just part of any job. But the officers being charged were claiming to "suffered from debilitating stress." Plus it is likely departmental policy
Click to expand...

Right. And one said he had a fear of crowds in his claim of disability.

A disability due to fear of crowds, IMO, should get a CCP revoked if noting else.

The LOL part of that guy is.....

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories...irst-responders-charged-with-disability-fraud
Another, who received benefits because of a fear of crowds, was discovered selling cannolis in Little Italy during the Feast of San Gennaro festival that brings more than a million people to the neighborhood, NBC New York reported.
Click to expand...
 
Keep in mind this is NY where its difficult for the average Joe to possess a gun. Retired cops have a bit of an easier time with it so its easy to imagine that the privilege they enjoy over other citizens could easily be revoked.

However, it is worth mentioning the article uses the term possess rather than carry so this goes a bit further than bringing them to the same level of common citizens.
 
This was not an RKBA issue.

This is a fraud case. Essentially, a bunch of cops and firefighters were coached on how to qualify for disability payments fraudulently. It was not that they just said they had stress, they falsely reported that they had stress that was debilitating to the point of being unable to work.

I heard another report that gave some more information.

Don't remember the details exactly, but the basics are that one item they were coached on was to report that the stress caused them to be unfit to use a gun in their job.

For a gun permit, you can't have reported that. So, they either lied on the gun permit or lied on the disability claim.

Either way, the issue is that people faked disability to get millions of dollars in benefits, the gun issue is very secondary.
 
From that article:
Several perpetrators of the nation's worst mass shootings have had mental health issues, including Newtown shooter Adam Lanza. However, they acquired their guns in different ways, with Lanza using firearms purchased by his mother when he went on a rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Click to expand...

I notice they didn't mention the Navy Yard guy. Come to think of it, I haven't seen much hyperventilating by the gun control groups about that one at all. Is it because he used a plain jain shotgun and they'd like us to think a Evil Black Rifle is needed for a shooting rampage? Is it because it happened in a Federal gun free zone? Is it because he had a security clearance (meaning he'd undergone more than simply a NICS check)? Does that incident just not fit their narrative?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top