Capital District SCOPE

Learn the Truth NY needs an election audit. We explain Why.

Tuesday, April 18, 2023, at 7:00 PM

NEW YORK CITIZENS AUDIT Presentation followed by Q&A with MARLY HORNIK Diretor of New York Citizens Audit

Clifton Park Elks Lodge #2466
695 Mac Elroy Road
Ballston Lake, NY

FREE ADMISSION – Donations Accepted

Gillibrand is pushing for the new credit card code for banks to track gun sales. The reason is supposedly to help law enforcement monitor suspicious and criminal activity. Not ONE single suspicious or criminal activity will be found by this. The REAL REASON is to work around the law. To work around a law against a government gun registry database and to get private enterprise to make one for the government.

Contact her here to tell her you oppose this: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/email-me

from spectrum news: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/ny-state-of-politics/2022/12/05/gillibrand-wants-better-ways-of-tracking-gun-sales

from WRGB: https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/sen-gillibrand-calls-on-feds-to-speed-up-tracking-of-gun-ammunition-purchases

The Albany County Legislature will discuss proposed Local Law J, mandatory firearms storage, at the next scheduled meeting on September 12 @ 6:30pm.

Here is a copy of the bill. http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/files/Albany-LL-J-2022.pdf

If you can, please argue with them and share this.

Talking points:
According to the Heller decision, mandating a gun lock is unconstitutional. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (see last paragraph of pg 2) They should have their County Attorney approve of it’s constitutionality first.

Section 2. They don’t specify how many accidental shootings occur in Albany County per year to justify this law. They should add that.

Section 3. Custodian of Weapon needs to be defined

Section 4. Is “out of immediate possession” inclusive of when you are sleeping

Section 5. Does this Negligent Storage in the second degree include a spouse or adult family member’s access

Section 7. Transfer of a weapon, does it include letting someone use the weapon at a range. Would they be required to have a gun lock on it as it is transferred.

Section 9. Severability. If any section is deemed unconstitutional, will all sponsors and voters and the County Attorney for the bill resign for breaking their oath to the constitution

The Second Amendment says with zero ambiguity, in the English grammar of 1787, that Americans have an absolute right (“shall not be infringed”) to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms because they as individuals may be summoned to become a ‘well-regulated militia’. In the grammar of the 18th century, it’s the militia that is ‘well-regulated’ – orderly, in a clear chain of command, not a chaotic mob — and not the guns.

From Dr. Naomi Wolf

06/05/2022

List of gun control bills which passed in 2022.

• A-1023A/S-4970A, Requires the creation and imposition of restrictive commercial practices and stringent recordkeeping and reporting to prevent gun and ammunition sales to individuals with a criminal record.
• A-3998/S-687, Clarifies the definition of imitation weapon.
• A-7926A/S-4116A, Requires semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in this state to be capable of microstamping ammunition.
• A-8102A/S-6363A, Requires the court to order the search for and immediate seizure of certain firearms when a defendant willfully refuses to surrender such firearms.
• A-8735/S-7760, Requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services to publish quarterly reports providing information related to firearms, rifles and shotguns used in the commission of crimes in the state of New York.
• A-8736/S-7796, Amends the definition of a “disguised gun” to include any firearms designed and intended to appear to be a toy gun.
• A-8741/S-7736, Amends the “Scott J. Beigel Unfinished Receiver Act” relating to unserialized frames or receivers.
• A-8786/S-7705, Criminalizes the sale of ghost guns; requires any person licensed as a gunsmith or a dealer in firearms to register with the Division of Criminal Justice Services any unserialized firearm, rifle or shotgun, finished frame or receiver, or unfinished frame or receiver.
• A-8846/S-7716, Relates to the Firearm Violence Research Institute; makes technical changes to the institute’s procedures, goals and activities.
• A-10428A/S-9229A, Relates to the definition of large capacity ammunition feeding device for purposes of the offense of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; and repeals section 265.36 of the penal law.
• A-10497/S-9407B, Relates to the unlawful purchase and the unlawful sale or delivery of a body vest.
• A-10502/S-9113A, Authorizes certain health care providers to file an application for an Extreme Risk Protection Order against a person examined by such health care provider in certain circumstances.
• A-10503/S-9458, Relates to the purchase or taking possession of a semiautomatic rifle; requires a license to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle; establishes the crimes of criminal purchase of a semiautomatic rifle and criminal sale of a semiautomatic rifle; requires recertification of licenses to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle every five years.
• A-10504/S-9456, Relates to defining firearm; provides that the term firearm shall also include any other weapon that is not otherwise defined containing any component that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of explosive

From GATDAILY and DRGO

[Ed: This piece first ran in SCOPE-NY’s Briefings on April 18. This experience of Sandra Richardson, a Masters level Registered Nurse, exemplifies the damage that Red Flag Laws do (as included in New York’s misleadingly name MHL § 9.46, the S.A.F.E. Act).]

It all began when I sought guidance on managing stress from a healthcare provider. After I did so, a report was filed against me under the New York SAFE Act’s Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) § 9.46, “reports of substantial risk or threat of harm by mental health professionals.”

Under this law, when a mental health provider determines, “in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment,” that a patient is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others,” that provider “shall” be required to report this.  In turn, that information can be used to revoke any pistol license, confiscate all of a person’s guns and make that person ineligible to possess any guns of any kind in this state.

As a result of and five weeks after that report, the Sheriff’s office demanded any guns that I possessed.  That demand was the first notice I received of the report against me.  An order to show cause came in the mail shortly after that, directing me to appear in court to plead my case.

I hired an attorney, prepared my defense, and fought for my rights.  Four months after the report, the court ruled in my favor and my pistol permit was “restored immediately.”  The court’s conclusion of law deemed the MLH § 9.46 report to be “arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.”  A victory, but at a cost of both $4,000 in legal fees and, ironically, magnified stress.

Not only did this process cost me thousands and magnify my stress level, it made me want to share my story to raise awareness.  I also wanted to help providers understand the impact of and their responsibility under this law.  This unfortunate experience should not happen to anyone because they sought care.

Although unfortunate, this experience piqued my curiosity.  I wanted to understand more about the impact of MHL § 9.46 on the citizens of New York.  There are very few people who have shared their story publicly, but I could not be the only person to whom this happened.

I learned that beyond the provider who files a report, the relevant information goes to at least four entities:  the State Office of Mental Health (OMH); the County Director of Community Services; the State Department of Criminal Justice Services (DJCS), and if the reported person has a handgun permit or registered assault weapon, the County Sheriff’s office.

Based on information obtained from a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, OMH has all of the reports ever filed.  Based on another FOIL request, the DCJS has only the past five years of the reports.  The Director of Community Services to whom I spoke told me that he does not retain the information.  It is reasonable to assume that the county Sheriff’s Office retains records of the confiscation of personal property and the cause of such action.

Meanwhile, the subject of the report is not permitted to see it and the reporter is not obligated to make the person aware of the report.  Based on the DCJS FOIL request, only one percent of those reported are notified of the report and that is because they have a handgun permit or registered assault weapon in the state database.  That one percent get a day in court to challenge the allegations and retain their rights.  The remaining ninety-nine percent may never be told that they were reported and may have had multiple Constitutional rights violated, including deprivation of rights and property without due process; specifically, the right to keep and bear arms.  This may be a violation of United States Code Title 18 § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law).

An additional issue is that there is little recourse against the provider who made the report, even if it is found to be false.  Under the law, “the decision of a mental health professional to disclose or not to disclose in accordance with this section, when made reasonably and in good faith, shall not be the basis for any civil or criminal liability of such mental health professional.”  However, what constitutes “good faith” and “reasonably” are not defined in the law, leaving it open to interpretation … or misinterpretation.

Furthermore, it has been recognized that the law itself is not intended to protect any one from harm. In reviewing MHL § 9.46, the New York State Psychiatric Association stated that “…following discussions with OMH staff, it has become clear that the SAFE Act reporting requirement is solely to limit access to legal firearms and not to protect individuals from imminent risk of harm to self and others.”

In addition to these flaws, MHL § 9.46 has created a massive barrier to mental health care. That in itself is counterintuitive to the stated purpose of this law.

In August 2020, Psychiatric Quarterly published an original paper, “The Influence of New York’s SAFE Act on Individuals Seeking Mental Health Treatment.”  The paper reported on a study conducted to determine if the NY SAFE Act impacts mental health treatment-seeking and symptom-reporting behaviors.  According to the study, about 18% of respondents were concerned about being reported to the government, 9% were less likely to seek mental health care, and about 23% were less willing to report mental health symptoms/behaviors to a mental health provider because of the New York State SAFE Act.

Society’s common goal should be to create a space where everyone feels comfortable seeking mental health care when needed.  Getting there will involve reducing bias and stigma surrounding guns and gun owners, and removing barriers to care such as MHL § 9.46 of the New York State SAFE Act. Original Article here: https://gatdaily.com/s-a-f-e-act-violating-the-second-amendment-and-obstructing-mental-health-care/

A-3998/S-687, Clarifies the definition of imitation weapon, has passed the legislature.

The bill states that permissible imitation weapons must be entirely brightly colored or be constructed entirely of transparent or translucent materials, along with other identifying features.

I wonder if there is a Bright Black color?