It IS Happening Here: “Permanent Gun Confiscation” Ordered After Veteran Sought ‘Voluntary’ Treatmen

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by SX200, Jan 3, 2015.

  1. SX200

    New Member

    Likes Received:
  2. Dyjital

    Albany, Ore
    Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    First issue is he lives in NY
    Redcap likes this.
  3. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    I've been warning people about this for years. It's almost certainly going to get worse, and our only real protection is going to be the courts.

    Even the politicians usually on our side are not going to stick their necks out so that "mentally disturbed" (meaning anyone who has ANY contact with a mental health professional for ANY reason) can still have guns.
  4. timac

    Loading Magazines!
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  5. balaperdida

    eastern idaho
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    IIRC, Pelosi stated, a year or two ago, something like: "All veterans have PTSD." For the past 51 years, my wife has handled the household finances. However, I was in the USAR, and never saw combat. Probably why I was invisible to the VA.

    Here is my $0.02:

    The political quack Murthy will use these abominations as a springboard to brainwash the populace to believe that:

    $0.01. Any civilian (non-military, non-LE) who possesses (actual or constructive) a firearm is certifiably insane.

    $0.02. Any civilian who even desires to possess a firearm is mentally disturbed.

    Criminals, of course, are exempt.

    Oh, wait! Possessing a firearm will be a crime.
    Slobray, BoonDocks36 and Caveman Jim like this.
  6. fuhr52

    Lane County. Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Democrats are the adults in the room. We are always told how THEY, democrats, know what is best for their subjects.
    Slobray, BoonDocks36 and Caveman Jim like this.
  7. clearconscience

    Vancouver, WA
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2015
  8. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    ‘Calm, cooperative, no mania’ – confiscate his guns!

    A retired police officer who served in the U.S. Navy is suing Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other New York state officials for confiscating his guns after he was mistakenly diagnosed as mentally unstable.

    Complaining of insomnia after moving to a new house, Donald Montgomery checked into a Long Island hospital, where he was described by medical personnel as “calm, cooperative, no mania, insight good, speech fluent.” He was discharged with a diagnosis of “depression, insomnia.” He later returned to the hospital for further treatment but was mistakenly listed as an “involuntary admission.”

    Under the state’s new SAFE Act gun-control law, an involuntary admission for mental health issues revoked his right to own a handgun, and his four weapons were confiscated by the state.

    “Donald Montgomery is a Navy veteran and accomplished NYPD detective. No stranger to dealing with stress and firearms. Despite the fact that Montgomery’s jobs not only allowed, but required, him to handle firearms in high stress situations, the state of New York decided he was unfit to own firearms after he sought treatment for extreme insomnia,” said Dan Cannon at the Guns Save Lives blog.

    The SAFE Act was “passed literally under the cover of darkness in New York following the Sandy Hook shooting,” the blog post said.

    “One of those new laws changed the state’s mental health laws and encouraged healthcare workers to report people they deemed to be possibly dangerous to themselves or others to the state. It does not have to be a mental health professional who makes these claims.”

    The report said Montgomery “was never involuntarily treated, which is usually a requirement for limiting a person’s firearms rights.”

    In fact, several notes in Montgomery’s medical files specifically say he was not experiencing suicidal or violent thoughts. Montgomery was ultimately diagnosed with insomnia and mild depression – possibly caused by the insomnia – but otherwise no mental health issues were ever mentioned.

    According to the lawsuit, various notes in his file state: “Patient has no thoughts of hurting self. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts. … This is a well-developed, well-kempt male, dressed casually and in no acute distress.

    He is calm, pleasant, cooperative. Eye contact is good, speech is fluent. Mood is mildly depressed. Affect is appropriate, somewhat anxious but otherwise mood-congruent. He denies suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation. There is no evidence of any psychotic process, mania, or OCD symptoms. Insight, judgment, impulse control are good.”

    The complaint argues Montgomery “did not meet the criteria for an emergency mental health admission.”

    However, when he admitted himself for treatment for a night, the hospital described it as an “involuntary admission,” and it refused to change that designation later even in the face of evidence, the complaint said.
    The case alleges a number of constitutional violations by officials who transmitted to an unknown number of recipients incorrect information about Montgomery’s case.

    “The state has amassed the confidential personal health information of tens of thousands of people into a database shared by various state agencies,” it claims.

    When the law was adopted, there were no public hearings on it, no research and no testimony allowed. But state officials immediately complained that the state plan violated the federal medical privacy requirements.
    “The state intends its operations to be conducted in a secretive and over-reaching manner,” the complaint alleges.

    “As it is commonly understood among laymen, it is already chilling those who may be in need of medical and/or mental health services, whether out of fear for their privacy or concern about the Second Amendment freedoms, or both,” the complaint said.

    “To report every person who seeks medical or mental health support services through a government mandate or sponsored program is to fuel the fire of the stigma of a class of persons who are more likely to be victimized than to commit violent crimes with firearms,” it said.

    The case claims violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments.

  9. Redcap

    Lewis County, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Unbelievable. This pisses me off to no end.
  10. freestoneangler

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Here's too hoping he is successful... laying down some precedent for what is still yet to come across America. But, given that we're talking about NY's judicial system, am I the only one who believes the chances of a favorable decision is about as likely as picking the Triple Crown winners?

    Our court systems have been stuffed with politics from the bench judges. This was one of Saul Alinsky's tenants... they have been very successful while we've been ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!
    Slobray and mjbskwim like this.
  11. mjbskwim

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Easy peasy fix to gun control.
    Everybody who comes thru Dr's office has dementia.
    Well too much resistance other ways they have tried.
    So now it's don't talk to the Dr too?
  12. Slobray

    Yelm, WA
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    I truly believe that is the anti's goal.

    mjbskwim likes this.
  13. mjbskwim

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Main thing I can see is the Dr asking a kid if dad has guns and has anger issues.
    Dad's always get angry when the have kids,some less than others,but what's the kid guna say?
    I wouldn't let the doc see my kid without me of mom in the room,at all
    8 years of college they can wrap up most of us with their BS,they can easily twist a kid around
    Slobray likes this.
  14. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Well as usual, this kind of thing produces the exact opposite results that any sane person would want.

    If you're a gun owner and suffering from depression, DON'T go to get some help, because they will take away your rights.

    So more suicides, more job issues, more everything that happens with untreated mental issues.

    It's so hard AS IT IS, to get people to go get some help when they need it. Putting up a very concrete and good reason to NOT get help is the most insanely counter-productive idea ever to come out.

    So now you have people with guns and mental health issues that are easily treated who will NOT get help, thereby producing MORE of the very problems these people claim to care about preventing.o_O
    sailorfej, WasrNwarpaint and Slobray like this.
  15. druiseeker

    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    My rant...

    Once you disarm the people, the only people with weapons are your criminals. Hell, during Katrina when guns were being confiscated, people were left without any means of self-protection. And they did it when people needed their guns the most to help insure their own safety and that of their families at a time when rioting, looting, rape, and murder were being committed on a large scale.

    During the Ferguson riots, some of the few businesses that were vandalized were due to the store employees/owners being armed.

    Making people vulnerable before terrorists (which is exactly what that was), is criminal. God help us. As it's already happening here... I hope people step up try to stop this and VOTE.
    Dyjital likes this.

Share This Page