Posted on Dec 5, 2014
Buffalo, NY to seize guns after funeral of owners
4.47K
38
15
5
5
0
With all the discussions about guns lately what are your thoughts on this? Should the families be given more time to apply for permits or have them added to their existing permits? Should they be allowed to sell them? If 15 days really long enough (given that many permits take well over 6 months in certain places)?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/buffalo-police-search-for-firearms-at-home-after-funerals/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/buffalo-police-search-for-firearms-at-home-after-funerals/
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
2nd Amendment Firearms and Guns
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 8
7
7
0
Does the State of New York treat REGISTERED automobiles in the same manner? Both cars and guns are potentially dangerous and deadly pieces of equipment but clearly the State of New York doesn't feel obligated to confiscate every dead person's car: There is no logical reason to treat firearms any differently.
Since you're asking my opinion, I will start by stating the Obvious. The "State" already has enough guns, as well as a monopoly on the initiation of force. Guns are, and should be treated as personal property and should therefore be treated as such by the State when one passes away. Wills, should be the deciding factor regarding where firearms should end up, once one passes away. If the person the gun is willed to does not meet the State's criteria for gun ownership then the heir should be given the opportunity transfer ownership to another qualified heir, or to have the gun sold by, or through a dealer. Either way, the guns belong to the owner who should be able to dispose of them in any manner he/she sees fit.
Since you're asking my opinion, I will start by stating the Obvious. The "State" already has enough guns, as well as a monopoly on the initiation of force. Guns are, and should be treated as personal property and should therefore be treated as such by the State when one passes away. Wills, should be the deciding factor regarding where firearms should end up, once one passes away. If the person the gun is willed to does not meet the State's criteria for gun ownership then the heir should be given the opportunity transfer ownership to another qualified heir, or to have the gun sold by, or through a dealer. Either way, the guns belong to the owner who should be able to dispose of them in any manner he/she sees fit.
(7)
(0)
1
1
0
If the individual died intestate perhaps they would at least have an argument. But what is described here is the seizure of private property from an estate (with standard rights during the process), the possession aforementioned guns is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
What a CROCK!
What a CROCK!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
This program appears legal, but ill-advised. If the Buffalo, NY Chief of Police is really so concerned, why not consider a public education program to inform the public of their rights as heirs, and their legal duty (the 15-day rule). This way, people could make informed decisions in compliance with state law, and the Buffalo PD wouldn't appear to be playing "gotcha!" with the heirs of legal gun owners. I suspect that most people in upstate NY would like to see this state law abolished or amended, but they'll face stiff resistance from the law enforcement and NYC communities who want to maintain strict gun control. In case anyone is wondering, it's nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit in NYC unless you're law enforcement (active or retired).
(1)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn
Like it or not, SSG Gerhard S., NYC and the State of NY strongly believe that "Broken Windows" policing and extremely strict gun control brought their violent crime statistics down, so they remain wedded to those strategies. Please understand that I'm not defending them, just seeking to explain. I think I gained some insight into NYC after working there 2010-2013 and studying at SJU 2011-2014, so I'm trying to translate for the benefit of other RP members who may not understand NY politics.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn , I agree that NY is wedded to that philosophy, but I also understand that such thinking is contrary to our Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the property rights associated with both. Such ideas are more in line with the thinking of the Nazi's and the Soviets, and the tyrants of every dictatorship one can recall.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn
With respect, SSG Gerhard S., that's an extremely harsh characterization. I understand that many people disagree with strict gun control, but comparisons to Nazis and Soviets (who hated each other) is mud-slinging, not debate. Furthermore, the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution (as in, "The second amendment to the Constitution states ..."), a fact not in evidence from your phrasing. I'd suggest that gun owners in upstate NY, particularly residents of Buffalo, advocate for their opinions through local government activism. They'd probably make progress that way.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn, I would first point out that I did not characterize NY, or Buffalo, or anyone else as either Nazi's, Soviet (Communists), or tyrannical dictators. I DID, however accurately characterize the idea that guns should not be trusted in the hands of the people as being "in line" with those listed political philosophies. Each of which require an all powerful State with no means for the populous to exercise their will, or to defend themselves from criminals, invaders, or usurpers from outside or from within. I stand by my comparison of ideas, and point out that I did not characterize any person, government or group, but rather the idea and practice of gun control. One cannot honestly argue against the fact that the Nazis WERE Socialists, and that it was NOT a clash of political ideology that put the Nazis and Communists at-odds but rather a philosophy of supremacy and conquest.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC (Join to see) Yeah this strikes me as a pretty obvious "infringement" on the right of the people to "keep" arms. But I would expect it from the least free state in the Union. I am strongly opposed to the practice but un-surprised.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Well these actions would appear to be violations of the 4th Amendment (q.v. "secure in their...effects...against unreasonable seizure)
The 5th Amendment (q.v. no person...shall be deprived...of property...without "due process of law")
and the 14th Amendment (q.v. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [e.g. 2nd Amendment] ; nor shall any state deprive any person of...property, without due process of law...)
What is really sad is that 95% of law abiding citizens will just "roll over" and allow their constitutional rights to be stripped from them.
The 5th Amendment (q.v. no person...shall be deprived...of property...without "due process of law")
and the 14th Amendment (q.v. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [e.g. 2nd Amendment] ; nor shall any state deprive any person of...property, without due process of law...)
What is really sad is that 95% of law abiding citizens will just "roll over" and allow their constitutional rights to be stripped from them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Since it takes sometimes over a month just to receive a death certificate, I think it’s just another way making it impossible for family members to transfer ownership. This is why nobody should register their firearms! The state or government has no reason except confiscation to know who has one.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google