7
7
0
NY's "Red Flag" law. Wave Bye-Bye to that infringement.
"Without the requirement of any input from a medical or mental health expert, the Court is required to make a determination of whether the respondent "is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others, as defined in... section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law" (CPLR § 6342[1]; CPLR § 6343[2]). Under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39, a person's liberty rights cannot be curtailed unless a physician opines that the person is suffering from a condition "likely to result in serious harm." Further, in order to extend any such curtailment of liberty beyond 48 hours, a second doctor's opinion must be obtained and such opinion must be consistent with the first doctor's opinion. Absent from New York's Red Flag Law is any provision whatsoever requiring even a single medical or mental health expert opinion providing a basis for the order to be issued. New York's Red Flag Law, as currently written, lacks sufficient statutory guardrails to protect a citizen's Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms."
"Without the requirement of any input from a medical or mental health expert, the Court is required to make a determination of whether the respondent "is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others, as defined in... section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law" (CPLR § 6342[1]; CPLR § 6343[2]). Under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39, a person's liberty rights cannot be curtailed unless a physician opines that the person is suffering from a condition "likely to result in serious harm." Further, in order to extend any such curtailment of liberty beyond 48 hours, a second doctor's opinion must be obtained and such opinion must be consistent with the first doctor's opinion. Absent from New York's Red Flag Law is any provision whatsoever requiring even a single medical or mental health expert opinion providing a basis for the order to be issued. New York's Red Flag Law, as currently written, lacks sufficient statutory guardrails to protect a citizen's Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms."
R.M. v C.M. (2023 NY Slip Op 23088)
Posted from nycourts.gov
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
Gun Control
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
2
2
0
States have laws against drunk driving because a person "might" harm others. Is it not logical to have a law against a person suffering from a mental health condition to have access to a dangerous weapon for the same reason?
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
SFC Casey O'Mally - Thank you for your polite reply. My comment brought the desired response, people thinking about the problem. Or at least I hope it did.
(5)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSG Stan Hutchison I try to keep it civil. I almost always succeed on the first response. After that, wellllllll....
I think part of the problem, especially when it comes to "third rail" topics, like guns, religion, and LGBTQIA+, is that everyone has already done all the thinking they need to - or at least they believe they have. And since they have already thought through EVERYTHING (in their mind) and come to their conclusions, anyone who disagrees with them even slightly is an "idiot who can't be reasoned with", so why even bother. And so thoughtful, measured, and meaningful responses not only become rare, they are also quickly dismissed by anyone who doesn't agree - because whoever posted it is, once again, an "idiot who can't be reasoned with."
I try to avoid that trap. And I try to point it out to others, as well.
I think part of the problem, especially when it comes to "third rail" topics, like guns, religion, and LGBTQIA+, is that everyone has already done all the thinking they need to - or at least they believe they have. And since they have already thought through EVERYTHING (in their mind) and come to their conclusions, anyone who disagrees with them even slightly is an "idiot who can't be reasoned with", so why even bother. And so thoughtful, measured, and meaningful responses not only become rare, they are also quickly dismissed by anyone who doesn't agree - because whoever posted it is, once again, an "idiot who can't be reasoned with."
I try to avoid that trap. And I try to point it out to others, as well.
(5)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
OK, MSG Stan Hutchison, Lets say we accept both your analogy and your resulting argument.
DUI laws apply to people who ARE impaired. Such laws have clear standards, require proof that the individual was impaired, and provide due process. NONE of those is true of "Red Flag" laws.
Red Flag laws have no clear and objective standard.
Red Flag laws do not require any proof.
Red Flag laws do not provide due process (at best, they provide a semblance of 'due process' only after the individual's rights have already been infringed and the property seized).
Red Flag laws are completely unnecessary! EVERY state already has mental health laws similar to the one in New York cited by the judge. If the individual really is a danger to self or others, the existing mental health laws apply and would be the appropriate way to address the problem.
If a person really is a threat to self or others, Red Flag laws are ineffective. Taking away a person's guns does not stop them from hurting themselves or others. At most it changes the method.
DUI laws apply to people who ARE impaired. Such laws have clear standards, require proof that the individual was impaired, and provide due process. NONE of those is true of "Red Flag" laws.
Red Flag laws have no clear and objective standard.
Red Flag laws do not require any proof.
Red Flag laws do not provide due process (at best, they provide a semblance of 'due process' only after the individual's rights have already been infringed and the property seized).
Red Flag laws are completely unnecessary! EVERY state already has mental health laws similar to the one in New York cited by the judge. If the individual really is a danger to self or others, the existing mental health laws apply and would be the appropriate way to address the problem.
If a person really is a threat to self or others, Red Flag laws are ineffective. Taking away a person's guns does not stop them from hurting themselves or others. At most it changes the method.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google