NY Police Confiscate Legally Owned, Registered Handguns Because of Motorcycle Club Membership

Bikers_supporting_Twin_Peaks_Waco_Bikers_that_are_incarcerated

The relationship between the police and motorcycle clubs isn’t exactly cordial. We’ve seen what can result from that tension in Waco recently, and the justice system is still trying to figure out what the heck happened. Things aren’t a whole lot better in the Empire State. That’s where the Pagans Motorcycle Club of Suffolk County, Long Island operates. People who want to own a handgun in the state of New York are required to have a permit to purchase and possess the gun (one permit for each specific firearm) and as a result the police know exactly who has (legally owned) heaters. According to reports, that enabled local Suffolk County cops to confiscate the firearms of one motorcycle club member without any apparent legal justification . . .

From MPP:

On Thursday October 22nd, the SCPD contacted a member of the Pagans MC and informed him that his legal permit issued by Suffolk County was under review because of his alleged membership in the Pagans MC. The SCPD requested that he come down to the station for an interview and bring all 10 of his legally purchased and registered handguns.

The member, in good faith, says he went down to the station with his legal handguns in order to be interviewed. This member has absolutely no criminal record and he had been legally issued a permit. He thought he could clear it up, he says.

But the SCPD had no intention of making an evaluation based on the interview. It is clear that the decision to confiscate this man’s legal handguns was made before he ever arrived. The member was given no real choice. He was told he could give up being a Pagan and keep his permit and guns. Police told him that it is illegal to own a gun in New York as a member of an outlaw motorcycle club like the Pagans. Police said there was recent Supreme Court precedent that confirmed the law.

The idea that someone could have their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms violated due to his association with a certain group the police deem “unsavory” is more than a little unsettling. I’m sure that no one would argue that getting guns out of the hands of members of a street gang such as the Bloods would be a good idea. But when that definition begins to expand to include groups that the cops simply don’t like, well, you can see where this might be heading.

If the cops suddenly consider the NRA a terrorist organization (as the NY Daily News desperately wants) then under this same logic they could begin confiscating the firearms of every NRA member in their jurisdiction. Where does it stop?

comments

  1. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

    Yes sir, I’ll be there as soon as I get off the lake.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      exactly

  2. avatar CoolBreeze says:

    Le’see here. Confiscation and registration in same headline? Check. Yup. One follows the other.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Yep!

      The problem here is with the “permit”.

      A “permit” is when the state gives a person special exemption to do something which is otherwise illegal. Put another way, a permit (or license) let’s you get away with doing “something bad”. The government can hand out (and take back) “permits” at its own discretion, for any reason, or no reason.

      Thus, if open carry is legal, but concealed carry illegal, the state can give certain people “exemptions from the general law” via a CCW permit.

      We should rarely, or never, need “permits” to do things that are good, and lawful. We should not need “permits” to exercise our basic freedoms. Pistol permits, marriage licenses, business permits, etc. all infringe on basic human liberty. There is a place for permits and licenses, but not when it comes to basic human rights (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of property/happiness).

    2. avatar Ethan says:

      Checkmate.

      “But no one is trying to confiscate your guns!”
      This instance alone shows beyond a shadow of any doubt that they *will indeed* find a reason come to confiscate your guns, should you be foolish enough to register them.

      #Iwillnevercomply

      1. avatar Bruce says:

        Unfortunately WA became the 11th state in which handgun purchases are registered law enforcement. Yes kiddies that is one of the things universal background check have done for us. The second thing is the refusal of FFLs to process private sales as nobody has sent them detailed procedures on how to process the private transfers.

  3. avatar MiketheHopsFarmer says:

    Hopefully it stops in the jury box and the ballot box. Hopefully. But as I’ve long noticed, it’s the mildly to mostly unsavory who do some of the greatest good through the jury box. For they are the first to be ensnared by these feel good laws, and with hope, walk back the restrictions on us all.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      The Four Boxes of Liberty

      “The tools to preserve liberty are as follows: soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box – Use in that order.”

      The Soap Box—right of free speech
      The Ballot Box—right to a voice in your government
      The Jury Box—right to a trial, civil or criminal, by jury of your peers
      The Ammunition Box—right to threaten or use appropriate violence in defense of liberty and freedom against government tyranny

      It appears, unfortunately, that we are getting ever closer to having to crack open that 4th Box…. 😐

    2. avatar What The Heck Is That says:

      It won’t.

      It will continue until one of two things happens. Either A: the American people as a whole stand up and say “NO MORE”, or B: they complete the installation of the totalitarian police state they are working toward. Which do you think is more likely?

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        C.) Label them zombies, and their kids will take care of the problem for us.

        satan’s liberal evil POS blue house of (D) drip losers are making “NY” a verb in the world of gun-grabbing.

        Don’t let ’em New York ya, don’t let your state of mind be New York’d.

        I used to have family back their, but since the New Yorking, I’m not going back without a crossbow and a flame-thrower. . .

    3. avatar BurleyOleBear says:

      …cartridge box.

  4. avatar arsh says:

    This stops once they consider the NRA a terrorist organization because then they’ve essentially said lets duke it out. #BringItOn

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      μολὼν λαβέ

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    So… Let’s see how many amendments they violated.

    1st? Freedom of association? Check.
    2nd? No brainer. Check
    5th? Confiscation without compensation? Check

    Congratulations NY, you just opened yourself up to a lawsuit on three different constitutional grounds.

    1. avatar Barry Melton says:

      You forgot the 9th and 14th.

  6. avatar TommyG says:

    NY is may issue. Every county has a issuing authority. The issuing authority can give or revoke your hand gun license for any reason.

    1. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

      May issue for carry. We’re talking about possession here.

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        Usually the permit for carry and for owning a handgun are one in the same, again that may not be true in every county I don’t know…

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        It is may issue for possession. As is New Jersey.

        1. avatar Bruce Bogle says:

          Exactly once your permit is revoked you can no longer possess a handgun even in you house. That violates the Heller decision but that only applies to the USA. Not the Peoples Republic Of New Yorkistan.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      There’s no such thing as “may issue” for possession in this country since Heller and McDonald.

  7. avatar BDub says:

    You see, no one is coming to take your guns (they expect you to bring them in yourself).

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      It’s beyond me why he decided to take his guns and go to the station without consulting with a lawyer first.

      Also, many cops are bikers. Should their guns be confiscated too for no reason or do they get the usual carve-out? Hypocrites.

  8. avatar CoolBreeze says:

    Unapproved groups? Tea Party. Black Panthers. NRA. NAACP. Minute Men. Jews. Christians. AARP. Whatever they deem a “danger” to them. …when they came for me, no one was left…

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      I’ll have to add the Bloods and Crips to the list as well. Just being a member does not make a person a criminal. Oh yeah, street gangs are known to do really bad things, but evidence has to be brought against specific members in a criminal trial. Just being a member or “known associate” is not a crime.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        Absolutely – guilt by association is a form of prior restraint, which is illegal. First thing I thought of when I scanned the article is when will they go after NRA members, but others have already hit that issue very articulately.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        Planned Parenthood has killed more people gang / drug/ hell, even warfare-warfare.

        They get to keep what they kill, and sell it. They don’t have disclosure problems like “why did the baby end up in the burger?”. They get Federal Funding, despite that being illegal.

        But guns have the potential (it would take a lot of work, an unfathomable amount of ammo, and a blister on your trigger finger the size of Chucky-Doll Schumer’s head) to be ‘as dangerous’. So they need to be collected up.

      3. avatar Edeco says:

        Good point, the author shouldn’t have snarked on a different group. Undermines his philosophical stance. Some people are going to be more comfy with the idea of bikers, some more comfy with the idea of urban gangs… let us not be hypocrites here.

  9. avatar Scott says:

    The author poses the question at the end of the article, “When does it stop?”

    I want to ask the question, “When does it start?”

    When do we start to shoot back?

    New York, Connecticut and California all have confiscation as part of their gun laws. Many people in California, New Orleans, New York and elsewhere have had their rights violated pursuant to laws or emergency measures. Where is the line in the sand drawn? Are we going to allow our rights to be picked at, removing rights from one person at a time? Are we only going to fight when our rights are violated en masse? Do we trust the courts enough (currently) to leave it in their hands until they prove they are not worthy of our trust?

    They try our patience and we seem to acquiesce at every turn.

    1. avatar arsh says:

      And that’s also why I don’t get why people don’t just move from those states. What do they offer? Not much! NY and CT are office states that offer nothing else. CA maybe agriculture but the whole state is getting owned by mother nature who’s proving you can’t turn a desert into an oasis for very long.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        A lot of it is because they are office states. Many professionals have a hard time finding relevant work in “free” states. I have to live in Illinois because our company national HQ is outside of Chicago as are most of our major competitors. In order to find a reasonable position, I would need to either switch specialties or leave the industry entirely.

        This is far worse for some high paying industries like semi-con or bio-med as most of the companies are clustered in very restrictive states.

        1. avatar PerplexedPistolero says:

          I’d be in Montana, Maine or some such free state licketysplit if there were jobs in my industry. The majority of biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies are concentrated in urban areas on both coasts. Right now, I’m lucky to live in a reasonably sane part of California, but even to move up in the industry, it’s the Bay Area, Los Angeles or San Diego. Not real palatable given higher rents, less friendly folk, and a ton more gun haters. Do I want to live in Boston? Absolutely not.

        2. avatar That Guy says:

          Hey PerplexedPistolero I live south of Boston and work in Biotech. There are quite a few companies in MA within commuting distance from NH, VT, or ME. Also the laws are restrictive but I would argue still better then CA.

      2. avatar Removed_californian says:

        You’re just not correct on that front. California has water, we do. The Feds aren’t giving us any. Earlier in the summer our water district told us that there was no water, but then they said if you pay a certain premium that we could get water. Now tell me, how can one sell us water that doesn’t exist? They are still spilling freshwater into the ocean mind you. California had a chance. If we don’t get rain this winter, we all dry up and die. /rant

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          CA has the Delta Smelt

          But the water problem is the same as all of CA’s other problems, they have a controlling class (not majority population) of satan’s evil POS blue (D)heads. If you can cure that, and I believe that it will take a lot of personal fortitude and a tremendous amount of violence (you can think that’s inflammatory, but that’s only because you are intentionally ignorant of history, and you haven’t considered what (D)bag policies look like to those outside of that state). CA-ians can fix it, or they’ll be lumped in with what’s later ‘fixed’.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          California cities should have long ago built cisterns large enough for a two-year supply and just recycle it, rather than depending on the vagaries of the weather. So should any city in areas subject to sufficient drought to threaten the water supply.

      3. avatar Gary Schulze says:

        If you think that NY is an office state that has nothing else to offer than clearly you’ve never been to NY and think that the state outside of NY City is nothing but commuter suburbs for the City. How about Niagara Falls, Watkins Glen, the Finger Lakes with all its boating, fishing, and wineries? Cooperstown, Lake Ontario, the Adirondacks, Thousand Islands, the Catskills, dairy farms, orchards, and the Hudson River Valley. No offices there. Stop equating the state with the City.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          Good reply. I have often found to my amazement that often foreign Tourists know more about American cities and geography than many people who live in America.

    2. avatar What The Heck Is That says:

      I see this rhetoric come up here A LOT. “When do we start shooting back?” “If they come, gun ’em down!” Right, because THAT doesn’t make gun owners look like anti-government revolutionaries or domestic terrorists at all.

      It’s easy for you to sit there at your desk, in your comfortable chair and hammer out some bravado. After all it’s not your life on the line. Not YET, anyway. All you keyboard kommandos need to take a step back toward reality for a minute and think about what it is you’re saying.

      You are being watched. Watched by everyone. There are lots of people–many of them in powerful positions–who believe you to be a danger. You and your ilk give them all the proof they need of that. Empty rhetoric or not, they will take it as Gospel and react accordingly.

      Use discretion with what you say. And be careful what you wish for.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        or don’t. ; P

        This is a problem with our a-hole neighbors needing jobs, they coalesce and call themselves government and then they “lead”.

        We don’t want / need to be lead, we keep sending our representatives to our capitals, state houses, and washington to tell the last batch that “We don’t want / need to be lead”. But there’s a pod-people thing that must happen there because our reps keep trying to convince us otherwise.

        Degraded beyond common cause is where it goes and history has already shown that even queens get the guillotine when people are told to eat cake. If anyone here’s viewed as dangerous, it’s only because the viewer hasn’t checked their mirror lately.

        ANYONE HERE WANNA TAKE AWAY ANYONE’S RIGHTS?

        no? Ok, just checkin’. We’re good.

      2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        I’ll poke the bear. Thank you very much.

        If you truly believe what you wrote, you are have surrendered your freedom, voluntarily with little more than a whimper. Fear of government reprisal is the very definition of tyranny.

        I pity you and those like you.

    3. avatar schernobyl says:

      Currently we are making progress with our legal battles.

      When no judge supports the constitution then the bullet box is the option.

      stockpile and store via private sales.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Talk is cheap, reality is something different. Just like in Australia when they pass a confiscation law the average citizen has a family to support and a job to keep. One example is often made of a citizen who refuses to comply and then the populous is given a short period of time to turn in weapons or else. As my Father once said in WWII, the Nazi’s gave an order and said “or else” and everyone knew what that meant and then the weapons started being thrown out the windows into the streets. It happened there, it happened in Australia and if the laws are passed here the same thing will happen. People talk tough until their well being is threatened then they show their true colors and revert to the survival instinct. That is historic reality. What we must do is prevent these kind of laws from being past in the first place because after they are passed then its to late forever. That’s Historical fact.

    4. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

      Scott, I read your comments as advocating violent rebellion instead of the persuit of resolution using the established jurisprudence process. I do not support your comments or the results there of.

      1. avatar Scott says:

        And what will you do when the system of jurisprudence fails?

        When that happened in Colonial America, the Revolution broke out. The lawful sitting government was declared illegal on the basis of the grievances section of the Declaration of Independence.

        All options have to be on the table for the preservation of liberty and freedom. Shedding blood must always be the last resort when all other realistic options have been exhausted. There must be a line. If there is no line, then every sort of government tyranny is tolerable and even lawful.

        1. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

          When that point is reached I, hopefully, will be supporting a militia of those who wish to restore our government as envisioned by our founders. This may be difficult because, as I see it, there will be two power groups left. One group will be the Progressives. They will take the position that the US still exists, the Constitution is a living document, safety precludes liberty, blah bla blah blah blah. The other group will arise from our military but their priority will be establishing a new world presence and eliminating the CIA. Poweful people are motivated by greed so the two groups will form some type of alliance to achieve their goals but alpha’s are alpha’s so one group will evevtually take complete control. This leaves me relying on spotty electricity and dependent on local cooperatives for food, water and medicine if my water supply goes bad, my food sources disappear or my health seriously fails. It goes without saying I would be dependent on stores of illegal weapons and ammunition and I would take up arms to help reestablish a government based on our Constitution. But I will not do it as long as the Constition defines our government.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          Actually the system of jurisprudence never broke down at all in Colonial America. The revolution was jump started for the Greedy American Businessmen by Thomas Paine’s propaganda who was not an American Citizen and never became one but was rather an English Anarchist and a Deist. This is one reason that there are to this very day not one monument or holiday to Thomas Paine as he was and still is an embarrassment to the Conservatives and some say the History of the U.S. Here is what really happened in a brief synopsis.

          WHY THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS A MISTAKE IN HISTORY.

          The American Revolution was America’s most divisive war in its history far surpassing the Civil War and the Vietnam War. Thousands of Americans called Loyalists, many who were skilled professionals, packed up and left for Canada after the war was over. America at the time could ill afford to lose such people, many whom were professionals, at a time when America was a growing Nation.

          .The American Revolution squandered vast amounts of money on war that would have been better spent on building its infrastructure and enhancing it educational system of the time. The Revolution set America’s growth and progress back at least several generations.

          The war largely the result of Greedy American Merchants who were too stingy to pay small amounts of taxes to help defer the cost of running the British Empire which was making the American Merchants rich, because through the British Empire they had access to world markets. The American Merchants who were running America ended up biting off the hand that was feeding them.

          The Merchants were so greedy they stabbed their best general, Benedict Arnold, in the back by refusing to reimburse him for his own personal money spent on the war which amounted in todays money to over a million dollars. The British quickly convinced Arnold to come over to their side which resulted in the war largely falling to the incompetent General Washington who lost more battles than he won and he was almost captured twice. Washington by the way had promised to intercede for Arnold’s re-imbursement but was such a weak leader he failed to give the Merchants any ultimatums. In other words he stabbed Arnold in the back.

          The American Revolution also was largely responsible for the war of 1812 with Britain over possession of Canada which again wasted large amounts of money and resulted in a war that was largely a draw and America failed in its attempt to annex Canada (enslave it). Some of the Loyalists that fled America after the Revolution ended up fighting once again the same Americans they fought in the Revolutionary War. In other words it was Americans killing Americans all over again.

          The American Revolution also paved the way for World War I. Germany would have been much less likely to start WWI if America had still been part of the British Empire, but since America had fought Britain twice previously Germany believed it would not intervene in WWI.

          If Britain had remained in control of America the vast slaughter of the American Indian would have been much less brutal and severe as well. This is based on the British treatment of other indigenous people throughout their world wide empire at the time.

          Although it is still controversial many scholars believe the slave trade would have ended in America sooner as well because Britain ended their slave trade before America did and therefore would have also ended it in America as well and the Southern States would have realized that they could not have won a war with both the Northern American States and Britain fighting them at the same time.

          Lastly America would have gotten its freedom from Britain like Canada did by negotiation rather than through a costly war. Canada today still points with pride to the fact that rather than start a blood bath they received their independence through peaceful negotiation and avoidance of a costly war. I think no historical scholar would take issue with that fact.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          So this is what happens when revisionists of history go bananas.

  10. avatar CoolBreeze says:

    After they deny them the right to “legally” own/carry guns, lookout for shakedowns and illegal searches…i.e. harassment.

  11. avatar Travis says:

    > The idea that someone could have their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms violated due to his association with a certain group the police deem “unsavory” is more than a little unsettling.

    > I’m sure that no one would argue that getting guns out of the hands of members of a street gang such as the Bloods would be a good idea.

    In one case guilt by association is bad, and the other it’s un-arguable?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      One is a known criminal enterprise, the other is not.

      1. avatar Travis says:

        I’m not too up to date on my criminal organizations, but

        > outlaw motorcycle club like the Pagans

        would seem to imply they both are.

        But that shouldn’t matter — if you’re not in jail, you shouldn’t be prevented from owning a gun (Let alone actively taking them away)

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Just because a group claims to be “outlaws” does not make them a criminal enterprise. Bring RICO charges against this guy’s specific chapter, and we can talk.

          Or would you claim that a self avowed member of ISIS would have an absolute freedom of association?

          While normally, I’m not a fan of “balancing”… There are some limits to what we, as a society, should be required to tolerate.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          Outlaw clubs are clubs outside of the federation of clubs.

    2. avatar Paul G says:

      The Pagan had no record. There exists no legitimate reason to disarm him. Law-abiding and all, ya know. He even brought in all his guns, so suspicion of making straw purchases is disproven.
      I haven’t heard calls to disarm gangs on this site, I have heard calls to enforce existing laws. At least those laws that pass constitutional scrutiny.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        They really don’t. However, until we get those laws struck down (as we’re working on the NFA suppressor ban) we can at least use them as a benchmark. Reaching outside those laws, however, is absurd on its face.

  12. avatar Cliff H says:

    I’m beginning to wonder if the “When do we start to shoot back” comments here are some of the more clever trolls on this site trying to get others to join in their diatribe in order to give the anti-2A groups fodder.

    Careful.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      While those commenters could certainly be anti-gunner trolls, I think they are genuine. And the motivation behind their question is twofold:
      (1) We really should think about the threshold at which we collectively decide that we have exhausted our soap boxes, ballot boxes, and jury boxes.
      (2) We should be preparing to act collectively if the time ever comes. One or two people fighting back against unconstitutional laws, corrupt legislatures, executives, and courts is an exercise in futility and will accomplish nothing. On the other hand, 5% of the population resisting corruption is much more likely to accomplish significant and enduring results.

      Personally, I believe both matters are important to discuss.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        It’s extremely rare that political ties severed via violence result in new entities which enjoy greater freedom than their populations experienced under the former regime.

        I’m not saying it hasn’t happened before, including in modern times, nor that it couldn’t happen again; just the odds are heavily agaist it. These violent delights have violent ends.

        I’d much prefer a constitutional convention amending the Constitution to provide an explicit means for states to exit the federal union peacefully and mutually. Consider it a conscious uncoupling.

        Fundamentally, America has grown ungovernable and dissolution in some form is inevitable. People, including the government, will want to fight to preserve what cannot be saved; but that’s only going get a lot of people hurt and set us all back decades. The sane solution is to broach the topic with the gravity its due, and to plan for a peaceful transition to what comes next.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          The American Civil War proved your philosophy wrong. If your wish had been granted then we would have evolved into a conglomeration of 3rd World States. I am sure this is not what the American people want today. Things are bad enough today, can you imagine what it would be like living in a land with 52 independent Countries. Its a prescription for never ending wars and economic disaster.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          The US would probably have developed into five or fewer nations — nothing even close to fifty. And economic growth would probably have been even faster after North and South went their separate ways, because the South would have had serious incentive to build its own industry.

          Texas may well have decided to go its own way, and possibly have expanded to claim what are now New Mexico and Oklahoma; California might well have gone its own way as well, acquiring Arizona and possibly Nevada. Then there would be the Pacific Northwest, leaving a chunk in the middle that, yes, might have been fought over, but I can see a nation of central states with the capital at Chicago, and a collection of Rocky Mountain states with its capital at Denver.

          At any rate, since Parliament had the attitude that the colonists were serfs and not Englishmen, and was determined to strip them of he traditional rights of Englishment, the conservative colonists had little choice but to resist the radicals in London asserting an authority to impose tyranny as they pleased.

          That situation is paralleled today, as urban areas seem to think they have a natural authority to tell the rest of their states how to live. From one perspective, we are already two nations: urban America, which is more and more authoritarian and tyrannical, and rural America, which still believes in freedom. Were it not for that the main transportation routes can be severed at the cities, rural America would have little difficulty in winning a new Civil War, because rural America controls the food.

          But the real problem is that the giant corporations have become quite adept at playing one faction against another, and thus incrementally advancing us toward corporate feudalism. We are being herded toward tyranny because both of the big two parties covet the power of a police state for imposing their will, and so willingly cooperate in advancing what are actually not their interests but those of the giant corporations.

        3. avatar jlp says:

          The fact that the America could have a successful revolution against its Government is pure fantasy. Successful Revolutions are financed from outside the combat zone usually by another country. An Example was the Viet-Nam War. Without other nations, Russia, China, and the East Block States all supplying arms, ammo and money North Viet-Nam could have never hoped to win its war with France and later the U.S.

          In regards to the U.S. it has a weak neighbor both to the North and South (Canada and Mexico) and there would be little if any chance that these Countries would have the inclination or money to help the new American Revolution, in fact Canada would probably side with the present U.S. Government because the economic risk would be too great to support a revolution.

          I would say History has proven the South would have developed no faster if it had won the Civil War because until relatively recently it lagged far behind the Northern States in the rise of Industry. It was only in recent times because of cheaper labor that some Companies moved from the North to the South and even with that they still are not as industrialized as the North even with the collapse of the North’s Rust Belt.

          North America would have disintegrated into a 3rd world Country of many small States if the South had won the War and we would be no better off than the myriad of South American States that to this very day are little better than many 3rd World Countries.

          As far as Rural America controlling the food, they control nothing as many Midwestern and Western States are excellent country for Tank warfare as well as Air warfare. With no natural Mountain barriers or vast jungles to hide in this part of America would be the first and easiest to conquer. Fighting in the large cities would be more of a barrier but in large cities there is little support for a revolution as the masses are for the most part today on Government welfare because of a lack of manufacturing jobs and the people would not even think of cutting off their supply of money from the U.S. Government. They would have nothing to gain by it and everything to lose. They care little about the Constitution and know little about it. Ask any of them today to recite the Bill of Rights and you get a blank stare.

          Like it or not the Rich control all countries as they control the U.S. and they are making more money than ever before in the history of the U.S. Every economic survey proves it beyond any doubt. Turning the U.S. into a quasi-3rd world country has benefitted the Rich far beyond their wildest dreams of greed and corruption. With the slave labor force they now have things could not be better both in regards to American slave workers working for little more than subsistence wages and the over seas slaves that run their factories for the American Rich.

          To control the people they know they eventually have to have a gun free society to keep themselves and their families safe until the day they can build cities in the sky. They will call them the “Land of Stratus” were they will live safe and far above the working class troglodytes’ who will do their bidding on Earth. Sound far fetched? It may be closer to reality than you think and not that far off either. The German have already developed a machine that reads a mans mind when a question is asked of him in a job interview. The Interviewer knows the answer to his question even before the job applicant speaks. Of course the questions are still of the simple primitive type but as the machine grows more complex so will the understanding of what the applicant is actually thinking. Now I ask you what chance has the average worker have in this brave new world of tomorrow. None of course.

  13. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    The thing I question is who is bloody effing dumb enough to go to the cop shop without a lawyer when they’re asking you to come down and talk about your guns. Especially in New York. This just screams lack of situational awareness.

  14. avatar KingSarc48625 says:

    Taking a gun owner’s firearms “because motorcycle club” makes as much sense as taking a licensed driver’s firearms “because street racing”.

  15. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    Instead of bringing his lawful possessions to the interview, he should have brought an attorney instead.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1

    2. avatar Bdk NH says:

      +1. Dude has made some bad choices, IMO, but that shouldn’t forfeit his rights.

      I just sent the NRA some more money and have memberships in any number of other gun rights organizations. There better be a lawsuit on this man’s behalf. If needed, I would be happy to send some money to his lawyer. Bueler?

    3. avatar Rokurota says:

      The member, in good faith, says he went down to the station with his legal handguns in order to be interviewed. This member has absolutely no criminal record and he had been legally issued a permit. He thought he could clear it up, he says.

      I don’t have the book in front of me, but this reads chillingly like a passage from The Gulag Archipelago. “I’ll just go with them and clear up this misunderstanding,” is the disbelieving mindset everyone in the gulags had, until the terrible moment when they realized there was nothing to clear up. “Run! Resist!” was Solzhenitsyn’s plea when they come for you.

  16. avatar jlp says:

    Does anyone know if the New York law has any appeals left in the Courts or has the Court made its final say making it legal to start confiscating guns if the People in Power declare anyone or any organization a threat to their power?

  17. avatar jlp says:

    interesting

  18. avatar William says:

    Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts & Ventures next??

  19. avatar Stinkeye says:

    The only correct response to a request to bring your guns to the police station is “My lawyer will be contacting you to continue this discussion. Goodbye.”

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      If they revoke your permits, you are now in possession of “unlawful” guns, and you can expect a pounding at your door at 3a.m., followed by a boom as the door collapses, and a bang as the flashbangs start going off. You will be arrested and dragged off to jail in your underwear. You will be charged with every felony they can think of to charge you with, as well as a slew of misdemeanors. There is no negotiation, there is compliance, voluntarily or through use of force.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        All the more reason to have an attorney involved from the instant you get the phone call or letter. I’m not a New Yorker, but I would assume there is some sort of process for revoking your permits before they send out the SWAT team. You’d have a much better chance at prevailing in that process with a lawyer at your side than just being some schmoe going to the police station to “sort it out”. You’re probably still going to lose initially, but a lawyer can make sure you’re much better positioned for future appeals.

        I say this as a person who has very little respect for lawyers. But there’s a time and place to employ them, just as rats and cockroaches serve a purpose in their ecosystems.

  20. avatar Sian says:

    Added to the registration == confiscation file.

  21. avatar notalima says:

    I here I thought status crimes were unconstitutional…

  22. avatar Dustin says:

    Maybe this was about giving the cops enough rope to hang themselves?

  23. avatar Warp says:

    There could be a very simple explanation.
    My theory:

    This motorcycle gang guy has a big mouth, is at a bar bragging about his collection and how he has this rare and expensive gun. In this bar is also sitting a county mountie or state trooper, in plain clothes.

    Jacket + info about gun, find out the name. Look in records. This is the part that could throw flags up, has to be a senior person. Call gang member in, ask him to bring his collection along. Provide ultimatum. The gang member has gang pride, walks out without guns. Guns go to be sold at auction. Trooper/mountie buys gun at auction. Hoppers are happy that 10 guns are out of a gang member’s hands. Lose/win/win.

  24. avatar Galtha58 says:

    From the article: “Police told him that it is illegal to own a gun in New York as a member of an outlaw motorcycle club like the Pagans. Police said there was recent Supreme Court precedent that confirmed the law.” I would like to see someone actually cite the Supreme Court precedent they mentioned. Is there one that allows this ? I doubt it. If not then they lied to this guy when they took his guns and they should be sued. Hopefully some organization with money will step up to assist with the legal costs. I don’t like the outlaw motorcycle gang culture at all but this sets a very bad legal precedent if allowed to go unchallenged.

  25. avatar David says:

    It may be nit picking but the statement “People who want to own a handgun in the state of New York are required to have a permit to purchase and possess the gun (one permit for each specific firearm)…” is incorrect.
    You have one permit with amendments for each handgun you own.

  26. avatar Almost Esq. says:

    This would make a very good test case. A fundamental right being denied because the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination based on freedom of association. I just don’t see how their actions can pass constitutional muster. For instance group membership can be a grounds for disqualification for government employment, but only if the group has an illegal purpose, the person knows of the illegal purpose, and supports the illegal purpose.

    The right to government employment is not a fundamental right so the test to uphold their actions would likely be even stricter. I suspect the Cops here know what they are doing is illegal. The question is who is going to stop them? The Safe Act was just upheld after all. It’s time to take these dirt bags to court and show them that they can’t use the constitution for tissue paper. And I don’t mean the bikers…

  27. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Not a fan of motorcycle gangs but this is BS. HOWEVER-I think he is screwed if the gubmint uses RICO conspiracy/known associates/ vague statutes. The whole pistol permit NY thing is insane to me-and I live in Illinois. Whatever-guns? What guns? Lost ’em in a water skiing mishap…

  28. avatar Bill C says:

    That’s why my guns aren’t illegal
    They’re just undocumented.

    1. avatar jlp says:

      People who have undocumented guns are just living in a fantasy world. When laws are passed to confiscate them the penalties are so severe it is not worth the risk of keeping them. Australian Confiscation proved that beyond any doubt or the Nazi occupation of Europe was another good example. Again Talk is cheap, but reality rules so people should prevent confiscation laws from being passed because when they are people will turn their guns in, History has proven it many times over.

      1. avatar CoolHand says:

        The Fuzz in Australia got about 25%-30% of the know volume of outlawed guns in the country when they had their confiscation.

        If ~70% of the population essentially telling the cops to GFThemselves is what you call “overwhelming compliance”, you’ve got an even lower bar for success than most stateists.

        It would be far worse in the US, because 1) nobody actually knows the real number of guns in circulation, 2) Americans bridle at being told what to do anyway (see “Prohibition, Failure of” for a salient example), and finally 3) Many Americans will not only not comply, but will consider mass confiscation as a declaration of war upon the people by the .gov and will react in kind.

        America != Australia, and despite the left’s best efforts, America != Nazi Germany either (though parts are getting close, sadly).

        Fail to take these differences onboard your thinking vis a vis what might happen if you decide to try en mass gun confiscations at your own peril.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          Your quoted figures are mere speculation in regards to Australia. I might add when looking at the pictures one might easily believe they got 95 per cent of them as the piles of weapons are staggering. What you left out is the fact that those few who did not turn them in cannot in reality even use them, for to be even seen with them much less shoot them would result in immediate arrest so what’s the use of hanging on to them anyway. You could not even use them to defend your property or life as you would end up in jail as long or longer than the criminals that attacked you or stole your property. In other words they have become much more of a liability than an asset.

  29. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “….an outlaw motorcycle club like the Pagans.”

    “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Pagans the NRA those bitter clingers?” Also, “You can’t have an opinion in here … this is the state house.”

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    – What is an outlaw motorcycle club?

    – How is it’s outlaw status determined? (If this status bears on the exercise of rights, of members, the process is subject to scrutiny.)

    – How is one determined to be a member of an outlaw motorcycle club? (As accurate, transparent, and correctable a system as the no fly list? I know, you have “top men on it … top. men.”) Also, see above for openings for challenge & scrutiny if this classification has consequences.

    – If they’re “outlaws” and you know this guy is one of them, why does the club still exist, and why is this guy still running around loose?

    Note to the nanny-bots: you don’t get to try to harass into submission people who do things you don’t quite approve of. The deal is, the really bad stuff we all agree on, we work together to stop. The stuff that only annoys some of us, and trust me, you annoy plenty of people plenty – Like that hair. Dude! Really? – we let slide. It’s called freedom.

    The most fundamental freedom is the freedom to do what you will, subject only to reality’s vote, which you can’t escape anyway.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “Outlaw” in the context of motorcycle clubs simply means the club isn’t sanctioned by the AMA (American Motorcyclist Association). It has nothing to do with government laws or illegal activity (which is not to say that some outlaw clubs aren’t also involved in crime).

      1. avatar Downrangefuture says:

        ^^^ This. I love getting treated like a criminal because I ride my bike around with my club colors on… The “Christian Motorcycle Association”. Yep. Total gangbangers. It is also not associated with the AMA, being religious, so it’s an “outlaw” club. I keep telling the pastor we’re falling behind on our drug slinging and gun running, but he doesn’t listen. Lol

  30. avatar FedUp says:

    “Please bring all ten of your legal handguns down to the police station. ”
    ‘Please blow me, c&&&sucker”

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    Okay, I understand that they are a gang of aggressive thugs in silly looking clothes, but that’s no reason to take guns away from cops.

  32. avatar Lance Manion says:

    Wait, is this the same group from that Dragnet movie?

    People
    Against
    Goodness
    And
    Normalcy

    1. avatar Emil Muzz says:

      Don’t forget your goat leggings!

  33. avatar Anonymous says:

    This set of events only serves as empirical evidence to reinforce our reasons not to have a universal registry/universal background checks. They will use that registry for their own arbitrary reasons to take your guns away on the basis of nothing more than their opinions.

  34. avatar Edeco says:

    Yeesh. Why can’t they convict him of something if they think he’s no good? Associated with an outlaw group… wouldn’t that make him an accessory to something? Or is it just slanderous hot air?

    I know this (punishing a guy for associations but not charging with crime) is an issue in my world view but not New York’s view. In the view of a may-issue state, you know, it’s a privilege that belongs to the state, inalienably. It’s their call to make any way they want who gets the privilege. They could have a lottery to see who gets to carry if they felt like it.

  35. avatar Conway Redding says:

    This story is incomplete. There are “motorcycle clubs” and there are “outlaw biker gangs,” many of the latter of which are classified by law enforcement as being criminal enterprises (see Hell’s Angels, Mongols, Bandidos, Cossacks) . Now, if you’re a member of a recognized criminal enterprise, I’m going to have doubts about your having legal access to firearms. At this point, I need clarification about whether, in the instance of gun confiscation cited, the police were dealing with a club, or with a gang, and whether or not the weapons taken were taken from convicted felons.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      They are not dealing with a “club” or a “gang.” They are dealing with an individual human being…one of which had no criminal record and was ordered to turn in his guns due to what boils down to acquaintanceship with others.

      Here, I’ll help you out since you quite obviously did not read the freaking article:

      “On Thursday October 22nd, the SCPD contacted a member {not a ‘gang’ or ‘club’ but a ‘member’} of the Pagans MC and informed him that his legal permit issued by Suffolk County {see there where it says “legal permit”?} was under review because of his alleged membership in the Pagans MC. The SCPD requested that he come down to the station for an interview and bring all 10 of his legally purchased and registered handguns.

      The member, in good faith, says he went down to the station with his legal handguns in order to be interviewed. This member {again, an individual} has absolutely no criminal record {not sure where you are getting that he could be a convicted felon} and he had been legally issued a permit. He thought he could clear it up, he says.”

  36. avatar Jack says:

    Long time motorcyclist here, 3rd generation actually, I’ve never known any pagans personally, but they have a bit of a rough reputation, that being said, it would be hard to argue that the rep of the NYPD is any more upstanding than the pagans. Anyone need a taxi? Does Michael Dowd and the documentary “the 7-5” ring any bells? How the hell is anyone supposed to get behind an organization like the NYPD if they are confiscating legally obtained guns that have already passed all the legal background checks and requirements just because they are associated with an outlaw group? Doesn’t that mean that every NYPD officer should have his/her privately owned weapons confiscated?

  37. avatar Mark says:

    Was our motorcycle man really THAT naive?? I have to agree with other posters statements regarding the freedom of association. Gun permits, something I have a problem with as there is no way anyone should be required to obtain a permit to exercise a civil right, should be based on the person not the organization. Next thing we know the powers that be will be deciding permits based on not only Pagan membership but which any other association is “correct”. So much for those who do not toe the government line.

  38. avatar Hannibal says:

    A blog citing another blog with no further verification. Not a reliable enough source to believe the third-hand information.

  39. avatar Stoopid says:

    Not reading all the replys, I’d suggest it is time to start shooting to defend your rights.

  40. avatar Rick K says:

    Wait! Isn’t the NYST’s union a club too?

  41. avatar Bob201 says:

    So, with the string of bad press about police corruption, perhaps New Yorker’s should vote to disarm police in their state.

  42. avatar Jeff in MS says:

    It seems to me that the report glossed over the issue of whether the “outlaw” motorcycle club is really a criminal enterprise. I suspect that folks engaged in criminal activities are prohibited persons, while folks who dress funny and ride bikes but commit no crimes and are not associates or members of those who do, are not prohibited persons.

  43. avatar HOLLY NITES says:

    So now what? Hopefully the NRA will get their lawyers and stop this before it goes any further. I am not fond of M/C Clubs, but if they did do something wrong then why are they still there. I think law enforcement wants to be the only organization to be able to have guns. The only way get rid of problems like this, is to vote these liberal politicians out of office.

  44. avatar DaveR says:

    You lost me when you agreed a blood member should lose his firearm for no other reason than association. We either have freedom, or we don’t. We nor no one else gets to decide for others what is good and what is bad

  45. avatar HCM says:

    NY is a May issue state and you need a pistol license just to own / possess handguns and all of your handguns are listed on your license by serial number.

    Downstate,(NYC and Long Island / Nassau & Suffolk counties) they use the “May issue” thing to deny anyone they possibly can. For example if you live with another adult like a parent or spouse you need a notarized letter from them stating they are aware and ok with you are getting a handgun. No ok from the wife – no permit.

    Background investigation for the permit takes 6 months to a year.

    While I believe the PD’s actions are unconstitutional, we must be honest here. The Pagans MC is not “a motorcycle club” they are an outlaw motorcycle gang. They are an organized criminal enterprise just like the Bloods, the Latin kings, or the Hells Angels, Mongols, etc.

  46. avatar Randy Newlin says:

    I have an issue with this alleged incident. Not going to take sides with either the law enforcement agency or the motorcycle member. Being a retired Sheriff Deputy I can’t for the life of me ever recall Seizing a lawfully owned firearm from a person because of their relationship with any single person or group. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment Is this written. I am not familiar with the Supreme Court Ruling that the police department states they can seize the firearms. This appears to clearly be an over stepping the bounds of law enforcement authoritie. Is there something missing from this story, maybe. But if not we have a serious issue civil rights violation.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email