NY Gov Cuomo Proposes Firearm Confiscation in New York

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been on the front lines of pushing restrictions on the Constitutionally protected right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. He championed the NY SAFE ACT, a law which is so riddled with illegal, unconstitutional, and unenforceable provisions that it more closely resembles Swiss Cheese than a proper law. And he continues to press every day for even more ways to keep guns out of the hands of the average person and ensure that only the wealthy and well connected can enjoy armed security guards. His latest push is another wonderful example of why the often repeated phrase “no one wants to take your guns” is completely false — he wants to take your guns.

From WHAM:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he wants to take away all firearms from New Yorkers who are convicted of domestic violence crimes.

The Democrat announced the plan Wednesday as the first of the proposals he’ll unveil next month during his State of the State address that opens the 2018 legislative session.

Under Cuomo’s proposal, all guns would immediately be removed from anyone convicted of domestic violence crimes, including misdemeanors. He says his legislation would add measures aimed at keeping domestic violence perpetrators from obtaining firearms.

As others have pointed out,  18 U.S. Code § 922 already prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from purchasing or owning firearms. But Cuomo doesn’t stop there — he doesn’t want to simply make ownership illegal, he apparently wants to send the police door-to-door confiscating firearms from these prohibited persons.

That’s something which is possible in New York, at least for handguns. All handguns must be registered within the state, meaning the police already have a handy list of handgun owners they can check against the NICS system to identify prohibited persons and go confiscate their guns. For rifles that’s much more difficult, since there is no state registry. It wasn’t immediately clear whether Cuomo is proposing visiting every person convicted of domestic violence and searching their home for firearms, but that’s pretty much the only way possible to accomplish what he’s demanding here.

On its face this doesn’t seem too concerning. “These are people who are already prohibited from owning guns. And they were convicted of domestic violence. Screw ’em. Doesn’t impact me.” But this could be the start of a slippery slope. If door-to-door confiscation from those convicted of domestic violence becomes commonplace, what’s to stop New York from expanding that list of “prohibited persons” to include other “indicators of violence?” Would it really be that far of a stretch to think that Cuomo might one day do the same thing to people arrested for assault? How about any misdemeanor crime, including carrying silly string?

As much as the “slippery slope” argument is dismissed by the gun control crowd, the reality is that it’s an excellent illustration of how we got to this point. From the National Firearms Act to the Hughes Amendment we lost machine guns. From the Gun Control Act of 1968 to Obama’s executive orders we lost kitchen counter FFLs. We see this happen every year, and now Cuomo wants to push us a little further down that slope it seems.

comments

  1. avatar JasonM says:

    That’s something which is possible in New York, at least for handguns. All handguns must be registered within the state…

    Not all handguns must be registered (Haynes v. US), only those legally owned. The gang bangers, drug addicts, convicted criminals, etc. don’t have to register their guns, so the cops won’t even know about them.

    I suspect if more people knew about Haynes v. US, fewer people would support the idea of a gun registry, because it would not legally apply to criminals.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      A largely meaningless distinction since someone who is already criminally possessing a gun will get thrown in prison just as easy, if caught, as someone who can own a gun but just didn’t register it.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        Except that via the revolving-door justice system in NY, NJ, Maryland, Illinois, Cali, and other (D) strongholds, real, hardened criminals will be back out on the street with another illegal gun, hurting more people in a matter of weeks after their last offense.

        1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          It’s not meaningless, they literally can’t be charged with not registering a firearm. They can and will be charged as a felon in possession, no question. What this means though is that that registration law isn’t meant to punish criminals, it’s meant to make criminals out of otherwise harmless law abiding people who are doing no harm.

    2. avatar ROBERT says:

      NY passed a law known as the SULLIVAN ACT. It was supposed to curb crime by prohibiting guns going into & out of NY City.

      That remains one of the most draconian anti-gun laws on the books.

      So, the law was passed over 100 years ago. Please tell me how well it has kept crime out of NYC.

      NO ANSWER? ——- I GUESS CUOMO IS JUST ANOTHER DANGEROUS IDIOT WITH TOO MUCH MONEY AND POWER! ——– DUH……….

      1. avatar Jim Macklin says:

        Tim Sullivan was a leader of The Irish Five Points Gang in NY. He wrote te Sullivan law to promote crime since he would have complete discretion about issuing a license to his gang members and associates and denying rival gangs and average people.
        It was sold as a crime measure and that was right, everywhere that such a law is passed crime increases.

    3. avatar Rich M says:

      Of course it applies to criminals. They choose to ignore the law. That is why they are criminals. But the entire anti-gun argument really labels gun owners as border-line criminals anyway. We cannot be trusted to do the right thing so they will restrict gun ownership out of existence if they can. One way will be to tax the gun owner to give up his gun. Annual Gun tax, per bullet tax all coming from the blue left.

      In this country, the 2nd Amendment exists because MOSTLY we don’t want the Government to become an unstoppable, tyrannical monster BUT ALSO to be able to defend our lives and our property and our fellow man, woman and child. The Antigun crowd doesn’t seem to see the current state of affairs now. Federal and many state governments are out of control and have become tyrannical monsters!! And they still don’t get the argument..”When seconds count, the Police are minutes away.” You see it on the news every day. The Police and firefighters & EMS are all erroneously called “First Responders”. But when seconds count, you know that you and I (AND those ON the scene ARE the first responders.

  2. avatar Jim B says:

    Why the inflammatory headline? You sound like the far left with the screaming lies. You obviously wrote that headline with the intention of having readers believe that Gov. Cuomo wants to take all guns away from civilians in NY which he may indeed want to do but this proposed law will do nothing of the kind. It is just grandstanding since it is already illegal for those convicted of domestic violence to posses firearms.

    The only news here is that Cuomo is too thick to understand the laws that are already on the books.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      no he like other gun grabbers in govt know full well what is already on the books. what they want is laws that are easily expanded to gradually take guns from everyone all while not causing a shit fight. if at first they all seem “reasonable” to most people they wont fight back. that is why they want these laws

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        He understands the law well enough to realize he can get a new gun control law enacted that is unenforceable and ineffectual and he can still crow about it as an accomplishment.

        I’m not aware of a single law-biding gun owner in NY who has been charged, let alone convicted, under any provisions of the SAFE Act (e.g., possession of an “assault weapon”, “high-capacity ammunition feeding device”, etc.), …

        … ABSENT OF ANY OTHER CRIME.

        In any practical sense, the SAFE Act is not a thing.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          then maybe you need to start looking at history more and not just your own but various countries particularly around control of weapons. i use the term weapons here because it goes right through history not just since guns were invented. the laws often do go unenforced until they have enough laws in place to round up the lot. in the mean time there is also a natural attrition due to those that try to follow the law to the letter. this makes their work easier.

        2. avatar HP says:

          This. This has nothing to do with taking guns, as we know, the Federal Law already covers this. It’s posturing for a guy who thinks he has a shot at being President in 2020. Only problem is, Andrew doesn’t seem to understand, the rest of America (or even New York State) for that matter isn’t NYC.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Not that I give a shit about dirt bags with domestic convictions, but this is likely a “warm up.” A practice run for the real confiscation, which will be the door to door enforcement of the SAFE act. Look at it this way, the know the SAFE act failed. Most gun owners choose to ignore the law, and they know that. They won’t let that stand, so they’re trying to figure out a way to start round ups. They can start with easy targets like domestic abusers and what not. You know, soften the public reaction. Get the police some experience doing these raids. Then they really put the boot on the neck.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        spot on. soften up the public and harden the police at the same time

      2. avatar Roman of Texas says:

        This is probably true. That could be bad. I wonder-how many folks will go ahead and turn in their guns if police is surrounding them? Or even just via targeting them with fines, taxes, ect. My guess, sad as it is, is that most people will give up without so much as a fight.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Easy targets, huh? The stupidity, it burns! Aren’t the most dangerous calls the police answer the “domestic disturbance” calls? Where they are often ambushed and murdered on arrival? But all those fine people are going to allow JBT to waltz in and rip their homes apart, looking for guns, because that jackass says so? Is he going to be in the forefront of the team, perhaps toting a SAW? And how long will it take before non-abuser neighbors begin chiming in with a few hundred rounds at the police during the siege?

  3. avatar willie says:

    apparently the electorate in New York is more than willing to support gun control? quite a shame, as there are some beautiful parts of the state, but Albany seems more than willing to dance to the tune of The City?

    1. avatar HP says:

      It’s the electorate in NYC, not New York State. Most of the population lives in NYC. It sucks.

    2. avatar nyglockowner says:

      25,000 NY gun owners registered 44,000 “assault weapons” before the unSAFE deadline. I think there might be a few ignoring Fredo’s demands.

  4. avatar Damion says:

    Actually, NY only has a list of handgun owners that waived their civil liberties and “volunteered” to follow the unconstitutional laws in NY….all the other legal handgun owners in NY who didn’t waive their civil liberties and signup for the confiscation lists colloquially known as CCW license and registration… Will still own, keep as carry whatever and wherever they want any arms.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      And who will spend 15 to 20 years in prison if they shoot someone with said guns. If you think you are going to find a judge or jury in New York who wouldn’t convict then you are, in the nicest way I can think to put it, exceptionally optimistic.

  5. avatar Geoff PR says:

    ” How about any misdemeanor crime, including carrying silly string?”

    How about for reckless driving? If you’re too irresponsible enough to endanger people on the road with your lethal vehicle, no guns for you!

    That’s the next plateau for the grabbers – expand as much as possible the ‘crimes’ making someone a prohibited person.

    Because irresponsible people should never be allowed to possess guns.

    That’s ‘common-sense’, isn’t it?

    *sarc*

  6. avatar Specialist38 says:

    New York sounds a lot like Nazi Germany.

    1. avatar Robert says:

      Just figuring that out?
      Well, sieg heil, and a salute to the Peoples Republic of New Jersey……

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Been to NYC once about 25 years ago. Once was enough.

        Found out from a friend the knife I was carrying would have been a felony.

        The rest of the state is nice ….. except for Ithaca.

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    NY makes Illinois look like a bastian of freedom. And that’s sad…does this retardapol understand most abusers don’t need a gat to make their oldlady go splat?!? Oh wait it’s just about control😖😫😡

  8. avatar Huntmaster says:

    I think it’s a great idea and as Chief LEO he should be the first guy through the door on every raid.

  9. avatar Vhyrus says:

    The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
    H. L. Mencken

  10. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Hi, you’ve been convicted of an assault, I am here to confiscate your guns.”

    “I don’t have any.”

    “Let me in to search.”

    “No.”

    “…oh.”

    (while they could go through the trouble of getting a warrant beforehand, “gun units” in Cali and other places haven’t)

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Since you have no guns, you cannot stop me, get out of the way or be hurt.”

  11. avatar TruthTellers says:

    And I’m sure if this gets the green light, I’m sure the brave, honest, and respectful NYPD will calmly knock on the doors of those convicted of a domestic. Of course, they’ll never knock on the wrong door or kick a wrong door in and raid the wrong apartment. They’re the police, they never make mistakes and nobody ever dies when a cop makes a mistake, it’s always the suspect who makes a mistake and forces the pig… I mean lore officer to fire dozens of bullets at them.

  12. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “He championed the NY SAFE ACT, a law which is so riddled with illegal, unconstitutional, and unenforceable provisions that it more closely resembles Swiss Cheese than a proper law.”

    Do we have court decisions supporting this claim, or is it simply more emotional “shall not be infringed”, and “I get to individually decide the constitutionality of any law, any time, anywhere”?

    If there is no case law, are their legal challenges pending? If there are no legal challenges to SAFE act, then it seems mighty suspicious that NY doesn’t have even one legal gun owner in the entire state with the guts to challenge “constitutionality” in court.

    Curious.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      There were, as far as I remember, two aspects of that state law struck down.
      1) The state was trying to enforce a ban on muzzle brakes but the law, as written, called them “muzzle breaks” because they don’t know what they’re doing. Struck down as vague because words matter in laws.
      2) The state didn’t go as far as to ban magazines over 7 rounds but DID make it illegal to put more than 7 rounds in a magazine, even if it was a 10-round magazine. Struck down for being too stupid for even a judge to suffer.

      The rest of the law was upheld on ‘intermediate scrutiny’ which basically means the state presents a problem to the court and can do whatever it wants as long as it might do something to solve the problem (the 2nd Amendment being considered a 2nd class right by the courts)

      1. avatar nyglockowner says:

        Muzzle break was rewritten and spelled correctly in the penal code.

  13. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    As a person who left a slave state, California, for the free state of Kentucky, I say move to a Free Land.
    What is so important that you don’t vote for guns???
    Every person you vote for should support the second amendment. School board, county office, dog catcher, etc. If they don’t then don’t vote for them.

    For me not supporting the second amendment is an indicator of the others things they want to stick their fingers in. Anti gunners are always socialist progressive in their political orientation.

    Its amazing how people who support gay marriage also support the state getting involved in domestic relation disputes. Or how they totally support the welfare industrial complex, that criminalize the heterosexual relationships of single mothers.

    1. avatar RonnieB223 says:

      Me too Chris! Except from NY to Kentucky! Freedom!!!

      1. avatar Wheel GunGuy says:

        Looking to leave Madiganistan(Peoples Republic of Illinois) for Tennessee.

        1. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

          Where abouts? I’m about 30 miles east of downtown Memphis.

  14. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I just can’t take anything this clown says seriously. Every time I see his face I think of Harpo Marx.

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjgwMjI3MTE1Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjYxNTM2._V1_UY317_CR20,0,214,317_AL_.jpg

  15. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Good “Old Souer Puss” Coumo.

  16. avatar MakeMyDay says:

    I hope he tries it. New York would be as good a place as any to start the revolution.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      A) No, it wouldn’t and
      B) If there was going to be a revolution, why on earth would it be over this relatively minor issue? Assuming you read the article and not jus the title. This has also been effectively done in other states

  17. avatar W says:

    Cuomo will likely run for president in 2020 or 2024.
    He’s a real leftist authoritarian.

  18. avatar Jb says:

    I think I saw him in a mob movie.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      May have been a newsreel.

    2. avatar nyglockowner says:

      Yeah, Fredo, the incompetent son of the Godfather.

  19. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    Sounds and acts like Mussolini to me……

  20. avatar strych9 says:

    I’m going to echo a few comments here and then kinda expand on the points.

    First, yes, it’s easy to say “Fuck domestic abusers”. However that’s just an easy target to start out with and the state knows it. When you think about DV, yes there are a lot of scumbags out there. However there are also a lot of people who got caught up in a system where the cops showed up and said “Well, someone’s going to jail”. DV, like rape, is a charge that can be very difficult to beat. If you don’t believe me, go read Victimology by Sgarzi and McDevitt where they lay out the stats on this. The wrongful conviction numbers are astounding. And if you’re one of them… Good luck getting your stuff back and getting off the NICS list which can take a decade.

    Second, IMHO, this is the “beginning” of creating a patchwork of laws that make a “you can’t get there from here” situation for a lot of people. This is something NYC and Chicago have been doing for a long time. It’s not that there’s one law that’s obviously unconstitutional, it’s that there are a set of laws that are nearly impossible to follow at the same time. What worries me about this proposal is the “We’ll come and take them” provision which, after some use, can then be expanded to other technical violations of the patchwork.

    Third and finally, yes, if passed and put into action this will be expanded to other minor offenses that show a “propensity for violence” or show a “propensity for lawbreaking”.

    I also worry about abuse. We’ve seen this already with the WoD. Overzealous cops boot down a door on flimsy pretexts, shoot dogs and/or residents and then get away with it because “We had information that there were drugs at that location!” these days is a valid excuse to do just about anything.

    Just wait until that rationale is expanded to guns.

  21. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    The entire prohibitiion against people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence owning firearms ought to be unconstitutional. What other fundamental rights are permanently forfeited due to a misdemeanor conviction?

  22. avatar Docduracoat says:

    I agree with Cloudbuster
    If your wife is screaming at you from 1 inch away and spitting at you and you use the flat of your hand to move her to 2 inches away, that can get you convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence
    Strych9 is also right as there are plenty of men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence on the unsupported word of their wife
    You will not believe the prejudice in favor of the wife here in Florida family court
    I have personally experienced that every incredible accusation is taken seriously by the courts and you have to prove them false
    There is never any consequence for the woman to make as many accusations as she feels like
    She can keep making the same accusation multiple times and each one will be investigated and you have to keep proving them false every time
    I am still amazed that misdemeanor d v is enough to lose gun rights
    As I said before, putting the flat of your hand out with gentle contact is enough to get a misdemeanor d v conviction

  23. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    Definition of Progressive…
    A New York ad agency speak to make Marxist ideology sound acceptable.

  24. avatar james says:

    California, which operates an expensive and unique program to track down illegally-owned guns. The state checks its records to find registered gun owners who have been convicted of felonies or domestic violence crimes, or who have been flagged as being mentally unstable. Roving teams of armed agents in bulletproof vests visit the homes of such people to make sure they have surrendered their guns.

  25. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    A registration list will never be used for confiscation. This must be true, because we’ve been told that. And there is no mass internet surveillance, monitoring foreign actors for counter-espionage will never be used as a backdoor way to criminal charges against citizens, and …

    The one thing we know for certain is any authority we permit these knuckleheads will be abused as much as we tolerate. Just as certain, they’ll find ways to abuse so insane we’d never have thought of them.

    – Yes, the border extends 100 miles inland from the border. (They wanted 200).

    – The info on your phone isn’t your info. Nor is looking at it a search. Nor is compelling you to unlock the gizmo so they can look at it any kind of coercion.

    – They don’t want an magic, admin backdoor into every electronic device, which is why they keep reintroducing that on ever dozen years or so. Not to worry, Intel built a back door into the last three revs of their uP chipsets; operates underneath and before any software you are aware of it learning and can watch & relay literally anything it wants at the hardware level. (Pay no attention to both Samsung and Chinese component manufacturers having done something like this with phones already.) BTW, with UEFI, it won’t load any software not signed by someone it recognizes, so roll your own OS without the holes that much harder to load. (Yes, you can work around this stuff … mostly. At what point does “makes it harder” becomes “restricts” or “eliminates?”

    – BTW what’s the legality of modifying e-stuff to work around any of that “All your hardware are belong to us?” Pinky-swear, they’ll never come after anyone for this with the DRM laws, except they never bothered to pinky-swear.

    – It’s the property that’s being accused, not the person, so it has no rights and we can just take it, without probable cause, charges & etc. (And BTW, *you* have to prove that your stuff was not involved in a crime, via their procedures not subject to judicial review … because it’s the stuff, not you, being penalized.) They’ll literally try to “charge” and confiscate an entire ferry, for a whack-weed seed found embedded in a crack in a railing. Happened in Seattle.

    – Of course on guns, they’re not banning ammo, just anything made of lead, which totally doesn’t infringe anybody’s right to keep and bear arms, which they totally respect.

    – Also, automatics are already effectively banned, so we need to ban all the things because those evil bump fire stocks create automatics. Also, the proposed legislation doesn’t say “automatic” or “bump fire stock” anywhere, could have been used to ban lever actions, bolt actions, flint locks, literally any firearm technology since muzzle-loaded match locks. And, look, now the ATF says they think they maybe, kinda, sorta had the authority to ban bump fire stocks all along.

    You can’t keep the peace in here, we’e the police.

    You can’t consider people’s rights in here, we’re a republic.

    Really, is it time to put them all on a rocket to some planet far away, along with the telephone handset sanitizers, and similar? They don’t appear to be trainable, let alone well-intentioned.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      very well said mate. none of them are to be trusted at all. in fact the moment you start trusting govt to do the right thing, that is when they will start to fuck you over

  26. History always is repeated. All I have to say is “Zieg heil!” The Nazis used gun registration records to disarm Jews and other “undesirables”. When will, I ask, will New Yorkers muster the courage to oust assholes like Cuomo, Schumer and other leftists? And if the government can confiscate your guns, it can confiscate any other property it doesn’t want you to have.

  27. avatar the protector says:

    Now with the shooting in Florida, Cuomo has a need more than ever to ban firearms. With this new pistol recertification it gives the State Police and local a reason to start the crack down. Hit the private owners 1st, lots of felony moneys to be made. Then ban Hunting, a second reason to get more guns out of the peoples hands. Mass forced closing of gun club, gun shows etc. If they don’t shut down arrest all the members. These people are undesirables. Take there guns, take their money and take t for the good of the state. More states need to start following this example.

  28. avatar Thomas Jennings says:

    I think its a crock of shit cause a woman can kick you in the nuts and you push her away then she calls the cops now your arrested for abuse.and all you tried to do is protect yourself . I know from a personal experience .

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