Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:
 


New York: Voluntarily Waive Your Gun Rights…Legally

DC police Guns gun wall red

(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Maybe this one shouldn’t come as a surprise, but it does. A group of New York Assembly Democrats – Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, and co-sponsored by Jeffrey Dinowitz, Fred Abinanti, Richard Gottfried, Assemblywoman Fahy, Rebecca Seawright, Assemblyman Englebright and Assemblyman Dickens – have proposed legislation that would make it possible for New Yorkers to voluntarily waive their gun rights.

Well hello, 2020, you’ve done it again.

The Post-Journal reports:

If approved, anyone would be able to file a voluntary waiver of their right to purchase a gun. The State Police would then request photo identification to verify the person’s identity before accepting the form. Waivers would include an alternate individual to be contacted if the waiver is revoked.

No sooner than 21 days after filing a waiver, an individual would be able to file a recovation of their waiver.

But don’t worry, it won’t be made some sort of mandatory deal or anything . . .

Waivers would not be able to be required as a condition of employment or for benefits or services. The proposed law also states no records required by the registry law would be subject to disclosure and would remain confidential for matters of health care, employment, education, housing, insurance, government benefits and contracting.

Right.

Is this just New York? Well . . .

Washington and Virginia have recently enacted legislation, and nine other states, including Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin, have introduced similar bills in the legislatures.

This one requires no commentary. Dive on in, guys.

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    I suppose it’s for the crazies who want to off their insane selves…have at it dummy. Nothing ever goes wrong when .gov is involved😕😕😕

    1. avatar KJ says:

      Why keep it confidential? Post their addresses on Google maps in order to better signal their virtue. Preferably with images of all the cool stuff in their houses, like laptops, jewelry, cash. . .

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Post their addresses on Google maps in order to better signal their virtue.”

        Good idea. Doing so has the added benefit of protecting such people, because criminals would be able to determine which locations are not allowed to be attacked/raided; gun free zone.

        1. avatar Daniel Hoover says:

          Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

          Awesome IDEA

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        In all seriousness, no, because there are some people who recognize that they shouldn’t own guns and should not be penalized for that personal decision. BUT, you should be able to make your status public if you want. That way all the anti-gun folks who love signaling their virtue could put their money where their mouth is. How many do you think secretly have a gun while lobbying against them?

        Too bad it won’t stop those who can afford to have security armed around them instead (celebrities) or are afforded personal cops to carry around on taxpayer dimes (politicians).

    2. avatar CC Ryder says:

      You mean like when our Governor in Illinois is involved in anything ???
      Yes what could go wrong ?
      Answer: Everything !!

  2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    I recommend every Leftist take advantage of such an offer…

  3. avatar Dude says:

    On the surface, it looks like a chance to virtue signal. It could have a legitimate use though. What if you’re concerned someone is suicidal? You could ask them to do this. Do they have a similar program for opioid prescriptions?

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      I’m hoping that the types of people who like to virtue signal all sign on to this so they can tell everyone just how righteous they are.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        If only they’d leave the rest of us alone afterwards… but that’s not how the progbots work. Eventually the virtue signal will be “optional” just like social security numbers.

  4. avatar Joel IV says:

    Isn’t not exercising your rights the same as waiving them?

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Please, Joel, save some of that good common sense for future need, such as for 2021…I have a feeling the world will be in short supply by then and your services will be required.

      Joking aside, the concept is something that puzzles me as well, as to why Leftists don’t simply choose to decline the exercise of their right, instead of trying to take away all of ours in the process.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…why Leftists don’t simply choose to decline the exercise of their right, instead of trying to take away all of ours in the process.”

        Because Leftism cannot tolerate dissent.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Dissent is heresy. If you dissent against the party, you must be mentally ill and need to be committed until you see the light and praise Big Brother’s eternal virtues.

      2. avatar Docduracoat says:

        Because leftists are tyrants and want to force their ideas on everyone else.

      3. avatar Chris. says:

        Because it’s not about “THEIR” rights. They are concerned about Your rights.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      Actually, no, I don’t think it is the same. I have failed to exercise my right to vote a couple of times in my life. However, when I was in a better position to exercise my right to vote, I didn’t have to go through a bunch of paperwork to apply for the “privilege” of voting again.

      More relevant here, I don’t exercise my right to actually carry a firearm all the time. I haven’t waived that right, I just don’t exercise it very often. But, I can, at any time, strap on a holster, and carry, without begging the state police or the county sheriff for permission to do so. Just go to my little safe, open it up, decide which one I want to carry, and the process is complete.

      We have a helluva lot of rights that we don’t all exercise routinely. The right to assembly? If you miss church, and simply don’t go to any gatherings of any type for a month, or six months, or six years – you don’t have to apply for a permit from anyone to attend church again.

      Free speech? If I’m not a vocal advocate of $favorite cause for some period of time, does that mean I can’t suddenly stand up and advocate whatever – like 2A rights?

      The few times I have been asked, requested, or advised to sign a “waiver of rights”, I spoke up very quickly: “I do not waive ANY rights!” That includes the time I signed up with the electric company, and was asked to sign a statement that I would never have a generator on my property. They still have that form on file at the electric company, where I wrote “BULLSHIT” in big black letters, and wrote a short paragraph explaining why I rejected the idea.

      NEVER EVER sign away a right that you may possibly value next year, or in the next lifetime.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      thought the same thing…

  5. avatar Tee says:

    … and America voted for these morons to run the government? Damned, how could that happen?

  6. avatar Forp says:

    Wow I didn’t know New Yorkers were getting guns handed to the for free by the govt! The only way to not receive said guns were by removing yourself from the free gun roster! Sounds like a terrible affliction for the New Yorkers.

    Or does none of this make any sense and all you would have to do is *checks notes* not buy a gun?

  7. avatar Sam I Am says:

    A clear illustration of the difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable” natural, human and civil rights.

    The founders knew how to use the English language.

    1. avatar dlj83544 says:

      …just curious, might you explain the difference?
      Thanks much.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Inalienable” means it cannot be taken away by government. “Unalienable” means you cannot give it away. Volunteering to not exercise your right, or simply surrender it does not mean you do not still have it.

        One has a natural and human right to life. Government has no inherent right to take it from you on a whim. One can give up one’s life (for a host of reasons), but the right to life remains an actual natural and human right.

        The two words are now so shopworn as to be popularly interchangeable. American English is a sloppy language.

        1. avatar dlj83544 says:

          …thank you.

        2. avatar Jon in CO says:

          I would argue those rights are both, IN and UN. You should be able to do with them as you please, but they should be ever-present in the omniverse.

  8. avatar TFred says:

    “Waivers would not be able to be required as a condition of employment or for benefits or services.”

    Employment, benefits, and services are just a small fraction of the potential abuses this might take on a person.

    What about plea bargains? “We’ll let you plead to a misdemeanor as long as you surrender your gun rights…”

    What about civil contracts? “We’ll grant you the lease if you surrender your gun rights… we don’t want any of those ‘evil gun owners’ in our apartment building.”

    Hundreds of other ways to abuse this.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Yes and give it a year (being generous) with a democratic legislature supermajority and that first part you mentioned is on the table.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        As soon as the law has been passed, the protections currently included will instantly become “loopholes.”

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          History can be a bitch sometimes

  9. avatar Brodirt says:

    Amy Paulin is my district rep; needless to say I havent ever voted for her or her type.
    I suspect the goal is to get this law going and then coordinate with private industry for it become a requirement of employment.
    Democrats like to virtue signal, but they are NEVER not scheming for something more than what is apparent.

    1. avatar Nam62 says:

      ARE YOU SURE your VOTE was counted!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

        Of course it was, three times……for the wrong person.

      2. avatar Brodirt says:

        My vote doesnt count anymore, Westchester county used to be a coin flip with even the Dems being very moderate; its now a goat rodeo.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          goat yoga.

  10. avatar MrMax says:

    I have no freakin’ clue as to what this legislation would accomplish. What, a criminal would sign one and then abide by the document he signed? Even if someone deems themselves a danger to others or themselves does not need something like this to get their gun rights temporarily revoked. All they have to do is check in to a mental health center and, after the evaluation, the facility would make a filing, if necessary, that would come up in a firearm background check. These legislators need to get their heads out of their behinds and get to work on REAL issues like health care, tax reform, immigration reform, etc. etc.. I mean, really guys! Hard to believe imbeciles like this are actually elected by voters.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I have no freakin’ clue as to what this legislation would accomplish.”

      Many here continue to presume that any gun control measure is actually directed at reducing crime, or violent crime. This misapprehension leads to confusion as to whether the gun grabbers are rational. NOTE: They are cunningly rational.

      First, such legislation is an invitation to virtue signal.

      Second, it is to make the truly irrational among the public feel that something is being done to reduce their fears.
      Third, this kind of legislation indicates the depth of caring and concern in government related to a general feeling of being “safe/safer”.

      Fourth, this kind of legislation “proves” (if the number of waivers are significant) that people no longer value the Second Amendment, making it obsolete and properly subject to repeal or evasion.

      Fifth, supports the idea that legal gun ownership is a public health problem, subject to intensive government intervention for our own safety (see COVID-19 restrictions).

      Sixth, it presents the image that government will make sure that “good people” going to “good” places and doing things “good” people do, will not be interrupted by the inconvenience of some whacko legal gunowner “going off” and shooting up Times Square.

      In short, nothing about gun control is intended to reduce actual criminal activity.

      1. avatar Tee says:

        Pretty easy – in the dumbtards mind, you must be a gun owner if you haven’t signed up for their pile of crap idea list…. How else would you get to a list of gun owners? These pathetic morons…

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        all sorts of possibilities…should make a beaut of a lawsuit, though…if it was required in any way for anything…

  11. avatar BradB says:

    Seems like a super idea! Let’s add a provision to automatically enroll criminals. /s

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      If a conviction makes them prohibited persons, that’s automatic.
      No sarcasm involved.

      Unlike the promise to notify me if there’s a reply to this comment.
      That’s most definitely NOT automatic.

  12. avatar Curmudgeon says:

    “The State Police would then request photo identification to verify the person’s identity before accepting the form.”
    So its acceptable to require photo ID to surrender your rights but not to protect the voting process from fraud? What about all of the poor, elderly, and minorities that don’t have the resources to obtain a drivers license but whose lives would be benefited from this law?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      it should require a lot more identification and proof to deny someone of their right (voting, guns ownership, etc) than to exercise it.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        In this particular instance, the state isn’t denying you your rights; it’s you who is denying you your rights.

  13. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Seems to be in a category with things like self-mutilation and suicide.

    I also suppose the super-woke crowd will line up to show how selfless (and brainless) they can be.

  14. avatar Mortimer Plimpton says:

    In the words of the great Adam Duce: “On but an eternal satchel of Richards so mayeth they dine!”

  15. avatar David Underwood says:

    Seriously!! I’m absolutely falling out of my seat as I read this. This is a law asking you to give up your constitutional rights. Im absolutely suprised it doesn’t read, while your at it go ahead and volunteer to give up the rest of your constitutional rights and freedoms and the right to fight to protect them. Damn it wouldn’t suprise me one bit if commifonia goes all the way with this one. Then the dominoes fall, Virginia, Washington D.C., and so on. Here comes the commies.

  16. avatar Polcat says:

    And how long would it be before people that didn’t wave their rights start to show up in the system.

  17. avatar Debbie W. says:

    No need to worry just sign your x on this here waiver. You won’t ever need a gun as long as you have democRat slave masters running the plantation. Now stfu and get back to picking cotton.

  18. avatar American Patriot says:

    Great!!!
    I believe all idiots & liberals (if there’s a difference) should be able to have all their rights Revoked!
    Because their not normal people!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I believe all idiots & liberals (if there’s a difference) should waive all their rights!”

      FIFY

  19. avatar Ticked Off says:

    Well, in the State of Washington voters in King County voted to give up their right to vote for Sheriff and instead have the county manager appoint one.

    It seems like exercising the rights and duties of a free citizen is too onerous for some people these days so they opt to become voluntary wards of the State.

    Seems like freedom isn’t a “thing” anymore in the good old US of A.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Voting should be Free.

      Not voting should result in a fine.

      The fines from the non-voting voters should be distributed among the voting voters.

      If you are unwilling to take party in the duties and obligations of citizenship, then pay those of us who are willing.

      I also favor a tax on voting age citizens whining, sniveling and carrying on like a toddler denied a cookie….

      Possibly it could be a license fee rather than a tax.

      1. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

        Compulsory military service, like the Israeli’s.

      2. avatar Debbie W. says:

        enuf…you contributed to biden and you voted for biden and somehow you think you have a podium to discus other people voting or not voting. Once again you self-serving democRat Party lint licker…Get help. Mental Help.

      3. avatar Ad Astra says:

        So if your stuck in a leftist crap hole like CA where they have restructured the primary system so your choice is between 2 leftards , and your decide not to waste your time voting that person gets fined? Yup, sounds like the half thought out virtue signaling claptrap you usual spout off about.

  20. avatar tdiinva says:

    You don’t need any legislation to waive your gun rights. Just don’t buy a gun. It’s that simple.

    1. avatar Eric Williams says:

      Exactly, thats all you have to do. No need to make a big deal out of it.

      1. avatar Higgs says:

        But how would anyone know that’s what they have to do if the government does not tell them how to do it?

        1. avatar Eric Williams says:

          Not quite sure you actually NEED the government to tell you ‘not’ to do something if you have chosen so.
          A bit different I know, but as an example, here in the UK a “Freeman of the City of London” can exercise a ‘right’ that goes back many, many hundreds of years, and that is to be able to “drive flocks of sheep across London bridge (on foot) without hindrance or paying a toll fee”! Sounds a bit archaic I know, but its a priveledge which was granted to certain people. Now, that ‘right’ still stands, but current “Freemen of the City”
          choose not to do it for their own personal reasons – they don’t need to told it’s ok NOT to do so by government(AKA Free will)

      2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        But we need more lists in government sorting of citizens.

  21. avatar No says:

    If you don’t want one don’t have one but don’t bitch at me when you need one and don’t have one. Good ole gumbo still the pompous asshole. And his minions all suck

  22. avatar Ice Age says:

    I’m okay with this.

    I’ll be happy to sign any affidavit you want voluntarily giving up my claim to Social Security, Medicare and the availability of public schools – as long as I’ll no longer be taxed to pay for them.

  23. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    “…Well hello, 2020, you’ve done it again….”

    Not even close….just wait til the Vampire Zombie Polar Bears get here with the blizzards.

    They are p!$$ed!

    You’ll see…

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      Well, now, wait a minit..
      I think it depends on what flavor blizzards the Vampire Zombie Polar Bears are bringing.
      Snickerdoodle Cookie Dough could be worth it.

  24. Umm, I just read the text of the Bill, and not that familiar with NY law, but it references ‘Individual’ and State wide registry.

    What would stop them from allowing children to fill out this form because guns = bad?

  25. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    I am willing to bet that within a month of this being signed into law that divorce attorneys are regularly demanding men sign one of these as a condition of ever seeing their children again.

  26. avatar Gringo Cracker says:

    Virtue-signalling on wheels,. virtually guaranteed to make utopians feel better about their sorry-ass selves.

  27. avatar Eric Williams says:

    Surely, to “Waive your gun rights” (ability to legally own firearms) all you have to do is just not buy a gun in the first place….. Or am I missing something here?
    Its like, I ‘have the right’ to own a Lamborghini, or to drink myself to death – but I choose not to exercise that right!

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      you’re missing something…there’s something far more sinister and diabolical at work here

  28. avatar Rand says:

    Just introducing the law so everyone gets cool with the slow boiled frog portion. In a couple of years the restrictions will be removed.

  29. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I look forward to some one falsifying a signature to disarm a targeted victim. And then rape the son or daughter. And murder the parents. The utopians will never give up.

  30. avatar . says:

    This is a wonderful idea, no boat wrecks needed.

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    I can see it now: Letitia James holds a gun to a man’s head, and Andrew Cuomo assures him that either his brains or his signature will be on the waiver.

    The Grandma Killers strike again. Give that man an Emmy!

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      gramma emmy? nah.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        any ma.

  32. avatar Ralph says:

    In other silly news, while playing with his dog, Basement Joe Biden broke his foot.

    Trump says he will pardon the dog.

  33. avatar Mad Max says:

    What rights?

    New Yawkers don’t have any stinkin’ rights.

  34. avatar Daniel Hoover says:

    Can we do a Waive your First Amendment Rights? Anyone?

  35. avatar Canon says:

    In NY logic this is actually good for us… hear me out. If my Assemblywoman Fahy is working on bad legislation like this, she can’t be working on worse legislation that takes the rights away from someone who doesn’t want to voluntarily give them up. The more meaningless, feel good crap they pass the less time they have to bothering with me…

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Assemblywoman Fahy is working on bad legislation like this, she can’t be working on worse legislation that takes the rights away from someone who doesn’t want to voluntarily give them up.”

      Don’t presume these people cannot multi-task.

  36. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    “Oh you want to work here? Now, you don’t have to but it might help your chances if you just sign this form right here.”

  37. avatar Phil LA says:

    It’s almost like they read my mind, or TTAG comments.

  38. avatar Wally1 says:

    I look at the other end of the spectrum, If I exercise my right to bear arms, shouldn’t the government have to supply me with a firearm so that I may exercise this right? Please make mine a Sig P210.

  39. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Hey, all I know right now is there is a new Autonomous Zone in NY City – and this one makes sense. About time people stopped complying with the state trying to shut down their businesses. I bet they make more off “donations” than they would by charging normally. Of course, the media won’t cover a bar/diner saying “eff you governor we are not closing” – so you probably haven’t heard about it. This is autonomy done right. In the face of tyranny, refusal to comply – WITHOUT INVOLVING RACE or VIRTUE SIGNALING – like those asshats in Portland and Seattle. More business owners need to stop complying and start using all means necessary to fight back. If that means defending your business by utilizing the second amendment from the “blue line” – then so be it. Lets see what happens. Wanna bet they back down and cave to the red coats? They already sent “taxi sheriffs” in and all they did was lock the doors and say they were closed. Not going to work in the future. You will have to get violent. Good luck Mac’s Public House. Never pay their taxes and screw their licenses… get your hands bloody and keep your business open. Drive the tyrants out.

  40. avatar Hannibal says:

    “If approved, anyone would be able to file a voluntary waiver of their right to purchase a gun. The State Police would then request photo identification to verify the person’s identity before accepting the form.”

    So if someone takes a photo of your license they have you? Shouldn’t this require a notary or something?

    “Waivers would not be able to be required as a condition of employment or for benefits or services…”

    Does that include plea bargains or agreements in civil, criminal and family court cases?

  41. avatar UpInArms says:

    This is a perfect example of a solution desperately in search of a problem.

  42. avatar Foxes says:

    Voluntary???? This totally won’t be abused to course others to give up their rights. Can you voluntarily revoke your right against cruel and usual punishment? Free speech? Etc…

  43. avatar Ark says:

    “Just sign this and you’ll be able to go home” – cop after you’ve been locked in an interrogation room for 17 hours with no food, water, or bathroom.

  44. avatar Michael Lavallee says:

    No different than continually voting for the representatives that take away your rights or tax you into submission…..

  45. avatar OneIfByLand says:

    On the (very small) positive side; by proposing this law, they are very clearly recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right that cannot be taken away without due process, and must be waived by the person. Much like the right to remain silent can he waived. This is a breakthrough in NYS, in a perverse way, as a pistol license is still considered a privilege despite Heller.

  46. avatar Big Bill says:

    While it’s been mentioned briefly, I will belabor the point: Suicidal people might want to avail themselves of such a law.
    This is, of course, not saying that the law wouldn’t be used by those who wish to virtue signal, but there really is a valid purpose to such a law.
    That doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea. It means it’s not entirely without merit.
    I do think the procedure to sign on to the revocation of your right to keep and bear arms should require much more than a simple “Show me your driving license” though. IDs are so regularly fraudulent that it would be a very simple exercise to sign up anybody you don’t like (or don’t even know).
    I have to wonder if this particular piece of proposed legislation takes that into account.

  47. avatar Gene Ralno says:

    Holy cow, do citizens of New York believe this is legitimate government business? If not, they should do what citizens in responsible states do. Throw the rascals out and refund the salaries to the taxpayers.

  48. avatar 24and7 says:

    What a waste of legislative time and energy…let the morons volunteer to get in line first for the mark and the guillotine..

  49. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    an option for those poor femwees trapped within gun santuary county borders. imagine their relief.

  50. avatar FedUp says:

    “The prosecution agrees to drop all our bullshit charges, Your Honor, as long as the court orders the defendant to ‘voluntarily’ permanently surrender all his civil rights”

  51. avatar Egan says:

    Wait? Who asked you to represent me? I am a citizen of New York City! I have not authorized you to renounce the Second Constitution on my behalf. This is the USA! Not the СССР.

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