Man becomes first to lose guns under New York’s >Red Flag Law<

YeeHaa

Member
Charter Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,762
Location
T'ville ~ Trinity
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
An upstate man busted for shooting a car and then threatening to harm himself is the first person to have his guns confiscated under New York’s new “red flag” law.

Robert King, 51, was accused of illegally possessing and firing a pistol that struck a parked car in New Lebanon, Albany’s News 10 reported.

Cops said that after his arraignment, King said something about hurting himself, so authorities filed an extreme risk protection order.

His weapons — a pistol and seven long guns — were seized on Sept. 4 pending a hearing scheduled for Friday, but King waived the formal hearing “based upon clear and convincing evidence against him,” Judge Patrick McGrath said.

Both sides agreed that the guns would be taken away for a year, although the state can introduce new evidence to extend that period.

King can also request another hearing during the year to try to get the guns back sooner.



https://nypost.com/2019/09/13/man-becomes-first-to-lose-guns-under-new-yorks-red-flag-law/
 
These reported cases don't help us.

Until someone who isn't a nutcase gets their rights infringed the movement will gain momentum.

You hit the nail on the head. Most of the cases so far, and I could be wrong, the people are unstable. But until something happens where there is nothing wrong with someone and this happens it's hard to argue they are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Guy sound like either a mental case or an asshole. Either way, confiscate HIM and evaluate or arrest him. If someone is such a danger to themselves or others, why only take the firearms? How about knives, tire irons, his car, etc. Can't they also be used against others? The left will continue to use these examples to push for the broad spectrum of confiscation.
 
These reported cases don't help us.

Until someone who isn't a nutcase gets their rights infringed the movement will gain momentum.
But, you know this is inevitable. Sooner or later they will knock on the wrong door(s). Innocent lives will be lost. Then the fire will start. We've already had a couple of examples, but I anticipate a major escalation after some resist. Then there will be push back.
 
These reported cases don't help us.

Until someone who isn't a nutcase gets their rights infringed the movement will gain momentum.

Agreed, but you don’t think the press is going to report on anything that hurts the cause of gun confiscation do you?
 
But, you know this is inevitable. Sooner or later they will knock on the wrong door(s). Innocent lives will be lost. Then the fire will start. We've already had a couple of examples, but I anticipate a major escalation after some resist. Then there will be push back.

If an officer dies fighting for gun confiscation is it still an innocent life?
 
Guy sound like either a mental case or an asshole. Either way, confiscate HIM and evaluate or arrest him. If someone is such a danger to themselves or others, why only take the firearms? How about knives, tire irons, his car, etc. Can't they also be used against others? The left will continue to use these examples to push for the broad spectrum of confiscation.
He was in court for what sounds like ND of his pistol , bullet ricocheted hit a car. It's what he said in court (reported ) that they Red Flagged him for.
However, because this guy is not likable it's OK for his Due-Process be denied?
 
If an officer dies fighting for gun confiscation is it still an innocent life?

So, LEO is required to take an oath to the Constitution before anything else. Most law enforcement officers agree with 2A and believe in the Constitution. The Chiefs of Police and such are against our rights, because it causes them problems. They want something to blame their problems on. We can't legislate or police morality.
 
He was in court for what sounds like ND of his pistol , bullet ricocheted hit a car. It's what he said in court (reported ) that they Red Flagged him for.
However, because this guy is not likable it's OK for his Due-Process be denied?

That's not what I meant at all. If the man/woman is the problem, arrest, charge and convict or state evaul and the mental ward. There should me no removal of property until so.
 
So, LEO is required to take an oath to the Constitution before anything else. Most law enforcement officers agree with 2A and believe in the Constitution. The Chiefs of Police and such are against our rights, because it causes them problems. They want something to blame their problems on. We can't legislate or police morality.

We always have legislated morality. Most of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Thou shall not murder is a moral law. If laws aren’t based on morals then they are likely unjust or tyrannical.

I hope you are right about most LEO. If you are many of them will not take part if asked to confiscate weapons and nullify the 2nd Amendment and Constitution.
 
So, LEO is required to take an oath to the Constitution before anything else. Most law enforcement officers agree with 2A and believe in the Constitution.
Yeah. And I’d put zero dollars to that when they’ve got a mortgage, a car payment, and other bills to pay when the guy who signs their paycheck says otherwise.

See the problem?

Like I said, getting a BLET certificate and pinky swearing to uphold the law is a BS reason to grant super-citizen privilege that shouldn't exist to begin with.
 
Last edited:
We always have legislated morality. Most of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Thou shall not murder is a moral law. If laws aren’t based on morals then they are likely unjust or tyrannical.

I hope you are right about most LEO. If you are many of them will not take part if asked to confiscate weapons and nullify the 2nd Amendment and Constitution.

Well, although morality is important to you and I, it's not a big deal to many other people that are "embraced" by our communities. You can't make people follow the moral laws. It can't be policed or enforced. Period. We can arrest and adjudicate them. But, they will follow their own path.
 
Yeah. And I’d put zero dollars to that when they’ve got a mortgage, a car payment, and other bills to pay when the guy who signs their paycheck says otherwise.

See the problem?

Like I said, getting a BLET certificate and pinky swearing to uphold the law is a BS reason to grant super-citizen privilege that shouldn't exist to begin with.

Wow. Where did you work at as a law enforcement officer? You are BLET certified? Are you a current LEO? So, no one hired you and you're pissed off? What's really going on? You want to make a big deal out of this, right? What disqualified you?
 
After further reading, these "red flag" laws are really nothing new. The US govt poisoned certain ingredients to make alcohol in the prohibition era and killed about 10000 people. They also used Paraquat on weed in the 70's to try and "curb" marijuana use. Sickened and killed more. It's another tool to try and heard us in the direction they want us to go in.
 
An upstate man busted for shooting a car and then threatening to harm himself is the first person to have his guns confiscated under New York’s new “red flag” law.

Robert King, 51, was accused of illegally possessing and firing a pistol that struck a parked car in New Lebanon, Albany’s News 10 reported.

Cops said that after his arraignment, King said something about hurting himself, so authorities filed an extreme risk protection order.

His weapons — a pistol and seven long guns — were seized on Sept. 4 pending a hearing scheduled for Friday, but King waived the formal hearing “based upon clear and convincing evidence against him,” Judge Patrick McGrath said.

Both sides agreed that the guns would be taken away for a year, although the state can introduce new evidence to extend that period.

King can also request another hearing during the year to try to get the guns back sooner.



https://nypost.com/2019/09/13/man-becomes-first-to-lose-guns-under-new-yorks-red-flag-law/


Clearly, this was a case that the guy needed to have his weapons removed. LEO was exactly right. They did what they had to do. He was a threat to himself and others. He will have a hearing to determine his competency. I should have never gotten involved in further discussion.
 
These reported cases don't help us.

Until someone who isn't a nutcase gets their rights infringed the movement will gain momentum.
But how will you know? All the cops have to say is “ He said he was going to hurt himself!” I’m not busting on all cops. He’ll, my son and best friend are both cops, but, we all know they’re out there especially in Democratic areas.
 
But how will you know? All the cops have to say is “ He said he was going to hurt himself!” I’m not busting on all cops. He’ll, my son and best friend are both cops, but, we all know they’re out there especially in Democratic areas.
I could be wrong but it would probably take a lot more than that. There will be a hearing and the whistle blower had better have their facts straight.
At least I hope the's how it would work.
 
Clearly, this was a case that the guy needed to have his weapons removed. LEO was exactly right. They did what they had to do. He was a threat to himself and others. He will have a hearing to determine his competency. I should have never gotten involved in further discussion.


A 51-year-old volunteer firefighter and family man has had every gun he owns taken away by the government.

Robert King was arrested and accused of illegally possessing a pistol that he reportedly fired in Columbia County, striking a neighbors parked car.

But that’s not why his guns were confiscated.

Police claim that after his arraignment, King made a “comment” about harming himself.

That comment is what put the “Red Flag” law into motion and allowed authorities to seize all of his guns for at least a year, maybe longer.

King’s wife says the comment made by her husband was taken out of context. But sadly, that doesn’t matter. Context doesn’t matter when it comes to seizing guns in liberal red flag states. King was forced to surrender a pistol and more than a half-dozen rifles.

In today’s “red flag” world you’re not allowed to be angry, fly off the handle, or say something you might regret later. No. You can’t be “human” anymore – not if you want to keep your guns in a “red flag” state.


https://www.waynedupree.com/robert-king-red-flag-law/
 
More like proof that red flag laws are a necessary evil.

OK, your position is infringement of BORs is necessary.

So, Gov Abbott of Texas was faced with the same dilemma that other Law Makers (???) are faced with, which is "how to retain the integrity of our most basic Law of the land ( The U.S. Constitution ) but yet he chose to evoke 8 Executive Orders that skirt infringing on the BORs but don't.

Gov. Greg Abbott issues eight executive orders aimed at stopping potential mass shooters
The orders focus largely on improving reporting channels when members of the public or law enforcement agencies worry that a person might become violent.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/0...leases-executive-orders-after-mass-shootings/
 
So, who called the police to the house? The occupants. They put the police in a position to "do something" . They were called there. They had to respond. They did what they had to do. Stop beating the police up. They didn't want to be there. They were forced there.. So, now, what is the best course of action? They were correct to take the action they took. So, like it or not, they had a decision to make. Sorry. They were EXACTLY right. They had no other choice to make.
 
So, who called the police to the house? The occupants. They put the police in a position to "do something" . They were called there. They had to respond. They did what they had to do. Stop beating the police up. They didn't want to be there. They were forced there.. So, now, what is the best course of action? They were correct to take the action they took. So, like it or not, they had a decision to make. Sorry. They were EXACTLY right. They had no other choice to make.

I'm not beating the police up.
As I pointed out in the link below, Robert King was arrested over a pistol.
King was not Red Flagged until he was at court.
https://www.carolinafirearmsforum.c...er-new-york’s-red-flag-law.49552/#post-862235

Also, I'm not making this about LEOs, it's primarily about Unconstitutional Law.
I.E. , No Due process
 
Well, I appreciate what you are saying. We don't have a problem. I'm just saying that those poor police officers were given a choice. They had to make a decision. You guys think that they were trying to take guns away from good citizens. That's not the case here. This was a situation that needed to be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
I’m also not beating up LEOs. As I said, my son is one as so are many of my friends, but, all it takes is one, who to CYA says the suspect said________. It his word against the now suspect and the suspect has guns. Whose word will be taken in court? Jus sayin....
 
You know, I live in the country and I have no concerns about anyone bothering me. But, let me ask you this....... What would happen if the police were called to your house after you and your wife had been drinking? So, the dogs were barking and the neighbors called. So, the cops arrive and realize that you have been drinking. Are you a threat to yourself and others? Would that qualify you for the Red Flag Laws? Would they take your guns?
 
You know, I live in the country and I have no concerns about anyone bothering me. But, let me ask you this....... What would happen if the police were called to your house after you and your wife had been drinking? So, the dogs were barking and the neighbors called. So, the cops arrive and realize that you have been drinking. Are you a threat to yourself and others? Would that qualify you for the Red Flag Laws? Would they take your guns?

They shouldn't take the "guns". They should take you (not you you, but the drunk folks) to jail.
 
They shouldn't take the "guns". They should take you (not you you, but the drunk folks) to jail.
LOL so for what, for the dogs barking? Haha. What would be the charge?

I'm so fortunate, I live in the middle of no where. My neighbor and I have an agreement to help each other. LEO will take about twenty five minutes to get here. We are at the county lines. We will call 911 but after that we will call one another. Although he only has a handgun, we will be okay. I'm still trying to convert him to believing in the AK/AR concept. He is a gun owner that doesn't believe in AK and AR ownership. I'm working on him.
 
They shouldn't take the "guns". They should take you (not you you, but the drunk folks) to jail.
LOL so for what, for the dogs barking? Haha. What would be the charge?

I'm so fortunate, I live in the middle of no where. My neighbor and I have an agreement to help each other. LEO will take about twenty five minutes to get here. We are at the county lines. We will call 911 but after that we will call one another. Although he only has a handgun, we will be okay. I'm still trying to convert him to believing in the AK/AR concept. He is a gun owner that doesn't believe in AK and AR ownership. I'm working on him.

I meant only if some threatening stuff was happening. Fingers typed faster then the brain was comprehending. If you've been drinking on your own property, so what. You are 3 sheets to the wind and bustin caps in the air, then there is the problem.
 
Great question? Who will make that decision? Your local law enforcement officer. So, we're back at the original discussion. The cops get called to your house and they have to make a decision. My point was that we have to give our law enforcement people a chance to make their best decision. I don't remember making reference to someone shooting. I never said that. If that was an issue, things would change.
 
You know, I live in the country and I have no concerns about anyone bothering me. But, let me ask you this....... What would happen if the police were called to your house after you and your wife had been drinking? So, the dogs were barking and the neighbors called. So, the cops arrive and realize that you have been drinking. Are you a threat to yourself and others? Would that qualify you for the Red Flag Laws? Would they take your guns?

Excellent question;

Short answer = NO

As currently written, all RFL are unconstitutional

America is free ( for a little while longer ) and being Free ( or proclaiming to ) does not ensure Safety.
Freedom & Safety do not go together all the time.
LEOs ( for the most part ) hate refereeing domestics.

1) NO, no property or firearms are automatically seized / taken.
2) If the Leo~s at the scene determine one or both of the parties have committed assault / battery then either or both should be arrested and removed. By being arrested will bring attention to the affected party~ ies behavior and will be handled by going thru the ,,, System.
3) If the Leo~s on the scene determine the reason the dogs were barking is because their supper was dropped on the floor, alcohol present or not, with no other obvious concerns, case closed.
4) The removal of property requires a Search Warrant and without a warrant is a violation of the 4th & 14th amendment.

Further & expanded info for the 4th is included below, bottom.



“If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. ”

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

F W I W
BOR c.jpg




4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

7th amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

$20 in 1791 → $521.53 in 2017
https://www.officialdata.org/1791-dollars-in-2017?amount=20

8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th amendment ( States Rights ) ( Fed infringement )
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

14th amendment
Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.




A careful review of the 4th Amendment tells us everything we need to know.

  • The right against unreasonable searches and seizures SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The 2nd Amendment is NOT the only provision that contains these words. The government has been infringing upon the 2nd Amendment for decades, so why are we surprised that the 4th Amendment would get the same government application?

  • Only REASONABLE searches and seizures are allowed and are defined within the 4thAmendment:
  • With a WARRANT;
  • Based upon PROBABLE CAUSE;
  • Subject to DUE PROCESS REVIEW (oath or affirmation);
  • Particularly describing the PLACE to be search, AND
  • Particularly describing the PERSONS or THINGS to be seized.
There is clearly a 5 prong requirement as indicated by the word “AND”. You cannot have 4 out of 5 or 3 out of 5 and still have a reasonable search and seizure.

I challenge anyone to find within this language any other exception other than the 5 prong test. You can’t, because every exception that doesn’t exist within the 4th Amendment itself, is an exception created BY THE GOVERNMENT for the purpose of AIDING THE GOVERNMENT in their unreasonable searches and seizures.

There is no language in the 4th Amendment that says;

“no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, UNLESS it is a matter of national security or the government has a compelling interest in safety or security to do otherwise.

Yet, that is what our judges consistently do, being either illiterate or ignorant to the TRUE MEANING and APPLICATION of the 4th Amendment.

The 4th Amendment WAS NOT designed as a tool to be used by the GOVERNMENT to keep its people safe. It was a WARNING to the PEOPLE that if the government engages in ANY SEARCH AND SEIZURE outside these bounds, you have an EVIL AND OPPRESSIVE government.


https://www.krisannehall.com/index....xceptions-to-the-4th-amendment-where-are-they
 
Love it, you are so right in so many ways.



Very flattering & Humbling.

I must admit, I'm here on this forum ( and what is now the Canadian site) because of my love & interest in the > SPORT< & hunting.

I've always taken our 2nd Amendment for granted because I've never encountered a foreign or domestic threat and never anticipated doing so.

As we all know ( or coming to know again ) the Only Purpose for or 2nd Amendment is for self preservation against foreign or domestic threat~s / tyranny.

I do not have the time to just willy nilly sound off , but this NEW Attack on our 2nd Amendment Right is Too Important not to add to the discussion,,,?

Our 1st Amendment Rights ( 5 all lumped into the 1st ) are also well into being diminished and tossed aside as well.

I submit for consideration to all that proclaim our U.S. Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, and The 2nd Amendment are ">Out Dated?<" , that as long as Humans keep attempting to "Self Rule" and Human Nature being what it is, our U.S. Constitution is as relevant in today's time as much as it was when it was thought out and written.

In discussions with others, concerning the recent interest in taking guns away, that are neutral or anti gun and don't see the future implications of just ignoring the 2nd and in favor of RFL~s I ask them when they expect to feel the ramifications of just letting government run slip-shot over gun owners using unconstitutional law.

The vast majority harbor the attitude that such actions don't concern them because they don't care about guns, period.

I then remind them that if they back government in ignoring current LAW then they are in fact party to setting a "Precedent" of violating and ignoring our Boiler Plate and they are fair game for other issues the government finds inconvenient to follow by pointing out all the amendments violated in the link below to Dis-Arm America.

So, in the end, this debate, argument, fight is about the Whole thing, thus the second reason the Pilgrims left Europe, "An Oppressive Government."

https://www.carolinafirearmsforum.c...er-new-york’s-red-flag-law.49552/#post-862599


F W I W
BOR c.jpg constitution of the united states.jpg
 
I then remind them that if they back government in ignoring current LAW then they are in fact party to setting a "Precedent" of violating and ignoring our Boiler Plate and they are fair game for other issues the government finds inconvenient to follow by pointing out all the amendments violated in the link below to Dis-Arm America.
I do wonder that if people fought harder about the illegal domestic surveillance if this would be happening now? That they implemented a system to automatically spy on everyone and when it was uncovered, and not by their choice, people were ho hum about it. That program was not only a violation, but the lynch pin underlying the ability to enact further violations.

Sadly, not only did people not seem to care, I know at least one person who thinks it a good thing and it’s revelation was a treasonous act.
 
Back
Top Bottom