It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


35,000 Gub-Grab Attempts: ALL Approved by NY Rubber Stampers

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:09 PM

“Every so often I read one [gun-grab request] just to be sure,” Dr. Glatt, a psychologist, said. “I am not going to second guess. I don’t see the patient. I don’t know the patient.”

Even if just one dangerous person had a gun taken away, “that’s a good thing,” said Brian Malte, senior national policy director of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence


The article mentions that 144,000 were admitted to New York mental hospitals in 2012. The law went into effect in 2013, so while the numbers were not exact it would appear based on those numbers that after 1 year and six months roughly 34,500 of 216,000 people have had their guns grabbed or gun rights taken away. That would mean you have a roughly 16% chance of having your gun rights taken away if you are admitted to a mental health center in New York. The article also mentions while an average of 98.2% of the gun-grab requests are approved in New York, in at least some places the number is 100%.

Are guns actually being grabbed in the USA? Yes. I know this because after an acquaintance of mine in Pennsylvania had their gun seized by police after someone reported receiving a threat of violence from that person, I've been paying close attention to gun-grabbing. Liberals should throw a party since the gun-grabbing is now going large-scale after Katrina was successfully used to justify grabbing guns from people house-to-house.

By crunching numbers reported by the DCJS, I believe there are roughly 5,500 firearms related crimes in New York each year.

So, for every 5,500 firearm crimes in New York, more than 20,000 people have their firearm rights removed on the mere suspicion alone that a firearm crime may be committed. So, here is the survey question for you (the reader) to answer: given a 16% chance that your firearm rights will be taken away, do you fully cooperate in the mental health center or do you attempt to behave and communicate differently so as to be released with your rights intact? Personally I would communicate and behave the way I think I should to be released with my rights intact. I am someone who think doctors are wrong about half the time though any way. And even though I don't live in New York, I have to behave and communicate differently in my own state because my state could very well be next on the gun-grab list and surely they could go into historic records to try to justify taking away any gun I may have.

Regardless of all of that, why would any person tasked with this job of deciding whether to remove guns or otherwise violate gun rights ever take a chance of personal responsibility for this should one of his denied applications result in a death? Its a system designed to grab guns. Once again, the system was set up based on random nonsense rather than objective metrics, as is always the case in politics. That is why nearly every single allegation will result in a gun rights violation.

Like millions of other Americans, I was kidnapped into a mental health facility. In retrospect I can see why I was kidnapped... because someone told the police I was acting dangerously to myself. But, they didn't tell me that so there was no comprehension of why I was being abused. I was behaving strangely but only a slightly dangerously to myself, not much. According to government records that are generally sealed, I put myself in great danger, then assaulted someone, and finally threatened to hurt another person. LOL, really I have to laugh out loud at that nonsense. Oh wow. What actually happened was a did something slightly risky (in addition to getting very emotional) and was reported for that, so the police came. I was arrested with excessive force and then placed into full restraints without having so much as coming close to touching or threatening any one. The "assault" was very literally nothing more than me politely asking someone to stop invading my personal space. Had it been a Youtube it would have been the bad cop of the day story, or at least the bad cop of the hour story. Me "threatening to hurt someone" was actually me asking someone else to stop hurting them self, and they misinterpreted that as me telling them I was going to hurt them. So, had this happened in New York I would be a victim of the New York liberal gun-grabbers.

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:17 PM
144,000 admitted to the mental hospitals in 2012.
Sounds like the Jehovah Witness number, I don't think that was the heaven they were talking about.

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:20 PM
Sorry, posted yesterday. And your title is very misleading...Only a few hundred cases were passed to the officials to see if they had gun permits.

Among the people named in the database, fewer than 300 were found to have a permit. State officials said they did not know how many guns were subsequently seized from them. Among the people named in the database, fewer than 300 were found to have a permit. State officials said they did not know how many guns were subsequently seized from them.

Not a huge deal...YET. Quality control is severely lacking. The bigger concern is the amount of applicants flagged as potentially dangerous. Just because you didn't have a gun permit, doesn't mean you weren't put on another list.

From when the reporting requirement took effect on March 16, 2013 until Oct. 3, 41,427 reports have been made on people who have been flagged as potentially dangerous. Among these, 40,678 — all but a few hundred cases — were passed to Albany by county officials, according to the data obtained by The Times.

People have been labeled mentally unstable just for their views on government. One would be crazy to disagree with how the current administration is handling things! /sarcasm

After the names are entered into the database, they are compared against gun permit records. Since the law went into effect, state officials have found 278 matches, with the largest number, 36, in Monroe County, followed by 17 in Westchester, 16 in Suffolk and 14 in Dutchess.

Like I said, small potatoes but its the actual process and lack of oversight that I'm afraid of. A sign of things to come. After their lame attempt at gun control, which didn't really work out, this is their workaround. You will see this go into full effect after the next election.

Maybe your thread will stay up. I hope it does better than mine.

edit on 20-10-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:29 PM
If people don't show their outrage over this, when the time comes for all guns to be taken away it'll be much easier than they thought.

I'd trust a citizen with a gun permit who's shown responsibility over a police officer any day. Something about a beefed-up frat boy compensating through a uniform and a gun screams mental illness.

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:06 PM
a reply to: eisegesis

Even though they didn't successfully grab guns from the 34,500 they did attempt, presumably with some success, to take away their "privilege"(right) to have a firearm. And that is why I say attempted gun-grab, not gun grabs, and feel the title is accurate. Had all 34,500 of them actually had a gun permit and a gun in their residents, I'm confident would have at least 10,000 more guns and an increasing crime rate as a result.

The fact is, actual real-life gun-grabbing is beginning to happen, and the scale is going from rarely during Katrina to occasionally now. And gun rights revocations are going from some from felonies to many now that you add up felonies and insanity. The question is will it go from occasional to more than that?

If my mental home experience was in New York I'd consider applying for a gun permit with the intention of suing them after they said no.

People don't really seem to believe in rights. I believe it was on ATS recently that almost half of Americans believe in censoring the press. And this is America, "land of the free". If you have the freedom of speech, why are there exceptions? If you have the freedom to bear arms, why are there exceptions? It does not say we have the "Right to bare arms unless convicted of a crime or declared insane by any doctor." It does not say we have the right to free speech unless a judge really wants us to testify about something in which case you have to speak. How do people come up with these exceptions and why do people get away with it? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that people either don't care about their rights being violated or they don't believe in them to begin with.

One of the reasons I moved to New Hampshire is because the people here actually believe in rights.

top topics

log in