Friday, November 29, 2013

And So It Begins: New York Sending Out Gun Confiscation Notices

by: Robert Farago

In the wake of New York’s latest gun control law, the New York Police Department is now sending out notices to registered gun owners demanding that they give up their firearms, clear proof that gun registration leads to outright confiscations.
The notice provides gun owners, who possess firearms now prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable.
The NYPD knew exactly who to send the notices to by using a centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession.
With the gun database already in place, the police merely needed to compile a list of firearm makes and models now banned under the SAFE Act and send the notices to the appropriate owners.

The SAFE Act, which was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor on the same day in January, has numerous, draconian provisions including, but not limited to:
- Outright ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds
- Restriction on more than seven rounds being loaded into a magazine; the limited exceptions do not include home defense
- Mandatory background checks for ammunition
- The creation of a firearms registry for what the state considers “assault weapons”
- A requirement for firearm permit holders to fill out a form to keep the state from publicly identifying them
These unconstitutional provisions and the overall law itself have met significant resistance.
Erie Co., N.Y. Sheriff Timothy B. Howard publicly stated that his department will not enforce the SAFE Act, adding that the law is one of the strongest examples of the government not listening to the people.
“It’s an unenforceable law and I believe it will ultimately be declared unconstitutional,” he said during a press conference. “Do you want law enforcement people that will say ‘I will do this because I’m told to do this, even if I know it’s wrong?’”
Earlier this month, Howard won his re-election due to his stance against the gun control law.
“The SAFE Act was a major issue in this [Erie Co. Sheriff] election,” Carl J. Calabrese, a political consultant, said to the Buffalo News. “A lot of people in Erie County, both Republicans and Democrats, are hunters, gun owners and shooters … These are motivated people who get out and vote.”
“In a low-turnout election year like this one, it can make a huge difference.”
Howard told the newspaper that he did what he thought was the right thing to do.
“People in Western New York feel strongly about the Constitution and Albany’s misreading of it,” he added.
While the City of New York’s notice proves that gun registration leads to outright confiscations, Howard’s re-election also proves that Americans are beginning to reassert their birth rights as recognized by the Constitution.


  1. *sigh...yanks and their guns. Do you really need an arsenal? Forget it. I almost forgot which nationality I'm asking.

    1. Well....considering our new marxist arsenal might be a good idea!

    2. I'm from the way! 5th generation.

    3. @ EmitteVeritatum, as the law currently stands, if you bought a henry .22 lever action, which is tube fed, holds about 12 rounds and is used for hunting small game (squirrels, rabbits, etc.), the police have the right to forcibly take your gun, even if you have a valid permit. There was a gun confiscation scheme in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, in which people-some who were elderly and didn't want to abandon their homes-were roughed up by the police and forcibly disarmed, leaving them vulnerable to looters and violent home invaders. The question here is whether the government has the right to make a capricious judgment call based on politics to infringe on what is ultimately a right guaranteed by the constitution. I understand that we wouldn't want people with Uzis and grenade launchers running around, but that is not the case in the examples I just gave. Thus, the concern of us 'yanks' is that the powers that be are messing with our rights based on their own personal views. If you are familiar with 'yank' history, you would understand that an instinctive mistrust of governmental overreach figures heavily on our collective psyche, so I would wield the smug superiority sparingly if I were in your shoes, at least until I was able to make an informed decision.

  2. I bet both of you voted for Obama... Am I correct?

  3. Are u kidding? Why would I post this if I voted for a man who is taking rights away?

  4. Smug? Really? And weren't you the one who started with the assumption that I had voted for Obama? I thought THAT was pretty smug considering my coment was short and sweet saying that "any gun confiscation by our government was not a good idea" what is happening in New York....will not happen in Texas and don't be stupid enough to register!