Friday, July 11, 2014

"Gun Confiscation Has Begun In New York! … Or Has it?"

Bob Owens has his doubts.

17 comments:

SWIFT said...

It is a fact that many who are accused of having mental health issues, got targeted because they run their mouths. This is no different than when a person talks their way into a jail cell, by talking to police, deputies, or federal agents. JUST SHUT UP! Avoid the bullshit.

Paul X said...

"...acknowledge that the mental health components of the act save lives."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Bob Owens is wrong and so are the police. This component of the law will create a strong disincentive for people in need of mental health services to get them, because they won't want to be disarmed. That in turn will increase the problems with these people.

Owens acts as if major law changes do not affect how people act in response. He ignores the incentives created by laws, which in turn creates UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES! He is a believer in the government religion.

Anonymous said...

Bob Owens is a fool to put our Second Amendment rights in the hands of psychiatrists & the left-leaning medical community colluding with the courts for civilian disarmament.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't aware that the Second Amendment made exception for those with "mental illness". I am shocked that Bob Owen would write such a column in support of any aspect of the SAFE Act. We may not want "mentally ill" people being armed, however it would certainly be preferable to having judges and "mental health professionals" determine who is permitted to exercise their 2A rights or not. This is a slippery slope. To be honest, I'm not convinced that "mental illness"'really is the problem. I think the over-prescription of mood altering drugs is a much more likely cause of the problem. I would much rather be permitted to be armed and have the option of dealing with a mentally-ill attacker than to allow ANYBODY to determine who can carry and who cannot. What part of "shall not be infringed" does Bob Owen not understand?

Jim

Anonymous said...

Owen says he believes in the 2A but the safe act is the law and he has no choice but to follow the law. my question is what the hell dose he think the 2A is if not a law! This guy is a brain dead fool.

Anonymous said...


To REGISTER something, an item, land or what ever, is to hand over ownership to what ever party your are REGISTERING you goods, lands too. That is the ACT of REGESTERING...handing entitlement of your goods to the registered, they become the owner of your goods. So when they come for your rifle they are not coming for your rifle or gun they are coming for their own goods, that you signed over to them in the REGISTER.

Anonymous said...

why not have mental health exams required for every gun owner on a routine basis? Hey, with gov't untrained psychologists who will find everyone unfit. thats the road that the antis are on

Anonymous said...

I left this comment for Bob:

Bob, even if the it's a mental health "professional" that start this process it does not mean it's right. This will be abused just like any other restriction on 2a. If I have to choose between liberty or security I always go with liberty. As you know crazy people will do crazy things; no matter if they have guns or not. So you would promote universal background checks even for private sales to check on mental status (which we have here in Cali BTW)? I'm more worried about the government abusing its power than a low probability encounter with a crazy person with a gun.

blutrooper said...

It seems to me that Owens is trying to square a circle -- can't be done. Fuggedaboudit! Paul X and Swift are both right. Iraq War and Afghan War vets with PTSD seeking help have been deprived of their 2A rights, had firearms confiscated, and played hell getting them back from "da Man" -- IF they even ever can. The solution for individuals seems to be -- if you haven't told your medico or shrink you own firearms, don't. Problem with too many of us is we talk to people we don't know and shouldn't trust. S-T-F-U applies here.

Anonymous said...

Those who would choose a little temporary safety over essential liberty deserves neither.

Anonymous said...

One problem is that many of us older folks have carried over our "open society" assumptions into the new Big Brother world. And our kids want everyone in the world to know everything about them via the web.

It's past time for us to take a page from those who used to live behind the Iron Curtain. Don't say anything of any substance to anyone you don't know. And be damned careful what you say to those you do. We're now in an environment where children and spouses may well repeat anything they hear to the state.

Anonymous said...

The same thing was done in CT. And now ponder that the va shrinks and a million others have been telling evry vet to get PTSD benefits!!!!

Disarming the vets is job one. Do not disarm vets! At this point we just need you to honor your oath. The enemies domestic are all here. In droves.

Anonymous said...

Sad to say IMNSHO Bob Owens' constitutional spine has withered at approximately the same rate as his rise to net prominence. Jeff

Carl Stevenson said...

"Psychiatry" (as practiced by compliant lackeys) has been used by tyrants throughout history as an excuse to disarm, imprison, "disappear", and murder political opponents.
Owens also opined that the cops were justified in deliberately burning Dorner to death in that cabin, too. I called him out of that one and was blocked from his blog.
I don't trust the guy.

Anonymous said...

I'll say it again -

This fruit loop exposed his REAL position with the endless "botched" claim about GunWalker. Wake up folks, this cat is on the take just like the rest of the "media". He's not a anti but he is ABSOLUTELY a GRABBER.

Ed said...

Fascinating.
If one is suspected to be mentally ill in New York and the State Police confiscate their firearms because of the person's impaired judgement skills and the potential to harm others ....

Do they lose the right to vote?
Do they lose the responsibility to report for jury duty?
Do they lose their driver's license and their motor vehicles confiscated despite there being other licensed drivers in the household?
Do they lose the right to enter into contracts or to enforce current contracts?
Are minor children and/or the elderly removed from the household because the person can no longer care for them?
Are guardians appointed by a court to advocate for person's best interests?
Do they become wards of the State of New York as they no longer provide for their own upkeep?
Do they get state provided meals with all items precut into bite-size pieces, as the State of New York cannot trust them with anything sharp?
Are they committed to a state supported institution that can care for these poor wretched creatures?
Are they required to write to their government in crayon to petition for redress of their grievances?

avordvet said...

WTF is going on with so-called Second Amendment activists?

So you think it's alright to take someones property before a trial, just on an accusation... yeah so do a lot of gun grabbing leftists. You think that its ok for a citizen to have to 'petition' the government to have their illegally seized property returned... Yeah so do the gun grabbers.

The Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution for a very specific reason, to prevent the Government and/or the Citizenry from doing what has been described, these are absolute violations of Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendment protections.

Doesn't matter whether you think the 'limited' confiscations are a good idea or not, its unconstitutional. If they truly 'believe' someone is a danger (which is totally subjective), then get a warrant, a trial and an adjudication.

Again, with 'friends' like this, the leftists will have no problem instituting their restrictive agenda on what is left of our Rights.