Ammo For Sale

« « Is this the protecting or the serving? | Home | Gun Porn » »

Registration leads to confiscation

In Buffalo, the police are wanting to show up at the homes of the recently deceased to take their guns:

A plan by police in Buffalo, N.Y., to begin confiscating the firearms of legal gun owners within days of their deaths is drawing fire from Second Amendment advocates.

The plan is legal under a longstanding, but rarely enforced state law, but gun rights advocates say, with apologies to onetime NRA spokesman Charlton Heston, it is tantamount to prying firearms – some of which may have substantial monetary or sentimental value – from the cold, dead hands of law-abiding citizens.

“They’re quick to say they’re going to take the guns,” said Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. “But they don’t tell you the law doesn’t apply to long guns, or that these families can sell [their loved one’s] pistol or apply to keep it.”

King said enforcing the state law is the latest example of authorities targeting law-abiding gun owners, while doing little to secure the streets.

12 Responses to “Registration leads to confiscation”

  1. Cargosquid Says:

    Guns? What guns? Grandpa lost them in a horrible canoeing accident in Arizona.

  2. Adam Lawson Says:

    That’s why I would never live outside of the free states.

  3. emdfl Says:

    Sounds like theft under color of law to me.

  4. Oleg Volk Says:

    An fake obituary with an address housing a large remote controlled fougasse or poison gas dispenser ought to cut down on such intrusions.

  5. Paul Kisling Says:

    That is evil Oleg.. I like it!

  6. Alien Says:

    emdfl (above) has it right: this is theft by government. IANAL, but it seems like there’s a 5th Amendment issue here, on top of a 2A one, especially if there’s a will or trust bequeathing one’s assets. What’s NY estate law on aseet distribution upon death? If all assets go to a surviving spouse, it would seem odd to have one “special” class of assets exempt for estate law.

    And, speaking of trusts (which are much better estate plans than wills), this is another argument in favor of NFA trusts for all firearms one owns, especially if one insists on living in a commie state like NY.

  7. Ron W Says:

    Yes Allen, you have a 5th Amendment right to not talk to them, but IF a firearm is registered, that is also a 4th Amendment violation of the right to be secure in your “effects”. Normally liberals consider these sacrosanct, as should everyone. But they are selective and discriminatory when it comes to the basic human right of armed self defense implicit in the 2nd Amendment and certainly included in the 9th Amendment.

  8. Dragon Says:

    In NY State (I should know…I lived there, and escaped FROM there) a Trust cannot own a firearm. The State laws (Penal Codes 265 and 400) clearly state that handguns must be listed on the Permit to Carry Concealed, which is issued TO A PERSON, and CANNOT be issued to a trust.

    Long Guns are an entirely separate issue, and are NOT registered to individuals in NY State. Therefore, all the long guns can be squirreled away, and the PoPo are none the wiser.

    The only way a person in NY can get a handgun is to have a permit to carry concealed issued to them, and on the permit it lists each and every handgun that is owned by the individual.

    That being said…a handgun can be listed on the licenses of two different individuals, or three, or ten, or one hundred. It just cannot be owned by a Trust.

    Many folk I know that own handguns in NY also share the ownership with their spouses, so that if one of them dies, the other is still fully and completely legal, and can tell the PoPo to shove it up their collective asses. But more often than not, the spouses do not have their own CWP, and as such only have 15 days, by law, to dispose of the firearms or turn them over.

    Disposing is as simple as going to your local NY FFL, asking them to hold onto them until you get your own CWP, and getting FROM the FFL a letter stating that they are now in possession/control of the handguns. Once the surviving spouse gets their CWP, they take their CWP (listing all the handguns, naturally) to the FFL, and the FFL releases them back to the spouse.

    Pain in the ass, yes. But there are ways to work around the system if one wants to spend the time.

    Now for a shameless plug! Visit http://www.dragonleatherworks.com/dragons-hoard for some good deals on firearms for Christmas Gift Giving! From firearms to accessories, optics, and reloading!

  9. Paul from Canada Says:

    Hell, even up here in canukistan it is not THAT bad.

    Up here the executor of the estate gets a “reasonable time” to dispose of the assets and distribute the residue of the estate. Also, up here, the estate (i.e. the executor) gets the same rights as the individual had in life.

    So if the dead guy had a pistol license, or even a full-auto grandfathered, then so does the executor, for the purposes of winding up the estate.

    The feds even have a brochure outlining how it works for executors.

  10. Alien Says:

    @ Ron W: First, read the name on my comment. Closely. Second, read the entire 5th Amendment, not just the part dealing with self incrimination.

  11. Ron W Says:

    Sorry Alien,re: your name, my bad.

    And yes, I know there are other rights covered in the 5th Amendment, but the right to not be compelled to testify against oneself (right to remain silent) is that to which I was referring. It seems that one is about the only one most people know and is generally acknowledged by LEO’s and other government agents….unlike the 2nd or even the 4th. BTW, it’s the Miranda ruling which cites the 5th Amendment and paraphrases it to, “the right to remain silent”, but Miranda also opined: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO legislation which would abrogate them.” Let the government abide by that one too!!

  12. Ron W Says:

    Sorry Alien, re: your name, my bad.

    And yes, I know there are other rights covered in the 5th Amendment, but the right to not be compelled to testify against oneself (right to remain silent) is that to which I was referring. It seems that one is about the only one most people know and is generally acknowledged by LEO’s and other government agents….unlike the 2nd or even the 4th. BTW, it’s the Miranda ruling which cites the 5th Amendment and paraphrases it to, “the right to remain silent”, but Miranda also opined: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO legislation which would abrogate them.” Let the government abide by that one too!!