TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... tment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article is very heavy handed comparing the USSR and New York in the beginning, but in this case they are probably not far off target.

I'm so glad I came to Texas and not New York after college.

I'll make darn sure I never seek medical treatment for anything that happens between my ears for any reason.

New York is turning Law Abiding New Yorkers into "criminals", one Law at a time...

rbwhatever1 wrote:New York is turning Law Abiding New Yorkers into "criminals", one Law at a time...

That is pretty much the whole point. The state cannot control ordinary people without finding ways to make everyone a criminal.

AndyC wrote:

Montgomery says that on May 30, the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department showed up to his house and confiscated his pistol license and four handguns — Colt .38 revolver, Derringer .38, Glock 26 9mm, Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380.

Montgomery, a 30-year police veteran who had reached the rank of detective sergeant and had won a Bravery medal, had obtained the four guns through various means over the years.

One was issued to Montgomery by his police department; Montgomery won another at police academy for being the top recruit; he bought another in 1975; he purchased the last one two years ago.

In early June, the sheriff’s department notified Montgomery that his pistol license had been suspended. By September, he was notified it had been terminated — making it officially illegal for him to own a firearm.

Daily Caller

I wonder if the firearms would be return if he moved out of state. I thinking not.

I was nauseated by all of the accolades the old man Cuomo received yesterday after his death. Good riddance. Fox News was in on the memory walk too which shows they are as much in the prog's pocket as any other source.

I feel for this man's plight but new yorkers deserve the government they elect.

The only way things will ever change is if enough of them get the treatment they have voted for and decide to change it.

One of the comments to the article hit the nail on the head...

And New Yorkers get what they voted for. This former "police officer", faithfully paid his union dues, voted for who he was told to vote for, and stood happily by while he watched his union flow money into the Cuomo campaign. It's hard to feel sorry for him.

lfinsr wrote:One of the comments to the article hit the nail on the head...

And New Yorkers get what they voted for. This former "police officer", faithfully paid his union dues, voted for who he was told to vote for, and stood happily by while he watched his union flow money into the Cuomo campaign. It's hard to feel sorry for him.

By the time the prog pawns realize they are not included in the elite class it will be too late.

anygunanywhere wrote:I was nauseated by all of the accolades the old man Cuomo received yesterday after his death. Good riddance. Fox News was in on the memory walk too which shows they are as much in the prog's pocket as any other source.

I feel for this man's plight but new yorkers deserve the government they elect.

The only way things will ever change is if enough of them get the treatment they have voted for and decide to change it.

I wonder if many other acting and retired Police Officers are paying attention?

anygunanywhere wrote:I was nauseated by all of the accolades the old man Cuomo received yesterday after his death. Good riddance....

This government already exists. These policies aren't anything new - they happen at the national level.. Firearms are typically unregulated so that sort of stuff doesn't show up.

I say it already exists as that diagnosis "mildly depressed" and associated hospitalization would ground anyone with a pilots license. You'd stay grounded until you could find a doctor that was willing to state that you were no longer clinically depressed. And the doctor accreditation that is required for such a statement to be accepted, you won't get at your basic family practice. It'd cost thousands out of pocket to just have a shot at reversing it. And it happens...

What is different here is that it's applied to a state firearms license and the means by which the state acquired the information.... That's a little scary.

I'm actually a supporter of some sort of mental health screening on firearm purchases - at least in theory. But it's the practicality of that implementation - when you look at the fact that the majority of the population will be diagnosed with some form of depression in their lifetimes... I don't see how you can make it happen and not cause big problems... I don't trust the government to do it right.

AndyC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I'm actually a supporter of some sort of mental health screening on firearm purchases - at least in theory. But it's the practicality of that implementation - when you look at the fact that the majority of the population will be diagnosed with some form of depression in their lifetimes... I don't see how you can make it happen and not cause big problems... I don't trust the government to do it right.

That's it right there.

None of us wants lunatics to have firearms - but mental health is a shades-of-gray issue in terms of severity and duration, it's poorly understood/diagnosed/treated, and the fact that an otherwise sterling character can have his possessions yanked for temporarily being a bit down is insane. I don't trust the government to do it right either, and I sure as heck wouldn't believe it was a cure-all even if they could get it right.

Not to mention that the psychiatric industry changes its definitions periodically. Within my lifetime, homosexuality/lesbianism were a recognized psychiatric diagnosis. They no longer are. Other things taken for granted today as 'normal' once were considered not to be. When the profession can't even agree from one decade to the next what "sanity" is, why on earth would we want these people to be involved in the decision-making? Probably half of them think that the desire to own a gun is some kind of neurosis or paranoid expression.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

AndyC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I'm actually a supporter of some sort of mental health screening on firearm purchases - at least in theory. But it's the practicality of that implementation - when you look at the fact that the majority of the population will be diagnosed with some form of depression in their lifetimes... I don't see how you can make it happen and not cause big problems... I don't trust the government to do it right.

That's it right there.

None of us wants lunatics to have firearms - but mental health is a shades-of-gray issue in terms of severity and duration, it's poorly understood/diagnosed/treated, and the fact that an otherwise sterling character can have his possessions yanked for temporarily being a bit down is insane. I don't trust the government to do it right either, and I sure as heck wouldn't believe it was a cure-all even if they could get it right.

Not to mention that the psychiatric industry changes its definitions periodically. Within my lifetime, homosexuality/lesbianism were a recognized psychiatric diagnosis. They no longer are. Other things taken for granted today as 'normal' once were considered not to be. When the profession can't even agree from one decade to the next what "sanity" is, why on earth would we want these people to be involved in the decision-making? Probably half of them think that the desire to own a gun is some kind of neurosis or paranoid expression.

Allowing the government to define anything is dangerous. The government has already redefined "terrorist". What else do you want the government to redefine to include you?