frontlines

Northwell Health, the largest health system and largest private employer in New York State, has announced a research study called, bizarrely, “We Ask Everyone. Firearm Safety is a Health Issue.” The project will require, as part of routine screening of emergency room patients, asking questions about firearm ownership and guns in the home. Implementation will begin at three Northwell hospitals initially (two on Long Island and one on Staten Island), with plans to expand the program to include “inpatient and ambulatory settings” across all of its facilities.

One of the physicians heading the project states that the objective of the universal screening is to create “opportunities for patients to speak with their trusted clinical teams about firearm safety and recognize firearm safety as a health care issue,” and that, “by asking the right questions and providing the right education and connections to resources,” the project “can prove to be a significant tool in fighting the gun violence epidemic.”

Northwell Health has reportedly refused to disclose what the questions will be, although the responses will be “scored and embedded into the patient’s electronic health record,” and used to  “establish next steps for care.”

It’s not clear how this squares with the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 300gg-17(c), and the prohibition against a health care provider, a wellness and prevention plan manager, or a health, wellness or prevention services organization requiring disclosure of or collecting information on lawful ownership of firearms or firearms stored or kept in a residence, but the program is being funded by a $1.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Residents of the Empire State need to understand how “We Ask Everyone” dovetails with an existing law on mandatory mental health reporting and disarming gun owners. 

Under 2013’s SAFE Act, the drastic gun control legislation passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, an amendment to the state Mental Hygiene Law created a mandatory reporting requirement for mental health professionals. Physicians, psychologists, registered nurses, and licensed clinical social workers providing treatment services are now required to report any client that, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, the treatment provider considers “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” If a local government official agrees with the report, the report must be shared with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services to disarm persons in possession of a state firearms license and guns.

The law confines the use of the report exclusively to the question of the person’s ability to own or possess firearms; it is not used for treatment or to safeguard other persons who may be at risk. 

Persons who have been reported do not have access to the report or to the name of the reporting treatment provider. There is no due process, hearing, adjudication of mental illness or determination of dangerousness, or a requirement for a court order. Once the division of criminal justice services is notified, if the person has a firearm license or has applied for one, the license is automatically revoked, and the person must surrender the license and all firearms, or the firearms will be confiscated by law enforcement. The whole scheme rests on an assertion by a treatment provider that cannot be challenged by the person affected.

Many in the mental health care community resented being transformed into agents of the state and questioned the effectiveness of the law. The New York State Psychiatric Association, an association representing psychiatrists practicing in the state that “supports gun control measures in general,” opposed the reporting requirement and its focus on guns rather than mental health: “Following discussions with OMH [New York State Office of Mental Health] staff, it has become clear that the intent of the SAFE Act reporting requirement is solely to limit access to legal firearms and not to protect individuals from imminent risk of harm to self or others.”

A New York Times article published the year after the requirement became law confirmed there were significant failures in design and implementation. First, the “threshold for reporting is so low” that “frontline mental health workers feel compelled to routinely report mentally ill patients brought to an emergency room.” The resulting volume of reports meant that local health officials were rubber-stamping reports, with no effective oversight or review before a report was passed on to the division of criminal justice services. There was also no way to verify independently whether the law was being applied appropriately and whether the individuals being reported did in fact pose a risk of serious harm.

By 2014, over 34,000 individuals had been reported under this SAFE Act provision; another source suggests that as of late 2015, about 2,000 New Yorkers a month were being added to the database. The Times article observed that “the overwhelming majority of reports from mental health professionals are coming from hospitals … with an emergency room and inpatient psychiatric services.”

Under the Northwell project, regardless of the reason a person presents themselves at the emergency room –food poisoning, car accident, or COVID -19 – the patient will face questioning about guns. In a public health context where firearms are viewed as unhealthy and gun ownership as pathological, it isn’t terribly hard to imagine how this information may be used to support a claim that a gun owner “is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

While New York’s website advises that the SAFE Act “should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need,” the reality is that it forces gun owners to choose between getting such treatment and retaining their gun rights, and makes everyone less safe. “We Ask Everyone” implicates the same dysfunctional dynamic.

A Closer Look at Kamala Harris’ Second Amendment Record by Susanne Edward, September 4, 2020

Though the mainstream media and its flock of so-called “fact-checkers” might be intent on sanitizing Kamala Harris’ stance on the Second Amendment before the election on November 3, her words have left little to the imagination when it comes to how far she is willing to go to disarm you.

Like the vast majority of her party in 2020, Harris has advocated for more regulation when it comes to such policy matters as “universal” background checks and outlawing whole classes of firearms, including naming specific makes and models of popular rifles. Harris even co-sponsored Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) latest attempt at an “assault-weapons” ban. 

During an appearance on comedian Jimmy Fallon’s show in September last year, amid her own failed Presidential bid, Senator Harris (D-Calif.) explained her push for “mandatory buybacks,” a politically correct euphemism for confiscation, as “mandatory” means you must comply.

“They are weapons of war with no place on the streets of a civil society. I've seen assault weapons kill babies and police officers,” said Harris.

A month later, at a March for Our Lives-hosted “gun-safety” event, Harris declared that “we have to have a buyback program.”

“And I support a buyback program. It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way,” she said. “But there are five million (assault weapons) at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

Can her desire be more explicit?

Throughout the presidential campaign she eventually abandoned, Harris claimed that she would evade the legislative branch to achieve her objectives. During one debate, she said, “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”

But even the mainstream media, which typically supports a staunch anti-gun agenda, have been busily trying to softenHarris’s image when it comes to firearms; perhaps these media members realize that her harsh stance could turn away the millions of new gun owners now endeavoring the protect themselves and their families. 

After a Facebook post of a private citizen erroneously attributing a gun confiscation quote to Harris made the rounds this past month, USA Today and Snopes jumped on board with a “false” fact rating. Technically, their assessment is defensible, but the idea that Harris does not support a plan to take firearms from the homes of gun owners isn’t exactly a given. 

If a “mandatory buyback” of “assault weapons,” a term that can only be defined politically, was indeed enacted under a Biden-Harris administration, wouldn’t law enforcement be used if some people did not comply?

In 2018, at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Harris said she was for “common-sense” laws, and claimed that “it’s a false choice to suggest that you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.”

But under the national spotlight, Harris has dropped any nuance on the issue and is now publicly in favor of every flavor of gun control that has thus far been dreamed up by the left.

(America's First Freedom, NRA, by Susanne Edward, September 4, 2020)

New Gun Law Takes Effect – Intoxicated While Hunting

Last fall in 2019 Governor Cuomo signed a law that lowers the legal blood alcohol threshold while hunting from 0.10 to 0.08, similar to the current level for operating a car or boat. The penalty remains the same. The law just took effect September 1st, 2020.

Anyone convicted of hunting while intoxicated stands to lose their hunting-related licenses for a period not to exceed two years. The crime is classified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to, but not more than one year in jail, and/or a fine of no more than $500.

Posted on August 7, 2020 by AmmoLand Editor Jim Grant  

By Larry Keane

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Everytown for Gun Safety continued its Veepstakes auditions as Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer joined Shannon Watts to talk about her gun control credentials.

Gov. Whitmer’s highlight of the event was boasting about putting 6,600 Michiganders in the firearm and ammunition industry out of work by deeming them “non-essential” during the coronavirus pandemic. Most of their industry peers across the United States could remain on the job. Gov. Whitmer, though, shuttered gun businesses in her state and was proud of it on her Everytown Veepstakes tryout with Shannon Watts.

“I would do it again. I absolutely stand by the decision that I made,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I’m not going to apologize. And I’m not going to be bullied into doing things differently…It was very clear, the purchase of a gun does not fall in that [life-sustaining] criteria.”

Should she be 2020 presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate, Gov. Whitmer would fit the ticket. Former Vice President Biden’s antigun track record is well-known and he’s had his own run-in with Michigan gun owners, scolding one Detroit Second Amendment supporter, saying “You’re full of sh*t!” Together the two would make for the most antigun presidential ticket in modern history.

For Safety and Security

Watts dismissed concerns Michiganders have for their personal safety. She went as far as labeling the more than 2.5 million Americans who bought a gun for the first time as just “the gun extremist community.” Gov. Whitmer blamed President Donald Trump.

“That is just the kind of dog-whistle that always makes me fearful that we’ll have more violence break out across the country.” She glossed over the numerous examples of law-abiding Americans protecting themselves, their families, their businesses, and their neighbors.

For her part, Gov. Whitmer supports reinstating the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and gun control grab bag favorites like “red flag” laws that deny due process to the accused, closing loopholes that are in fact just the Second Amendment and more. There’s just one problem keeping her from getting her way – voters.

“I can’t just change these laws on my own,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I need a legislature to work with me. I don’t have a legislature that is very friendly when it comes to working on this issue.”

Gov. Whitmer is correct, though she did not make the point she thought she was making.

Biden and Beyond in November

Gov. Whitmer praised Biden’s candidacy and what it could mean for stricter gun control.

“With Joe Biden in the White House we’re going to have a leader who makes decisions based on the best information there is, so that we have higher odds of achieving all the goals that he’s running on,” Gov. Whitmer told Watts. “He’s the perfect candidate at this time.”

Former Vice President Biden’s gun control “goals” also include appointing former U.S. Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-Texas) as his chief gun-grabbing sheriff to confiscate 18 million of the most popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifles in America. His ‘leadership’ includes telling his wife to blindly fire a shotgun into the air without knowing the target and suggesting police try their best to shoot threatening armed attackers in the leg. He called the firearm industry “the enemy” and wants to dismantle it.

Not everyone agrees with Biden or Gov. Whitmer on these extremist ideas. An NSSF survey of likely voters in 18 battleground states, including Michigan, showed that enforcing existing gun laws and protecting lawful firearm sales are at the top of their minds heading into November. NSSF regularly updates the #GUNVOTE online resource so voters don’t risk their rights in the ballot box.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

From Gun Politics in NY:  A-8078C, Permits 4-H certified shooting sports instructors to supervise and instruct persons under sixteen years of age at shooting ranges, and A-8666A, Relates to authorizing hunting big game by rifle in the County of Tompkins, have been signed by Governor Cuomo.

2nd Amendment supporters are very happy about a California Appeals Court decision concerning "large capacity magazines".  S.C.O.P.E. contributed to this victory with an Amicus Brief (Friend of the Court).  There is a link to it here if you would care to read it.

Amicus Brief

S.C.O.P.E. hopes that by winning this appeal at this level, it will set the stage for an eventual Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of all these magazine restrictions, especially here in New York.  Unfortunately, appeals move slowly through the court system and it may be awhile before we know its ultimate fate.

The Second Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of a Rockland County gun owner who had twice applied to have the restrictions removed from his pistol permit and receive an unrestricted pistol permit.  

His requests were denied on both occasions and the judge whom he petitioned not only denied his application for an unrestricted permit but also instructed the petitioner not to reapply for at least one year. 

The judge’s [licensing agent] decision that “enjoined the petitioner from applying for an unrestricted pistol permit for one year” was overruled concluding “…the licensing agent was without authority to bar the petitioner from reapplying for an unrestricted pistol permit for one year “.  

"A party may forfeit the right to access the courts if he or she 'abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will'.  Here, however, the injunction was not imposed by a court but by a judge acting as a licensing agent (see Penal Law 265.00[10]) in a quasi judicial capacity.  The issuance of the injunction was beyond the scope of his powers to either deny or grant the application (see Penal Law 400.00[4-a]."

Despite still being without an unrestricted permit, this gun owner [and others], are not mandated to wait a specified time before reapplying. This sets a precedent statewide. 

(NRA-ILA)  In Duncan v. Becerra, a case supported by the NRA, the  United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that California’s ban on the possession of “large capacity magazines”(LCMs) violates the Second Amendment.

The decision affirms a ruling last March by Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, who ruled, unequivocally, that the California law was unconstitutional.

The panel’s lengthy and considered opinion was written by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Consuelo M. Callahan. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the California ban was constitutional. 

The case centers on California Penal Code §32310, which prior to 2016, imposed restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and receipt of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. In 2016, the law was amended to add an outright ban prohibiting nearly everyone in the state from possessing such magazines. California residents who owned LCMs were given the option of removing the magazine from the state, selling it to a firearms dealer, permanently modifying the magazine so that it was incapable of holding over ten rounds, or surrendering it to law enforcement for destruction. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment for up to a year.

Judge Lee, who was appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President Trump last year, begins by observing that California’s near-total ban of LCMs “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment –the right to armed self defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment.”California’s law not only banned standard-issue magazines for many handguns commonly used for self defense, but made  “half of all magazines in America …unlawful to own in California.”  

Using a two-prong test to determine the constitutional validity of Cal. Penal Code §32310, the court first asked whether the law burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment; if so, the second inquiry focused on the appropriate level of review (level of scrutiny) to apply in evaluating the law.

Under the first prong, the court found the law did burden protected conduct. LCMs were “arms”protected by the Second Amendment “for a simple reason”–without a magazine, many weapons, including “quintessential”self defense weapons like handguns, “would be useless.”LCMs were neither dangerous nor unusual, and firearms or magazines “holding more than ten rounds have been in existence –and owned by American citizens –for centuries.”LCMs had “never been subject to longstanding prohibitions”on possession or use.

Not only did Section 32310 “strike[] at core Second Amendment rights”by prohibiting LCMs for self-defense within the home, “any law that comes close to categorically banning the possession of arms that are commonly used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.”

Significantly, in the second prong determination of the appropriate level of review, the court selected strict scrutiny, the highest possible level, as the proper standard. Strict scrutiny requires that a state law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. While the government interests here were compelling, a “statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone”was not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means. The law failed even if a less demanding level of scrutiny was applied, and for many of the same reasons –a lack of anything approximating a reasonable fit between the restrictions imposed and the government’s asserted objectives. 

Addressing California’s “implicit suggestion that the Second Amendment deserves less protection”than other fundamental rights, the court rejected this outright. The Second Amendment is not some outdated “relic relevant only during the era of Publius and parchments. It is a right that is exercised hundreds of times on any given day”by law abiding Americans, including women fleeing abusive relationships, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities who are disproportionately the victims of hate crimes, and communities of color that “have a particularly compelling interest”in exercising Second Amendment rights.”The Second Amendment “provides one last line of defense”when the state cannot or will not “step in to protect them.”“We mention these examples,”declared Judge Lee, “to drive home the point that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,”nor is “self-defense a dispensation granted at the state’s mercy.”

The ruling is a gratifying one by the Ninth Circuit, a court that, in past rulings, has been not especially protective of the Second Amendment.

It is anticipated that the State of California will seek en banc review of this ruling. Your NRA will keep you updated on the developments in this important case.

TTAG CONTRIBUTOR , |August 14, 2020

The Second Amendment Foundation today is hailing a ruling by a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that held California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs) violates the Second Amendment.

“While this was not our case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “this is a victory for all gun owners, and the majority opinion reflects our arguments in an amicus brief we submitted along with several other organizations. Most importantly, the panel majority used strict scrutiny to make its determination, and that is a huge milestone.”

The case is known as Duncan v. Becerra. The 66-page majority opinion was written by Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

SAF was joined in its amicus brief by the California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Armed Equality, San Diego County Gun Owners, Orange County Gun Owners, Riverside County Gun Owners, and California County Gun Owners.

In his ruling, Judge Lee observed, “We understand the purpose in passing this law. But even the laudable goal of reducing gun violence must comply with the Constitution. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today. It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by law-abiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment. It cannot stand.”

California had banned possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten cartridges.

“This was a fantastic ruling,” Gottlieb observed. “The court went into considerable detail about the history of magazine development and essentially follows the logic of our amicus, for which we are all very proud.”